762a4d777b72bc1e3c4d8defa3fbbc6dab60189dba3366d6de57dc916ca50aee

.gitattributes

@@ -78,3 +78,5 @@ txt/Kabbalah/Zohar/Ohr[[:space:]]HaChamah[[:space:]]on[[:space:]]Zohar/Hebrew/me
 txt/Kabbalah/Zohar/Zohar/Hebrew/Hebrew[[:space:]]Translation.txt filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 txt/Kabbalah/Zohar/Zohar/Hebrew/merged.txt filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 txt/Kabbalah/Zohar/Zohar/Hebrew/Vocalized[[:space:]]Zohar,[[:space:]]Israel[[:space:]]2013.txt filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+txt/Mishnah/Modern[[:space:]]Commentary[[:space:]]on[[:space:]]Mishnah/Notes[[:space:]]by[[:space:]]Rabbi[[:space:]]Yehoshua[[:space:]]Hartman[[:space:]]on[[:space:]]Derekh[[:space:]]Chayim/Hebrew/merged.txt filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+txt/Mishnah/Modern[[:space:]]Commentary[[:space:]]on[[:space:]]Mishnah/Notes[[:space:]]by[[:space:]]Rabbi[[:space:]]Yehoshua[[:space:]]Hartman[[:space:]]on[[:space:]]Derekh[[:space:]]Chayim/Hebrew/Derech[[:space:]]Chaim,[[:space:]]with[[:space:]]footnotes[[:space:]]and[[:space:]]annotations[[:space:]]by[[:space:]]Rabbi[[:space:]]Yehoshua[[:space:]]D.[[:space:]]Hartman,[[:space:]]Machon[[:space:]]Yerushalyim,[[:space:]]2005-2010.txt filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/A New Israeli Commentary on Pirkei Avot/English/Sefaria Community Translation.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+A New Israeli Commentary on Pirkei Avot
+פירוש ישראלי חדש על פרקי אבות
+Sefaria Community Translation
+https://www.sefaria.org
+
+A New Israeli Commentary on Pirkei Avot
+
+Introduction
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+The first large unit that opens the Tractate Avot (chapters 1-2) points to the transmission of the legacy of the Oral Torah from generation to generation, from Moses to Rabban Gamliel, the son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the editor of the Mishna. In the transmission of an oral Torah (in parallel with the transmission of a written Torah), special care must be taken to maintain a continuous and reliable chain of delivery, and the Mishna before us seeks to indicate the beginning of this chain.
+...Moses received the Torah from Sinai. As told in the Book of Exodus, chapter 19 onwards. This is a written Torah, but also the principles of its interpretation, ancient halachic traditions whose roots have disappeared (and therefore they are called "Halacha to Moses of Sinai"), and especially with the permission given to each and every generation to read the sacred biblical text and discover new ideas and answers to questions that arise over time.
+...and handed over to Joshua. Already in the Torah, Joshua is presented as the faithful disciple of Moses and his successor (Exodus 33:11). From the verb 'message' the word 'tradition' is also derived, the transmission of which is from generation to generation is spoken of here.
+...And Joshua to the elders. These elders are mentioned in the Book of Joshua (24:30): 'And Israel worshipped the Lord all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders, who extended the days after Joshua.' According to the Sages, these elders lived many days after Joshua (and the meaning of "days" in the Bible is: years), and they preserved what they received from him for generations to come. In the Tractate of the Pirke de Avos Nathan (Version 1,1) it is explicitly stated that 'judges received from elders ... Prophets received from judges,' and so did the judges – such as Deborah, Gideon, Yiftach, and Samson – as a link in the transmission of the oral law. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the priests are absent from this list, and it is possible that there are things in Go: the priesthood is dynastic, passing from father to son, while the elders, prophets and especially the wise gain their status thanks to their knowledge and personality. The Pirke of the Avos seeks to emphasize this point.
+...and elders to the prophets. This, of course, refers to the prophets mentioned in the Bible, both prophets whose words were preserved for us (such as Isaiah and Amos) and other prophets who only remembered their names or deeds (such as Samuel the prophet at the end of the period of the judges or Gad and Nathan in the days of David). The last of the prophets – the feasts of Zechariah and Malachi – were already active during the Second Temple period.
+and prophets from Sarva to the members of the Great Knesset. By this name, the tradition calls a group of sages who served as the supreme religious institution of the Jewish people during the Second Temple period (from the 5th century to the 2nd century BCE or so [for this group, see also the following Mishna])....
+...They said three things. The article of the members of the Great Knesset, like many articles in The Tractate of the Fathers, consists of three parts and is clearly aimed at the world of the sages: judges, teachers and halachic authorities. And it is worth remembering that many of the wise men fulfilled these three roles at the same time.
+Woe moderates in law. An instruction is to the judges, who will not rush to reach a conclusive verdict. Moderation – patiently listening to all the witnesses, checking their credibility, cross-checking information, reading precedents and reflecting and studying the subject at hand – is a good measure and worthy of every judge.
+and put up students a lot. Teaching is for teachers or those who head learning and teaching systems, such as a school or a beit midrash. Anyone who opens the doors of schools and seminaries for welfare risks entering students who are weak, or those who are not worthy of studying. On the face of it, it would have been worthwhile for him to wonder about the merits of every previous student who would bring him closer to the world of study, and to accept only the most talented. But this article favors quantity, even where it conflicts with quality, all in order to increase Torah in Israel.
+And make a sigh to the Torah. It is a directive to legislators and halachic authorities not to reach, with regard to the application of the commandments of the Torah and its laws, to the limit that the law permits. It is always better to put up a reservation (i.e., a fence) that moves the person away from reaching the very edge, so that he does not fail. On Sage, see also below C, 17.
+All the instructions before us were originally directed to the world of the wise, but they can easily be translated into the world of each and every person: he must not rush and make judgments, he deserves to spread his knowledge in every field and to anyone who requests them, and if he hedges himself with reservations – he will not encounter things in which he has no interest.
+...'Students a lot' or education only for elites?
+...This question has always been before teachers, educators, school principals or any other person engaged in education and teaching. Who will we gather into the classroom? 'Many students' (i.e., many students) or only outstanding students? It turns out that this question already preoccupied Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, in the first century CE, 'that Beit Shammai says: There is no man but for those who are wise and poor and the son of fathers and rich, and Beit Hillel say: Every man sleeps' (Avot Derbi Nathan, Version 1,3). The people of Beit Shammai set four strict criteria for selecting the students to be taught the Mishna (which is the main teaching material of their time): intellectual skills ('wise'), character traits ('humble'), family attribution ('son of ancestors') and excellent economic status ('rich'). Beit Shammai therefore provides an institution for excellence whose wealth, family ties and skills – both in character traits and in learning skills – They are the highest. This is an institution of elites designed to train new elites. Beit Hillel, on the other hand, states that every person should be taught, regardless of any socioeconomic and personality data. There is no entrance exam to this beit midrash. And Beit Hillel (ibid.) goes on to explain its assertion: 'That many criminals were in Israel and approached the Talmud Torah, and righteous and kosher people came out of them.' This beit midrash relies on its ability to educate every person and to bring out of its walls, if not brilliant 'sages', at least people with proper character traits: 'righteous, righteous and kosher'. Even a criminal, believers in Beit Hillel, can get closer to the Torah, be educated according to her way of being and become a different person. If we don't allow him to enter the beit midrash, we will lose him forever.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+The Torah states explicitly that the people of the town were “very wicked sinners against God.” In our our classic texts there are many stories that describe their evil hearts. Among other things, we hear about the sins of pride, arrogance, exploitation of the weak, and gratuitous cruelty. The Tosefta Sanhedrin (13:8) states that the people of Sodom do not have a share in the world-to-come. They were wicked to each other, and sinned in engaging in forbidden relations against God, in extremely pagan worship and murder. There is also a story told about the “Sodom bed” where overnight guests to the town were to sleep. They would stretch out people that were two short and cut off the legs of people that were too tall (BT Sanhedrin 109b.)  They acted this way to appear to be impartial to all people; in actuality, this was gratuitous cruelty.
+
+Chapter 6
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<b>Behold, you have learned, "Whoever reports a saying in the name of he who said it brings redemption to the world. As it is stated (Esther 2:22), 'And Esther reported it to the king in the name of Mordecai.'" (Megillah 15a:20)</b> Esther informed Ahasuerus in the name of Mordekhai about the plan of Bigtan and Teresh to kill him. The thing was recorded in the book of Chronicles of the Kings of Persia and Media, which was the book that Ahasuerus read when his sleep would not come (Esther 6:1). It was that event that began the redemption of the Jewish people from the decree of annihilation against them advised by Haman.    

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/A New Israeli Commentary on Pirkei Avot/English/merged.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+A New Israeli Commentary on Pirkei Avot
+פירוש ישראלי חדש על פרקי אבות
+merged
+https://www.sefaria.org/A_New_Israeli_Commentary_on_Pirkei_Avot
+This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
+-Sefaria Community Translation
+-https://www.sefaria.org
+
+A New Israeli Commentary on Pirkei Avot
+
+Introduction
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+The first large unit that opens the Tractate Avot (chapters 1-2) points to the transmission of the legacy of the Oral Torah from generation to generation, from Moses to Rabban Gamliel, the son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the editor of the Mishna. In the transmission of an oral Torah (in parallel with the transmission of a written Torah), special care must be taken to maintain a continuous and reliable chain of delivery, and the Mishna before us seeks to indicate the beginning of this chain.
+...Moses received the Torah from Sinai. As told in the Book of Exodus, chapter 19 onwards. This is a written Torah, but also the principles of its interpretation, ancient halachic traditions whose roots have disappeared (and therefore they are called "Halacha to Moses of Sinai"), and especially with the permission given to each and every generation to read the sacred biblical text and discover new ideas and answers to questions that arise over time.
+...and handed over to Joshua. Already in the Torah, Joshua is presented as the faithful disciple of Moses and his successor (Exodus 33:11). From the verb 'message' the word 'tradition' is also derived, the transmission of which is from generation to generation is spoken of here.
+...And Joshua to the elders. These elders are mentioned in the Book of Joshua (24:30): 'And Israel worshipped the Lord all the days of Joshua and all the days of the elders, who extended the days after Joshua.' According to the Sages, these elders lived many days after Joshua (and the meaning of "days" in the Bible is: years), and they preserved what they received from him for generations to come. In the Tractate of the Pirke de Avos Nathan (Version 1,1) it is explicitly stated that 'judges received from elders ... Prophets received from judges,' and so did the judges – such as Deborah, Gideon, Yiftach, and Samson – as a link in the transmission of the oral law. It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the priests are absent from this list, and it is possible that there are things in Go: the priesthood is dynastic, passing from father to son, while the elders, prophets and especially the wise gain their status thanks to their knowledge and personality. The Pirke of the Avos seeks to emphasize this point.
+...and elders to the prophets. This, of course, refers to the prophets mentioned in the Bible, both prophets whose words were preserved for us (such as Isaiah and Amos) and other prophets who only remembered their names or deeds (such as Samuel the prophet at the end of the period of the judges or Gad and Nathan in the days of David). The last of the prophets – the feasts of Zechariah and Malachi – were already active during the Second Temple period.
+and prophets from Sarva to the members of the Great Knesset. By this name, the tradition calls a group of sages who served as the supreme religious institution of the Jewish people during the Second Temple period (from the 5th century to the 2nd century BCE or so [for this group, see also the following Mishna])....
+...They said three things. The article of the members of the Great Knesset, like many articles in The Tractate of the Fathers, consists of three parts and is clearly aimed at the world of the sages: judges, teachers and halachic authorities. And it is worth remembering that many of the wise men fulfilled these three roles at the same time.
+Woe moderates in law. An instruction is to the judges, who will not rush to reach a conclusive verdict. Moderation – patiently listening to all the witnesses, checking their credibility, cross-checking information, reading precedents and reflecting and studying the subject at hand – is a good measure and worthy of every judge.
+and put up students a lot. Teaching is for teachers or those who head learning and teaching systems, such as a school or a beit midrash. Anyone who opens the doors of schools and seminaries for welfare risks entering students who are weak, or those who are not worthy of studying. On the face of it, it would have been worthwhile for him to wonder about the merits of every previous student who would bring him closer to the world of study, and to accept only the most talented. But this article favors quantity, even where it conflicts with quality, all in order to increase Torah in Israel.
+And make a sigh to the Torah. It is a directive to legislators and halachic authorities not to reach, with regard to the application of the commandments of the Torah and its laws, to the limit that the law permits. It is always better to put up a reservation (i.e., a fence) that moves the person away from reaching the very edge, so that he does not fail. On Sage, see also below C, 17.
+All the instructions before us were originally directed to the world of the wise, but they can easily be translated into the world of each and every person: he must not rush and make judgments, he deserves to spread his knowledge in every field and to anyone who requests them, and if he hedges himself with reservations – he will not encounter things in which he has no interest.
+...'Students a lot' or education only for elites?
+...This question has always been before teachers, educators, school principals or any other person engaged in education and teaching. Who will we gather into the classroom? 'Many students' (i.e., many students) or only outstanding students? It turns out that this question already preoccupied Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, in the first century CE, 'that Beit Shammai says: There is no man but for those who are wise and poor and the son of fathers and rich, and Beit Hillel say: Every man sleeps' (Avot Derbi Nathan, Version 1,3). The people of Beit Shammai set four strict criteria for selecting the students to be taught the Mishna (which is the main teaching material of their time): intellectual skills ('wise'), character traits ('humble'), family attribution ('son of ancestors') and excellent economic status ('rich'). Beit Shammai therefore provides an institution for excellence whose wealth, family ties and skills – both in character traits and in learning skills – They are the highest. This is an institution of elites designed to train new elites. Beit Hillel, on the other hand, states that every person should be taught, regardless of any socioeconomic and personality data. There is no entrance exam to this beit midrash. And Beit Hillel (ibid.) goes on to explain its assertion: 'That many criminals were in Israel and approached the Talmud Torah, and righteous and kosher people came out of them.' This beit midrash relies on its ability to educate every person and to bring out of its walls, if not brilliant 'sages', at least people with proper character traits: 'righteous, righteous and kosher'. Even a criminal, believers in Beit Hillel, can get closer to the Torah, be educated according to her way of being and become a different person. If we don't allow him to enter the beit midrash, we will lose him forever.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+The Torah states explicitly that the people of the town were “very wicked sinners against God.” In our our classic texts there are many stories that describe their evil hearts. Among other things, we hear about the sins of pride, arrogance, exploitation of the weak, and gratuitous cruelty. The Tosefta Sanhedrin (13:8) states that the people of Sodom do not have a share in the world-to-come. They were wicked to each other, and sinned in engaging in forbidden relations against God, in extremely pagan worship and murder. There is also a story told about the “Sodom bed” where overnight guests to the town were to sleep. They would stretch out people that were two short and cut off the legs of people that were too tall (BT Sanhedrin 109b.)  They acted this way to appear to be impartial to all people; in actuality, this was gratuitous cruelty.
+
+Chapter 6
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<b>Behold, you have learned, "Whoever reports a saying in the name of he who said it brings redemption to the world. As it is stated (Esther 2:22), 'And Esther reported it to the king in the name of Mordecai.'" (Megillah 15a:20)</b> Esther informed Ahasuerus in the name of Mordekhai about the plan of Bigtan and Teresh to kill him. The thing was recorded in the book of Chronicles of the Kings of Persia and Media, which was the book that Ahasuerus read when his sleep would not come (Esther 6:1). It was that event that began the redemption of the Jewish people from the decree of annihilation against them advised by Haman.    

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Kinnim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Kinnim
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה קינים
+Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Kinnim
+
+Introduction
+
+Kinim is the plural of the word "ken" and it refers here to a pair of birds brought as a sacrifice (in Biblical and modern Hebrew, ken is a nest). There are several cases in the Torah where a person has to bring a pair of birds, either turtledoves or pigeons, one as an olah and one as a hatat. For instance, concerning the zav (man with abnormal genital discharge), Leviticus 15:14-15 states, "On the eighth day he shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons….The priest shall offer them, the one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering." The zavah brings the same offerings (ibid 29-30). A woman also brings these offerings after childbirth (Leviticus 12:6-8), if she is not wealthy enough to bring a ram. A nazirite who was made impure brings them on the eighth day of his purity ritual (Numbers 6:10-11). There are other such cases as well (see Leviticus 5:1-10). A person can also voluntarily bring bird sacrifices (see Leviticus 1:14-17). In this case the bird is a sacrificed as an olah (burnt offering) and not a hatat.
+When a person brings a pair of birds as a sacrifice (a ken) the hatat must be sacrificed before the olah. Our mishnah deals with cases where birds get mixed up and it is not clear which was meant to be an olah and which was meant to be a hatat. There are several rules and definitions that will help with learning this mathematical masekhet.
+1) When a person brings a pair of birds as a ken, he can pre-determine which is an olah and which is a hatat. This is called a "determined ken" (sounds like a doll who wants his Barbie!) 2) If he doesn't determine which is which, the priest offering them can decide. This is called an "open ken." 3) If a person brings several open kinim together, the priest can mix them up and offer half as olot and half as hataot. 4) If she brings them each as an individual pair the priest cannot mix them all up, and in each pair he must offer one as a hatat and one as an olah.
+It seems that there is both a practical and a theoretical interest in our tractate. On the one hand, it is likely that in the Temple, with the many, many bird sacrifices that people must have brought, these sacrifices would have become mixed up one with the other. The mishnah uses the feminine throughout because women would have had to bring these kinim upon childbirth, which seems to be the most frequent occurrence. The tractate also has great theoretical interest because rabbis seem to enjoy trying to figure out the status of mixtures, be they mixtures of milk and meat, terumah and hullin or hatat and olah birds. 
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first mishnah of our tractate deals with a few general rules regarding bird and other sacrifices.
+<b>A bird hatat is performed below [the red line], but a beast hatat is performed above [the red line]. A bird olah is performed above, but a beast olah below. If he changed this procedure with either, then the offering is disqualified.</b>  There was a red line that ran through the middle of the altar. The blood of the bird hatat was sprinkled below this line, whereas the beast hatat (cow, sheep or goat) is sprinkled above the altar, on the corners of the altar. The opposite is true of the olah the bird olah is done above and the beast olah is done below. These rules must be followed precisely and if they are not, the sacrifice is invalid.
+<b>The seder [ordered ritual] in the case of kinnim  is as follows: In the case of obligatory offerings, one [bird] is a hatat and one an olah. In the case of vows and freewill offerings, however, all are olot.</b>  As I explained in the introduction, when one brings a ken (a pair of birds) as a mandatory sacrifice, one bird is an olah and one is a hatat. However, if one voluntarily dedicates a ken, both birds are olot.
+<b>What constitutes a vow? When one says: "It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah." And what constitutes a freewill-offering? When one says: "Behold, this shall be an olah." What is the [practical] difference between vows and freewill offerings? In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; But in the case of freewill offerings, if they die or are stolen, one is not responsible for their replacement.</b>  The mishnah now explains the difference between a vow offering (a neder) and a freewill offering (a nedavah). A neder is when one promises to bring a certain type of offering, either an olah or a shelamim (wellbeing offering). For example if he promises to bring a bird olah, he must bring two birds as an olah. If he sets aside a bird and it is lost or stolen before it can be sacrificed, he must bring a replacement. The case of the nedavah is different. In this case, one points at an animal and promises to bring that animal as a sacrifice. For instance, he points at a sheep and promises to bring it. If the sheep is lost or dies, he is not responsible for its replacement because he was only responsible to bring that sheep as long as it was alive or available. Note that this last section is not connected specifically to our tractate which deals with bird sacrifices. Rather it is a general rule with regard to voluntary sacrifices.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah begins to discuss different types of bird-offerings that get mixed up one with the other, and what can be done to best remedy the situation.
+<b>If a hatat becomes mixed up with an olah, or an olah with a hatat, were it even one in ten thousand, they all must be left to die.</b>  If a bird hatat and a bird olah become mixed up, they cannot be sacrificed because the blood of the hatat is sprinkled on the lower portion of the altar and the blood of the olah on the upper portion. And as we learned in yesterday's mishnah, if he spills the blood in the wrong area, the sacrifice is disqualified. If these were animal sacrifices, they could be left until they become blemished and then redeemed. However, bird sacrifices cannot be redeemed (see Menahot 12:1). Therefore, there is nothing left to do but let the birds die.
+<b>If a hatat  becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of hatats among the obligatory offerings.</b>  The rest of the mishnah deals with a case where either a hatat bird (offered individually for a sin) or an olah bird (offered voluntarily) becomes mixed up with kinim, that is a pair or pairs of birds, one of which must be offered as a hatat and one as an olah. The cases here refer to undetermined kinim the owner did not determine which bird from each pair will be a hatat and which will be an olah. If one hatat bird is mixed up with one ken, he can offer one bird as a hatat, because of any two birds he takes, one can be a hatat, either the "other" hatat or the hatat of the ken. But he can't offer two as a hatat, lest both of the birds are from the ken, and one of those birds must be an olah. And he can't offer any of the birds as an olah, lest the bird he tries to offer is the hatat. The same is true if he has two kinim he can offer two hatats, for two birds have to be hataot.
+<b>Similarly, if an olah becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of olot among the obligatory offerings</b>  The same rule applies if the "other" bird is an olah. He can now offer as many olot as there are kinim.
+<b>[This rule holds true] whether the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are in the majority and the freewill-offerings in the minority, or the freewill-offerings are in the majority and those that are obligatory in the minority, or whether they are both equal in number.</b>  The "voluntary" bird offerings referred to here are olot because most voluntary bird offerings were olot.  The mishnah reiterates that the rule taught above holds true no matter whether there are many voluntary bird offerings and just a few mandatory ones, or vice versa or the same number. One can offer only as many olot the number of olot found in the mandatory offerings.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>When is this so?  When obligatory offerings [get mixed up] with voluntary offerings.</b>  The rules taught in mishnah two refer to cases where obligatory offerings (kinim) become mixed up with olot or hataot whose status has been determined.
+<b>When, however, obligatory offerings get mixed up one with another, with one [pair] belonging to one [woman] and the other pair to another [woman], or two [pairs] belonging to one and two [pairs] to another, or three [pairs] to one and three [pairs] to another, then half of these are valid and the other half disqualified.</b>  However, if obligatory offerings get mixed up and half of the total offerings belong to one person and half to another, then the priest can take half of the birds and offer half of them as hataot and the other half as olot. Let's take the simplest example, that of two kinim getting mixed up. If he offers one as a hatat and one as an olah, he is guaranteed to be correct. Because if one is from one ken and the other from one ken, then he has offered half of each ken. And if they are both from the same ken, then he has offered them properly. However, he can't offer two hataot or two olot, lest both birds belonged to the same woman and are part of the same ken. The same will hold true no matter how many kinim get mixed up, as long as the number brought by each person is the same.
+<b>If one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and two pairs to another, or three pairs to another, or ten pairs to another or one hundred to another, only the lesser number remains valid.</b>  If the numbers are uneven, then the priest can only offer according to the lower number. For instance, if one woman brought one ken and another woman brought two, he can only offer one hatat and one olah. For if he were to offer more than one olah or hatat, he might have offered both birds brought by the first woman as an olah (or hatat) and only one can be of each type. This same rule will hold true no matter how large the inequity. Even if one woman brings 100 pairs and one brings one, only two birds, one a hatat and one an olah, can be offered.
+<b>Whether they are of the same denomination   or of two denominations,   or whether they belong to one woman or to two.</b>  Denomination refers to the reason why the woman had to bring a sacrifice. This shall be clarified in tomorrow's mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah is an explanation of the last line of yesterday's mishnah, which referred to different "names."
+<b>What is meant by one "name"? For a birth and a birth, or for zivah and zivah, that is one name. And "two names"? For a birth, [and the other] for a zivah.</b>  There are two main reasons why a woman would bring a ken either for a childbirth or after having an abnormal genital discharge, called "zivah." If she brings two kinnim, one for this birth and one for this birth, or one for this zivah and one for this zivah, then the priest can only offer one bird as an olah and one as a hatat, as we explained yesterday. The same is true even if the two kinnim she set aside were for different "names" one for a birth and one for zivah.
+<b>What is meant by "two women"? [When] one [woman] brings [her offering] for a birth and the other for a birth, or [when one brings] for a zivah and the other for a zivah this is "of one name". And a case "of two names"? When one brings for a birth and the other for a zivah.</b>  If multiple women set aside kinnim for either one "name" of for many "names," they can only sacrifice as many hataot and olot as the fewest number of kinim brought by one of the women, as we explained in yesterday's mishnah.
+<b>Rabbi Yose says: when two women purchased their kinnim in partnership, or gave the price of their kinnim to the priest [for him to purchase them], then the priest can offer whichever one he wants as a hatat or as an olah, whether they are of one name or of two names.</b>  The above section, as well as mishnayot 2-3 dealt with cases where women gave their kinnim to the priest and the birds got mixed up. Rabbi Yose notes that they can avoid this problem by either buying their birds together or by giving the money to buy the birds to the priest. In both of these cases, the priest buys or receives all of the necessary birds. He can then determine which will be a hatat and an olah for this woman and which will be a hatat and an olah for the other woman. He can even do this if they are brought for different reasons. If done this way, even if the birds get mixed up, there will not be a problem.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+You might call our mishnah "the pigeon that escaped." It deals with a case where a single bird from an "unassigned ken" one in which it has not been determined which bird is a hatat and which is an olah escapes. The question is: what is the status of the bird that remains and the bird that escapes.
+<b>If from an unassigned pair of birds a single pigeon flew into the open air, or flew among birds that had been left to die, or if one [of the pair] died, then he must take a mate for the second one.</b>  In all of these cases, one bird leaves the unassigned ken. Since both birds were unassigned, all he has to do is take a new bird for the remaining bird and offer one as a hatat and one as an olah. However, if it had been a "determined ken," one where we already knew which was which, he couldn't sacrifice the remaining one unless he knew whether it was the hatat or the olah. We should note that in all of these cases, nothing can be done with the bird that flew away, either because it is gone or dead, or because it became mixed up with other birds that must be left to die.
+<b>If it flew among birds that are to be offered up,  it becomes invalid  and it invalidates another bird as its counterpart [in the pair];  for the pigeon that flew away is invalid and invalidates another bird as its counterpart [in the pair].</b>  In this case, the bird that flew away gets mixed up with other birds from other undetermined kinim. It itself is invalid, and we can't simply find a partner for it (a shidduch, if you will) because any bird we take might have been from one of the other birds that was to be offered up. It also invalidates one of the other birds that it joins. We shall explain this in the following mishnayot.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah explains the end of yesterday's mishnah.
+<b>How is this so?<br>Two women, this one has two pairs and this one has two pairs, and one bird flies from the [pair of] one to the other [woman's pair], then it disqualifies by its escape one [of the birds from which it flew].</b>  Two women each have two pairs of birds. If one bird flies away from one woman's two pairs, and joins the second woman's two pairs, the woman who is left with three birds can only use two. Of the three birds remaining, she can offer one as a hatat and one as an olah, but the third cannot be offered as either an olah or a hatat, for if she were to offer the one that remains as a hatat, then the one that flew away would have to be an olah. And when it joins two kinim, only two of the five could be offered as olot (the minimum number of olot in the two pairs see 1:2). The same would be true if she were to offer the third as an olah the one that flew away would be a hatat, and the second woman can only offer two birds as hataot. But when the woman with three birds offers only two of them, the other woman can still offer two hataot and two olot. The woman with five birds also cannot take another bird and make three pair, offering one as an olah and one as a hatat from each pair, lest the fifth bird actually be one of her original birds and if she offers it as a hatat, it is possible that she will offer three hataot from her original four birds (one with the new pair, and two as the original pairs). For the same reason, she can't take another bird and offer the fifth bird as an olah, lest it turns out there are three olot from the original four birds. She has no choice but to offer only four birds. In the end, it turns out that of the original eight, the woman whose bird flew the coop offers one pair, and the woman to whom the bird flew offers two pairs. Two birds go to waste.
+<b>If it returned, it disqualifies yet another by its return.</b>  If one of the five birds flies back to the other three birds, it disqualifies one of the birds that it left. Of the four left with woman two, she can offer only two of them, one as an olah and one as a hatat. She can't offer more lest the bird that went back to woman one is not the same bird that joined her group, and she only has three birds left from her original two kinim.
+<b>If it flew away again and then returned, and again flew away and returned, no further loss is incurred,  since even if they had all become mixed together, not less than two [pairs would still be valid].</b>  This process of disqualification does not continue if birds keep flying back and forth between the kinim. For even if all four kinim get mixed up, he can always offer four birds, two as hataot and two as olot, as we learned in 1:3 that if four pairs of birds get mixed up, each woman can offer two birds, one as a hatat and one as an olah.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to illustrate the principle that a bird that leaves a pair disqualifies by flying away and a bird that returns also disqualifies another pair, lest it is not the same bird that flew away. This mishnah uses large numbers, but I think that the principle should be straightforward.
+<b>If one [woman] had one pair, another two, another three, another four, another five, another six and another seven pairs,  and one bird flew from the first to the second pair, [and then a bird flew from there] to the third, [and then a bird flew from there] to the fourth, [and from there a bird flew] to the fifth [and from there a bird flew] to the sixth, [and from there a bird flew] to the seventh, and then a bird returns [in the same order as they flew away] it disqualifies at each flight and at each return. The first and second [women] have none left, the third has one pair, the fourth two, the fifth three, the sixth four, and the seventh six pairs.</b>  This section sets out the scenario, sort of a musical chairs of sacrificial birds. Basically one bird has left each group and then one bird has returned to each group. The first woman lost her only pair when one left. The second woman lost one pair when one left and one pair when one returned from her pairs to the first woman, so she is left with nothing. The third woman has one left, the fourth woman two and the fifth woman is left with three. The seventh woman loses only one pair because for her the "flying away" and "returning" are the same. She had one bird fly away and return to a set of pairs from which it had come. So she is left with six pairs.
+<b>If again [one from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The third and fourth woman have none left, the fifth has one pair, the sixth two pairs, and the seventh woman five pairs.</b>  Remarkably, the same thing repeats itself. One bird leaves the first, flies to the second, and so on up and then down the line. Again, two pairs are disqualified from the valid pairs that each woman has left, except for the last woman, who only loses one pair. Now the women who originally had three or four pairs are left with nothing, the woman with five is left with one, the woman with six is left with two, and the woman who had seven is left with five.
+<b>If again one [from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The fifth and sixth women have none left, and the seventh has four pairs. But some say that the seventh woman has lost nothing.</b>  Incredibly, the same thing happens again (these birds really know what to do!). The only woman left with any valid birds is the last woman. According to one opinion, she again loses one pair. According to the other opinion, since all of the other pairs are already disqualified, the last bird to fly away from her does not disqualify any of her pairs. Therefore, she is left with five, as she was in the beginning.
+<b>If [a bird] from those that are left to die escaped to any of all the groups, then all must be left to die.</b>  If any birds that have to be left to die fly into any of the pairs, all of the pairs into which they may have flown are disqualified, because any of the birds may be this disqualified bird. In other words, here we do not have the problem of determining which bird is a hatat and which is an olah. Rather the problem is that any of the birds may be a bird that had been left to die and such a bird can never be sacrificed.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>An unassigned pair and an assigned pair:  if one bird from the unassigned [pair] flew to the assigned [pair], then a pair must be taken for the second [bird].</b>  There are two pairs in the situations described in this mishnah. In one pair the two birds have been assigned which one will be a hatat and which one will be an olah. The birds of the other pair have not been assigned. One bird from the unassigned pair flies over to the assigned pair. The three birds are now mixed up such that we can't tell which one of the assigned pair was a hatat and which was an olah. These three birds cannot be sacrificed and must be left to die. The owner can then take a second bird for the one bird left in the unassigned pair. This is the case of one bird from an unassigned pair that flies into a group of birds that must be left to die (see mishnah one). As we learned, in such a case he may take another bird for the bird left in the original pair.
+<b>If one bird flew back,  or if in the first place a bird from the assigned pair flew [to the other pair], then all must be left to die.</b>  If one of the three birds left to die flew back to the other pair, then all of the birds must be left to die, for in neither of them do we know which is the hatat and which is the olah. The same is true if originally one of the assigned pair flew to the unassigned pair. Since we don't know which bird flew (the hatat or the olah) and which bird remained, none of the three birds in the first pair, or the remaining one bird, can be offered. All must be left to die.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Hatat [birds] are on one side, and olot [birds] are on the other and an unassigned [pair] is in the middle: If from the middle pair one bird flew to this side, and one bird flew to this side, then he has not lost anything, because he [the priest] says that the bird that flew [from the middle] towards the hataot is a hatat and the bird that flew towards the olot is a burnt-offering. If one [from each side] returns to the middle, then [all] those in the middle must be left to die, but those [left on either side] can be offered up as hataot or as olot respectively. If again a bird [from the middle] returned and flew away to the sides,  then all must be left to die.</b>  This section discusses a case where a person has three groups of birds. On one side are a group of birds designated to be hataot. On the other side are a group of birds designated to be olot. In between the two groups is an unassigned pair of birds, one in which it has not yet been determined which will be a hatat and which will be an olah. The mishnah describes three scenarios. A) If one of the unassigned birds flies to each of the other groups, there is no problem, because these birds can be either a hatat or an olah. B) If one of the birds from the hataot and one of the birds from the olot flies back to the middle, then they must be left to die because we don't know which one is a hatat and which is an olah. The birds left on the side remain hataot and olot. C) If the middle birds now fly back one to each side and become mixed up with the birds there, then the ones on the side must die as well because we don't know which are hataot and which are olot.
+<b>One cannot pair turtle-doves with pigeons or pigeons with turtle-doves.  How is this so? If a woman has brought a turtle-dove as her hatat and a pigeon as her olah, she must then bring another turtle-dove as her burnt-offering; If her olah had been a turtle-dove and her hatat a pigeon, then she must bring another pigeon as her olah. Ben Azzai says: we go after the first [offering].</b>  When a woman brings a pair of birds for sacrifices she must either bring two turtle-doves (and a partridge in a pear tree) or two pigeons. She cannot bring one of each type of bird. According to the first opinion, the hatat is the bird that determines what the other bird must be. So if the hatat is a turtle-dove, she must bring a turtle-dove as an olah, and if the hatat is a pigeon, she must bring a pigeon as an olah. The order in which the birds are brought does not matter. Ben Azzai says that the first bird that she brings determines what the second bird is. Therefore if she first brings a turtle-dove as an olah, and then tries to bring a pigeon as a hatat, she must bring a turtle-dove as an olah.
+<b>If a woman brought her hatat and then died, her heirs must bring her olah; [But if she first brought] her olah and then died, her heirs need not bring her hatat.</b>  If a woman sets aside birds as sacrifices and then dies, her heirs can offer the olah but they cannot offer the hatat, because a hatat whose owners have died must be left to die. This is the standard rule with regard to the hatat (see Temurah 2:2).
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first mishnah of chapter three relates to the halakhot found in mishnayot 1:2-3 regarding pairs of sacrificial birds that become mixed up.
+<b>When are these words said?  When the priest asks advice.</b>  If birds get mixed up and the priest comes to ask advice as to what to do with them, he is taught the halakhot we learned in 1:2-3.
+<b>But in the case of a priest who does not seek advice, and one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and one to another, or two [pairs] to one and two to another, or three [pairs] to one and three to another,  and he offered  all of them above [the red line], then half are valid and half are invalid. [Similarly], if [he offered] all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid. If [he offered] half of them above and half of them below, then of those [offered] above, half are valid and half are invalid, and also of those [offered] below, half are valid and half are invalid.</b>  The mishnah how goes on to explain what happens if he does not seek advice and just offers all of the mixed up sacrifices. In today's mishnah the scenario is simple for the numbers of pairs belonging to each woman is equal. Tomorrow's mishnah will introduce much more complicated scenarios. If the number of pairs are even, then half will be valid and half will not be valid. Thus if he sprinkles all of the blood above the red line on the altar, as is done with the olah, then all of the olot are valid, and all of the hataot are invalid. If he offers all of the blood below the red line, as is done with the hatat, then all of the hataot are valid, and all of the olot are invalid. If he offers half above the line and half below the line, then half of each group are valid. It turns out that in all of these cases, each woman gets credit for half of the birds that she brought. As an aside, I think it is interesting that the mishnah deals with a case where the priest did not ask advice from sages before sacrificing the mixed-up birds. I think that we might read into this a bit and see that priests probably did not follow rabbinic halakhot as closely as the rabbis might have liked, and therefore the rabbis have to figure out how to proceed in such a situation.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday's mishnah. In yesterday's mishnah we discussed scenarios where the two women brought the same number of pairs of birds. Today's mishnah deals with cases where one woman has more pairs than the other.
+<b>If one [pair] belonged to one woman and two [pairs] to another, or [even] three [pairs] to another, or [ten] pairs to another or a hundred to another,  and he offered all of them above, then half are valid and half are invalid.</b>  If for instance one woman had two pairs and the other woman had three pairs, and they were all mixed up and he offered them all above the red line on the altar, then half are valid as olot, because it is certain that of the ten birds, five were olot.
+<b>[Similarly], if he offered all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid.</b>  Similarly, if he offers half of them below, then half are valid as hataot, because it is clear that five of the birds are hataot.
+<b>[If he offered] half of them above and half below, then the [number of birds as there is in the] larger part are valid.</b>  In this case, the number of birds that are valid is equivalent to the number of pairs brought by the woman with the larger number of pairs. Let's take a case where one woman brought two pairs and another woman brought three pairs. If the priest offered five birds below the line and five birds above the line, three birds are valid. This is because even if of the five birds he offered above, four of them belonged to the woman who brought two pairs, then two are for sure valid and two are for sure invalid because they should have been hataot. The fifth bird which had to have belonged to the other woman, is also valid as an olah. And if of the five birds, all belonged to the woman with three pairs, three are certainly valid as olot. However, two are certainly invalid because they should have been hataot. The same will work no matter what numbers we plug in. If one woman brought four pairs and the other woman brought six pairs, and the priest offered ten birds above and ten below, then six of the birds offered above are valid as olot. Even if all eight birds from the first woman were offered above, four are valid and then two of the other birds which belonged to the other woman will also be valid. And if all of the birds belonged to the second woman who brought ten pairs, then six are valid. But four have to be invalid because they should have been hataot. You mathematicians out there should try it out for yourself with other numbers you'll see, it always works out.
+<b>This is the general principle: whenever you can divide the pairs [of birds] so that those belonging to one woman need not have part of them [offered] above and part [offered] below, then half of them are valid and half are invalid;</b>  The mishnah now provides the general rule. If it is possible that he offered all of the birds of one of the women above and all of the birds of the other woman below, then half of the birds are valid. This is the case if the women bring the same numbers of pairs. If each brings, say, five pairs, and he offers five above and five below, it is possible that all of one woman's birds were offered above and all of the other's birds were offered below. Half will be valid.
+<b>But whenever you cannot divide the pairs [of birds] without some of those belonging to one woman being [offered] above and some below, then [the number as there is in] the larger part are valid.</b>  However, if it is not possible that all of the birds that were offered above and below belonged to the same woman, then the number of birds valid is equal to the larger number of pairs. Thus if one woman brought six and one brought four, and he offered ten above, and ten below, it is not possible that all ten above belonged to one woman and all ten below belonged to the other woman. Therefore, six are valid, equivalent to the larger number.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Up until now, this chapter has discussed cases where two women bring pairs of sacrificial birds; in each case one of each pair is supposed to be offered as a hatat and one as an olah.
+In today's mishnah, one woman brings birds that will all be offered as olot, and the other woman brings birds that will all be offered as hataot. Again, the priest does not ask advice as to what to do with the birds. Rather, he just goes ahead and offers them.
+<b>If the hatats belonged to one and the olot to another, and the priest offered them all above, then half are valid and half disqualified.</b>  If he offered all of the birds above, obviously half are valid as olot. The other half should have been offered below, as is the rule for hataot, and therefore, they are invalid.
+<b>If he offered them all below, half are valid and half disqualified.</b>  The same is true if he offers half below the hataot are valid and the olot are invalid.
+<b>If he offered half of them above and half below, then all of them are disqualified, because I can argue that the hatats were offered above and the olot below.</b>  However, if he offered half above and half below, none of the sacrifices is valid, because it is possible that he completely mixed them up, offering the hataot above and the olot below.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>If a hatat, an olah, an unassigned pair of birds and an assigned  pair [became mixed up], and he offered them all above, then half are valid and half are invalid.</b>  One woman has a hatat, one woman has an olah. In addition, one of these women has an unassigned pair and the other has an assigned pair, and they all get mixed up (just like us all mixed up!). If the priest offers all of the birds above (a total of six birds) half of them are valid. This is because three are certainly olot (the olah bird and one from each pair).
+<b>[Similarly] if he offered all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid.</b>  If he offers all below, three are valid as hataot.
+<b>If he offered half of them above and half below, none is valid except the unassigned pair, and that must be divided between them.</b>  However, if he offers half above and half below, then only the birds of the unassigned pair are valid, because their status as an olah or a hatat had not yet been determined. The two women will together get credit for one pair, and they can divide that pair among the two of them. They will then need to bring another pair, and offer one as an olah and one as a hatat. Each loses the hatat or olah that they had brought individually.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>If hataot birds were mixed up with [unassigned birds that were] obligatory offerings, only the number of hataot among the obligatory offerings are valid.<br>If the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are twice as many as the hataot, then half are valid and half invalid;<br>But if the hataot are twice as many as the [unassigned] obligatory offerings, then the number [of hataot] among the obligatory offerings are valid.<br>So, too, if [birds assigned as] olot were mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory offerings, only the number of olot among the obligatory offerings are valid.<br>If the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are twice as many as the olot, then half are valid and half invalid.<br>But if the olot are twice as many as the [unassigned] obligatory offerings, then the number [of olot] among the obligatory offerings are valid.</b><br>Section one: This halakhah is basically a repeat of the halakhah taught in 1:2. Obligatory bird offerings contain two birds one of which will be an olah and one a hatat. So if some birds that have already been designated as hataot get mixed up with some pairs of obligatory offerings, the valid birds are equivalent to the number of hataot in the pairs. So if ten hataot get mixed up with six pairs, of the 22 birds, any six we take can definitely be a hatat. But the seventh bird might be the seventh bird from the six pairs, in which case it should have been an olah.<br>Section two: If two obligatory offerings, meaning two birds one of which needs to be a hatat and one an olah, are mixed up with one hatat, then we divide the birds into two. The first bird is valid as a hatat, the second bird is definitely disqualified and the third bird is potentially half-valid, but since it can't be divided, there is nothing that can be done with it. Similarly, if three obligatory offerings get mixed up with one hatat, three birds are valid as a hatat, three are invalid and the third cannot be divided.<br>Section three: But if there are two hataot that get mixed up with one pair of obligatory offerings, only one bird will be valid as a hatat.<br>Sections four-six: The second half of this mishnah just teaches the same rule with regard to olot.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+As we know, when a woman gives birth she will have to bring a pair of birds, one of which is offered as a hatat and one as an olah. She does not need to voluntarily take on this obligation. It is automatic. Our mishnah deals with a woman who before she gives birth, vows to bring a pair of birds if she gives birth to a male. She will now be obligated to bring two pairs of birds.
+I should warn you this mishnah is complicated. But it’s the last mishnah of the tractate and the seder (game, set and match), so we should give it careful attention. You can fall on your knees and kiss the trophy afterwards.
+<b>If a woman says: "I vow a pair of birds if I give birth to a male child," and she does give birth to a male child, then she must offer up two pairs   one for her vow and one for her obligation.</b>  This woman must offer up two pairs of birds one pair for her obligatory offerings and one for her voluntary offerings. The birds brought as voluntary offerings will be olot and of the birds brought as obligatory offerings one will be a hatat and one an olah.
+<b>If [before she assigned them] she gave them to the priest, and the priest who ought to offer three birds above and one below does not do so, but offers two above and two below, and does not seek guidance, she must she bring another bird and offer that above. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring two others.</b>  The priest should offer three as olot, meaning he should spill their blood above the red line, and one as a hatat, whose blood is spilled below the red line. Rather, the priest seems to have treated both as if they were obligatory offerings (his mistake seems quite understandable), and spilled the blood of two above the red line and the blood of the two others below the red line. He did not come to ask advice beforehand. The woman must now bring one more bird to be an olah, for one of the birds he offered below was invalid. The above halakhah is true if all of the birds that she brought were of one type either pigeons or turtle-doves. However, if she brought one pair as one type and the other pair as another type, and the priest did one pigeon above and one pigeon below and the same with the turtle-doves, she now must bring two new birds, one a turtle-dove and one a pigeon. The reason is that we don't know which of the two birds that he did below was disqualified the pigeon or turtle-dove and the replacement that she brings must be of the same type. Therefore, she brings one of each and both are offered as olot.
+<b>If she had expressly defined her vow, then must she bring three other birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring four others.</b>  If when the woman made the vow she set the type of bird she would bring, a pigeon or turtle-dove, and then by the time she brought them, she forgot what type of bird she had vowed, and again the priest offered two above and two below, she will now have to bring three new birds, all of which will be olot. Since she didn't know what her vow was, she should have brought a pair of birds from each type, one pair of pigeons and one pair of turtle-doves. In addition, she of course had to bring a pair for her obligatory offerings. Now that one bird was disqualified by being offered below, she must bring a replacement for that bird, and then another pair of the other type of bird that she did not bring. Again, the above is true if all of the birds that the woman brought were of the same type. If she brought two different types, then she must bring four new birds as olot. We'll go through this slowly. One of the birds done below is valid as a hatat, and the other is an invalid olah. But we don't know whether the invalid olah was supposed to a turtle-dove or a pigeon, because don't know whether she vowed to bring pigeons or turtle-doves. So both of the birds done above are also invalid. Therefore, she has to bring two new pairs; a pair of pigeons in case this is what she vowed, and a pair of turtle-doves, in case this is what she vowed.
+<b>If she made a definite fixture at the time of her vow, then must she bring another five birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring six others.</b>  In this case, again when the woman made the vow she set the type of bird she would bring and then forgot which type she set. Then she brings two pairs, all of one type, and in this case she determined which type would be for her voluntary offering and which type would be for her obligatory offering. Again, the priest offered one pair above and one pair below. In this case she must bring five more birds, all of which will be offered as olot. She must bring two birds of the type that she did not bring, because she should have brought two pairs in the beginning, one of pigeons and one of turtle-doves. She then must bring three of the same type that she did bring. Two of these will be for the olah, lest the priest offered one of the pair that should have been an olah as a hatat below, and both were thereby invalidated. She must bring another bird as a hatat, lest both birds that the priest offered as a hatat were meant to be olot. Again, all of this was true if she brought all of her birds from one type. If she brought two different types, then she will have to bring SIX new birds. In this case we don't know which pair she brought as a voluntary offering because we don't know which type she set as a voluntary offering. Indeed, she may have brought both as voluntary offerings, as she was supposed to do, and not brought her mandatory offering at all. Or she might have brought one as a voluntary offering and one as a mandatory offering. In this case, it is possible that all of the birds were meant to be olot, and the two done below were both disqualified. It is also possible that the obligatory offerings were done correctly, but the voluntary offerings were done incorrectly, and we don't know which was done incorrectly, the turtle-dove or pigeon. We also don't know which type of birds she vowed to bring in the first place.  In short, due to all of the things we don't know, she must bring four new birds as olot, one pair of turtle-doves and one pair of pigeons. She also has to bring two birds to be her mandatory offerings.
+<b>If she gave them to the priest and it is not known what she gave, and the priest performed the sacrifice, but it is not known how he performed it, then she must bring four other birds for her vow,  and two for her obligation  and one for her hatat. Ben Azzai says: [she must bring] two hatats.</b>  Finally, it is possible to add on to the previous scenario the possibility that she doesn't even know what type of birds she brought. Furthermore, the priest offered them up but doesn't remember whether he offered them up below or above. Basically no one knows anything whatsoever. She has to bring now a total of SEVEN birds. Two pairs she brings as voluntary offerings, one pair of turtle-doves and one pair of pigeons. She also brings a hatat, lest the hatat that she previously brought was invalidated, for it is possible that both birds from the mandatory offering were done above. However, it is also possible that the priest performed the mandatory offering below, which would mean the hatat was valid. But in this case she would need to bring a replacement olah to go with that hatat, and since we don't know what type it needs to be, she must bring two more birds to go with the hatat that might have been valid. Ben Azzai says she must bring two hataot, one a turtle-dove and one a pigeon. The reason is that the olah of the mandatory offerings might have been done properly, and she needs to bring a hatat of the same type. This matches Ben Azzai's opinion in 2:5, that the second bird offered must be of the same type as the first bird. Since we don't know what type was offered, she must bring one of each.
+<b>Rabbi Joshua said: This is what it meant when they said: "When [the beast] is alive it possesses one sound, but when it is dead its sound is sevenfold."  In what way is its sound sevenfold? Its two horns [are made into] two trumpets, its two leg-bones into two flutes, its hide into a drum, its entrails for lyres and its large intestines for harp strings; and there are some who add that its wool is used for the blue [pomegranates.]</b>  Rabbi Joshua provides a colorful analogy to the above strange situation, in which a woman vowed to bring one pair of birds, and ends up bringing seven birds (or eight according to Ben Azzai). While a ram is alive it has only one voice, but its body parts can be used in making seven different instruments. Like Ben Azzai, who adds an eighth instrument, some note that from the wool of the ram, one can make the clothes of the high priests, upon which pomegranate bells are hung (see Exodus 28:33). Thus, the woman used her singular voice and became obligated to bring seven or eight birds.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon ben Akashiah says: ignorant old people, the older they become, the more their intellect gets befuddled, as it is said: "He removes the speech of men of trust and takes away the sense of the elders."   But when it comes to aged scholars, it is not so. On the contrary, the older they get, the more their mind becomes composed, as it is said: "With aged men comes wisdom, and understanding in length of days."</b>  As is typical, the tractate ends with an aggadic statement a statement whose intent is moral or spiritual and less legal. It is possible that this aggadah was chosen because this mishnah concludes Seder Kodashim, and Seder Kodashim is called in the Talmud "wisdom." It is interesting to note that the idea that scholars retain their mental faculties longer than those who do not engage their minds has been borne out by modern medical science (at least from what I read). Elderly people who engage in intellectual pursuits whatever they may be, or play brainy types of games, can, to a certain extent, delay the decline in their mental faculties. In other words: use it or lose it. Congratulations!  We have finished Tractate Kinim and Seder Kodashim! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. As I said in the intro game, set and match to all of you who stuck with Mishnah Yomit as we made our long way through Seder Kodashim. I may be wrong, but I'm certainly not far off, when I say that rare has been the occasion when this type of material has been studied for such an extended period of time by an audience such as that which participates in Mishnah Yomit. To me United Synagogue and the Conservative movement made an important statement by studying this material: the entire Torah is worthy of learning, and not just those sections that seem immediately relevant to our personal lives. We began our odyssey into Mishnah Yomit with Seder Nezikin because I thought that would be the most concrete, most down to earth of the Sedarim (pl. of seders). We moved onto Nashim and Moed, both of which were frequently relevant to modern day issues. Zeraim already began to be a little more esoteric, and Kodashim, in my opinion, is far more removed from any of our experience. Nevertheless, there were fascinating mishnayot throughout, rules, descriptions, etc. And most importantly, we all continued to learn. If you've been with us since the beginning, you've now finished 5/6 of the Mishnah. Completion (at least the first round, because Torah study is never really completed) is closer than ever! The road that lies ahead of us is not easy. Seder Toharot is next, beginning with thirty (!) chapters of Tractate Kelim. But if you've made it this far, there is no doubt in my mind that you will continue to study with us. One step-one mishnah at a time. Again, Yasher Koah on finishing Tractate Kinim and Seder Kodashim. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Kelim and Seder Toharot.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Kinnim/English/merged.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Kinnim
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה קינים
+merged
+https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Kinnim
+This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
+-Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+-http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Kinnim
+
+Introduction
+
+Kinim is the plural of the word "ken" and it refers here to a pair of birds brought as a sacrifice (in Biblical and modern Hebrew, ken is a nest). There are several cases in the Torah where a person has to bring a pair of birds, either turtledoves or pigeons, one as an olah and one as a hatat. For instance, concerning the zav (man with abnormal genital discharge), Leviticus 15:14-15 states, "On the eighth day he shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons….The priest shall offer them, the one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering." The zavah brings the same offerings (ibid 29-30). A woman also brings these offerings after childbirth (Leviticus 12:6-8), if she is not wealthy enough to bring a ram. A nazirite who was made impure brings them on the eighth day of his purity ritual (Numbers 6:10-11). There are other such cases as well (see Leviticus 5:1-10). A person can also voluntarily bring bird sacrifices (see Leviticus 1:14-17). In this case the bird is a sacrificed as an olah (burnt offering) and not a hatat.
+When a person brings a pair of birds as a sacrifice (a ken) the hatat must be sacrificed before the olah. Our mishnah deals with cases where birds get mixed up and it is not clear which was meant to be an olah and which was meant to be a hatat. There are several rules and definitions that will help with learning this mathematical masekhet.
+1) When a person brings a pair of birds as a ken, he can pre-determine which is an olah and which is a hatat. This is called a "determined ken" (sounds like a doll who wants his Barbie!) 2) If he doesn't determine which is which, the priest offering them can decide. This is called an "open ken." 3) If a person brings several open kinim together, the priest can mix them up and offer half as olot and half as hataot. 4) If she brings them each as an individual pair the priest cannot mix them all up, and in each pair he must offer one as a hatat and one as an olah.
+It seems that there is both a practical and a theoretical interest in our tractate. On the one hand, it is likely that in the Temple, with the many, many bird sacrifices that people must have brought, these sacrifices would have become mixed up one with the other. The mishnah uses the feminine throughout because women would have had to bring these kinim upon childbirth, which seems to be the most frequent occurrence. The tractate also has great theoretical interest because rabbis seem to enjoy trying to figure out the status of mixtures, be they mixtures of milk and meat, terumah and hullin or hatat and olah birds. 
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first mishnah of our tractate deals with a few general rules regarding bird and other sacrifices.
+<b>A bird hatat is performed below [the red line], but a beast hatat is performed above [the red line]. A bird olah is performed above, but a beast olah below. If he changed this procedure with either, then the offering is disqualified.</b>  There was a red line that ran through the middle of the altar. The blood of the bird hatat was sprinkled below this line, whereas the beast hatat (cow, sheep or goat) is sprinkled above the altar, on the corners of the altar. The opposite is true of the olah the bird olah is done above and the beast olah is done below. These rules must be followed precisely and if they are not, the sacrifice is invalid.
+<b>The seder [ordered ritual] in the case of kinnim  is as follows: In the case of obligatory offerings, one [bird] is a hatat and one an olah. In the case of vows and freewill offerings, however, all are olot.</b>  As I explained in the introduction, when one brings a ken (a pair of birds) as a mandatory sacrifice, one bird is an olah and one is a hatat. However, if one voluntarily dedicates a ken, both birds are olot.
+<b>What constitutes a vow? When one says: "It is incumbent upon me to bring an olah." And what constitutes a freewill-offering? When one says: "Behold, this shall be an olah." What is the [practical] difference between vows and freewill offerings? In the case of vows, if they die or are stolen, one is responsible for their replacement; But in the case of freewill offerings, if they die or are stolen, one is not responsible for their replacement.</b>  The mishnah now explains the difference between a vow offering (a neder) and a freewill offering (a nedavah). A neder is when one promises to bring a certain type of offering, either an olah or a shelamim (wellbeing offering). For example if he promises to bring a bird olah, he must bring two birds as an olah. If he sets aside a bird and it is lost or stolen before it can be sacrificed, he must bring a replacement. The case of the nedavah is different. In this case, one points at an animal and promises to bring that animal as a sacrifice. For instance, he points at a sheep and promises to bring it. If the sheep is lost or dies, he is not responsible for its replacement because he was only responsible to bring that sheep as long as it was alive or available. Note that this last section is not connected specifically to our tractate which deals with bird sacrifices. Rather it is a general rule with regard to voluntary sacrifices.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah begins to discuss different types of bird-offerings that get mixed up one with the other, and what can be done to best remedy the situation.
+<b>If a hatat becomes mixed up with an olah, or an olah with a hatat, were it even one in ten thousand, they all must be left to die.</b>  If a bird hatat and a bird olah become mixed up, they cannot be sacrificed because the blood of the hatat is sprinkled on the lower portion of the altar and the blood of the olah on the upper portion. And as we learned in yesterday's mishnah, if he spills the blood in the wrong area, the sacrifice is disqualified. If these were animal sacrifices, they could be left until they become blemished and then redeemed. However, bird sacrifices cannot be redeemed (see Menahot 12:1). Therefore, there is nothing left to do but let the birds die.
+<b>If a hatat  becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of hatats among the obligatory offerings.</b>  The rest of the mishnah deals with a case where either a hatat bird (offered individually for a sin) or an olah bird (offered voluntarily) becomes mixed up with kinim, that is a pair or pairs of birds, one of which must be offered as a hatat and one as an olah. The cases here refer to undetermined kinim the owner did not determine which bird from each pair will be a hatat and which will be an olah. If one hatat bird is mixed up with one ken, he can offer one bird as a hatat, because of any two birds he takes, one can be a hatat, either the "other" hatat or the hatat of the ken. But he can't offer two as a hatat, lest both of the birds are from the ken, and one of those birds must be an olah. And he can't offer any of the birds as an olah, lest the bird he tries to offer is the hatat. The same is true if he has two kinim he can offer two hatats, for two birds have to be hataot.
+<b>Similarly, if an olah becomes mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory [bird] offerings, the only ones that are valid are those that correspond to the number of olot among the obligatory offerings</b>  The same rule applies if the "other" bird is an olah. He can now offer as many olot as there are kinim.
+<b>[This rule holds true] whether the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are in the majority and the freewill-offerings in the minority, or the freewill-offerings are in the majority and those that are obligatory in the minority, or whether they are both equal in number.</b>  The "voluntary" bird offerings referred to here are olot because most voluntary bird offerings were olot.  The mishnah reiterates that the rule taught above holds true no matter whether there are many voluntary bird offerings and just a few mandatory ones, or vice versa or the same number. One can offer only as many olot the number of olot found in the mandatory offerings.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>When is this so?  When obligatory offerings [get mixed up] with voluntary offerings.</b>  The rules taught in mishnah two refer to cases where obligatory offerings (kinim) become mixed up with olot or hataot whose status has been determined.
+<b>When, however, obligatory offerings get mixed up one with another, with one [pair] belonging to one [woman] and the other pair to another [woman], or two [pairs] belonging to one and two [pairs] to another, or three [pairs] to one and three [pairs] to another, then half of these are valid and the other half disqualified.</b>  However, if obligatory offerings get mixed up and half of the total offerings belong to one person and half to another, then the priest can take half of the birds and offer half of them as hataot and the other half as olot. Let's take the simplest example, that of two kinim getting mixed up. If he offers one as a hatat and one as an olah, he is guaranteed to be correct. Because if one is from one ken and the other from one ken, then he has offered half of each ken. And if they are both from the same ken, then he has offered them properly. However, he can't offer two hataot or two olot, lest both birds belonged to the same woman and are part of the same ken. The same will hold true no matter how many kinim get mixed up, as long as the number brought by each person is the same.
+<b>If one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and two pairs to another, or three pairs to another, or ten pairs to another or one hundred to another, only the lesser number remains valid.</b>  If the numbers are uneven, then the priest can only offer according to the lower number. For instance, if one woman brought one ken and another woman brought two, he can only offer one hatat and one olah. For if he were to offer more than one olah or hatat, he might have offered both birds brought by the first woman as an olah (or hatat) and only one can be of each type. This same rule will hold true no matter how large the inequity. Even if one woman brings 100 pairs and one brings one, only two birds, one a hatat and one an olah, can be offered.
+<b>Whether they are of the same denomination   or of two denominations,   or whether they belong to one woman or to two.</b>  Denomination refers to the reason why the woman had to bring a sacrifice. This shall be clarified in tomorrow's mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah is an explanation of the last line of yesterday's mishnah, which referred to different "names."
+<b>What is meant by one "name"? For a birth and a birth, or for zivah and zivah, that is one name. And "two names"? For a birth, [and the other] for a zivah.</b>  There are two main reasons why a woman would bring a ken either for a childbirth or after having an abnormal genital discharge, called "zivah." If she brings two kinnim, one for this birth and one for this birth, or one for this zivah and one for this zivah, then the priest can only offer one bird as an olah and one as a hatat, as we explained yesterday. The same is true even if the two kinnim she set aside were for different "names" one for a birth and one for zivah.
+<b>What is meant by "two women"? [When] one [woman] brings [her offering] for a birth and the other for a birth, or [when one brings] for a zivah and the other for a zivah this is "of one name". And a case "of two names"? When one brings for a birth and the other for a zivah.</b>  If multiple women set aside kinnim for either one "name" of for many "names," they can only sacrifice as many hataot and olot as the fewest number of kinim brought by one of the women, as we explained in yesterday's mishnah.
+<b>Rabbi Yose says: when two women purchased their kinnim in partnership, or gave the price of their kinnim to the priest [for him to purchase them], then the priest can offer whichever one he wants as a hatat or as an olah, whether they are of one name or of two names.</b>  The above section, as well as mishnayot 2-3 dealt with cases where women gave their kinnim to the priest and the birds got mixed up. Rabbi Yose notes that they can avoid this problem by either buying their birds together or by giving the money to buy the birds to the priest. In both of these cases, the priest buys or receives all of the necessary birds. He can then determine which will be a hatat and an olah for this woman and which will be a hatat and an olah for the other woman. He can even do this if they are brought for different reasons. If done this way, even if the birds get mixed up, there will not be a problem.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+You might call our mishnah "the pigeon that escaped." It deals with a case where a single bird from an "unassigned ken" one in which it has not been determined which bird is a hatat and which is an olah escapes. The question is: what is the status of the bird that remains and the bird that escapes.
+<b>If from an unassigned pair of birds a single pigeon flew into the open air, or flew among birds that had been left to die, or if one [of the pair] died, then he must take a mate for the second one.</b>  In all of these cases, one bird leaves the unassigned ken. Since both birds were unassigned, all he has to do is take a new bird for the remaining bird and offer one as a hatat and one as an olah. However, if it had been a "determined ken," one where we already knew which was which, he couldn't sacrifice the remaining one unless he knew whether it was the hatat or the olah. We should note that in all of these cases, nothing can be done with the bird that flew away, either because it is gone or dead, or because it became mixed up with other birds that must be left to die.
+<b>If it flew among birds that are to be offered up,  it becomes invalid  and it invalidates another bird as its counterpart [in the pair];  for the pigeon that flew away is invalid and invalidates another bird as its counterpart [in the pair].</b>  In this case, the bird that flew away gets mixed up with other birds from other undetermined kinim. It itself is invalid, and we can't simply find a partner for it (a shidduch, if you will) because any bird we take might have been from one of the other birds that was to be offered up. It also invalidates one of the other birds that it joins. We shall explain this in the following mishnayot.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah explains the end of yesterday's mishnah.
+<b>How is this so?<br>Two women, this one has two pairs and this one has two pairs, and one bird flies from the [pair of] one to the other [woman's pair], then it disqualifies by its escape one [of the birds from which it flew].</b>  Two women each have two pairs of birds. If one bird flies away from one woman's two pairs, and joins the second woman's two pairs, the woman who is left with three birds can only use two. Of the three birds remaining, she can offer one as a hatat and one as an olah, but the third cannot be offered as either an olah or a hatat, for if she were to offer the one that remains as a hatat, then the one that flew away would have to be an olah. And when it joins two kinim, only two of the five could be offered as olot (the minimum number of olot in the two pairs see 1:2). The same would be true if she were to offer the third as an olah the one that flew away would be a hatat, and the second woman can only offer two birds as hataot. But when the woman with three birds offers only two of them, the other woman can still offer two hataot and two olot. The woman with five birds also cannot take another bird and make three pair, offering one as an olah and one as a hatat from each pair, lest the fifth bird actually be one of her original birds and if she offers it as a hatat, it is possible that she will offer three hataot from her original four birds (one with the new pair, and two as the original pairs). For the same reason, she can't take another bird and offer the fifth bird as an olah, lest it turns out there are three olot from the original four birds. She has no choice but to offer only four birds. In the end, it turns out that of the original eight, the woman whose bird flew the coop offers one pair, and the woman to whom the bird flew offers two pairs. Two birds go to waste.
+<b>If it returned, it disqualifies yet another by its return.</b>  If one of the five birds flies back to the other three birds, it disqualifies one of the birds that it left. Of the four left with woman two, she can offer only two of them, one as an olah and one as a hatat. She can't offer more lest the bird that went back to woman one is not the same bird that joined her group, and she only has three birds left from her original two kinim.
+<b>If it flew away again and then returned, and again flew away and returned, no further loss is incurred,  since even if they had all become mixed together, not less than two [pairs would still be valid].</b>  This process of disqualification does not continue if birds keep flying back and forth between the kinim. For even if all four kinim get mixed up, he can always offer four birds, two as hataot and two as olot, as we learned in 1:3 that if four pairs of birds get mixed up, each woman can offer two birds, one as a hatat and one as an olah.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to illustrate the principle that a bird that leaves a pair disqualifies by flying away and a bird that returns also disqualifies another pair, lest it is not the same bird that flew away. This mishnah uses large numbers, but I think that the principle should be straightforward.
+<b>If one [woman] had one pair, another two, another three, another four, another five, another six and another seven pairs,  and one bird flew from the first to the second pair, [and then a bird flew from there] to the third, [and then a bird flew from there] to the fourth, [and from there a bird flew] to the fifth [and from there a bird flew] to the sixth, [and from there a bird flew] to the seventh, and then a bird returns [in the same order as they flew away] it disqualifies at each flight and at each return. The first and second [women] have none left, the third has one pair, the fourth two, the fifth three, the sixth four, and the seventh six pairs.</b>  This section sets out the scenario, sort of a musical chairs of sacrificial birds. Basically one bird has left each group and then one bird has returned to each group. The first woman lost her only pair when one left. The second woman lost one pair when one left and one pair when one returned from her pairs to the first woman, so she is left with nothing. The third woman has one left, the fourth woman two and the fifth woman is left with three. The seventh woman loses only one pair because for her the "flying away" and "returning" are the same. She had one bird fly away and return to a set of pairs from which it had come. So she is left with six pairs.
+<b>If again [one from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The third and fourth woman have none left, the fifth has one pair, the sixth two pairs, and the seventh woman five pairs.</b>  Remarkably, the same thing repeats itself. One bird leaves the first, flies to the second, and so on up and then down the line. Again, two pairs are disqualified from the valid pairs that each woman has left, except for the last woman, who only loses one pair. Now the women who originally had three or four pairs are left with nothing, the woman with five is left with one, the woman with six is left with two, and the woman who had seven is left with five.
+<b>If again one [from each group] flew away and returned [in the same order as above], it disqualifies at each flight and return. The fifth and sixth women have none left, and the seventh has four pairs. But some say that the seventh woman has lost nothing.</b>  Incredibly, the same thing happens again (these birds really know what to do!). The only woman left with any valid birds is the last woman. According to one opinion, she again loses one pair. According to the other opinion, since all of the other pairs are already disqualified, the last bird to fly away from her does not disqualify any of her pairs. Therefore, she is left with five, as she was in the beginning.
+<b>If [a bird] from those that are left to die escaped to any of all the groups, then all must be left to die.</b>  If any birds that have to be left to die fly into any of the pairs, all of the pairs into which they may have flown are disqualified, because any of the birds may be this disqualified bird. In other words, here we do not have the problem of determining which bird is a hatat and which is an olah. Rather the problem is that any of the birds may be a bird that had been left to die and such a bird can never be sacrificed.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>An unassigned pair and an assigned pair:  if one bird from the unassigned [pair] flew to the assigned [pair], then a pair must be taken for the second [bird].</b>  There are two pairs in the situations described in this mishnah. In one pair the two birds have been assigned which one will be a hatat and which one will be an olah. The birds of the other pair have not been assigned. One bird from the unassigned pair flies over to the assigned pair. The three birds are now mixed up such that we can't tell which one of the assigned pair was a hatat and which was an olah. These three birds cannot be sacrificed and must be left to die. The owner can then take a second bird for the one bird left in the unassigned pair. This is the case of one bird from an unassigned pair that flies into a group of birds that must be left to die (see mishnah one). As we learned, in such a case he may take another bird for the bird left in the original pair.
+<b>If one bird flew back,  or if in the first place a bird from the assigned pair flew [to the other pair], then all must be left to die.</b>  If one of the three birds left to die flew back to the other pair, then all of the birds must be left to die, for in neither of them do we know which is the hatat and which is the olah. The same is true if originally one of the assigned pair flew to the unassigned pair. Since we don't know which bird flew (the hatat or the olah) and which bird remained, none of the three birds in the first pair, or the remaining one bird, can be offered. All must be left to die.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Hatat [birds] are on one side, and olot [birds] are on the other and an unassigned [pair] is in the middle: If from the middle pair one bird flew to this side, and one bird flew to this side, then he has not lost anything, because he [the priest] says that the bird that flew [from the middle] towards the hataot is a hatat and the bird that flew towards the olot is a burnt-offering. If one [from each side] returns to the middle, then [all] those in the middle must be left to die, but those [left on either side] can be offered up as hataot or as olot respectively. If again a bird [from the middle] returned and flew away to the sides,  then all must be left to die.</b>  This section discusses a case where a person has three groups of birds. On one side are a group of birds designated to be hataot. On the other side are a group of birds designated to be olot. In between the two groups is an unassigned pair of birds, one in which it has not yet been determined which will be a hatat and which will be an olah. The mishnah describes three scenarios. A) If one of the unassigned birds flies to each of the other groups, there is no problem, because these birds can be either a hatat or an olah. B) If one of the birds from the hataot and one of the birds from the olot flies back to the middle, then they must be left to die because we don't know which one is a hatat and which is an olah. The birds left on the side remain hataot and olot. C) If the middle birds now fly back one to each side and become mixed up with the birds there, then the ones on the side must die as well because we don't know which are hataot and which are olot.
+<b>One cannot pair turtle-doves with pigeons or pigeons with turtle-doves.  How is this so? If a woman has brought a turtle-dove as her hatat and a pigeon as her olah, she must then bring another turtle-dove as her burnt-offering; If her olah had been a turtle-dove and her hatat a pigeon, then she must bring another pigeon as her olah. Ben Azzai says: we go after the first [offering].</b>  When a woman brings a pair of birds for sacrifices she must either bring two turtle-doves (and a partridge in a pear tree) or two pigeons. She cannot bring one of each type of bird. According to the first opinion, the hatat is the bird that determines what the other bird must be. So if the hatat is a turtle-dove, she must bring a turtle-dove as an olah, and if the hatat is a pigeon, she must bring a pigeon as an olah. The order in which the birds are brought does not matter. Ben Azzai says that the first bird that she brings determines what the second bird is. Therefore if she first brings a turtle-dove as an olah, and then tries to bring a pigeon as a hatat, she must bring a turtle-dove as an olah.
+<b>If a woman brought her hatat and then died, her heirs must bring her olah; [But if she first brought] her olah and then died, her heirs need not bring her hatat.</b>  If a woman sets aside birds as sacrifices and then dies, her heirs can offer the olah but they cannot offer the hatat, because a hatat whose owners have died must be left to die. This is the standard rule with regard to the hatat (see Temurah 2:2).
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first mishnah of chapter three relates to the halakhot found in mishnayot 1:2-3 regarding pairs of sacrificial birds that become mixed up.
+<b>When are these words said?  When the priest asks advice.</b>  If birds get mixed up and the priest comes to ask advice as to what to do with them, he is taught the halakhot we learned in 1:2-3.
+<b>But in the case of a priest who does not seek advice, and one [pair] belongs to one [woman] and one to another, or two [pairs] to one and two to another, or three [pairs] to one and three to another,  and he offered  all of them above [the red line], then half are valid and half are invalid. [Similarly], if [he offered] all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid. If [he offered] half of them above and half of them below, then of those [offered] above, half are valid and half are invalid, and also of those [offered] below, half are valid and half are invalid.</b>  The mishnah how goes on to explain what happens if he does not seek advice and just offers all of the mixed up sacrifices. In today's mishnah the scenario is simple for the numbers of pairs belonging to each woman is equal. Tomorrow's mishnah will introduce much more complicated scenarios. If the number of pairs are even, then half will be valid and half will not be valid. Thus if he sprinkles all of the blood above the red line on the altar, as is done with the olah, then all of the olot are valid, and all of the hataot are invalid. If he offers all of the blood below the red line, as is done with the hatat, then all of the hataot are valid, and all of the olot are invalid. If he offers half above the line and half below the line, then half of each group are valid. It turns out that in all of these cases, each woman gets credit for half of the birds that she brought. As an aside, I think it is interesting that the mishnah deals with a case where the priest did not ask advice from sages before sacrificing the mixed-up birds. I think that we might read into this a bit and see that priests probably did not follow rabbinic halakhot as closely as the rabbis might have liked, and therefore the rabbis have to figure out how to proceed in such a situation.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday's mishnah. In yesterday's mishnah we discussed scenarios where the two women brought the same number of pairs of birds. Today's mishnah deals with cases where one woman has more pairs than the other.
+<b>If one [pair] belonged to one woman and two [pairs] to another, or [even] three [pairs] to another, or [ten] pairs to another or a hundred to another,  and he offered all of them above, then half are valid and half are invalid.</b>  If for instance one woman had two pairs and the other woman had three pairs, and they were all mixed up and he offered them all above the red line on the altar, then half are valid as olot, because it is certain that of the ten birds, five were olot.
+<b>[Similarly], if he offered all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid.</b>  Similarly, if he offers half of them below, then half are valid as hataot, because it is clear that five of the birds are hataot.
+<b>[If he offered] half of them above and half below, then the [number of birds as there is in the] larger part are valid.</b>  In this case, the number of birds that are valid is equivalent to the number of pairs brought by the woman with the larger number of pairs. Let's take a case where one woman brought two pairs and another woman brought three pairs. If the priest offered five birds below the line and five birds above the line, three birds are valid. This is because even if of the five birds he offered above, four of them belonged to the woman who brought two pairs, then two are for sure valid and two are for sure invalid because they should have been hataot. The fifth bird which had to have belonged to the other woman, is also valid as an olah. And if of the five birds, all belonged to the woman with three pairs, three are certainly valid as olot. However, two are certainly invalid because they should have been hataot. The same will work no matter what numbers we plug in. If one woman brought four pairs and the other woman brought six pairs, and the priest offered ten birds above and ten below, then six of the birds offered above are valid as olot. Even if all eight birds from the first woman were offered above, four are valid and then two of the other birds which belonged to the other woman will also be valid. And if all of the birds belonged to the second woman who brought ten pairs, then six are valid. But four have to be invalid because they should have been hataot. You mathematicians out there should try it out for yourself with other numbers you'll see, it always works out.
+<b>This is the general principle: whenever you can divide the pairs [of birds] so that those belonging to one woman need not have part of them [offered] above and part [offered] below, then half of them are valid and half are invalid;</b>  The mishnah now provides the general rule. If it is possible that he offered all of the birds of one of the women above and all of the birds of the other woman below, then half of the birds are valid. This is the case if the women bring the same numbers of pairs. If each brings, say, five pairs, and he offers five above and five below, it is possible that all of one woman's birds were offered above and all of the other's birds were offered below. Half will be valid.
+<b>But whenever you cannot divide the pairs [of birds] without some of those belonging to one woman being [offered] above and some below, then [the number as there is in] the larger part are valid.</b>  However, if it is not possible that all of the birds that were offered above and below belonged to the same woman, then the number of birds valid is equal to the larger number of pairs. Thus if one woman brought six and one brought four, and he offered ten above, and ten below, it is not possible that all ten above belonged to one woman and all ten below belonged to the other woman. Therefore, six are valid, equivalent to the larger number.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Up until now, this chapter has discussed cases where two women bring pairs of sacrificial birds; in each case one of each pair is supposed to be offered as a hatat and one as an olah.
+In today's mishnah, one woman brings birds that will all be offered as olot, and the other woman brings birds that will all be offered as hataot. Again, the priest does not ask advice as to what to do with the birds. Rather, he just goes ahead and offers them.
+<b>If the hatats belonged to one and the olot to another, and the priest offered them all above, then half are valid and half disqualified.</b>  If he offered all of the birds above, obviously half are valid as olot. The other half should have been offered below, as is the rule for hataot, and therefore, they are invalid.
+<b>If he offered them all below, half are valid and half disqualified.</b>  The same is true if he offers half below the hataot are valid and the olot are invalid.
+<b>If he offered half of them above and half below, then all of them are disqualified, because I can argue that the hatats were offered above and the olot below.</b>  However, if he offered half above and half below, none of the sacrifices is valid, because it is possible that he completely mixed them up, offering the hataot above and the olot below.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>If a hatat, an olah, an unassigned pair of birds and an assigned  pair [became mixed up], and he offered them all above, then half are valid and half are invalid.</b>  One woman has a hatat, one woman has an olah. In addition, one of these women has an unassigned pair and the other has an assigned pair, and they all get mixed up (just like us all mixed up!). If the priest offers all of the birds above (a total of six birds) half of them are valid. This is because three are certainly olot (the olah bird and one from each pair).
+<b>[Similarly] if he offered all of them below, half are valid and half are invalid.</b>  If he offers all below, three are valid as hataot.
+<b>If he offered half of them above and half below, none is valid except the unassigned pair, and that must be divided between them.</b>  However, if he offers half above and half below, then only the birds of the unassigned pair are valid, because their status as an olah or a hatat had not yet been determined. The two women will together get credit for one pair, and they can divide that pair among the two of them. They will then need to bring another pair, and offer one as an olah and one as a hatat. Each loses the hatat or olah that they had brought individually.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>If hataot birds were mixed up with [unassigned birds that were] obligatory offerings, only the number of hataot among the obligatory offerings are valid.<br>If the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are twice as many as the hataot, then half are valid and half invalid;<br>But if the hataot are twice as many as the [unassigned] obligatory offerings, then the number [of hataot] among the obligatory offerings are valid.<br>So, too, if [birds assigned as] olot were mixed up with [unassigned] obligatory offerings, only the number of olot among the obligatory offerings are valid.<br>If the [unassigned] obligatory offerings are twice as many as the olot, then half are valid and half invalid.<br>But if the olot are twice as many as the [unassigned] obligatory offerings, then the number [of olot] among the obligatory offerings are valid.</b><br>Section one: This halakhah is basically a repeat of the halakhah taught in 1:2. Obligatory bird offerings contain two birds one of which will be an olah and one a hatat. So if some birds that have already been designated as hataot get mixed up with some pairs of obligatory offerings, the valid birds are equivalent to the number of hataot in the pairs. So if ten hataot get mixed up with six pairs, of the 22 birds, any six we take can definitely be a hatat. But the seventh bird might be the seventh bird from the six pairs, in which case it should have been an olah.<br>Section two: If two obligatory offerings, meaning two birds one of which needs to be a hatat and one an olah, are mixed up with one hatat, then we divide the birds into two. The first bird is valid as a hatat, the second bird is definitely disqualified and the third bird is potentially half-valid, but since it can't be divided, there is nothing that can be done with it. Similarly, if three obligatory offerings get mixed up with one hatat, three birds are valid as a hatat, three are invalid and the third cannot be divided.<br>Section three: But if there are two hataot that get mixed up with one pair of obligatory offerings, only one bird will be valid as a hatat.<br>Sections four-six: The second half of this mishnah just teaches the same rule with regard to olot.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+As we know, when a woman gives birth she will have to bring a pair of birds, one of which is offered as a hatat and one as an olah. She does not need to voluntarily take on this obligation. It is automatic. Our mishnah deals with a woman who before she gives birth, vows to bring a pair of birds if she gives birth to a male. She will now be obligated to bring two pairs of birds.
+I should warn you this mishnah is complicated. But it’s the last mishnah of the tractate and the seder (game, set and match), so we should give it careful attention. You can fall on your knees and kiss the trophy afterwards.
+<b>If a woman says: "I vow a pair of birds if I give birth to a male child," and she does give birth to a male child, then she must offer up two pairs   one for her vow and one for her obligation.</b>  This woman must offer up two pairs of birds one pair for her obligatory offerings and one for her voluntary offerings. The birds brought as voluntary offerings will be olot and of the birds brought as obligatory offerings one will be a hatat and one an olah.
+<b>If [before she assigned them] she gave them to the priest, and the priest who ought to offer three birds above and one below does not do so, but offers two above and two below, and does not seek guidance, she must she bring another bird and offer that above. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring two others.</b>  The priest should offer three as olot, meaning he should spill their blood above the red line, and one as a hatat, whose blood is spilled below the red line. Rather, the priest seems to have treated both as if they were obligatory offerings (his mistake seems quite understandable), and spilled the blood of two above the red line and the blood of the two others below the red line. He did not come to ask advice beforehand. The woman must now bring one more bird to be an olah, for one of the birds he offered below was invalid. The above halakhah is true if all of the birds that she brought were of one type either pigeons or turtle-doves. However, if she brought one pair as one type and the other pair as another type, and the priest did one pigeon above and one pigeon below and the same with the turtle-doves, she now must bring two new birds, one a turtle-dove and one a pigeon. The reason is that we don't know which of the two birds that he did below was disqualified the pigeon or turtle-dove and the replacement that she brings must be of the same type. Therefore, she brings one of each and both are offered as olot.
+<b>If she had expressly defined her vow, then must she bring three other birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring four others.</b>  If when the woman made the vow she set the type of bird she would bring, a pigeon or turtle-dove, and then by the time she brought them, she forgot what type of bird she had vowed, and again the priest offered two above and two below, she will now have to bring three new birds, all of which will be olot. Since she didn't know what her vow was, she should have brought a pair of birds from each type, one pair of pigeons and one pair of turtle-doves. In addition, she of course had to bring a pair for her obligatory offerings. Now that one bird was disqualified by being offered below, she must bring a replacement for that bird, and then another pair of the other type of bird that she did not bring. Again, the above is true if all of the birds that the woman brought were of the same type. If she brought two different types, then she must bring four new birds as olot. We'll go through this slowly. One of the birds done below is valid as a hatat, and the other is an invalid olah. But we don't know whether the invalid olah was supposed to a turtle-dove or a pigeon, because don't know whether she vowed to bring pigeons or turtle-doves. So both of the birds done above are also invalid. Therefore, she has to bring two new pairs; a pair of pigeons in case this is what she vowed, and a pair of turtle-doves, in case this is what she vowed.
+<b>If she made a definite fixture at the time of her vow, then must she bring another five birds. This is so if the birds were of the same kind. If they were of two kinds, then must she bring six others.</b>  In this case, again when the woman made the vow she set the type of bird she would bring and then forgot which type she set. Then she brings two pairs, all of one type, and in this case she determined which type would be for her voluntary offering and which type would be for her obligatory offering. Again, the priest offered one pair above and one pair below. In this case she must bring five more birds, all of which will be offered as olot. She must bring two birds of the type that she did not bring, because she should have brought two pairs in the beginning, one of pigeons and one of turtle-doves. She then must bring three of the same type that she did bring. Two of these will be for the olah, lest the priest offered one of the pair that should have been an olah as a hatat below, and both were thereby invalidated. She must bring another bird as a hatat, lest both birds that the priest offered as a hatat were meant to be olot. Again, all of this was true if she brought all of her birds from one type. If she brought two different types, then she will have to bring SIX new birds. In this case we don't know which pair she brought as a voluntary offering because we don't know which type she set as a voluntary offering. Indeed, she may have brought both as voluntary offerings, as she was supposed to do, and not brought her mandatory offering at all. Or she might have brought one as a voluntary offering and one as a mandatory offering. In this case, it is possible that all of the birds were meant to be olot, and the two done below were both disqualified. It is also possible that the obligatory offerings were done correctly, but the voluntary offerings were done incorrectly, and we don't know which was done incorrectly, the turtle-dove or pigeon. We also don't know which type of birds she vowed to bring in the first place.  In short, due to all of the things we don't know, she must bring four new birds as olot, one pair of turtle-doves and one pair of pigeons. She also has to bring two birds to be her mandatory offerings.
+<b>If she gave them to the priest and it is not known what she gave, and the priest performed the sacrifice, but it is not known how he performed it, then she must bring four other birds for her vow,  and two for her obligation  and one for her hatat. Ben Azzai says: [she must bring] two hatats.</b>  Finally, it is possible to add on to the previous scenario the possibility that she doesn't even know what type of birds she brought. Furthermore, the priest offered them up but doesn't remember whether he offered them up below or above. Basically no one knows anything whatsoever. She has to bring now a total of SEVEN birds. Two pairs she brings as voluntary offerings, one pair of turtle-doves and one pair of pigeons. She also brings a hatat, lest the hatat that she previously brought was invalidated, for it is possible that both birds from the mandatory offering were done above. However, it is also possible that the priest performed the mandatory offering below, which would mean the hatat was valid. But in this case she would need to bring a replacement olah to go with that hatat, and since we don't know what type it needs to be, she must bring two more birds to go with the hatat that might have been valid. Ben Azzai says she must bring two hataot, one a turtle-dove and one a pigeon. The reason is that the olah of the mandatory offerings might have been done properly, and she needs to bring a hatat of the same type. This matches Ben Azzai's opinion in 2:5, that the second bird offered must be of the same type as the first bird. Since we don't know what type was offered, she must bring one of each.
+<b>Rabbi Joshua said: This is what it meant when they said: "When [the beast] is alive it possesses one sound, but when it is dead its sound is sevenfold."  In what way is its sound sevenfold? Its two horns [are made into] two trumpets, its two leg-bones into two flutes, its hide into a drum, its entrails for lyres and its large intestines for harp strings; and there are some who add that its wool is used for the blue [pomegranates.]</b>  Rabbi Joshua provides a colorful analogy to the above strange situation, in which a woman vowed to bring one pair of birds, and ends up bringing seven birds (or eight according to Ben Azzai). While a ram is alive it has only one voice, but its body parts can be used in making seven different instruments. Like Ben Azzai, who adds an eighth instrument, some note that from the wool of the ram, one can make the clothes of the high priests, upon which pomegranate bells are hung (see Exodus 28:33). Thus, the woman used her singular voice and became obligated to bring seven or eight birds.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon ben Akashiah says: ignorant old people, the older they become, the more their intellect gets befuddled, as it is said: "He removes the speech of men of trust and takes away the sense of the elders."   But when it comes to aged scholars, it is not so. On the contrary, the older they get, the more their mind becomes composed, as it is said: "With aged men comes wisdom, and understanding in length of days."</b>  As is typical, the tractate ends with an aggadic statement a statement whose intent is moral or spiritual and less legal. It is possible that this aggadah was chosen because this mishnah concludes Seder Kodashim, and Seder Kodashim is called in the Talmud "wisdom." It is interesting to note that the idea that scholars retain their mental faculties longer than those who do not engage their minds has been borne out by modern medical science (at least from what I read). Elderly people who engage in intellectual pursuits whatever they may be, or play brainy types of games, can, to a certain extent, delay the decline in their mental faculties. In other words: use it or lose it. Congratulations!  We have finished Tractate Kinim and Seder Kodashim! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. As I said in the intro game, set and match to all of you who stuck with Mishnah Yomit as we made our long way through Seder Kodashim. I may be wrong, but I'm certainly not far off, when I say that rare has been the occasion when this type of material has been studied for such an extended period of time by an audience such as that which participates in Mishnah Yomit. To me United Synagogue and the Conservative movement made an important statement by studying this material: the entire Torah is worthy of learning, and not just those sections that seem immediately relevant to our personal lives. We began our odyssey into Mishnah Yomit with Seder Nezikin because I thought that would be the most concrete, most down to earth of the Sedarim (pl. of seders). We moved onto Nashim and Moed, both of which were frequently relevant to modern day issues. Zeraim already began to be a little more esoteric, and Kodashim, in my opinion, is far more removed from any of our experience. Nevertheless, there were fascinating mishnayot throughout, rules, descriptions, etc. And most importantly, we all continued to learn. If you've been with us since the beginning, you've now finished 5/6 of the Mishnah. Completion (at least the first round, because Torah study is never really completed) is closer than ever! The road that lies ahead of us is not easy. Seder Toharot is next, beginning with thirty (!) chapters of Tractate Kelim. But if you've made it this far, there is no doubt in my mind that you will continue to study with us. One step-one mishnah at a time. Again, Yasher Koah on finishing Tractate Kinim and Seder Kodashim. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Kelim and Seder Toharot.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,304 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה מעילה
+Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
+
+Introduction
+
+Meilah is translated either as “sacrilege” or “trespass.” It refers to one who unwittingly makes prohibited use of property that belongs to the Temple. The subject is dealt with in Leviticus 5:15-16:
+When a person commits trespass, being unwittingly remiss about any of the Lord’s sacred things, he shall bring as his penalty to the Lord a ram without blemish from the flock, convertible into payment in silver by the sanctuary weight, as an asham (guilt offering). He make restitution for that wherein he was remiss about the sacred things, and he shall add a fifth part to it and give it to the priest. The priest shall make expiation on his behalf with the ram of the guilt offering, and he shall be forgiven.
+As we can see from these verses when a person commits sacrilege he must do three things: 1) bring an asham; 2) make restitution for the amount he benefited; 3) add an extra fifth. The restitution and the added fifth are given to the Temple in place of that which he benefited.  	One who intentionally trespasses pays back only the principle. He does not pay back an extra fifth nor does he bring a sacrifice. There is a debate about his punishment: according to Rabbi he gets “death by the hands of heaven” whereas the other rabbis hold that he receives lashes.  	With that brief introduction, we are on our merry way. Good luck!  
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah discusses cases where the laws of sacrilege apply to animals despite the fact that the sacrifice was disqualified.
+<b>Most holy sacrifices which were slaughtered on the south side [of the altar], the law of sacrilege [still] applies to them.</b>  Most holy sacrifices must be sacrificed on the north side of the altar (Zevahim 5:1-5). If they are sacrificed on the south side, they are disqualified. Nevertheless, if a person derives benefit from them he has committed sacrilege and must bring a sacrifice, make restitution and bring the added fifth. Despite the fact that these are disqualified sacrifices, they still retain their holiness.
+<b>If they were slaughtered on the south side and their blood received on the north or [slaughtered] on the north side and their blood received on the south, or if they were slaughtered by day and [their blood] sprinkled during the night or [slaughtered] during the night and [their blood] sprinkled by day, or if they were slaughtered [with the intention of eating the flesh] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, the law of sacrilege still applies to them.</b>  This section contains a list of other actions that disqualify a sacrifice. A most holy sacrifice must be slaughtered and have its blood received on the north side. It must be slaughtered and have its blood received during the day. The intention of the one performing the sacrifice must be to eat it in its proper time and place. However, if the sacrifice is disqualified, it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege.
+<b>Rabbi Joshua stated a general rule: whatever has at some time been permitted to the priests is not subject to the law of sacrilege, and whatever has at no time been permitted to the priests is subject to the law of sacrilege. Which is that which has at some time been permitted to the priests? [Sacrifices] which remained overnight or became defiled or were taken out [of the Temple Court]. Which is that which has at no time been permitted to the priests? [Sacrifices] that were slaughtered [with the intention of eating its flesh] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, or [the blood of which] was received by the unfit and they sprinkled it.</b>  Rabbi Joshua has a different rule as to when the laws of sacrilege apply to a disqualified sacrifice. If the sacrifice was at one time edible by priests, then these laws do not apply. This is the case if the blood was spilled on the altar in the correct fashion, but then the sacrifice was disqualified by becoming remnant, impure or by being taken out of the Temple. In these cases the meat was permitted and then became forbidden. However, if the meat was never permitted, such as the cases in section one, or a case where someone unfit either received the blood in a vessel or poured the blood onto the altar, in all of these cases the laws of sacrilege do apply, as we taught in sections one and two.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In this mishnah Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva argue about whether meat from most holy sacrifices that was taken out of the Temple before its blood was sprinkled on the altar is subject to the laws of sacrilege.
+<b>If the flesh of most holy sacrifices was taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege and one does not become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba says: it is not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement.</b>  There are two background halakhot necessary to understand this debate: 1) The flesh of most holy sacrifices cannot be taken out of the Temple courtyard. 2) Once the blood of a sacrifice has been sprinkled on the altar, the sacrifice can be eaten by the priests. In this mishnah the flesh was taken out before the blood was sprinkled, such that the flesh was never edible. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that if the flesh of a sacrifice was never at a point where it could be eaten by the priests, then it is subject to the laws of sacrilege. In our case, since the flesh was never at a point where it could be eaten by the priests, because it was disqualified before its blood was spilled, it is subject to the laws of sacrilege. However, it is not subject to the laws of piggul (improper intention when offering the sacrifice), remnant or the prohibition of eating leftover sacrifices, because it never became edible. These prohibitions refer only to edible meat. To summarize the essential issue: according to Rabbi Eliezer, since the blood was sprinkled only after the flesh was disqualified, this meat is never considered edible.
+<b>Rabbi Akiba said: if one set aside his hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place and afterwards the first was found, and both of them are in front of us, [do you not agree] that just as [the sprinkling of] the blood [of the one] exempts its own flesh [from the laws of sacrilege] so it exempts the flesh of the other one?</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva, even though the sprinkling of the blood took place only after the flesh had left the courtyard and it does not therefore allow the flesh to be eaten, it does remove the flesh from the category of being subject to sacrilege. In other words, it counts as edible, even though it can’t be eaten for some other reason. Since it is treated as if it is edible meat (even though it can’t be eaten) it is liable for the laws of piggul, notar or defilement.
+<b>Now, if the sprinkling of its blood can exempt the flesh of the other from the laws of sacrilege, how much more must it exempt its own flesh.</b>  Rabbi Akiva now argues by analogy. If one sets aside a hatat and then it is lost, he must set aside another in its place. If the first animal is found, the second one cannot be sacrificed (see Temurah 4:3). However, if he slaughters the first and sprinkles its blood, the sprinkling removes both that hatat and the second, unusable hatat from being subject to sacrilege. In other words, here you have a case where the sprinkling of blood can exempt an animal for being subject to sacrilege, even if the sprinkling does not make the animal’s flesh edible permitted to eat. Rabbi Akiva now takes the argument one step further. If sprinkling of one animal’s blood can exempt another animal’s disqualified flesh from being subject to sacrilege, shouldn’t it be able to exempt its own flesh from being subject to sacrilege. Thus, in our case, although the flesh was disqualified by being taken out of the Temple court, once its blood has been sprinkled, it is no longer subject to the laws of sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah deals with the innards of sacrifices of a lower degree of holiness. These innards are burned on the altar after the blood has been spilled. As in yesterday’s mishnah, today we discuss a case where these innards left the Temple courtyard. This disqualifies them from being able to be placed on the altar.
+As in yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi disagree about whether the laws of sacrilege apply. Their opinions are consistent with those found in yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>If the innards of sacrifices of that have a lower degree of holiness were taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled:<br>Rabbi Eliezer says: they are not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one cannot become guilty of [transgressing with them the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer holds that when it comes to the rules of sacrilege, the same rules that applied in yesterday’s mishnah to the flesh of most holy sacrifices, apply to the innards of less holy sacrifices. Once they were taken out of the Temple, they became disqualified from being subsequently placed on the altar. The laws of sacrilege therefore do apply, even after the blood was spilled. The other laws do not apply because this flesh was never able to have been placed on the altar.
+<b>Rabbi Akiva says: they are subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with them the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement.</b>  Rabbi Akiva holds that even though the innards were removed from the Temple before the blood was sprinkled, the sprinkling does make them subject to the laws of sacrilege, the same as it did for the flesh in yesterday’s mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah compares the effect that the sprinkling of the blood on the altar has on sacrifices of both higher and lower degrees of holiness.
+<b>The act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.</b>  This is an introductory note delineating the structure of the remainder of the mishnah.
+<b>How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect.</b>  Before the sprinkling of the blood the flesh of most holy sacrifices cannot be eaten by the priests, and its innards cannot be placed on the altar. At this point all parts are subject to the laws of sacrilege. Once the blood is sprinkled, the laws of sacrilege do not apply to the flesh, because it can be eaten by the priests. This is a lenient effect. The innards are still subject to sacrilege, because they can never be eaten. After the sprinkling of the blood, the flesh becomes subject to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement, three laws which apply only to edible flesh. This is the stringent effect.
+<b>With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.</b>  When it comes to less holy sacrifices, the sprinkling only has a stringent effect. Before the sprinkling, the laws of sacrilege do not apply at all, because they are not yet considered holy. We should note that the laws of meilah (sacrilege) never apply to the flesh of sacrifices of lesser holiness, because they can be eaten by anyone, and not just priests. Sacrilege applies only to food that can be eaten only by priests. Nevertheless, once the blood is sprinkled, the laws of sacrilege do apply to the innards. This is a stringent effect. The sprinkling also serves to make all parts subject to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement, which again is a stringent effect. It turns out that here the sprinkling of blood only has a stringent effect.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This entire chapter discusses various states of preparation of every type of sacrifice, and when the sacrifice becomes liable for various prohibitions. As we shall see, the pattern of this mishnah is repeated throughout this highly stylized chapter. There are some halakhot that I will explain here and then refer to throughout the mishnah, so save the commentary for future reference.
+The first topic is the bird hatat.
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat of a bird from the moment of its dedication.</b>  As soon as a bird hatat is dedicated, it is subject to the laws of sacrilege, even when it is still alive. Since it is still not edible to the priests, the laws of sacrilege apply (see 1:1).
+<b>With the pinching of its neck it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.</b>  Once its neck is pinched, which is how bird sacrifices are slaughtered, it is now subject to disqualification by contact with a “tevul yom.” A “tevul yom” is a person who has immersed in the mikveh but is not fully pure until the sun sets that evening (see Leviticus 22:7). It can also be disqualified by contact with a person who has gone through his purification process but must still bring the requisite sacrifices the next day (see Keritot 2:1). If the blood remains overnight without being sprinkled on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified.
+<b>Once its blood has been sprinkled it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, but the law of sacrilege no longer applies to it.</b>  Once the blood has been sprinkled, its flesh is edible and is therefore liable to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement. Piggul is a disqualification that occurs if the priest sacrifices it with the intention of eating it after it can no longer be eaten. Notar is remnat, and defilement refers to the prohibition of eating a sacrifice that has been ritually defiled. Since the bird hatat can now be eaten by the priests, it is no longer subject to the laws of sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the olah of a bird from the moment of its dedication.<br>With the pinching of its neck it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.<br>Once its blood has been squeezed out [onto the walls of the altar] it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement;<br>And the law of sacrilege applies to it until [the ashes have been] removed [from the altar] to the place of the ashes.</b><br>Today’s mishnah deals with the bird olah, a whole burnt offering. Most of its laws are the same as those found in yesterday’s mishnah.<br>Sections one-three: These laws are the same as those found in yesterday’s mishnah. See there for an explanation.<br>Section four: Since an olah never becomes edible, the laws of sacrilege apply longer than they do to the hatat, which can be eaten by the priests. The flesh is still subject to sacrilege until it is burned and the ashes are removed from the altar and brought out to the “places of ashes” which was outside of the Temple/Tabernacle (see Leviticus 6:4). At this point its mitzvah has been completed and it is therefore no longer subject to the law of sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the bullocks which are to be burned and the goats which are to be burned from the moment of their dedication.<br>Once slaughtered they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.<br>Once their blood has been sprinkled they are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement.<br>And the law of sacrilege applies to them even while they are at the place of the ashes so long as the flesh has not been charred.</b><br>This mishnah is very similar to the first two mishnayot of this chapter, except it deals with the bullocks and goats that are burned. There are three types of bullocks that are burned: 1) The bullock offered on Yom Kippur; 2) the bullock offered by a high priest for issuing a mistaken instruction; 3) the bullock offered by the court that makes a mistaken instruction. There are two types of goats that are burned: 1) The goat offered on Yom Kippur; 2) The goat offered by a court for making a mistaken instruction concerning a law related to idol worship.<br>Sections 1-3: See mishnayot one and two above for an explanation.<br>Section four: The law of sacrilege continues to apply to the burned bullocks and goats even after they are brought out to the place of burning. It applies until their flesh has been charred and its appearance has changed. This is when their burning is technically complete (see Zevahim 12:6) and at that point the law of sacrilege no longer applies.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to an olah from the moment of its dedication.<br>When it is slaughtered it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.<br>Once its blood has been sprinkled it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement;<br>And the law of sacrilege does not apply to its hide, but it does apply to it flesh until [the ashes have been] removed [from the altar] to the place of the ashes.</b><br>Today’s mishnah deals with the animal olah.<br>Sections one-three: See mishnah two.<br>Section four: Immediately after it is slaughtered, the hide belongs to the priest. Therefore, the law of sacrilege stops applying to the hide. However, the law of sacrilege continues to apply to its flesh, which is not eaten by the priest. It only stops when the flesh is removed from the altar and brought to the place of ashes.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat, and asham and to shelamim sacrifices of the congregation from the moment of their dedication.<br>Once slaughtered they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.<br>Once their blood has been sprinkled they are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement.<br>The law of sacrilege then no longer applies to the flesh, but applies to the innards until the ashes are removed to the place of the ashes.</b><br>This mishnah refers to other most holy sacrifices, namely the hatat, the asham and the public shelamim sacrifices. These are the two lambs sacrificed on Shavuot. They are considered most holy sacrifices, although other shelamim sacrifices are sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness.<br>Sections one-three: See the previous mishnayot.<br>Section four: Once the animal has been slaughtered, the flesh may be eaten by the priests, and therefore the law of sacrilege no longer applies. However it continues to apply to the innards until they are burned and then brought out to the place of ashes.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+On Shavuot two loaves of bread are brought with the sacrifices. Our mishnah is concerned with when the law of sacrilege applies to these loaves.
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the two loaves of bread from the moment of their dedication.</b>  Same as mishnayot above.
+<b>Once they have formed a crust in the oven they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, and the [festival] offerings can then be slaughtered.</b>  Once they have formed a crust, they are considered food and they are liable to become disqualified in all of these ways (see above mishnayot). Note that “remaining overnight” is not found in this mishnah because the two loaves are cooked the night before the festival. They always remain overnight. Once they have formed a crust, they are considered bread and at this point the priests can slaughter the festival sacrifices (see Leviticus 23:20).
+<b>Once the blood of the lambs has been sprinkled they [the loaves] are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to them.</b>  Once the blood of the lambs has been sprinkled, one who eats them can be liable if they have been disqualified. And since the priests can now eat the loaves, they are no longer subject to the laws of sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah deals with the showbread that is placed on the table in the Sanctuary every Shabbat.
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the showbread from the moment of its dedication.</b>  See above mishnayot.
+<b>Once it has formed a crust in the oven it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, and it may be arranged upon the table [of the Sanctuary].</b>  As with the two loaves in yesterday’s mishnah, the showbread can become disqualified once it has become crusted. It is also at this point that it can be taken out of the oven and arranged on the table.
+<b>Once the dishes of incense have been offered it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to it.</b>  Two dishes of incense were placed over the showbread. If the bread was “piggul”  while he was burning the incense he had the intent of eating the bread on the next day he would be liable for eating it. Similarly, if he waited until it was remnant (notar) or ate it after it was defiled he would be liable. As is always the case, once the bread has become defiled, it is no longer subject to the law of sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Our mishnah discusses how the law of sacrilege relates to menahot.<br>The law of sacrilege applies to menahot (grain from the moment of their dedication.</b>  See every other mishnah in this chapter.
+<b>Once they have become sacred by being put in the vessel [of service] they become susceptible for unfitness through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.</b>  Once the minhah is placed in a vessel it can be disqualified. The rest of the categories are the same as those in every other mishnah in this chapter.
+<b>Once the handful has been offered they are subject to [the law of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to the remnants, but it applies to the handful until its ashes have been removed to the place of the ashes.</b>  Once the handful has been removed and placed on the altar, the minhah can be eaten by the priests, and therefore the law of sacrilege no longer applies. However, one who eats it in a disqualified state is now liable for the three prohibitions mentioned in all of the mishnayot above.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the handful [of a minhah], the frankincense, the incense, the minhah of a priest, the minhah of the anointed high priest and the minhah that is accompanied by a libation, from the moment of their dedication.</b>  All of these menahot or other items (incense) are completely burned on the altar. No parts thereof are given to the priest. Therefore, the law of sacrilege will always apply to them.
+<b>Once they have become sacred by being put in the vessel, they become susceptible for unfitness through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight, and they are subject to [the laws of] notar and defilement, but [the law of] piggul does not apply to them.</b>  Most of this section is the same as that in yesterday’s mishnah except that the laws of piggul do not apply to any of these items.  The mishnah will now explain why the laws of piggul do not apply.
+<b>This is the general rule: whatever has something else which renders it permissible [for the altar or for the use of the priests] is not subject to [the laws of] piggul, nothar and defilement until that act has been performed. And whatever does not have something else which renders it permissible becomes subject [to the laws of] notar and defilement as soon as it has become sacred by being put in the vessel, but piggul does not apply to it.</b>  Any sacrificial item that has something else that allows it to be burned or eaten is subject to all of these laws, but only after that other thing has been done. For instance, the flesh of an animal is subject to these laws after the blood has been sprinkled on the altar (see mishnayot 1-5). The innards can be put on the altar once the blood has been sprinkled. The minhah can be eaten once the handful has been removed. The two loaves can be eaten once the blood of the lambs has been thrown on the altar, and the showbread can be eaten once the incense has been burned. All of these have other things that permit them. In contrast, the list in our mishnah “permits itself.” In other words, these things can be sacrificed immediately (none of them are eaten) without waiting for something else to be done. Therefore, they are subject immediately to the laws of notar and defilement. Piggul never applies to such items. For further discussion see Zevahim 4:3.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is found word for word in Temurah 4:1. It is brought here because it also deals with sacrilege. I have mostly replicated my commentary from there.
+In Temurah 2:2 we learned that there are five types of hataot (pl. of hatat) that are left to die because they can’t be sacrificed and neither can they be eaten. Our mishnah deals with these five hataot.
+<b>The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die.</b>  These are the first three categories of hataot that are left to die. Basically, once the owner has been atoned for, the hatat cannot be sacrificed. The first two cannot be sacrificed because the owner received atonement from the original animal. If the owner died, then he no longer needs atonement so his hatat too cannot be sacrificed.
+<b>A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the law of sacrilege does apply.</b>  When it comes to the fourth and fifth types of hatat that must be left to die, it depends on whether the owners have already received atonement through another animal. If the owners have already been atoned for by bringing another animal as a hatat, then the original hatat (the one whose year had passed or which had been lost and then was found) must be left to die. If the owner tries to substitute for it, it no longer can make a substitute. It is forbidden to derive any benefit from it, as it is always forbidden to derive benefit from dedicated animals; however, if one does derive benefit from it, it is not considered sacrilege because the animal is not really sanctified any more. If, however, the original hatat is found (and is blemished) or passed a year before the owners had been atoned for, then the animal need not be left to die. The hatat whose year had passed is let out to pasture until it is blemished and then it can be sold. The hatat that was found blemished can be sold immediately. With the proceeds he buys a new hatat, and that hatat has all of the sanctity of regular hatat. It can make a substitute and if one derives benefit from it, he has committed sacrilege and will have to make restitution.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+When a nazirite finishes his term he must bring three offerings: a hatat (sin-offering), an olah (whole-burnt offering), and a shelamim (well-being offering). Our mishnah deals with how the law of sacrilege and various other laws apply to these three offerings in a case where a person set aside money to buy the sacrifices but had not yet bought them.
+<b>If one has set aside money for his nazirite offerings, it may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it, as it may all be used for the shelamim.</b>  If he set aside money, he is not allowed to use the money, but the laws of sacrilege don’t apply. This is because all of the money might end up going for shelamim (offerings of well-being), and since shelamim are sacrifices of lower sanctity, the laws of sacrilege do not apply to them (see 1:4).
+<b>If he died and left money [for his nazirite offerings] If unspecified it shall go to the fund for voluntary offerings; If specified: The money designated for the hatats shall be taken to the Dead Sea; it may not be used, though the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. With the money designated for an olah they shall bring a olah; the law of sacrilege applies to it. With the money designated for the shelamim they shall bring a shelamim, and it has to be consumed within a day, but requires no bread offering.</b>  If he died and left money, but had not specified how much was to go for each type of sacrifice, then all of the money goes to the general fund in the Temple used to buy voluntary offerings.
+The mishnah now deals with a case where he did specify which coins go for which sacrifices. The money set aside for a hatat must be destroyed. As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, a hatat whose owners have died can’t be sacrificed. While it is forbidden to derive any benefit from this money, if he does it is not sacrilege, because the money was not going to be used to buy a sacrifice. The money for the olah should be used to buy an olah. The law of sacrilege will apply to the olah, as it always does. The money set aside for the shelamim is used for a shelamim. It must be eaten by the next day, as is the law for the shelamim of a nazirite (Zevahim 5:6), but it does not need to be accompanied by a bread-offering, because the nazirite is dead and the bread offering is supposed to be put in his hands (see Numbers 6:19).
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah discusses the law of sacrilege as it relates to blood and the wine libations.
+<b>Rabbi Ishmael says: [the law relating to] blood is lenient at the beginning [before it is offered] and stringent at the end; [the law relating to] libations is stringent at the beginning and lenient at the end.</b>  This section introduces the rest of the mishnah. As we have seen on many occasions, the rabbis frequently compare the laws as they apply in one case with their application in other cases.
+<b>Blood at the beginning is not subject to the law of sacrilege, but is subject to it after it has flowed away to the Wadi Kidron.</b>  Before the blood is put on the altar, it is not subject to the law of sacrilege. This is derived in the Talmud from a midrash. After being spilled or cast against the altar, the blood would flow out of the Temple down into Wadi Kidron. Blood found in the soil surrounding the Wadi was subject to sacrilege. This would mean that anyone using this soil, which was used for fertilizer, would have to pay for its use to the Temple.
+<b>Libations at the beginning are subject to the law of sacrilege, but are exempted from it after they flowed down into the shitin.</b>  Before the wine libations are put on the altar, they are subject to the law of sacrilege. This is because it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. However, after they flow out through the hole on the altar down to the “shittin” the foundations of the altar, the law of sacrilege no longer applies. The general rule is that anything which has had its mitzvah performed is not subject to the law of sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>The ashes of the inner altar and [of the wicks of] the menorah may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  The incense was burned on the inner altar, inside the Sanctuary. It is forbidden to use the ashes from this altar, and to use the wicks of the menorah. However, since their mitzvoth had already been performed, they are not subject to the law of sacrilege, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>If one dedicates ashes they are subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  If after the ashes were removed from the Temple, someone picked them up and dedicated them to the Temple, they would then become subject to sacrilege. In other words, they would remain forbidden but one who did use them would be liable to compensate the Temple.
+<b>Turtle-doves which have not reached the right age and pigeons which have exceeded the right age may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  Turtle-doves can be used as sacrifices when they are mature. Pigeons can only be used when they are young. If one dedicates them before they have reached the right age, or after they have passed their age they may not be used, but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege, because they are not fit to be put on the altar.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon said: turtle-doves which have not yet reached the right age are subject to the law of sacrilege, while pigeons which have exceeded the right age are not allowed for use, but are exempt from the law of sacrilege.</b>  Before turtle-doves reach the right age, they are subject to the law of sacrilege, because they will eventually become fit for the altar. However, he agrees with the previous opinion that once pigeons have passed the age at which they can be sacrificed, they are no longer subject to sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah deals with sacrilege and the products that come from animals milk and eggs.
+<b>The milk of consecrated animals and the eggs of [consecrated] turtle-doves may not be used, but are not subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  The sanctity of a consecrated female animal or turtle-dove applies to the animal itself, but not to the products that come from the animal, such as milk and eggs. While one may not derive any benefit from these items, they are not holy and therefore, they are not subject to the law of sacrilege.
+<b>When is this so? For things dedicated for the altar, but as for things dedicated for Temple upkeep, if one consecrated a chicken both it and its eggs are subject to the law of sacrilege, or [if one dedicated] a she-donkey, both it and its milk are subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  The above exemption from the law of sacrilege applies only if the animal was dedicated for the altar. But if an animal which could not be sacrificed was dedicated, such as a chicken or a donkey, then the animal is considered to have been dedicated for Temple upkeep. This means that the animal will be sold and the profits used to maintain the Temple. In such a case, even those things which the animal produces are holy and are subject to the law of sacrilege. We shall deal more with this subject in tomorrow’s mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Whatever is fit for the altar and not for Temple repair, for Temple repair and not for the altar, neither for the altar nor for Temple repair is subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  A person can be liable for sacrilege for things that are either fit for use on the altar, or fit for use for Temple repair, or not fit for either use. In all cases, it is possible that the law of sacrilege will apply, as the mishnah will now explain.
+<b>How so? If one consecrated a cistern full of water, a dump full of manure, a dove-cote full of pigeons, a tree laden with fruit, a field covered with herbs, the law of sacrilege applies to them and to their contents. But if one consecrated a cistern and it was later filled with water, a dump and it was later filled with manure, a dove-cote and it was later filled with pigeons, a tree and it afterwards bore fruit or a field and it afterwards produced herbs, the law of sacrilege applies to the consecrated objects themselves but not to their contents, the words of Rabbi Judah.</b>  Water is fit for Temple repair but not for the altar. It can be used to make bricks, or for other uses. But this water cannot be put on the altar, because the one water libation done during the year, on Sukkot, was done with water from the Shiloah. The manure is fit for neither use. It would have to be sold and its profits used for Temple upkeep. The pigeons can be put on the altar. Some fruit, such as grapes and olives, can be put on the altar. Other fruit cannot be used on the altar, or for Temple upkeep. They would be sold and the profits used for Temple upkeep. Similarly, herbs cannot be used on the altar, or for Temple upkeep. In all of these cases, the law of sacrilege applies both to the container, and to that which was in it or on it. However, if one dedicates one of these things before it contains the water, manure, etc. only the container/tree/field is subject to the law of sacrilege. The general rule is that which is produced by something dedicated is not subject to the law of sacrilege. This is the opinion of Rabbi Judah.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon says: if one consecrated a field or a tree, the law of sacrilege applies to it and to its produce for it is the growth of consecrated property.</b>  Rabbi Shimon partially disagrees with Rabbi Judah. He holds that if something grows from a consecrated thing, such as fruit from a tree or herbs from a plant, that which grows is subject to the law of sacrilege.
+<b>The young of [cattle set aside as] tithe may not nurse from cattle set aside for tithe, but others consecrate for such use. The young of consecrated cattle may not nurse from consecrated cattle, but others consecrate for such use.</b>  Tithed animals are sacred as are their offspring. Therefore, even their own offspring cannot nurse from them. Other people dedicate milk so that the offspring of tithed or holy animals can have milk to nurse.
+<b>Workers may not eat dry figs dedicated to the Temple, nor may a cow eat of the vetch belonging to the Temple.</b>  Workers who are working on behalf of the Temple, or a cow performing some type of labor needed for the Temple, cannot directly eat produce dedicated to the Temple. Although the Temple must feed the workers or the cow, they still can’t eat holy property. They get their pay from the Temple treasurer. They can then use these funds to buy their own food.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>If the roots of a privately owned tree spread onto dedicated ground, or those of a tree in dedicated ground spread onto private ground, they may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to them.<br>The water of a spring which comes out of a dedicated field may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it When it has left the field it may be used.<br>The water in the golden jar may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it.<br>When it has been poured into the flask, it is subject to the law of sacrilege.<br>The willow branch may not be used, but is not subject to the law of sacrilege. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Zadok says: the elders used to put it with their palm tree branches.</b><br>Section one: In this case, either the tree grows on privately owned, non-sacred ground but its roots spread out onto dedicated ground, or the opposite. Since part of the tree is on sacred ground, it is forbidden to benefit from any of the tree. However, since the entire tree is not on sacred ground, it is not subject to the law of sacrilege.<br>Section two: This refers to a case where a person dedicated his field to the Temple, but he did not dedicate the spring. While the spring is on the field, the water may not be used because it is on dedicated ground. However, since he didn’t dedicate the spring itself, the water is not subject to the law of sacrilege. Once the water has left the field, it can be used. This is different from the case of the tree because all parts of a tree are interconnected. When its roots leave the sacred ground they are not disconnected from that ground, unlike water which is.<br>Section three: This section refers to the water used for the water libation on Sukkot (see Sukkah 4:9-10). The day before Shabbat, they would fill a golden jar with water drawn from the Shiloah spring in Jerusalem, so that the next day they could pour it onto the altar without having to carry from the Shiloah to the Temple. When in this jar, the water cannot be used for other purposes, but it has not yet been sanctified so it is not subject to the law of sacrilege. The golden flask was used on most days to directly draw water from the Shiloah, and on Shabbat they would pour from the golden jar into the golden flask. The flask serves to sanctify the water and therefore once in this flask it is subject to the law of sacrilege.<br>Section four: On Sukkot there was a custom to place willows on the side of the altar (see Sukkah 4:5). That willow cannot be used for other purposes, but it is not subject to the law of sacrilege, because it is not sanctified. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Zadok notes that before putting it next to the altar, the elders used to put it with their palm branches (the lulav). This is not considered illicit use, because when one performs a mitzvah with an object, it is not considered that he has “derived benefit” from the object.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>A nest which is built on the top of a dedicated tree, one may not derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it.</b>  The nest at the top of the dedicated tree is forbidden for use, but since it is not the tree itself, it is not subject to the law of sacrilege.
+<b>That which is on the top of an asherah, one flicks [it] off with a reed.</b>  An asherah is a tree used in idol worship (see Avodah Zarah 3:7). It is forbidden to use the tree. The nest, however, is not prohibited. If a person wants to take the nest, he can flick it off with a reed. Note that the law is stricter when it comes to Temple property there is no way to use the nest.
+<b>If one dedicated a forest to the temple, the law of sacrilege applies to the whole of it.</b>  If a person dedicates an entire forest to the Temple, every part of the tree is sacred and subject to the law of sacrilege, including the leaves.
+However, if the Temple buys a forest in order to use the trees, only the parts of the tree that they intend to use, namely the lumber is subject to the law of sacrilege. The chips and the fallen leaves are not subject to sacrilege because the when the treasurers bought them, they knew that they had no use for them.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This chapter deals with when things join together to create the minimum amount necessary for a violation to have been committed or an obligation to be fulfilled. We begin with the issue of sacrilege, but the following mishnayot proceed to other subjects.
+<b>Things dedicated for the altar combine with one another with regard to the law of sacrilege, and to render one liable over them [for the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement.</b>  To be liable for sacrilege one must derive a perutah’s worth of benefit from sacred property. If one derives benefit from several different things dedicated to the altar, and separately each is not worth a perutah, but together they are, he is liable for sacrilege. They also join together to cause one to be liable for piggul (sacrifices offered with improper intent), notar (remnant) and the prohibition against eating defiled holy things.
+<b>Things dedicated for Temple repair combine with one another.</b>  Things dedicated for Temple repair join together only for sacrilege, but not for the other prohibitions, because these prohibitions do not apply to things dedicated for Temple repair (see Temurah 7:1).
+<b>Things dedicated for the altar combine with things dedicated for Temple repair with regard to the law of sacrilege.</b>  If one has a mixture of things dedicated for the Temple and things dedicated for Temple repair, they can join together to make one liable for sacrilege, because the law of sacrilege applies to them all. However, they do not join together for the other prohibitions, because these prohibitions don’t apply to things dedicated for Temple repair.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah deals with which parts of a sacrifice combine to make one liable for either sacrilege, or piggul, notar or defilement. If a person eats a little of this part and a little of that part, when does he become liable.
+<b>Five things in an olah combine with one another: the flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine and the oil.</b>  The fine flour, the wine and the oil all accompany the olah, the whole-burnt offering. If one eats less than a perutah’s worth of meat, for instance, and less than a perutah’s worth of oil, but together they are worth a perutah, he has committed sacrilege. If he eats them and together they constitute an olive’s worth, and they were piggul, notar or defiled, he has transgressed the prohibition.
+<b>And six in a todah: the flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine, the oil and the bread.</b>  There is one more element when it comes to the todah that doesn’t exist for the olah the loaves that accompany it. These also join with the other parts of the sacrifice. We should note that since the todah (thanksgiving offering) is a sacrifice of lesser holiness, it is not subject to the laws of sacrilege. The six things join together to make one liable for piggul, notar or defilement.
+<b>Terumah, terumah of the tithe, terumah of the tithe separated from demai, hallah and first-fruits combine with one another to make up the size required to render other things   forbidden and to be liable for the payment of a fifth.</b>  The items listed here, which I will explain shortly, join together to render other things forbidden, if enough of them fall into non-sacred things. For instance, if a small amount of terumah oil and a small amount of hallah dough are mixed together and together they constitute a seah then fall into less than 100 seahs of hullin (non-sacred) dough, all of the dough is forbidden to non-priests (see Orlah 2:1). They also join together to make one who eats them unwittingly liable to pay back the principle and an added fifth. One is liable for the added fifth only if he eats an olive’s worth of holy things (see Bava Metzia 4:8). I shall now briefly explain what each is. Terumah: taken from produce and given to the priest. Terumah of tithe: the Levite gives one tenth of his tithe to the priest as terumah. Demai is the tithe separated from produce bought from someone who might not have already tithed it. Terumah is then taken from this demai. Hallah: separated from dough and given to the priest. Bikkurim: first-fruits, also considered to be holy.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>All kinds of piggul can combine with one another and all kinds of notar can combine with one another.</b>  To remind ourselves, piggul is a sacrifice that was offered with the intent of eating it outside of the time in which it must be eaten. If one eats different types of piggul, for instance part that came from a most holy sacrifice such as a hatat, and part that comes from a less holy sacrifice such as shelamim, he is liable for having eaten piggul, if together they add up to the minimum measure of an olive. Notar is sacrifice that is left over after the time in which it must be eaten. The same thing here if the notar comes from different types of sacrifices, it still joins together to create the minimum measure.
+<b>All kinds of carrion can combine with one another.</b>  An olive’s worth of carrion causes impurity. All types of carrion join together to convey this impurity, even if half of the measure is from a pure animal and half is from an impure animal.
+<b>All kinds of sheratzim can combine with one another.</b>  There are eight forbidden sheratzim (creepy crawly things) listed in Leviticus 11:29-30 that convey impurity at the minimum measure of a lentil’s worth. They all join together to create the minimal measure.
+<b>The blood of a sheretz and its flesh can combine with one another.</b>  Just as different sheretzim join together, so too does the blood of the sheretz join with its flesh to add up to the minimum measure.
+<b>A general rule was stated by Rabbi Joshua: all things that are alike both in respect of [duration of] uncleanness and in respect of their minimum measure can combine with one another. Things that are alike in respect [of duration] of uncleanness but not in respect of minimum measure, in respect of minimum measure but not in respect [of duration] of uncleanness, or [if they are alike] neither in respect [of duration] of uncleanness nor in respect of measure, cannot combine with one another.</b>  Rabbi Joshua now provides a general rule as to when different things join together. There are two criteria. First of all, the minimum measure needs to be the same. Second, the rules regarding their impurity need to be the same. So a part of a sheretz and a piece of carrion do not join together because carrion has a minimum measure of an olive, whereas the minimum measure for a sheretz is a lentil. A piece of dead body and a piece of carrion share the same measure (an olive’s worth) but the piece of a dead body cause seven-day impurity, whereas the carrioin causes one day impurity, so they don’t join. All the more so a piece of a dead body won’t join with a piece of sheretz because both their impurity and their measures are different.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In today’s mishnah we learn that different types of prohibited substances do not join together to add up to a sufficient amount for a transgression to have occurred.
+<b>Piggul and remnant do not combine with one another because they are of two different names.</b>  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that different types of piggul can combine together, and different types of sheratzim can combine together, etc. Today we learn that differently named substances do not combine together. So if one eats half of an olive’s worth of piggul and half of an olive’s worth of notar (remnant) he is not liable, because he has not eaten enough prohibited food of one prohibition.
+<b>Sheretz and carrion, as well as carrion and the flesh of a corpse do not combine with one another to effect impurity, not even in respect of the more lenient of the two [grades] of defilement.</b>  Similarly, sheretz (a creepy crawly thing that transmits impurity see yesterday’s mishnah) and carrion, and carrion and flesh from a human corpse do not join together to create the minimum amount needed to effect impurity. This is true even with regard to the lower quantity or level of defilement. For instance, less than a lentil’s worth of a sheretz does not join together with less than an olive’s worth of carrion. Similarly, less than an olive’s worth of a human corpse does not join with less than an olive’s worth of animal carrion to transmit the type of impurity that makes on impure for only one day.
+<b>Food contaminated through contact with a primary defilement can combine with that contaminated by a secondary defilement to affect uncleanness according to the lower degree of defilement of the two.</b>  Food that has been contaminated by contact with a source of primary defilement (such as a dead body) now has first degree defilement. Food that has been contaminated with something that has secondary defilement now has second degree defilement. These different foods can combine to form the minimum amount of an egg’s worth to contaminate other foods according to the lower degree of the two. If the joined substance comes into contact with terumah, it would cause it to have third degree defilement, which is a very low level of defilement. We shall learn more about this when we learn tractate Toharot.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah teaches that different types of food and different types of drink can join together with regard to various matters.
+<b>All kinds of food can combine with one another:<br>To make up the quantity of half a peras in order to render the body unfit</b>  One who eats half of a peras (the equivalent of two eggs) of unclean food, cannot eat terumah until the evening. The food “renders his body unfit” to eat holy food. Different types of unclean food can join to create this minimum amount.
+<b>[To make up the food] for two meals to form an eruv;</b>  One who wants to walk more than two thousand cubits out of his city on Shabbat puts an “eruv,” a meal, at the two thousand cubit mark and then he can walk an additional two thousand cubits. The meal must consist of a certain amount of food (see Eruvin 8:2) and different types of food can join together to create the minimum amount.
+<b>To make up the volume of an egg to contaminate food;</b>  Impure food conveys impurity only if there is the volume of an egg. Different impure foods can join together to create this volume.
+<b>To make up the volume of a dry fig with regard to carrying on Shabbat;</b>  One who carries food from one domain to another on Shabbat is liable only if the food is at least the volume of a dried fig (see Shabbat 7:4).
+<b>And the volume of a date with regard to Yom Kippur. All kinds of drinks can combine with one another:</b>  One who eats a date’s worth of food on Yom Kippur is liable. Again, all different foods join together to create this minimum amount.
+<b>To make up a quarter [of a log] in order to render the body unfit;</b>  One who drinks a quarter of a log of impure drink is rendered unfit to eat terumah until the evening.
+<b>To make up a mouthful with regard to Yom Kippur.</b>  On Yom Kippur, one who drinks a mouthful is liable. In both of these matters, different foods join together.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Orlah and kilayim of the vineyard can combine with one another. Rabbi Shimon says: they do not combine.</b>  According to the first opinion, orlah (fruit during its first three years) and kilayim (seeds) that grow in a vineyard combine with one another. The result is that if half of a seah of orlah and half of a seah of kilayim fall into less than two hundred seahs of regular produce, the regular produce is all prohibited. Rabbi Shimon holds that since these two prohibitions have different names, they don’t combine together. It seems that the first opinion holds that since they are so similar, they do combine.
+<b>Cloth, sack-cloth, sack-cloth and leather, leather and matting combine with one another.</b>  The different materials in this section have different minimum measures for being susceptible to different kinds of uncleanness. Cloth that is three handbreadths square is susceptible to the sitting impurity conveyed by a zav (one with an unusual genital discharge), and for other matters of impurity it is susceptible if it is three fingers square. Sack-cloth must be four by four handbreadths. Leather must be five square handbreadths. And matting must be six square handbreadths. These different materials can join together to create the minimum measure for the most lenient of them. For instance, one handbreadth of cloth will join with three handbreadths of sack-cloth, and one of sack-cloth will join four of leather and one of leather will join five of matting. However, two handbreadths of cloth will not join one handbreadth of sack-cloth, because the cloth is stricter. To put it another way cloth can count as sack-cloth, but sack-cloth cannot count as cloth.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon: What is the reason?  Because these are all susceptible to the uncleanness caused by sitting.</b>  In mishnah three we learned that different substances that do not have the same measure do not join together. Seemingly, today’s mishnah deviates from that rule. Rabbi Shimon explains that it does not actually contradict that rule because when it comes to the impurity conveyed by the sitting of a zav, they all potentially have the same measure. If a person cuts off a small piece of any of these materials, the size of one handbreadth square, and he intends to sit on that material, it is susceptible to sitting impurity when a zav sits on it. Since there is one aspect in which they are all the same, they can join together to create the minimum measure be susceptible to impurity.
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah discusses the basic laws of sacrilege when is a person considered to have derived benefit from a sacred thing such that he is guilty of sacrilege?
+<b>If one derived a perutah's worth of benefit from a sacred thing, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he did not lessen its value, the words of Rabbi Akiva.</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva, one is liable for sacrilege by virtue of his having derived benefit from the object that was dedicated to the Temple. It is irrelevant whether the benefit that he derived diminished the value of the dedicated object. He is guilty because he should not have made such use of a holy item.
+<b>But the sages say: Anything that can deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it only after it has suffered deterioration. And anything that does not deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it as soon as he made use of it.</b>  The other rabbis offer a more nuanced approach to this issue. If the object is one whose value can be diminished by use, then he is not liable for sacrilege unless he actually does cause it to be diminished. However, if the item is not generally diminished by normal use, then one who uses it is liable for sacrilege as long as he derived a perutah’s worth of benefit.
+<b>How is this so? If [a woman] puts a necklace round her neck or a ring on her finger, or if she drank from a golden cup, she is liable to the law of sacrilege as soon as she made use of it [to the value of a perutah]. But if one puts on a shirt or covers oneself with a cloak, or if one chopped [wood] with an axe, he is subject to the law of sacrilege only if [those objects] have suffered deterioration.</b>  The mishnah now illustrates which items are diminished by use and which items are not. The items in the first list are not diminished by use for they are made of metal. Therefore, as soon as the woman using them derives benefit from them, she has committed sacrilege. The items in the second list are diminished, even minimally by use. Therefore, one who uses them is not liable for sacrilege unless he has diminished them by the value of a perutah. It is easiest to think of the rule this way: when an item is diminished by use, we define benefit by its deterioration. For instance, one derives benefit from food, when he has eaten a perutah’s worth of food. But if the item does not deteriorate, we must evaluate it the benefit some other way. The way to do this would be to estimate how much one would pay to use the cup, necklace etc. for such a use. If it is more than a perutah, then she has committed sacrilege.
+<b>If one sheared a hatat while it was alive, he is not liable for sacrilege sacrilege unless he has diminished its value. If when dead, he is liable as soon as he made use of it.</b>  If he shears the hatat animal while it is alive, he has diminished its value. Therefore, he is liable only if the amount he sheared is worth a perutah. In contrast, it is forbidden to derive any benefit from a hatat animal that died (it was not slaughtered as part of the sacrificial process). Its wool has no real value because it must be buried. Therefore, we can’t say that by using the wool he has diminished the animal’s value-the animal has no value. He will be liable for having derived benefit, even without diminishing the animal’s value.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>If one derived half a perutah's worth of benefit and impaired [the value of the used article] by another half a perutah, or if one derived a perutah's worth of benefit from one thing and diminished another thing by the value of a perutah, he had not committed sacrilege, until he benefits a perutah's worth and diminishes the value of a perutah of the same thing.</b> In order to be liable for sacrilege one has to derive a perutah’s worth of benefit and cause the value of the object used to be diminished by the value of a perutah. If both of these elements do not exist, sacrilege has not been committed (assuming that the item is one that does deteriorate with use). Let’s use the case of an ax. If one benefits a perutah’s worth, meaning a person would pay at least a perutah to use the ax for as long as he did, and he at the same time he caused the ax to deteriorate in value by at least a perutah, then he is liable for sacrilege. However, if he derives only half a perutah’s worth of benefit and causes the value to deteriorate by only half of a perutah, he has not committed sacrilege. We don’t add the benefit to the deterioration to arrive at the requisite perutah. If he uses the ax and derives a perutah’s worth of benefit but doesn’t cause it to deteriorate by a perutah, and at the same time he causes some other holy item to deteriorate, for instance he breaks a jar that has been dedicated to the Temple causing the loss of at least a perutah, he is still not liable for sacrilege. Here the benefit came with one object (the ax) and the deterioration with another (the jar). In order for sacrilege to have been committed, the benefit and loss must be with the same object.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>One does not commit sacrilege after sacrilege has already been committed by another person, except with domesticated animals and vessels of ministry.</b>  Once a person has made non-holy use of an item dedicated to the Temple, the item becomes non-sacred and therefore the next person to use it has not committed sacrilege. This is true, however, only of items that become non-sacred (hullin) after secular use has been made of them. Animals that can be used as sacrifices and the vessels of ministry used in the Temple can never become hullin. Therefore, even after sacrilege has already been committed with them, they are still subject to the laws of sacrilege.
+<b>How so? If one rode on a beast and then another came and rode on it and yet another came and rode on it; Or if one drank from a golden cup, then another came and drank and yet another came and drank; Or if one plucked [of the wool] of a hatat, then another came and plucked and yet another came and plucked, all of them are guilty of sacrilege.</b>  The mishnah now cites three examples of sacrilege done either with a sacrificial animal or with a vessel of ministry. In all three of these cases, those who use the animal or vessel after the first sacrilege has already been performed are still liable for sacrilege.
+<b>Rabbi said: anything that cannot be redeemed is subject to the law of sacrilege even after sacrilege has been already committed with it.</b>  Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] adds that anything that cannot be redeemed is subject to multiple acts of sacrilege, because it too, like the vessels, cannot become hullin. This would include birds set aside to be sacrifices, wood and incense (see Menahot 12:1).
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah discusses when exactly a person who takes something from Temple property is considered to have committed sacrilege.
+<b>If he removed a stone or a beam belonging to Temple property, he is not guilty of sacrilege. But if he gave it to his friend he is guilty of sacrilege, but his fellow is not guilty.</b>  Simply removing a stone or a beam from Temple property is not considered sacrilege, because he has not yet benefited from it. However, all he has to do is give it to his friend and he has committed sacrilege because his friend will think highly of him for having given him a present. This is considered enough benefit for him to be considered as having committed sacrilege. His friend who receives the stone or beam cannot be guilty of sacrilege because as we learned in mishnah three, once sacrilege has been committed with an item it becomes hullin and the next person to use it has not committed sacrilege.
+<b>If he built it into his house he is not guilty of sacrilege until he lives beneath it and benefits the equivalent of a perutah.</b>  Using the stone or beam to build his house does not constitute sacrilege until he actually lives in the house with the holy stone or beam.
+<b>If he took a perutah from Temple property he is not guilty of sacrilege. But if he gave it to his friend he is guilty of sacrilege, but his fellow is not guilty.</b>  The same rule that we stated above with regard to the stone or beam is stated here with regard to a simple coin.
+<b>If he gave it to the bathhouse keeper, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he has not bathed, for he can say to him, “Behold the bath is ready for you, go in and bathe.”</b>  If he gives it to the bathhouse keeper, he is liable for sacrilege even before he takes a bath. Once he has paid for his bath, he has a right to take his bath whenever he so wishes. This right is considered to be benefit, and therefore he has committed sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>The portion which a person has eaten himself and that which he has given his friend to eat, or the portion which he has made use of himself and that which he has given to his friend to make use of, or the portion which he has eaten himself and that which he has given his friend to make use of, or the portion which he has made use of himself and that which he has given his friend to eat can combine with one another even after the lapse of a lot of time.</b> If a person eats half of a perutah’s worth of dedicated food (something subject to the laws of sacrilege), and gives his friend half of a perutah’s worth of dedicated food to eat, the two half-perutah’s join together to cause him to be liable for sacrilege. The same is true if he derives half of a perutah’s worth of benefit and he gives his friend half of a perutah’s worth of the dedicated thing. The mishnah now goes through all of the various permutations of this law. To put it briefly, benefit and eating can join together, whether they were directly done by the person, or they were given by one person to another. This is true even if a lot of time lapsed in between the two events. As long as they both occurred in one period of lack of knowledge that the food was dedicated, they can join to make one liable for sacrilege.
+
+Chapter 6
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah deals with the question of one who sends another person to commit an act of sacrilege: who is guilty of the sacrilege, the sender or his agent?
+<b>If an agent has fulfilled his agency, the sender is guilty of sacrilege, but if he has not carried out his agency, he himself is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  The general rule is straightforward if the agent fulfills the sender’s instructions and neither knew that the item (food or otherwise) he was being sent to bring had been dedicated, the sender has committed sacrilege. But if the agent does not fulfill his agency, then we can’t hold the sender responsible and the agent has committed sacrilege. The mishnah now illustrates this.
+<b>How so? If he [the employer] said to him: “Give meat to the guests” and he offered them liver, “[Give] liver” and he offered them meat, he himself is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  “Meat” and “liver” are two different things, according to the lingo of the mishnah. If the sender sent his servant instructing him to give “meat” to the guests, and the servant gave liver (which I would have politely declined), then the agent has committed sacrilege because he did not fulfill his boss’s instructions. The same is true in the opposite case.
+<b>If the employer said to him: “Give them one piece each,” and he said to them: “Take two pieces each,” and the guests took three pieces each, all of them are guilty of sacrilege.</b>  In this case, the servant fulfilled the agency when he gave the guests permission to take one piece. Therefore, the host has committed sacrilege. When the servant gave the second piece, which the host did not instruct him to do, the servant committed sacrilege. And finally, when the guests took a third piece (greedy guests), they committed sacrilege as well. Note that if they had not taken thirds, they would not have been guilty. I hope it teaches them a lesson.
+<b>If he [the employer] said to him, “Bring me [something] from the window or from the chest,” and he brought it to him [from one of these places] even though the employer says, “I meant only from that place” and he brought it from the other place, the employer is guilty of sacrilege. But if he said to him, “Bring it to me from the window,” and he brought it from the chest, or “from the chest” and he brought it to him from the window, the agent is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  In this case, the employer sent his employee to fetch something that turned out to be holy from one of either of two places. When the employee brings him the object and the employer uses it, the employer has committed sacrilege. Since he mentioned both places, he can’t say that he really meant for the object that was in the opposite place to have been brought. However, if he specifies precisely where the object is, and the employee brings an object from somewhere else, then the employee has not fulfilled his instructions and the employee is the one that is guilty of sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with a person who unknowingly sends money that has been dedicated to the Temple with an agent to a storekeeper to buy something.
+<b>One who has sent a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor: If they carried out their agency the employer is guilty, If they did not carry out their appointed errand, the shopkeeper is guilty.</b>  A deaf-mute, imbecile and minor cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. However, if they fulfill their agency, then the one who sent them is liable for sacrilege, just as he is in all cases. If they do not fulfill the agency, then when the shopkeeper spends the money that they gave him, he will be guilty of sacrilege. The money has remained holy until this point, because the deaf-mute, imbecile and minor are not capable of being liable for sacrilege. Had the agent been a person of sound senses, he would have been liable for sacrilege when he didn’t fulfill the employer’s instructions. In such a case, when the storekeeper spends the money he will not be liable.
+<b>If one sent one of sound senses and remembers [that the money belongs to Temple property] before it has come into the possession of the shopkeeper, the shopkeeper will be guilty when he spends it.</b>  Here the employer remembers that the money he gave to his agent is holy, but he remembers too late. The employee is already on his way. At this point the sender cannot be liable for sacrilege, or at least not to bring a sacrifice to atone for sacrilege, because a sacrifice is not brought by one who intentionally commits sacrilege. Although he sent it without knowing it was holy, since he knows before it is used, he is considered as one who intentionally commits sacrilege.
+<b>What should he do?  He should take a perutah or a vessel and say “The perutah that is Temple property, wherever it may be, is redeemed with this;” for consecrated things can be redeemed both with money and with money's worth.</b>  Don’t worry! There is a remedy to prevent the poor innocent storekeeper from committing sacrilege. The sender can redeem the coins even when they are not in his presence. All he has to do is take a perutah or a vessel that is worth at least a perutah and declare that the holiness of the coins that he already sent is transferred to the coin or vessel in his hand. The mishnah concludes by noting that Temple property can be redeemed both by coin and by things that are worth money.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>If he gave him a perutah and said to him: “Bring me for half a perutah lamps and for the other half wicks,” and he went and brought for the whole perutah wicks or for the whole perutah lamps; Or if he said to him, “Bring me for the whole lamps or for the whole wicks,” and he went and brought for half [a perutah] lamps and for the other half wicks, neither is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  In this case the employer has not committed sacrilege because the agent changed his instructions. The agent also has not committed sacrilege for he only changed the instructions by half of a perutah (by spending the whole perutah on one thing and not half on each item). In order for the agent to be liable, he has to change the instructions for the entire perutah.
+<b>But if he said to him, “Bring for half a perutah lamps from one place and for half a perutah wicks from another,” and he went and brought the lamps from the place where the wicks [were to be bought] and the wicks from the place where the lamps [were to be bought], the agent is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  In this case the agent changed the instructions completely and didn’t precisely fulfill any of the instructions that he was sent to fulfill. Therefore, he has committed sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>If he gave him two perutahs and said, “Bring me for them an etrog,” and he brought for one perutah an etrog and for the other a pomegranate, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege for he could say, “I wanted a large etrog and you brought me a small and bad one.”</b>  According to the first opinion, the employer is guilty of sacrilege with one of the perutahs, because the agent did perform the instructions to buy an etrog. The agent is guilty of sacrilege with the other perutah because he changed the instructions and bought a pomegranate with the other perutah. Rabbi Judah argues that the employer is not guilty at all, because he can claim that he wanted a two-perutah etrog, not a one-perutah etrog. Therefore, we don’t consider the agent as having fulfilled half of his instructions; rather he has not fulfilled the instructions at all and he alone is guilty of sacrilege.
+<b>If he gave him a golden denar and said to him, “Bring me a shirt,” and he brought him for three [silver selas] a shirt and for the other three a cloak, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege, for he can argue, “I wanted a large shirt and you brought me a small and bad one.”</b>  The employer sends him with a golden denar to buy a shirt. A golden denar is worth 25 silver denars, or 6.5 silver selas. The agent uses half of the money to buy the cloak, and the other half to buy a shirt. As in the previous section, the first opinion considers them both to have committed sacrilege. The employer committed sacrilege with the first half of the money, and the agent by changing the instructions with the second half. Again, Rabbi Judah argues that only the agent committed sacrilege. The employer sent him to buy a golden denar shirt (Gucci?) and not a cheaper one (Target?), so the agent didn’t fulfill any of his instructions.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>One who deposited money with a moneychanger: if it was tied up, he may not use it; and therefore if he did spend it he is guilty of sacrilege. If it was loose he may use it and therefore if he spent it he is not guilty of sacrilege.</b>  If one deposits dedicated money with a moneychanger and the money is tied up, the moneychanger should not use the coins. If he does use the coins, then he is guilty of sacrilege. Having tied them up, it is as if the owner told him not to use them. However, if they are loose, the owner should expect that the moneychanger might use the coins, and replace them with other coins later on when he returns them. Therefore, if the moneychanger uses them, he has not committed sacrilege. The Talmud explains that in such a case the depositor has committed sacrilege because it is as if he gave the coins to the moneychanger with the explicit permission to use them.
+<b>If [the money was deposited] with a private person, he may not use it in neither case, and therefore if he did spent it he is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  A private person is not supposed to use money deposited with him. Therefore, if he does so and the money is dedicated, he is guilty of sacrilege, whether the money was tied up or given to him loosely.
+<b>A shopkeeper has the status of a private person, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: he is like a money-changer.</b>  According to Rabbi Meir a shopkeeper is like a private person. If someone gives him coins, he may not use them, whether they are tied up or loose. Therefore, in both cases, if he uses the coins he has committed sacrilege. Rabbi Judah holds that a shopkeeper is like a money-changer. Therefore, if the coins were given to him loosely he may use them and in such a case the depositor is the one who will have committed sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah discusses a situation where one dedicated coin is in a bag full of non-sacred coins, but we don’t know which coin it is. If he uses the coins in the bag, at what point is he considered to have committed sacrilege?
+<b>If a perutah belonging to the Temple fell into his bag or if he said, “One perutah in this bag shall be dedicated,” as soon as he spends the first perutah he is guilty of sacrilege, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: not until he has spent all the money that was in the bag.</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva, as soon as he spends a perutah from this bag of coins, he is liable for sacrilege, lest that perutah was the holy one. As a penalty he will bring an asham talui (a suspended asham) for every perutah that he spends. This matches Rabbi Akiva’s position in Keritot 5:2 one who has committed a doubtful act of sacrilege must bring an asham talui. If he spends all of the coins in the bag, he will have to bring a certain asham because at that point we know that he has committed sacrilege. The sages hold that he is not liable for sacrilege until it is certain that he has used the dedicated coin. This is consistent with their opinion in Keritot 5:2 one does not bring an asham talui for sacrilege. He is liable for sacrilege only when he spends all of the coins.
+<b>Rabbi Akiva agrees if he says, “A perutah out of this bag shall be dedicated,” he is permitted to keep on spending [and is liable only] when he has spent all that was in the bag.</b>  “A perutah out of this bag shall be dedicated” is interpreted to mean that the owner will give a perutah from the coins in this bag to the Temple. In other words, none of the coins are holy now, but one will be holy later on. In this case, Rabbi Akiva agrees with the sages that the he is not liable for sacrilege unless he uses all of the coins in the bag. Congratulations!  We have finished Tractate Meilah! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. By dedicating an entire chapter to the topic of sacrilege, we learn just how serious a crime it is to use funds in an inappropriate manner. In modern Hebrew “meilah” is the word for embezzlement, a crime that unfortunately many of our leaders cannot seem to avoid. Meilah teaches us boundaries holy property, dedicated for the spiritual use of the community cannot be used for non-sacred purposes. Furthermore, when one does so, it is not enough just to pay back the embezzled funds. One must add an additional one-fifth and bring a sacrifice to atone for the crime. Although, as always, the technical aspects of this crime overwhelm the rabbinic discussion, there is a moral lesson that lies behind them as well. I hope you have enjoyed Meilah. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Tamid.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah/English/merged.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,307 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה מעילה
+merged
+https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Meilah
+This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
+-Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+-http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Meilah
+
+Introduction
+
+Meilah is translated either as “sacrilege” or “trespass.” It refers to one who unwittingly makes prohibited use of property that belongs to the Temple. The subject is dealt with in Leviticus 5:15-16:
+When a person commits trespass, being unwittingly remiss about any of the Lord’s sacred things, he shall bring as his penalty to the Lord a ram without blemish from the flock, convertible into payment in silver by the sanctuary weight, as an asham (guilt offering). He make restitution for that wherein he was remiss about the sacred things, and he shall add a fifth part to it and give it to the priest. The priest shall make expiation on his behalf with the ram of the guilt offering, and he shall be forgiven.
+As we can see from these verses when a person commits sacrilege he must do three things: 1) bring an asham; 2) make restitution for the amount he benefited; 3) add an extra fifth. The restitution and the added fifth are given to the Temple in place of that which he benefited.  	One who intentionally trespasses pays back only the principle. He does not pay back an extra fifth nor does he bring a sacrifice. There is a debate about his punishment: according to Rabbi he gets “death by the hands of heaven” whereas the other rabbis hold that he receives lashes.  	With that brief introduction, we are on our merry way. Good luck!  
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah discusses cases where the laws of sacrilege apply to animals despite the fact that the sacrifice was disqualified.
+<b>Most holy sacrifices which were slaughtered on the south side [of the altar], the law of sacrilege [still] applies to them.</b>  Most holy sacrifices must be sacrificed on the north side of the altar (Zevahim 5:1-5). If they are sacrificed on the south side, they are disqualified. Nevertheless, if a person derives benefit from them he has committed sacrilege and must bring a sacrifice, make restitution and bring the added fifth. Despite the fact that these are disqualified sacrifices, they still retain their holiness.
+<b>If they were slaughtered on the south side and their blood received on the north or [slaughtered] on the north side and their blood received on the south, or if they were slaughtered by day and [their blood] sprinkled during the night or [slaughtered] during the night and [their blood] sprinkled by day, or if they were slaughtered [with the intention of eating the flesh] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, the law of sacrilege still applies to them.</b>  This section contains a list of other actions that disqualify a sacrifice. A most holy sacrifice must be slaughtered and have its blood received on the north side. It must be slaughtered and have its blood received during the day. The intention of the one performing the sacrifice must be to eat it in its proper time and place. However, if the sacrifice is disqualified, it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege.
+<b>Rabbi Joshua stated a general rule: whatever has at some time been permitted to the priests is not subject to the law of sacrilege, and whatever has at no time been permitted to the priests is subject to the law of sacrilege. Which is that which has at some time been permitted to the priests? [Sacrifices] which remained overnight or became defiled or were taken out [of the Temple Court]. Which is that which has at no time been permitted to the priests? [Sacrifices] that were slaughtered [with the intention of eating its flesh] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, or [the blood of which] was received by the unfit and they sprinkled it.</b>  Rabbi Joshua has a different rule as to when the laws of sacrilege apply to a disqualified sacrifice. If the sacrifice was at one time edible by priests, then these laws do not apply. This is the case if the blood was spilled on the altar in the correct fashion, but then the sacrifice was disqualified by becoming remnant, impure or by being taken out of the Temple. In these cases the meat was permitted and then became forbidden. However, if the meat was never permitted, such as the cases in section one, or a case where someone unfit either received the blood in a vessel or poured the blood onto the altar, in all of these cases the laws of sacrilege do apply, as we taught in sections one and two.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In this mishnah Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva argue about whether meat from most holy sacrifices that was taken out of the Temple before its blood was sprinkled on the altar is subject to the laws of sacrilege.
+<b>If the flesh of most holy sacrifices was taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is still subject to the laws of sacrilege and one does not become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiba says: it is not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with it the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement.</b>  There are two background halakhot necessary to understand this debate: 1) The flesh of most holy sacrifices cannot be taken out of the Temple courtyard. 2) Once the blood of a sacrifice has been sprinkled on the altar, the sacrifice can be eaten by the priests. In this mishnah the flesh was taken out before the blood was sprinkled, such that the flesh was never edible. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that if the flesh of a sacrifice was never at a point where it could be eaten by the priests, then it is subject to the laws of sacrilege. In our case, since the flesh was never at a point where it could be eaten by the priests, because it was disqualified before its blood was spilled, it is subject to the laws of sacrilege. However, it is not subject to the laws of piggul (improper intention when offering the sacrifice), remnant or the prohibition of eating leftover sacrifices, because it never became edible. These prohibitions refer only to edible meat. To summarize the essential issue: according to Rabbi Eliezer, since the blood was sprinkled only after the flesh was disqualified, this meat is never considered edible.
+<b>Rabbi Akiba said: if one set aside his hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place and afterwards the first was found, and both of them are in front of us, [do you not agree] that just as [the sprinkling of] the blood [of the one] exempts its own flesh [from the laws of sacrilege] so it exempts the flesh of the other one?</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva, even though the sprinkling of the blood took place only after the flesh had left the courtyard and it does not therefore allow the flesh to be eaten, it does remove the flesh from the category of being subject to sacrilege. In other words, it counts as edible, even though it can’t be eaten for some other reason. Since it is treated as if it is edible meat (even though it can’t be eaten) it is liable for the laws of piggul, notar or defilement.
+<b>Now, if the sprinkling of its blood can exempt the flesh of the other from the laws of sacrilege, how much more must it exempt its own flesh.</b>  Rabbi Akiva now argues by analogy. If one sets aside a hatat and then it is lost, he must set aside another in its place. If the first animal is found, the second one cannot be sacrificed (see Temurah 4:3). However, if he slaughters the first and sprinkles its blood, the sprinkling removes both that hatat and the second, unusable hatat from being subject to sacrilege. In other words, here you have a case where the sprinkling of blood can exempt an animal for being subject to sacrilege, even if the sprinkling does not make the animal’s flesh edible permitted to eat. Rabbi Akiva now takes the argument one step further. If sprinkling of one animal’s blood can exempt another animal’s disqualified flesh from being subject to sacrilege, shouldn’t it be able to exempt its own flesh from being subject to sacrilege. Thus, in our case, although the flesh was disqualified by being taken out of the Temple court, once its blood has been sprinkled, it is no longer subject to the laws of sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah deals with the innards of sacrifices of a lower degree of holiness. These innards are burned on the altar after the blood has been spilled. As in yesterday’s mishnah, today we discuss a case where these innards left the Temple courtyard. This disqualifies them from being able to be placed on the altar.
+As in yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi disagree about whether the laws of sacrilege apply. Their opinions are consistent with those found in yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>If the innards of sacrifices of that have a lower degree of holiness were taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled:<br>Rabbi Eliezer says: they are not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one cannot become guilty of [transgressing with them the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer holds that when it comes to the rules of sacrilege, the same rules that applied in yesterday’s mishnah to the flesh of most holy sacrifices, apply to the innards of less holy sacrifices. Once they were taken out of the Temple, they became disqualified from being subsequently placed on the altar. The laws of sacrilege therefore do apply, even after the blood was spilled. The other laws do not apply because this flesh was never able to have been placed on the altar.
+<b>Rabbi Akiva says: they are subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with them the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement.</b>  Rabbi Akiva holds that even though the innards were removed from the Temple before the blood was sprinkled, the sprinkling does make them subject to the laws of sacrilege, the same as it did for the flesh in yesterday’s mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah compares the effect that the sprinkling of the blood on the altar has on sacrifices of both higher and lower degrees of holiness.
+<b>The act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.</b>  This is an introductory note delineating the structure of the remainder of the mishnah.
+<b>How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect.</b>  Before the sprinkling of the blood the flesh of most holy sacrifices cannot be eaten by the priests, and its innards cannot be placed on the altar. At this point all parts are subject to the laws of sacrilege. Once the blood is sprinkled, the laws of sacrilege do not apply to the flesh, because it can be eaten by the priests. This is a lenient effect. The innards are still subject to sacrilege, because they can never be eaten. After the sprinkling of the blood, the flesh becomes subject to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement, three laws which apply only to edible flesh. This is the stringent effect.
+<b>With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.</b>  When it comes to less holy sacrifices, the sprinkling only has a stringent effect. Before the sprinkling, the laws of sacrilege do not apply at all, because they are not yet considered holy. We should note that the laws of meilah (sacrilege) never apply to the flesh of sacrifices of lesser holiness, because they can be eaten by anyone, and not just priests. Sacrilege applies only to food that can be eaten only by priests. Nevertheless, once the blood is sprinkled, the laws of sacrilege do apply to the innards. This is a stringent effect. The sprinkling also serves to make all parts subject to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement, which again is a stringent effect. It turns out that here the sprinkling of blood only has a stringent effect.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This entire chapter discusses various states of preparation of every type of sacrifice, and when the sacrifice becomes liable for various prohibitions. As we shall see, the pattern of this mishnah is repeated throughout this highly stylized chapter. There are some halakhot that I will explain here and then refer to throughout the mishnah, so save the commentary for future reference.
+The first topic is the bird hatat.
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat of a bird from the moment of its dedication.</b>  As soon as a bird hatat is dedicated, it is subject to the laws of sacrilege, even when it is still alive. Since it is still not edible to the priests, the laws of sacrilege apply (see 1:1).
+<b>With the pinching of its neck it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.</b>  Once its neck is pinched, which is how bird sacrifices are slaughtered, it is now subject to disqualification by contact with a “tevul yom.” A “tevul yom” is a person who has immersed in the mikveh but is not fully pure until the sun sets that evening (see Leviticus 22:7). It can also be disqualified by contact with a person who has gone through his purification process but must still bring the requisite sacrifices the next day (see Keritot 2:1). If the blood remains overnight without being sprinkled on the altar, the sacrifice is disqualified.
+<b>Once its blood has been sprinkled it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, but the law of sacrilege no longer applies to it.</b>  Once the blood has been sprinkled, its flesh is edible and is therefore liable to the laws of piggul, notar and defilement. Piggul is a disqualification that occurs if the priest sacrifices it with the intention of eating it after it can no longer be eaten. Notar is remnat, and defilement refers to the prohibition of eating a sacrifice that has been ritually defiled. Since the bird hatat can now be eaten by the priests, it is no longer subject to the laws of sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the olah of a bird from the moment of its dedication.<br>With the pinching of its neck it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.<br>Once its blood has been squeezed out [onto the walls of the altar] it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement;<br>And the law of sacrilege applies to it until [the ashes have been] removed [from the altar] to the place of the ashes.</b><br>Today’s mishnah deals with the bird olah, a whole burnt offering. Most of its laws are the same as those found in yesterday’s mishnah.<br>Sections one-three: These laws are the same as those found in yesterday’s mishnah. See there for an explanation.<br>Section four: Since an olah never becomes edible, the laws of sacrilege apply longer than they do to the hatat, which can be eaten by the priests. The flesh is still subject to sacrilege until it is burned and the ashes are removed from the altar and brought out to the “places of ashes” which was outside of the Temple/Tabernacle (see Leviticus 6:4). At this point its mitzvah has been completed and it is therefore no longer subject to the law of sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the bullocks which are to be burned and the goats which are to be burned from the moment of their dedication.<br>Once slaughtered they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.<br>Once their blood has been sprinkled they are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement.<br>And the law of sacrilege applies to them even while they are at the place of the ashes so long as the flesh has not been charred.</b><br>This mishnah is very similar to the first two mishnayot of this chapter, except it deals with the bullocks and goats that are burned. There are three types of bullocks that are burned: 1) The bullock offered on Yom Kippur; 2) the bullock offered by a high priest for issuing a mistaken instruction; 3) the bullock offered by the court that makes a mistaken instruction. There are two types of goats that are burned: 1) The goat offered on Yom Kippur; 2) The goat offered by a court for making a mistaken instruction concerning a law related to idol worship.<br>Sections 1-3: See mishnayot one and two above for an explanation.<br>Section four: The law of sacrilege continues to apply to the burned bullocks and goats even after they are brought out to the place of burning. It applies until their flesh has been charred and its appearance has changed. This is when their burning is technically complete (see Zevahim 12:6) and at that point the law of sacrilege no longer applies.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to an olah from the moment of its dedication.<br>When it is slaughtered it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.<br>Once its blood has been sprinkled it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement;<br>And the law of sacrilege does not apply to its hide, but it does apply to it flesh until [the ashes have been] removed [from the altar] to the place of the ashes.</b><br>Today’s mishnah deals with the animal olah.<br>Sections one-three: See mishnah two.<br>Section four: Immediately after it is slaughtered, the hide belongs to the priest. Therefore, the law of sacrilege stops applying to the hide. However, the law of sacrilege continues to apply to its flesh, which is not eaten by the priest. It only stops when the flesh is removed from the altar and brought to the place of ashes.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat, and asham and to shelamim sacrifices of the congregation from the moment of their dedication.<br>Once slaughtered they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.<br>Once their blood has been sprinkled they are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement.<br>The law of sacrilege then no longer applies to the flesh, but applies to the innards until the ashes are removed to the place of the ashes.</b><br>This mishnah refers to other most holy sacrifices, namely the hatat, the asham and the public shelamim sacrifices. These are the two lambs sacrificed on Shavuot. They are considered most holy sacrifices, although other shelamim sacrifices are sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness.<br>Sections one-three: See the previous mishnayot.<br>Section four: Once the animal has been slaughtered, the flesh may be eaten by the priests, and therefore the law of sacrilege no longer applies. However it continues to apply to the innards until they are burned and then brought out to the place of ashes.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+On Shavuot two loaves of bread are brought with the sacrifices. Our mishnah is concerned with when the law of sacrilege applies to these loaves.
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the two loaves of bread from the moment of their dedication.</b>  Same as mishnayot above.
+<b>Once they have formed a crust in the oven they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, and the [festival] offerings can then be slaughtered.</b>  Once they have formed a crust, they are considered food and they are liable to become disqualified in all of these ways (see above mishnayot). Note that “remaining overnight” is not found in this mishnah because the two loaves are cooked the night before the festival. They always remain overnight. Once they have formed a crust, they are considered bread and at this point the priests can slaughter the festival sacrifices (see Leviticus 23:20).
+<b>Once the blood of the lambs has been sprinkled they [the loaves] are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to them.</b>  Once the blood of the lambs has been sprinkled, one who eats them can be liable if they have been disqualified. And since the priests can now eat the loaves, they are no longer subject to the laws of sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah deals with the showbread that is placed on the table in the Sanctuary every Shabbat.
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the showbread from the moment of its dedication.</b>  See above mishnayot.
+<b>Once it has formed a crust in the oven it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, and it may be arranged upon the table [of the Sanctuary].</b>  As with the two loaves in yesterday’s mishnah, the showbread can become disqualified once it has become crusted. It is also at this point that it can be taken out of the oven and arranged on the table.
+<b>Once the dishes of incense have been offered it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to it.</b>  Two dishes of incense were placed over the showbread. If the bread was “piggul”  while he was burning the incense he had the intent of eating the bread on the next day he would be liable for eating it. Similarly, if he waited until it was remnant (notar) or ate it after it was defiled he would be liable. As is always the case, once the bread has become defiled, it is no longer subject to the law of sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Our mishnah discusses how the law of sacrilege relates to menahot.<br>The law of sacrilege applies to menahot (grain from the moment of their dedication.</b>  See every other mishnah in this chapter.
+<b>Once they have become sacred by being put in the vessel [of service] they become susceptible for unfitness through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight.</b>  Once the minhah is placed in a vessel it can be disqualified. The rest of the categories are the same as those in every other mishnah in this chapter.
+<b>Once the handful has been offered they are subject to [the law of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to the remnants, but it applies to the handful until its ashes have been removed to the place of the ashes.</b>  Once the handful has been removed and placed on the altar, the minhah can be eaten by the priests, and therefore the law of sacrilege no longer applies. However, one who eats it in a disqualified state is now liable for the three prohibitions mentioned in all of the mishnayot above.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to the handful [of a minhah], the frankincense, the incense, the minhah of a priest, the minhah of the anointed high priest and the minhah that is accompanied by a libation, from the moment of their dedication.</b>  All of these menahot or other items (incense) are completely burned on the altar. No parts thereof are given to the priest. Therefore, the law of sacrilege will always apply to them.
+<b>Once they have become sacred by being put in the vessel, they become susceptible for unfitness through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight, and they are subject to [the laws of] notar and defilement, but [the law of] piggul does not apply to them.</b>  Most of this section is the same as that in yesterday’s mishnah except that the laws of piggul do not apply to any of these items.  The mishnah will now explain why the laws of piggul do not apply.
+<b>This is the general rule: whatever has something else which renders it permissible [for the altar or for the use of the priests] is not subject to [the laws of] piggul, nothar and defilement until that act has been performed. And whatever does not have something else which renders it permissible becomes subject [to the laws of] notar and defilement as soon as it has become sacred by being put in the vessel, but piggul does not apply to it.</b>  Any sacrificial item that has something else that allows it to be burned or eaten is subject to all of these laws, but only after that other thing has been done. For instance, the flesh of an animal is subject to these laws after the blood has been sprinkled on the altar (see mishnayot 1-5). The innards can be put on the altar once the blood has been sprinkled. The minhah can be eaten once the handful has been removed. The two loaves can be eaten once the blood of the lambs has been thrown on the altar, and the showbread can be eaten once the incense has been burned. All of these have other things that permit them. In contrast, the list in our mishnah “permits itself.” In other words, these things can be sacrificed immediately (none of them are eaten) without waiting for something else to be done. Therefore, they are subject immediately to the laws of notar and defilement. Piggul never applies to such items. For further discussion see Zevahim 4:3.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is found word for word in Temurah 4:1. It is brought here because it also deals with sacrilege. I have mostly replicated my commentary from there.
+In Temurah 2:2 we learned that there are five types of hataot (pl. of hatat) that are left to die because they can’t be sacrificed and neither can they be eaten. Our mishnah deals with these five hataot.
+<b>The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die.</b>  These are the first three categories of hataot that are left to die. Basically, once the owner has been atoned for, the hatat cannot be sacrificed. The first two cannot be sacrificed because the owner received atonement from the original animal. If the owner died, then he no longer needs atonement so his hatat too cannot be sacrificed.
+<b>A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the law of sacrilege does apply.</b>  When it comes to the fourth and fifth types of hatat that must be left to die, it depends on whether the owners have already received atonement through another animal. If the owners have already been atoned for by bringing another animal as a hatat, then the original hatat (the one whose year had passed or which had been lost and then was found) must be left to die. If the owner tries to substitute for it, it no longer can make a substitute. It is forbidden to derive any benefit from it, as it is always forbidden to derive benefit from dedicated animals; however, if one does derive benefit from it, it is not considered sacrilege because the animal is not really sanctified any more. If, however, the original hatat is found (and is blemished) or passed a year before the owners had been atoned for, then the animal need not be left to die. The hatat whose year had passed is let out to pasture until it is blemished and then it can be sold. The hatat that was found blemished can be sold immediately. With the proceeds he buys a new hatat, and that hatat has all of the sanctity of regular hatat. It can make a substitute and if one derives benefit from it, he has committed sacrilege and will have to make restitution.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+When a nazirite finishes his term he must bring three offerings: a hatat (sin-offering), an olah (whole-burnt offering), and a shelamim (well-being offering). Our mishnah deals with how the law of sacrilege and various other laws apply to these three offerings in a case where a person set aside money to buy the sacrifices but had not yet bought them.
+<b>If one has set aside money for his nazirite offerings, it may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it, as it may all be used for the shelamim.</b>  If he set aside money, he is not allowed to use the money, but the laws of sacrilege don’t apply. This is because all of the money might end up going for shelamim (offerings of well-being), and since shelamim are sacrifices of lower sanctity, the laws of sacrilege do not apply to them (see 1:4).
+<b>If he died and left money [for his nazirite offerings] If unspecified it shall go to the fund for voluntary offerings; If specified: The money designated for the hatats shall be taken to the Dead Sea; it may not be used, though the law of sacrilege does not apply to it. With the money designated for an olah they shall bring a olah; the law of sacrilege applies to it. With the money designated for the shelamim they shall bring a shelamim, and it has to be consumed within a day, but requires no bread offering.</b>  If he died and left money, but had not specified how much was to go for each type of sacrifice, then all of the money goes to the general fund in the Temple used to buy voluntary offerings.
+The mishnah now deals with a case where he did specify which coins go for which sacrifices. The money set aside for a hatat must be destroyed. As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, a hatat whose owners have died can’t be sacrificed. While it is forbidden to derive any benefit from this money, if he does it is not sacrilege, because the money was not going to be used to buy a sacrifice. The money for the olah should be used to buy an olah. The law of sacrilege will apply to the olah, as it always does. The money set aside for the shelamim is used for a shelamim. It must be eaten by the next day, as is the law for the shelamim of a nazirite (Zevahim 5:6), but it does not need to be accompanied by a bread-offering, because the nazirite is dead and the bread offering is supposed to be put in his hands (see Numbers 6:19).
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah discusses the law of sacrilege as it relates to blood and the wine libations.
+<b>Rabbi Ishmael says: [the law relating to] blood is lenient at the beginning [before it is offered] and stringent at the end; [the law relating to] libations is stringent at the beginning and lenient at the end.</b>  This section introduces the rest of the mishnah. As we have seen on many occasions, the rabbis frequently compare the laws as they apply in one case with their application in other cases.
+<b>Blood at the beginning is not subject to the law of sacrilege, but is subject to it after it has flowed away to the Wadi Kidron.</b>  Before the blood is put on the altar, it is not subject to the law of sacrilege. This is derived in the Talmud from a midrash. After being spilled or cast against the altar, the blood would flow out of the Temple down into Wadi Kidron. Blood found in the soil surrounding the Wadi was subject to sacrilege. This would mean that anyone using this soil, which was used for fertilizer, would have to pay for its use to the Temple.
+<b>Libations at the beginning are subject to the law of sacrilege, but are exempted from it after they flowed down into the shitin.</b>  Before the wine libations are put on the altar, they are subject to the law of sacrilege. This is because it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. However, after they flow out through the hole on the altar down to the “shittin” the foundations of the altar, the law of sacrilege no longer applies. The general rule is that anything which has had its mitzvah performed is not subject to the law of sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>The ashes of the inner altar and [of the wicks of] the menorah may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  The incense was burned on the inner altar, inside the Sanctuary. It is forbidden to use the ashes from this altar, and to use the wicks of the menorah. However, since their mitzvoth had already been performed, they are not subject to the law of sacrilege, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>If one dedicates ashes they are subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  If after the ashes were removed from the Temple, someone picked them up and dedicated them to the Temple, they would then become subject to sacrilege. In other words, they would remain forbidden but one who did use them would be liable to compensate the Temple.
+<b>Turtle-doves which have not reached the right age and pigeons which have exceeded the right age may not be used but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  Turtle-doves can be used as sacrifices when they are mature. Pigeons can only be used when they are young. If one dedicates them before they have reached the right age, or after they have passed their age they may not be used, but they are not subject to the law of sacrilege, because they are not fit to be put on the altar.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon said: turtle-doves which have not yet reached the right age are subject to the law of sacrilege, while pigeons which have exceeded the right age are not allowed for use, but are exempt from the law of sacrilege.</b>  Before turtle-doves reach the right age, they are subject to the law of sacrilege, because they will eventually become fit for the altar. However, he agrees with the previous opinion that once pigeons have passed the age at which they can be sacrificed, they are no longer subject to sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah deals with sacrilege and the products that come from animals milk and eggs.
+<b>The milk of consecrated animals and the eggs of [consecrated] turtle-doves may not be used, but are not subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  The sanctity of a consecrated female animal or turtle-dove applies to the animal itself, but not to the products that come from the animal, such as milk and eggs. While one may not derive any benefit from these items, they are not holy and therefore, they are not subject to the law of sacrilege.
+<b>When is this so? For things dedicated for the altar, but as for things dedicated for Temple upkeep, if one consecrated a chicken both it and its eggs are subject to the law of sacrilege, or [if one dedicated] a she-donkey, both it and its milk are subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  The above exemption from the law of sacrilege applies only if the animal was dedicated for the altar. But if an animal which could not be sacrificed was dedicated, such as a chicken or a donkey, then the animal is considered to have been dedicated for Temple upkeep. This means that the animal will be sold and the profits used to maintain the Temple. In such a case, even those things which the animal produces are holy and are subject to the law of sacrilege. We shall deal more with this subject in tomorrow’s mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Whatever is fit for the altar and not for Temple repair, for Temple repair and not for the altar, neither for the altar nor for Temple repair is subject to the law of sacrilege.</b>  A person can be liable for sacrilege for things that are either fit for use on the altar, or fit for use for Temple repair, or not fit for either use. In all cases, it is possible that the law of sacrilege will apply, as the mishnah will now explain.
+<b>How so? If one consecrated a cistern full of water, a dump full of manure, a dove-cote full of pigeons, a tree laden with fruit, a field covered with herbs, the law of sacrilege applies to them and to their contents. But if one consecrated a cistern and it was later filled with water, a dump and it was later filled with manure, a dove-cote and it was later filled with pigeons, a tree and it afterwards bore fruit or a field and it afterwards produced herbs, the law of sacrilege applies to the consecrated objects themselves but not to their contents, the words of Rabbi Judah.</b>  Water is fit for Temple repair but not for the altar. It can be used to make bricks, or for other uses. But this water cannot be put on the altar, because the one water libation done during the year, on Sukkot, was done with water from the Shiloah. The manure is fit for neither use. It would have to be sold and its profits used for Temple upkeep. The pigeons can be put on the altar. Some fruit, such as grapes and olives, can be put on the altar. Other fruit cannot be used on the altar, or for Temple upkeep. They would be sold and the profits used for Temple upkeep. Similarly, herbs cannot be used on the altar, or for Temple upkeep. In all of these cases, the law of sacrilege applies both to the container, and to that which was in it or on it. However, if one dedicates one of these things before it contains the water, manure, etc. only the container/tree/field is subject to the law of sacrilege. The general rule is that which is produced by something dedicated is not subject to the law of sacrilege. This is the opinion of Rabbi Judah.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon says: if one consecrated a field or a tree, the law of sacrilege applies to it and to its produce for it is the growth of consecrated property.</b>  Rabbi Shimon partially disagrees with Rabbi Judah. He holds that if something grows from a consecrated thing, such as fruit from a tree or herbs from a plant, that which grows is subject to the law of sacrilege.
+<b>The young of [cattle set aside as] tithe may not nurse from cattle set aside for tithe, but others consecrate for such use. The young of consecrated cattle may not nurse from consecrated cattle, but others consecrate for such use.</b>  Tithed animals are sacred as are their offspring. Therefore, even their own offspring cannot nurse from them. Other people dedicate milk so that the offspring of tithed or holy animals can have milk to nurse.
+<b>Workers may not eat dry figs dedicated to the Temple, nor may a cow eat of the vetch belonging to the Temple.</b>  Workers who are working on behalf of the Temple, or a cow performing some type of labor needed for the Temple, cannot directly eat produce dedicated to the Temple. Although the Temple must feed the workers or the cow, they still can’t eat holy property. They get their pay from the Temple treasurer. They can then use these funds to buy their own food.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>If the roots of a privately owned tree spread onto dedicated ground, or those of a tree in dedicated ground spread onto private ground, they may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to them.<br>The water of a spring which comes out of a dedicated field may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it When it has left the field it may be used.<br>The water in the golden jar may not be used, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it.<br>When it has been poured into the flask, it is subject to the law of sacrilege.<br>The willow branch may not be used, but is not subject to the law of sacrilege. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Zadok says: the elders used to put it with their palm tree branches.</b><br>Section one: In this case, either the tree grows on privately owned, non-sacred ground but its roots spread out onto dedicated ground, or the opposite. Since part of the tree is on sacred ground, it is forbidden to benefit from any of the tree. However, since the entire tree is not on sacred ground, it is not subject to the law of sacrilege.<br>Section two: This refers to a case where a person dedicated his field to the Temple, but he did not dedicate the spring. While the spring is on the field, the water may not be used because it is on dedicated ground. However, since he didn’t dedicate the spring itself, the water is not subject to the law of sacrilege. Once the water has left the field, it can be used. This is different from the case of the tree because all parts of a tree are interconnected. When its roots leave the sacred ground they are not disconnected from that ground, unlike water which is.<br>Section three: This section refers to the water used for the water libation on Sukkot (see Sukkah 4:9-10). The day before Shabbat, they would fill a golden jar with water drawn from the Shiloah spring in Jerusalem, so that the next day they could pour it onto the altar without having to carry from the Shiloah to the Temple. When in this jar, the water cannot be used for other purposes, but it has not yet been sanctified so it is not subject to the law of sacrilege. The golden flask was used on most days to directly draw water from the Shiloah, and on Shabbat they would pour from the golden jar into the golden flask. The flask serves to sanctify the water and therefore once in this flask it is subject to the law of sacrilege.<br>Section four: On Sukkot there was a custom to place willows on the side of the altar (see Sukkah 4:5). That willow cannot be used for other purposes, but it is not subject to the law of sacrilege, because it is not sanctified. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Zadok notes that before putting it next to the altar, the elders used to put it with their palm branches (the lulav). This is not considered illicit use, because when one performs a mitzvah with an object, it is not considered that he has “derived benefit” from the object.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>A nest which is built on the top of a dedicated tree, one may not derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply to it.</b>  The nest at the top of the dedicated tree is forbidden for use, but since it is not the tree itself, it is not subject to the law of sacrilege.
+<b>That which is on the top of an asherah, one flicks [it] off with a reed.</b>  An asherah is a tree used in idol worship (see Avodah Zarah 3:7). It is forbidden to use the tree. The nest, however, is not prohibited. If a person wants to take the nest, he can flick it off with a reed. Note that the law is stricter when it comes to Temple property there is no way to use the nest.
+<b>If one dedicated a forest to the temple, the law of sacrilege applies to the whole of it.</b>  If a person dedicates an entire forest to the Temple, every part of the tree is sacred and subject to the law of sacrilege, including the leaves.
+However, if the Temple buys a forest in order to use the trees, only the parts of the tree that they intend to use, namely the lumber is subject to the law of sacrilege. The chips and the fallen leaves are not subject to sacrilege because the when the treasurers bought them, they knew that they had no use for them.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This chapter deals with when things join together to create the minimum amount necessary for a violation to have been committed or an obligation to be fulfilled. We begin with the issue of sacrilege, but the following mishnayot proceed to other subjects.
+<b>Things dedicated for the altar combine with one another with regard to the law of sacrilege, and to render one liable over them [for the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement.</b>  To be liable for sacrilege one must derive a perutah’s worth of benefit from sacred property. If one derives benefit from several different things dedicated to the altar, and separately each is not worth a perutah, but together they are, he is liable for sacrilege. They also join together to cause one to be liable for piggul (sacrifices offered with improper intent), notar (remnant) and the prohibition against eating defiled holy things.
+<b>Things dedicated for Temple repair combine with one another.</b>  Things dedicated for Temple repair join together only for sacrilege, but not for the other prohibitions, because these prohibitions do not apply to things dedicated for Temple repair (see Temurah 7:1).
+<b>Things dedicated for the altar combine with things dedicated for Temple repair with regard to the law of sacrilege.</b>  If one has a mixture of things dedicated for the Temple and things dedicated for Temple repair, they can join together to make one liable for sacrilege, because the law of sacrilege applies to them all. However, they do not join together for the other prohibitions, because these prohibitions don’t apply to things dedicated for Temple repair.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah deals with which parts of a sacrifice combine to make one liable for either sacrilege, or piggul, notar or defilement. If a person eats a little of this part and a little of that part, when does he become liable.
+<b>Five things in an olah combine with one another: the flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine and the oil.</b>  The fine flour, the wine and the oil all accompany the olah, the whole-burnt offering. If one eats less than a perutah’s worth of meat, for instance, and less than a perutah’s worth of oil, but together they are worth a perutah, he has committed sacrilege. If he eats them and together they constitute an olive’s worth, and they were piggul, notar or defiled, he has transgressed the prohibition.
+<b>And six in a todah: the flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine, the oil and the bread.</b>  There is one more element when it comes to the todah that doesn’t exist for the olah the loaves that accompany it. These also join with the other parts of the sacrifice. We should note that since the todah (thanksgiving offering) is a sacrifice of lesser holiness, it is not subject to the laws of sacrilege. The six things join together to make one liable for piggul, notar or defilement.
+<b>Terumah, terumah of the tithe, terumah of the tithe separated from demai, hallah and first-fruits combine with one another to make up the size required to render other things   forbidden and to be liable for the payment of a fifth.</b>  The items listed here, which I will explain shortly, join together to render other things forbidden, if enough of them fall into non-sacred things. For instance, if a small amount of terumah oil and a small amount of hallah dough are mixed together and together they constitute a seah then fall into less than 100 seahs of hullin (non-sacred) dough, all of the dough is forbidden to non-priests (see Orlah 2:1). They also join together to make one who eats them unwittingly liable to pay back the principle and an added fifth. One is liable for the added fifth only if he eats an olive’s worth of holy things (see Bava Metzia 4:8). I shall now briefly explain what each is. Terumah: taken from produce and given to the priest. Terumah of tithe: the Levite gives one tenth of his tithe to the priest as terumah. Demai is the tithe separated from produce bought from someone who might not have already tithed it. Terumah is then taken from this demai. Hallah: separated from dough and given to the priest. Bikkurim: first-fruits, also considered to be holy.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>All kinds of piggul can combine with one another and all kinds of notar can combine with one another.</b>  To remind ourselves, piggul is a sacrifice that was offered with the intent of eating it outside of the time in which it must be eaten. If one eats different types of piggul, for instance part that came from a most holy sacrifice such as a hatat, and part that comes from a less holy sacrifice such as shelamim, he is liable for having eaten piggul, if together they add up to the minimum measure of an olive. Notar is sacrifice that is left over after the time in which it must be eaten. The same thing here if the notar comes from different types of sacrifices, it still joins together to create the minimum measure.
+<b>All kinds of carrion can combine with one another.</b>  An olive’s worth of carrion causes impurity. All types of carrion join together to convey this impurity, even if half of the measure is from a pure animal and half is from an impure animal.
+<b>All kinds of sheratzim can combine with one another.</b>  There are eight forbidden sheratzim (creepy crawly things) listed in Leviticus 11:29-30 that convey impurity at the minimum measure of a lentil’s worth. They all join together to create the minimal measure.
+<b>The blood of a sheretz and its flesh can combine with one another.</b>  Just as different sheretzim join together, so too does the blood of the sheretz join with its flesh to add up to the minimum measure.
+<b>A general rule was stated by Rabbi Joshua: all things that are alike both in respect of [duration of] uncleanness and in respect of their minimum measure can combine with one another. Things that are alike in respect [of duration] of uncleanness but not in respect of minimum measure, in respect of minimum measure but not in respect [of duration] of uncleanness, or [if they are alike] neither in respect [of duration] of uncleanness nor in respect of measure, cannot combine with one another.</b>  Rabbi Joshua now provides a general rule as to when different things join together. There are two criteria. First of all, the minimum measure needs to be the same. Second, the rules regarding their impurity need to be the same. So a part of a sheretz and a piece of carrion do not join together because carrion has a minimum measure of an olive, whereas the minimum measure for a sheretz is a lentil. A piece of dead body and a piece of carrion share the same measure (an olive’s worth) but the piece of a dead body cause seven-day impurity, whereas the carrioin causes one day impurity, so they don’t join. All the more so a piece of a dead body won’t join with a piece of sheretz because both their impurity and their measures are different.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In today’s mishnah we learn that different types of prohibited substances do not join together to add up to a sufficient amount for a transgression to have occurred.
+<b>Piggul and remnant do not combine with one another because they are of two different names.</b>  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that different types of piggul can combine together, and different types of sheratzim can combine together, etc. Today we learn that differently named substances do not combine together. So if one eats half of an olive’s worth of piggul and half of an olive’s worth of notar (remnant) he is not liable, because he has not eaten enough prohibited food of one prohibition.
+<b>Sheretz and carrion, as well as carrion and the flesh of a corpse do not combine with one another to effect impurity, not even in respect of the more lenient of the two [grades] of defilement.</b>  Similarly, sheretz (a creepy crawly thing that transmits impurity see yesterday’s mishnah) and carrion, and carrion and flesh from a human corpse do not join together to create the minimum amount needed to effect impurity. This is true even with regard to the lower quantity or level of defilement. For instance, less than a lentil’s worth of a sheretz does not join together with less than an olive’s worth of carrion. Similarly, less than an olive’s worth of a human corpse does not join with less than an olive’s worth of animal carrion to transmit the type of impurity that makes on impure for only one day.
+<b>Food contaminated through contact with a primary defilement can combine with that contaminated by a secondary defilement to affect uncleanness according to the lower degree of defilement of the two.</b>  Food that has been contaminated by contact with a source of primary defilement (such as a dead body) now has first degree defilement. Food that has been contaminated with something that has secondary defilement now has second degree defilement. These different foods can combine to form the minimum amount of an egg’s worth to contaminate other foods according to the lower degree of the two. If the joined substance comes into contact with terumah, it would cause it to have third degree defilement, which is a very low level of defilement. We shall learn more about this when we learn tractate Toharot.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah teaches that different types of food and different types of drink can join together with regard to various matters.
+<b>All kinds of food can combine with one another:<br>To make up the quantity of half a peras in order to render the body unfit</b>  One who eats half of a peras (the equivalent of two eggs) of unclean food, cannot eat terumah until the evening. The food “renders his body unfit” to eat holy food. Different types of unclean food can join to create this minimum amount.
+<b>[To make up the food] for two meals to form an eruv;</b>  One who wants to walk more than two thousand cubits out of his city on Shabbat puts an “eruv,” a meal, at the two thousand cubit mark and then he can walk an additional two thousand cubits. The meal must consist of a certain amount of food (see Eruvin 8:2) and different types of food can join together to create the minimum amount.
+<b>To make up the volume of an egg to contaminate food;</b>  Impure food conveys impurity only if there is the volume of an egg. Different impure foods can join together to create this volume.
+<b>To make up the volume of a dry fig with regard to carrying on Shabbat;</b>  One who carries food from one domain to another on Shabbat is liable only if the food is at least the volume of a dried fig (see Shabbat 7:4).
+<b>And the volume of a date with regard to Yom Kippur. All kinds of drinks can combine with one another:</b>  One who eats a date’s worth of food on Yom Kippur is liable. Again, all different foods join together to create this minimum amount.
+<b>To make up a quarter [of a log] in order to render the body unfit;</b>  One who drinks a quarter of a log of impure drink is rendered unfit to eat terumah until the evening.
+<b>To make up a mouthful with regard to Yom Kippur.</b>  On Yom Kippur, one who drinks a mouthful is liable. In both of these matters, different foods join together.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Orlah and kilayim of the vineyard can combine with one another. Rabbi Shimon says: they do not combine.</b>  According to the first opinion, orlah (fruit during its first three years) and kilayim (seeds) that grow in a vineyard combine with one another. The result is that if half of a seah of orlah and half of a seah of kilayim fall into less than two hundred seahs of regular produce, the regular produce is all prohibited. Rabbi Shimon holds that since these two prohibitions have different names, they don’t combine together. It seems that the first opinion holds that since they are so similar, they do combine.
+<b>Cloth, sack-cloth, sack-cloth and leather, leather and matting combine with one another.</b>  The different materials in this section have different minimum measures for being susceptible to different kinds of uncleanness. Cloth that is three handbreadths square is susceptible to the sitting impurity conveyed by a zav (one with an unusual genital discharge), and for other matters of impurity it is susceptible if it is three fingers square. Sack-cloth must be four by four handbreadths. Leather must be five square handbreadths. And matting must be six square handbreadths. These different materials can join together to create the minimum measure for the most lenient of them. For instance, one handbreadth of cloth will join with three handbreadths of sack-cloth, and one of sack-cloth will join four of leather and one of leather will join five of matting. However, two handbreadths of cloth will not join one handbreadth of sack-cloth, because the cloth is stricter. To put it another way cloth can count as sack-cloth, but sack-cloth cannot count as cloth.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon: What is the reason?  Because these are all susceptible to the uncleanness caused by sitting.</b>  In mishnah three we learned that different substances that do not have the same measure do not join together. Seemingly, today’s mishnah deviates from that rule. Rabbi Shimon explains that it does not actually contradict that rule because when it comes to the impurity conveyed by the sitting of a zav, they all potentially have the same measure. If a person cuts off a small piece of any of these materials, the size of one handbreadth square, and he intends to sit on that material, it is susceptible to sitting impurity when a zav sits on it. Since there is one aspect in which they are all the same, they can join together to create the minimum measure be susceptible to impurity.
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah discusses the basic laws of sacrilege when is a person considered to have derived benefit from a sacred thing such that he is guilty of sacrilege?
+<b>If one derived a perutah's worth of benefit from a sacred thing, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he did not lessen its value, the words of Rabbi Akiva.</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva, one is liable for sacrilege by virtue of his having derived benefit from the object that was dedicated to the Temple. It is irrelevant whether the benefit that he derived diminished the value of the dedicated object. He is guilty because he should not have made such use of a holy item.
+<b>But the sages say: Anything that can deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it only after it has suffered deterioration. And anything that does not deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it as soon as he made use of it.</b>  The other rabbis offer a more nuanced approach to this issue. If the object is one whose value can be diminished by use, then he is not liable for sacrilege unless he actually does cause it to be diminished. However, if the item is not generally diminished by normal use, then one who uses it is liable for sacrilege as long as he derived a perutah’s worth of benefit.
+<b>How is this so? If [a woman] puts a necklace round her neck or a ring on her finger, or if she drank from a golden cup, she is liable to the law of sacrilege as soon as she made use of it [to the value of a perutah]. But if one puts on a shirt or covers oneself with a cloak, or if one chopped [wood] with an axe, he is subject to the law of sacrilege only if [those objects] have suffered deterioration.</b>  The mishnah now illustrates which items are diminished by use and which items are not. The items in the first list are not diminished by use for they are made of metal. Therefore, as soon as the woman using them derives benefit from them, she has committed sacrilege. The items in the second list are diminished, even minimally by use. Therefore, one who uses them is not liable for sacrilege unless he has diminished them by the value of a perutah. It is easiest to think of the rule this way: when an item is diminished by use, we define benefit by its deterioration. For instance, one derives benefit from food, when he has eaten a perutah’s worth of food. But if the item does not deteriorate, we must evaluate it the benefit some other way. The way to do this would be to estimate how much one would pay to use the cup, necklace etc. for such a use. If it is more than a perutah, then she has committed sacrilege.
+<b>If one sheared a hatat while it was alive, he is not liable for sacrilege sacrilege unless he has diminished its value. If when dead, he is liable as soon as he made use of it.</b>  If he shears the hatat animal while it is alive, he has diminished its value. Therefore, he is liable only if the amount he sheared is worth a perutah. In contrast, it is forbidden to derive any benefit from a hatat animal that died (it was not slaughtered as part of the sacrificial process). Its wool has no real value because it must be buried. Therefore, we can’t say that by using the wool he has diminished the animal’s value-the animal has no value. He will be liable for having derived benefit, even without diminishing the animal’s value.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>If one derived half a perutah's worth of benefit and impaired [the value of the used article] by another half a perutah, or if one derived a perutah's worth of benefit from one thing and diminished another thing by the value of a perutah, he had not committed sacrilege, until he benefits a perutah's worth and diminishes the value of a perutah of the same thing.</b> In order to be liable for sacrilege one has to derive a perutah’s worth of benefit and cause the value of the object used to be diminished by the value of a perutah. If both of these elements do not exist, sacrilege has not been committed (assuming that the item is one that does deteriorate with use). Let’s use the case of an ax. If one benefits a perutah’s worth, meaning a person would pay at least a perutah to use the ax for as long as he did, and he at the same time he caused the ax to deteriorate in value by at least a perutah, then he is liable for sacrilege. However, if he derives only half a perutah’s worth of benefit and causes the value to deteriorate by only half of a perutah, he has not committed sacrilege. We don’t add the benefit to the deterioration to arrive at the requisite perutah. If he uses the ax and derives a perutah’s worth of benefit but doesn’t cause it to deteriorate by a perutah, and at the same time he causes some other holy item to deteriorate, for instance he breaks a jar that has been dedicated to the Temple causing the loss of at least a perutah, he is still not liable for sacrilege. Here the benefit came with one object (the ax) and the deterioration with another (the jar). In order for sacrilege to have been committed, the benefit and loss must be with the same object.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>One does not commit sacrilege after sacrilege has already been committed by another person, except with domesticated animals and vessels of ministry.</b>  Once a person has made non-holy use of an item dedicated to the Temple, the item becomes non-sacred and therefore the next person to use it has not committed sacrilege. This is true, however, only of items that become non-sacred (hullin) after secular use has been made of them. Animals that can be used as sacrifices and the vessels of ministry used in the Temple can never become hullin. Therefore, even after sacrilege has already been committed with them, they are still subject to the laws of sacrilege.
+<b>How so? If one rode on a beast and then another came and rode on it and yet another came and rode on it; Or if one drank from a golden cup, then another came and drank and yet another came and drank; Or if one plucked [of the wool] of a hatat, then another came and plucked and yet another came and plucked, all of them are guilty of sacrilege.</b>  The mishnah now cites three examples of sacrilege done either with a sacrificial animal or with a vessel of ministry. In all three of these cases, those who use the animal or vessel after the first sacrilege has already been performed are still liable for sacrilege.
+<b>Rabbi said: anything that cannot be redeemed is subject to the law of sacrilege even after sacrilege has been already committed with it.</b>  Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] adds that anything that cannot be redeemed is subject to multiple acts of sacrilege, because it too, like the vessels, cannot become hullin. This would include birds set aside to be sacrifices, wood and incense (see Menahot 12:1).
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah discusses when exactly a person who takes something from Temple property is considered to have committed sacrilege.
+<b>If he removed a stone or a beam belonging to Temple property, he is not guilty of sacrilege. But if he gave it to his friend he is guilty of sacrilege, but his fellow is not guilty.</b>  Simply removing a stone or a beam from Temple property is not considered sacrilege, because he has not yet benefited from it. However, all he has to do is give it to his friend and he has committed sacrilege because his friend will think highly of him for having given him a present. This is considered enough benefit for him to be considered as having committed sacrilege. His friend who receives the stone or beam cannot be guilty of sacrilege because as we learned in mishnah three, once sacrilege has been committed with an item it becomes hullin and the next person to use it has not committed sacrilege.
+<b>If he built it into his house he is not guilty of sacrilege until he lives beneath it and benefits the equivalent of a perutah.</b>  Using the stone or beam to build his house does not constitute sacrilege until he actually lives in the house with the holy stone or beam.
+<b>If he took a perutah from Temple property he is not guilty of sacrilege. But if he gave it to his friend he is guilty of sacrilege, but his fellow is not guilty.</b>  The same rule that we stated above with regard to the stone or beam is stated here with regard to a simple coin.
+<b>If he gave it to the bathhouse keeper, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he has not bathed, for he can say to him, “Behold the bath is ready for you, go in and bathe.”</b>  If he gives it to the bathhouse keeper, he is liable for sacrilege even before he takes a bath. Once he has paid for his bath, he has a right to take his bath whenever he so wishes. This right is considered to be benefit, and therefore he has committed sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>The portion which a person has eaten himself and that which he has given his friend to eat, or the portion which he has made use of himself and that which he has given to his friend to make use of, or the portion which he has eaten himself and that which he has given his friend to make use of, or the portion which he has made use of himself and that which he has given his friend to eat can combine with one another even after the lapse of a lot of time.</b> If a person eats half of a perutah’s worth of dedicated food (something subject to the laws of sacrilege), and gives his friend half of a perutah’s worth of dedicated food to eat, the two half-perutah’s join together to cause him to be liable for sacrilege. The same is true if he derives half of a perutah’s worth of benefit and he gives his friend half of a perutah’s worth of the dedicated thing. The mishnah now goes through all of the various permutations of this law. To put it briefly, benefit and eating can join together, whether they were directly done by the person, or they were given by one person to another. This is true even if a lot of time lapsed in between the two events. As long as they both occurred in one period of lack of knowledge that the food was dedicated, they can join to make one liable for sacrilege.
+
+Chapter 6
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah deals with the question of one who sends another person to commit an act of sacrilege: who is guilty of the sacrilege, the sender or his agent?
+<b>If an agent has fulfilled his agency, the sender is guilty of sacrilege, but if he has not carried out his agency, he himself is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  The general rule is straightforward if the agent fulfills the sender’s instructions and neither knew that the item (food or otherwise) he was being sent to bring had been dedicated, the sender has committed sacrilege. But if the agent does not fulfill his agency, then we can’t hold the sender responsible and the agent has committed sacrilege. The mishnah now illustrates this.
+<b>How so? If he [the employer] said to him: “Give meat to the guests” and he offered them liver, “[Give] liver” and he offered them meat, he himself is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  “Meat” and “liver” are two different things, according to the lingo of the mishnah. If the sender sent his servant instructing him to give “meat” to the guests, and the servant gave liver (which I would have politely declined), then the agent has committed sacrilege because he did not fulfill his boss’s instructions. The same is true in the opposite case.
+<b>If the employer said to him: “Give them one piece each,” and he said to them: “Take two pieces each,” and the guests took three pieces each, all of them are guilty of sacrilege.</b>  In this case, the servant fulfilled the agency when he gave the guests permission to take one piece. Therefore, the host has committed sacrilege. When the servant gave the second piece, which the host did not instruct him to do, the servant committed sacrilege. And finally, when the guests took a third piece (greedy guests), they committed sacrilege as well. Note that if they had not taken thirds, they would not have been guilty. I hope it teaches them a lesson.
+<b>If he [the employer] said to him, “Bring me [something] from the window or from the chest,” and he brought it to him [from one of these places] even though the employer says, “I meant only from that place” and he brought it from the other place, the employer is guilty of sacrilege. But if he said to him, “Bring it to me from the window,” and he brought it from the chest, or “from the chest” and he brought it to him from the window, the agent is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  In this case, the employer sent his employee to fetch something that turned out to be holy from one of either of two places. When the employee brings him the object and the employer uses it, the employer has committed sacrilege. Since he mentioned both places, he can’t say that he really meant for the object that was in the opposite place to have been brought. However, if he specifies precisely where the object is, and the employee brings an object from somewhere else, then the employee has not fulfilled his instructions and the employee is the one that is guilty of sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with a person who unknowingly sends money that has been dedicated to the Temple with an agent to a storekeeper to buy something.
+<b>One who has sent a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor: If they carried out their agency the employer is guilty, If they did not carry out their appointed errand, the shopkeeper is guilty.</b>  A deaf-mute, imbecile and minor cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. However, if they fulfill their agency, then the one who sent them is liable for sacrilege, just as he is in all cases. If they do not fulfill the agency, then when the shopkeeper spends the money that they gave him, he will be guilty of sacrilege. The money has remained holy until this point, because the deaf-mute, imbecile and minor are not capable of being liable for sacrilege. Had the agent been a person of sound senses, he would have been liable for sacrilege when he didn’t fulfill the employer’s instructions. In such a case, when the storekeeper spends the money he will not be liable.
+<b>If one sent one of sound senses and remembers [that the money belongs to Temple property] before it has come into the possession of the shopkeeper, the shopkeeper will be guilty when he spends it.</b>  Here the employer remembers that the money he gave to his agent is holy, but he remembers too late. The employee is already on his way. At this point the sender cannot be liable for sacrilege, or at least not to bring a sacrifice to atone for sacrilege, because a sacrifice is not brought by one who intentionally commits sacrilege. Although he sent it without knowing it was holy, since he knows before it is used, he is considered as one who intentionally commits sacrilege.
+<b>What should he do?  He should take a perutah or a vessel and say “The perutah that is Temple property, wherever it may be, is redeemed with this;” for consecrated things can be redeemed both with money and with money's worth.</b>  Don’t worry! There is a remedy to prevent the poor innocent storekeeper from committing sacrilege. The sender can redeem the coins even when they are not in his presence. All he has to do is take a perutah or a vessel that is worth at least a perutah and declare that the holiness of the coins that he already sent is transferred to the coin or vessel in his hand. The mishnah concludes by noting that Temple property can be redeemed both by coin and by things that are worth money.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>If he gave him a perutah and said to him: “Bring me for half a perutah lamps and for the other half wicks,” and he went and brought for the whole perutah wicks or for the whole perutah lamps; Or if he said to him, “Bring me for the whole lamps or for the whole wicks,” and he went and brought for half [a perutah] lamps and for the other half wicks, neither is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  In this case the employer has not committed sacrilege because the agent changed his instructions. The agent also has not committed sacrilege for he only changed the instructions by half of a perutah (by spending the whole perutah on one thing and not half on each item). In order for the agent to be liable, he has to change the instructions for the entire perutah.
+<b>But if he said to him, “Bring for half a perutah lamps from one place and for half a perutah wicks from another,” and he went and brought the lamps from the place where the wicks [were to be bought] and the wicks from the place where the lamps [were to be bought], the agent is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  In this case the agent changed the instructions completely and didn’t precisely fulfill any of the instructions that he was sent to fulfill. Therefore, he has committed sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>If he gave him two perutahs and said, “Bring me for them an etrog,” and he brought for one perutah an etrog and for the other a pomegranate, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege for he could say, “I wanted a large etrog and you brought me a small and bad one.”</b>  According to the first opinion, the employer is guilty of sacrilege with one of the perutahs, because the agent did perform the instructions to buy an etrog. The agent is guilty of sacrilege with the other perutah because he changed the instructions and bought a pomegranate with the other perutah. Rabbi Judah argues that the employer is not guilty at all, because he can claim that he wanted a two-perutah etrog, not a one-perutah etrog. Therefore, we don’t consider the agent as having fulfilled half of his instructions; rather he has not fulfilled the instructions at all and he alone is guilty of sacrilege.
+<b>If he gave him a golden denar and said to him, “Bring me a shirt,” and he brought him for three [silver selas] a shirt and for the other three a cloak, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege, for he can argue, “I wanted a large shirt and you brought me a small and bad one.”</b>  The employer sends him with a golden denar to buy a shirt. A golden denar is worth 25 silver denars, or 6.5 silver selas. The agent uses half of the money to buy the cloak, and the other half to buy a shirt. As in the previous section, the first opinion considers them both to have committed sacrilege. The employer committed sacrilege with the first half of the money, and the agent by changing the instructions with the second half. Again, Rabbi Judah argues that only the agent committed sacrilege. The employer sent him to buy a golden denar shirt (Gucci?) and not a cheaper one (Target?), so the agent didn’t fulfill any of his instructions.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>One who deposited money with a moneychanger: if it was tied up, he may not use it; and therefore if he did spend it he is guilty of sacrilege. If it was loose he may use it and therefore if he spent it he is not guilty of sacrilege.</b>  If one deposits dedicated money with a moneychanger and the money is tied up, the moneychanger should not use the coins. If he does use the coins, then he is guilty of sacrilege. Having tied them up, it is as if the owner told him not to use them. However, if they are loose, the owner should expect that the moneychanger might use the coins, and replace them with other coins later on when he returns them. Therefore, if the moneychanger uses them, he has not committed sacrilege. The Talmud explains that in such a case the depositor has committed sacrilege because it is as if he gave the coins to the moneychanger with the explicit permission to use them.
+<b>If [the money was deposited] with a private person, he may not use it in neither case, and therefore if he did spent it he is guilty of sacrilege.</b>  A private person is not supposed to use money deposited with him. Therefore, if he does so and the money is dedicated, he is guilty of sacrilege, whether the money was tied up or given to him loosely.
+<b>A shopkeeper has the status of a private person, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: he is like a money-changer.</b>  According to Rabbi Meir a shopkeeper is like a private person. If someone gives him coins, he may not use them, whether they are tied up or loose. Therefore, in both cases, if he uses the coins he has committed sacrilege. Rabbi Judah holds that a shopkeeper is like a money-changer. Therefore, if the coins were given to him loosely he may use them and in such a case the depositor is the one who will have committed sacrilege.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah discusses a situation where one dedicated coin is in a bag full of non-sacred coins, but we don’t know which coin it is. If he uses the coins in the bag, at what point is he considered to have committed sacrilege?
+<b>If a perutah belonging to the Temple fell into his bag or if he said, “One perutah in this bag shall be dedicated,” as soon as he spends the first perutah he is guilty of sacrilege, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: not until he has spent all the money that was in the bag.</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva, as soon as he spends a perutah from this bag of coins, he is liable for sacrilege, lest that perutah was the holy one. As a penalty he will bring an asham talui (a suspended asham) for every perutah that he spends. This matches Rabbi Akiva’s position in Keritot 5:2 one who has committed a doubtful act of sacrilege must bring an asham talui. If he spends all of the coins in the bag, he will have to bring a certain asham because at that point we know that he has committed sacrilege. The sages hold that he is not liable for sacrilege until it is certain that he has used the dedicated coin. This is consistent with their opinion in Keritot 5:2 one does not bring an asham talui for sacrilege. He is liable for sacrilege only when he spends all of the coins.
+<b>Rabbi Akiva agrees if he says, “A perutah out of this bag shall be dedicated,” he is permitted to keep on spending [and is liable only] when he has spent all that was in the bag.</b>  “A perutah out of this bag shall be dedicated” is interpreted to mean that the owner will give a perutah from the coins in this bag to the Temple. In other words, none of the coins are holy now, but one will be holy later on. In this case, Rabbi Akiva agrees with the sages that the he is not liable for sacrilege unless he uses all of the coins in the bag. Congratulations!  We have finished Tractate Meilah! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. By dedicating an entire chapter to the topic of sacrilege, we learn just how serious a crime it is to use funds in an inappropriate manner. In modern Hebrew “meilah” is the word for embezzlement, a crime that unfortunately many of our leaders cannot seem to avoid. Meilah teaches us boundaries holy property, dedicated for the spiritual use of the community cannot be used for non-sacred purposes. Furthermore, when one does so, it is not enough just to pay back the embezzled funds. One must add an additional one-fifth and bring a sacrifice to atone for the crime. Although, as always, the technical aspects of this crime overwhelm the rabbinic discussion, there is a moral lesson that lies behind them as well. I hope you have enjoyed Meilah. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Tamid.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Middot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,260 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Middot
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה מדות
+Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Middot
+
+Introduction
+
+Tractate Middot is a detailed description of the Second Temple as built by Herod during the end of the first century B.C.E. The word “Middot” means “measurements” and it refers to the measurements of the Temple.  
+We should note that the sources of this description can be varied. Some of the sources are from the sages own memories or transmitted oral tradition. However, the memory of the Temple sometimes contains discrepancies and is sometimes brought in piecework. There are even occasional debates as to what exactly the Temple looked like. Occasionally, the rabbis use Ezekiel’s visions of the Temple in their own description, even though they were aware that the actual Temple did not look exactly as Ezekiel described it. On other occasions they even use descriptions of Solomon’s Temple, under the assumption that the First Temple served as guideline for the building of the Second Temple. 
+Josephus also offers up a detailed description of the Temple, and his description does not always accord with the rabbis’ description. We should also note that their reasons for describing the Temple were different. The rabbis described the Temple so that subsequent generations would rebuild it, speedily and in their time. Josephus described the Temple so that he could impress the Greeks. However, both the rabbis and Josephus agree that it was a most impressive building.
+Middot has many similarities with Tamid, so we will make frequent reference to it as we learn these mishnayot. Both tractates are descriptive and differ distinctly from most of the other tractates we have learned.
+Good luck in learning Middot!
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Tractate Middot opens with the same exact line as did Tamid a list of where the priests kept watch all night. However, the interest of the two tractates is a bit different. Middot is interested in the watch itself, whereas Tamid was more interested in locating the priests before their daily work began.
+The beginning of Numbers 18 states that the priests and Levites are to stand guard at the Tabernacle, an idea that was later applied to the Temple as well. It seems that this guarding could serve two functions: practical and ceremonial. The Temple is akin to a palace and a palace needs guard both for protection and protocol (think about the guards in front of Buckingham Palace). The idea that there were a total of twenty-four places in the Temple where either priests or Levites would stand guard is mentioned also in I Chronicles 26:17-18.
+<b>In three places the priests keep watch in the Temple: in the chamber of Avtinas, in the chamber of the spark, and in the fire chamber.</b>  There were three places in the Temple where the priests would keep watch at night: The chamber of Avtinas, where they would prepare the incense. The chamber of the spark, where they kept the fire to light the fires on the altars. The fire chamber where they kept a large fire to keep the priests warm at night.
+<b>And the Levites in twenty-one places: Five at the five gates of the Temple Mount; Four at its four corners on the inside; Five at five of the gates of the courtyard; Four at its four corners on the outside; One at the offering chamber; One at the chamber of the curtain, And one behind the place of the kapporet.</b>  There were twenty-one places where the Levites kept watch: A: The five gates to enter the Temple Mount. B: The four inside corners of the walls surrounding the Temple Mount. Sort of like prison guards. C: There were seven gates to the courtyard (see mishnah four) but the Levites guarded only five of them. D: At the four corners inside the walls surrounding the Temple. E: The “offering chamber” was in the burning place. We will learn more about this place in mishnah six. F: Where the curtain was kept. G: This refers to behind the Holy of Holies.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>The officer of the Temple Mount used to go round to every watch, with lighted torches before him, and if any watcher did not rise [at his approach] and say to him, “Shalom to you, officer of the Temple Mount, it was obvious that he was asleep. Then he used to beat him with his rod.<br>And he had permission to burn his clothes. And the others would say: What is the noise in the courtyard? It is the cry of a Levite who is being beaten and whose clothes are being burned, because he was asleep at his watch. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: once they found my mother's brother asleep, and they burnt his clothes.</b><br>Today’s mishnah describes the officer in charge of security on the Temple Mount who would go around and check to make sure no one was asleep on his watch. If he found anyone asleep he would beat them, and perhaps even burn their clothes. Don’t ask me what they would do without any clothes!<br>The mishnah is straightforward (although a bit harsh) and therefore doesn’t really need explanation.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+The Temple Mount had five gates, which the mishnah now lists.
+<b>There were five gates to the Temple Mount:</b>  Huldah was a prophetess mentioned in II Kings 22:14, but there is she found in Jerusalem, not necessarily at these gates. Perhaps these were the gates where she sat, albeit in the First Temple. We should note that one can still see these southern gates at the southern walls of the Temple. This seems to be the most common entrance and exit.
+<b>The two Huldah gates on the south were used both for entrance and exit;</b>  We don’t really know who Kiponus was. It is possible that he was the man who donated the gate.
+<b>The Kiponus gate on the west was used both for entrance and exit.</b>  The Taddi gate on the north was rarely used. One exception will be brought at the end of this chapter. Again, Taddi seems possibly to have been the man who donated the gate.
+<b>The Taddi gate on the north was not used at all.</b>  Over the eastern gate was a drawing of Shushan, Persia. This was in commemoration of the place where the Jews were during the exile. It might have also served as a tribute to Cyrus who let the Jews leave Persia to return to Israel. To the east of the Temple lies the Mount of Olives, where the red heifer was burned. The high priest and the other priests involved in this ceremony would go through this gate on their way to the Mount of Olives to burn the red heifer.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>There were seven gates in the courtyard: three in the north and three in the south and one in the east.<br>In the south: the Gate of Kindling, and next to it the Gate of the First-borns, and then the Water Gate.<br>In the east: the Gate of Nicanor. It had two chambers, one on its right and one on its left. One was the chamber of Pinchas the dresser and one the other the chamber of the griddle cake makers.</b><br>Today’s mishnah lists the seven gates in the Temple courtyard.<br>Section two: The Gate of Kindling was used to bring in the wood for the altar.<br>Through the Gate of the First-borns they would bring in first-born animals on their way to being slaughtered. The Water Gate was used to bring in the water used on Sukkot for the water libation (it’s the most famous gate in history, but for other reasons).<br>Section three: Mishnah Yoma 3:10, mentions Nicanor and the doors for his gate, which according to legend were brought miraculously from Egypt. This gate was on the eastern side of the courtyard. Within the gate itself there were two chambers. In one sat Pinchas who made the priestly clothing (see Shekalim 5:1) and in the other sat the priests who made the griddle cakes that the high priest would offer every day (see Tamid 1:3).
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>On the north was the Gate of the Sparks which was shaped like a portico.</b>  On the north there was the Gate of the Sparks. There were pillars on both sides, which made it look like a portico.
+<b>It had an upper chamber built on it, and the priests used to keep watch above and the Levites below, and it had a door opening into the Hel.</b>  The Gate of the Sparks, unlike most gates, also had an upper chamber. The priests would stand on top and stand guard, as we learned in mishnah one. The Levites would stand below and guard (see also mishnah one). The Gate had a door that opened onto the Hel. The Hel was an area ten amot wide that went between the Soreg (a light fence) and the walls of the Courtyard. We will explain more about this later in 2:3.
+<b>Next to it was the Gate of the Sacrifice and next to that the fire chamber.</b>  To the east of the Gate of the Sparks was the Gate of the Sacrifice. Next to it was the fire chamber, mentioned above in mishnah one.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah describes the fire chamber. This chamber is also described in Tamid 3:3. In the first mishnah of Middot (and Tamid) we learned that the fire chamber was called as such because it had a large fire which kept the priests warm at night. Today we learn that there were different rooms within the fire chamber, each of them serving a different purpose.
+<b>There were four chambers inside the fire chamber, like sleeping chambers opening into a hall, two in sacred ground and two in non-holy, and there was a row of mosaic stones   separating the holy from the non-holy. For what were they used?</b>  The chambers of the fire chamber were small rooms that opened into a larger hall. Two of them were inside the Temple on holy ground and two were outside the Temple.  The ones on the outside of the Temple were in the Hel [in Hebrew Hel and hol (non-holy) are almost the same]. There was a fence made of mosaic stones that would separate the chambers inside the Temple from those outside.
+<b>The one on the southwest was the chamber of sacrificial lambs,</b>  The chamber on the southwest was used to store lambs. This chamber was mentioned in Arakhin 2:5, “there were never less than six inspected lambs in the chamber of lambs.”
+<b>The one on the southeast was the chamber of the showbread.</b>  In the chamber on the southeast they would knead and bake the showbread.
+<b>In the one to the northeast the Hasmoneans deposited the stones of the altar which the kings of Greece had defiled.</b>  The northeastern chamber was used to store the stones from the altar that the Greeks had defiled by offering foreign sacrifices on it. According to I Maccabees 1:54 (a non-canonical book) when the Maccabees tore down the altar that had been defiled by the Greeks, they deposited the stones until a prophet would come along and tell them what to do with them (see 4: 43-46). In Tamid 3:3 this chamber is called “the chamber of seals.”
+<b>Through the one on the northwest they used to go down to the bathing place.</b>  In the floor of the northwestern chamber there was an opening through which the priests would go down to bathe. In Tamid this is called “the fire chamber” for it was in this chamber that they would keep the fire.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>The fire chamber had two gates, one opening on to the Hel and one on to the courtyard. Rabbi Judah says: the one that opened on to the courtyard had a small opening through which they went in to search the courtyard.</b>  On the northern side of the fire chamber there was a gate opening to the Hel, the corridor that ran outside the courtyard. On the southern side there was a gate opening into the courtyard.
+Every morning they would check the courtyard to make sure everything was in its proper place. This procedure was described in Tamid 1:3. The gate to the courtyard had a small opening through which they would enter the courtyard.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah appears word for word in Tamid 1:1. My explanation here is the same as there.
+<b>The fire chamber was vaulted and it was a large room surrounded with stone projections, and the elders of the clan [serving in the Temple] used to sleep there, with the keys of the Temple courtyard in their hands.</b>  The fire chamber was vaulted, and surrounded by rows of stones. On these rows of stones the priests serving in the Temple at the time (the Temple guard was split into 24 houses) would sleep, while holding the keys to the Temple courtyard.
+The young priests did not get to sleep on the rows of stones. They had to put their bedding down on the ground and sleep on the floor.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>There was a place there [in the fire chamber] one cubit square on which was a slab of marble.<br>In this was fixed a ring and a chain on which the keys were hung.<br>When closing time came, the priest would raise the slab by the ring and take the keys from the chain.<br>Then the priest would lock up within while the Levite was sleeping outside.<br>When he had finished locking up, he would replace the keys on the chain and the slab in its place and put his garment on it and sleep there.<br>If one of them had a seminal emission, he would go out by the winding stair which went under the Birah, and which was lighted with lamps on both sides, until he reached the bathing place.<br>Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: he descended by the winding stair which went under the Hel and he went out by the Taddi gate.</b><br>Our mishnah deals with the locking of the Temple gates at night.<br>Section four: There are two explanations for “the Levite was sleeping outside.” Either it means that the Levites sat outside the courtyard and guarded from the outside. Or this refers to the locking of the fire chamber. In the fire chamber the priests were inside and the Levites outside.<br>Section six: Tamid 1:1 also discusses what would happen if a priest had an emission in the middle of the night and needed to purify himself. According to Deuteronomy 23:11 such a person must leave the “camp”, which the rabbis interpret to be parallel to the Temple. The priest would exit the Temple by using a set of underground stairs. It was forbidden for him to walk through the courtyard, or even on the Temple mount because he was impure. These stairs were lit so that he could see his way. He would then come to the ritual bath.<br>Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that when he was coming out of the ritual bath, he would not go back to the fire chamber. Rather he would go under the Hel and end up on the Temple Mount near the Taddi gate. Note that Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob does not disagree with the halakhah in our mishnah but rather with the halakhah in Tamid 1:1, according to which the priest the priest would return to the fire chamber.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Chapter two deals with the dimensions of the Temple Mount and its courtyards.
+<b>The Temple Mount was five hundred cubits by five hundred cubits.</b>  This accords with the dimensions stated in Ezekiel 42:20.
+<b>The greater part of it was on the south; next to that on the east; next to that on the north; and the smallest part on the west.</b>  The Temple was not centered in the middle of the Temple Mount. Rather it was to the northwestern side. Most of the empty ground was on the south. The second greatest empty area was on the east, then the north. The western side, or more accurately, the northwestern side, is where the Temple was located. As an aside, this is why the Western Wall is the closest of the walls to the actual Temple. Today if you go into the tunnels to the north of the western wall, you get as close as is possible to the Temple, without going onto the Temple Mount.
+<b>The part which was most extensive was the part most used.</b>  For non-priests, the most extensive use was in the south, where the largest empty area was located.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>All who entered the Temple Mount entered by the right and went round [to the right] and went out by the left, save for one to whom something had happened, who entered and went round to the left.</b>  Most people would enter the Temple Mount on the right side of the Southern Gates, and they would turn right and eventually come out on the left. The exception was one who was either a mourner or had been excommunicated. They would enter the same way, but they would go around to the left. This seems to have served as a means by which others could tell that something had happened to them and could offer them comfort.
+<b>[He was asked]: “Why do you go round to the left?” [If he answered] “Because I am a mourner,” [they said to him], “May He who dwells in this house comfort you.”</b>  When people would see others walking around to the left, they would know to ask them what had happened. If the person answered that he was a mourner, they would offer him comfort.
+<b>[If he answered] “Because I am excommunicated” [they said]: “May He who dwells in this house inspire them to draw you near again,” the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose to him: you make it seem as if they treated him unjustly. Rather [they should say]: “May He who dwells in this house inspire you to listen to the words of your colleagues so that they may draw you near again.”</b>  Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Meir debate what words they would say to a mourner. According to Rabbi Meir they would offer hope that God would inspire the people who had excommunicated him to restore him to his status. Rabbi Yose complains that such a formulation gives the impression that those who had excommunicated him had done so unjustly. Instead, Rabbi Yose formulates words of consolation that place the blame on the excommunicated party, that he should mend his ways in order to be restored to his prior place.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Within it was the Soreg, ten handbreadths high.<br>There were thirteen breaches in it, which had been originally made by the kings of Greece, and when they repaired them they enacted that thirteen prostrations should be made facing them.<br>Within this was the Hel, which was ten cubits [broad].<br>There were twelve steps there. The height of each step was half a cubit and its tread was half a cubit.<br>All the steps in the Temple were half a cubit high with a tread of half a cubit, except those of the Porch.<br>All the doorways in the Temple were twenty cubits high and ten cubits broad except those of the Porch.<br>All the doorways there had doors in them except those of the Porch.<br>All the gates there had lintels except that of Taddi which had two stones inclined to one another.<br>All the original gates were changed for gates of gold except the gates of Nicanor, because a miracle happened with them. Some say: because their copper gleamed like gold.</b><br>Section one: Around the Temple there was a small partition called the Soreg. This set the Temple off from the rest of the Temple Mount.<br>Section two: The Greeks made thirteen breaches in the Soreg in order to demonstrate that Gentiles could enter the Hel, which was inside the Soreg. This tradition is also reflected in I Maccabees 9:54: “In the year one hundred and fifty-three, in the second month, Alcimus ordered the wall of the inner court of the porch to be torn down, thus destroying the work of the prophets.”<br>When the Hasmoneans expelled the Greeks, they repaired the breaches and enacted that anytime a person would pass one of them, he would bow down and thank God for their victory over the Greeks.<br>Section three: Within the Soreg was an area called the Hel. This was an empty area ten cubits (about five meters) wide.<br>Section four: Leading up from the Hel to the Temple courtyard were twelve steps. Each step was half a cubit high and half a cubit long.<br>Section five: The only steps in the Temple that did not have this dimension were those that led up from the courtyard of the priests to the Porch, whose length varied as we shall see in 3:6.<br>Section six: The mishnah now proceeds to note several differences between the dimensions of the Porch and the dimensions found elsewhere in the Temple. The gates of the Porch were forty amot high and twenty amot wide.<br>Section seven: The entrance to the Porch was set off with a curtain and not a door.<br>Section nine: Originally the gates were made of copper. When the Jews had more money, they refurnished the Temple and covered them with gold. The only exception was the Nicanor gates, which were not changed. There are two possibilities for why they stayed the same. First of all, there was a miracle performed with them. This is explained in the Bavli (Yoma 38a) in the following way:  “What miracles happened to his doors? They say that when Nicanor had gone to bring doors from Alexandria of Egypt, on his return a storm arose in the sea to drown him. They took one of his doors and cast it into the sea and yet the sea would not stop its rage. They wanted to cast the other into the sea. He rose and clung to it, saying: ‘Cast me in with it!’ The sea immediately stopped its raging. He was deeply grieved about the other [door]. When he arrived at the harbor of Acco, it broke through and came up from under the sides of the boat.  Others say: A monster of the sea swallowed it and spat it out on the dry land.”<br>The other explanation is that there was no need to replace the gates of Nicanor because their copper shined liked gold.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>All the walls that were there [in the Temple] were high except the eastern wall, for the priest who burned the red heifer would stand on the top of the Mount of Olives and direct his gaze carefully see the opening of the Sanctuary at the time of the sprinkling of the blood.</b> The red heifer was burned on the Mount of Olives, towards the east of the Temple Mount. The priest who burned it had to see the Sanctuary when he sprinkled the blood. This is how the rabbis interpret Numbers 19:4, “the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and sprinkle it seven times toward the front of the Tent of Meeting.” Note that the priest would not have been able to see the Sanctuary through the Eastern gate because the floor of the Sanctuary was 22 amot higher than the floor of the Temple Mount, and the Eastern Gate was only 20 amot high. Thus the floor of the Sanctuary was higher than the gate, and therefore, the priest had to see over the wall. That is why they designed this wall to be shorter than the other walls.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>The courtyard of the women was a hundred and thirty-five cubits long by a hundred and thirty-five wide.<br>It had four chambers in its four corners, each of which was forty cubits.<br>They were not roofed, and so they will be in the time to come, as it says, “Then he brought me forth into the outer court, and caused me to pass by the four corners of the court, and behold in every corner of the court there was a court. In the four corners of the court there were keturot courts” (Ezekiel 46:21-22) and keturot means that they were not roofed. For what were they used?<br>The southeastern one was the chamber of the Nazirites where the Nazirites used to boil their shelamim and shave their hair and throw it under the pot.<br>The northeastern one was the wood chamber where priests with physical defects used to pick out the wood which had worms, every piece with a worm in it being unfit for use on the altar.<br>The northwestern one was the chamber of those with skin disease.<br>The southwestern one: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: I forget what it was used for. Abba Shaul says: they used to store there wine and oil, and it was called the chamber of oil.<br>It [the courtyard of the women] had originally been smooth [without protrusions in the walls] but subsequently they surrounded it with a balcony so that the women could look on from above while the men were below, and they should not mix together.<br>Fifteen steps led up from it to the courtyard of Israel, corresponding to the fifteen [songs of] ascents mentioned in the Book of Psalms, and upon which the Levites used to sing. They were not rectangular but circular like the half of a threshing floor.</b><br>Today’s mishnah is about the courtyard of the women. This was the first courtyard which one would enter upon entering the Temple.<br>I am not going to explain every section, just those that I feel are not self-explanatory.<br>Section three: The rabbis read Ezekiel as a description of the future Temple that will be built in Messianic times. Nevertheless, the current Temple is to a certain extent patterned, at least in the rabbinic mind, after Ezekiel’s description. The word “keturot” in Ezekiel is unclear, but the rabbis interpret it to mean “unroofed.” Albeck notes that this is based on the Syriac phrased “Beta Ketira” which means “unroofed house.” Syriac is a Semitic language very close to Aramaic.<br>Section four: The Nazirites would boil their shelamim, peace offering, and throw their shaven hair into the fire under the pot (see Numbers 6:18; Nazir 6:8).<br>Section five: Priests with defects could not serve at the altar. Instead, they would sit in the chamber of wood and sort out which wood had worms, because wormed wood was not welcome on the altar.<br>Section six: Those with skin disease would immerse themselves in the special chamber for those with skin disease.<br>Section seven: The rabbis aren’t exactly sure what the southwestern chamber was even used for, at least not Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Abba Shaul claims that it was used to store wine and oil and it was called “the oil chamber.”<br>Section eight: Originally the walls of the women’s courtyard were smooth, without any protrusions to uphold a balcony. However, when they saw that there was a problem with men and women mixing during the Simhat Bet Hashoevah, a raucous festival that occurred during Sukkot (see Sukkah 5:2), they made a balcony for women to be above. We should note that during the rest of the year men and women mingled together in the women’s courtyard. Only during the risky time of great celebration did they separate the genders. This balcony is an eventual, much later source for women sitting in the balcony at synagogues, but in the Temple it was only used on one special occasion.<br>Section nine: Leading up from the courtyard of the women there were fifteen steps, going through the Nicanor gates and into the courtyard of the Israelites. These fifteen steps corresponded to the fifteen “songs of ascent” in Psalms 120-134. Upon them the Levites would sing during the Simhet Bet Hashoevah. The steps were shaped in semi-circles, and not rectangles as were other steps found in the Temple.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah is mostly about the Court of Israel, which was a smaller court leading from the Court of Women to the Court of the Priests.
+<b>There were chambers underneath the Court of Israel which opened into the Court of Women, where the Levites used to keep lyres and lutes and cymbals and all kinds of musical instruments.</b>  Underneath the Court of Israel there were chambers where the Levites would deposit their instruments.
+<b>The Court of Israel was a hundred and thirty-five cubits in length by eleven in breadth. Similarly the Court of the Priests was a hundred and thirty-five cubits in length by eleven in breadth.</b>  Both of these courtyards were the same breadth as the Court of Women, but they were much shorter, extending only eleven cubits. In a sense they were just strips.
+<b>And a row of mosaic stones separated the Court of Israel from the Court of the Priests.</b>  There was a partition separating the Court of Israel from the Court of Priests, for Israelites would not typically go into the Court of Priests. They would enter only when they were going to either slaughter a sacrifice or lay their hands upon it, or wave it.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: there was a step a cubit high on which a platform was placed, and it had three steps each of half a cubit in height. In this way the Court of the Priests was made two and a half cubits higher than that of Israel.</b>  According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, there was a step with a platform on it between the two courts. On this platform the Levites would stand and sing when the tamid sacrifice was being offered (see Tamid 7:3). The Court of Priests was thus slightly higher than the Court of Israel.
+<b>The whole of the Court was a hundred and eighty-seven cubits in length by a hundred and thirty-five in breadth.</b>  The entire Courtyard in which the Temple was located was 187 cubits long. This included the entire area of the Court of Priests, and then the area of the Temple, all the way past the Holy of Holies and to the western side of the Temple.
+<b>And thirteen prostrations were made there.</b>  There were thirteen places to prostrate, as we learned in mishnah three. According to this opinion, the thirteen places of prostration were at the places where the Soreg had been broken through by the Greeks.
+<b>Abba Yose ben Hanan says: they were made facing the thirteen gates. On the south beginning from the west there were the upper gate (1), the gate of burning (2), the gate of the firstborn (3), and the water gate (4). And why was it called the water gate? Because they brought in through it the pitcher of water for libation on the festival. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: in it the water welled up, and in the time to come from there it will come out from under the threshold of the Temple. Corresponding to them in the north beginning in the west were the gate of Yehoniah (5), the gate of the offering (6), the women's gate (7), the gate of song (8). Why was it called the gate of Yehoniah? Because Yehoniah went forth into captivity through it. On the east was the gate of Nicanor (9); it had two doors, one on its right and one on its left (10 + 11). There were further two gates in the west which had no special name (12 + 13).</b>  Abba Yose ben Hanan disagrees with the anonymous mishnah found in 1:4-5, who held that there were seven gates around the Temple Court. Abba Yose ben Hanan says that there were thirteen, and at each they would prostrate. He now lists these gates. Some of them are repeats of those listed above. The upper gate: Was called “upper” because it was at the highest point on the Temple Mount. The gate of the first-borns: Through which they would bring the first-born animals to be slaughtered, for they can be slaughtered on the south. The water gate: The mishnah gives two reasons why it was called the water gate. The first is practical through this gate the water was brought in for the water libation on Sukkot. The second is more messianic: Ezekiel 47:1-2 prophesies that in the time of redemption water will burst forth from the Temple. This water will come forth from this gate. Yehoniah’s gate: Yehoniah, as will be explained later in the mishnah, is the king who was exiled to Babylonia in II Kings 24:15. He went out, according to legend, through this gate. Commentators say that this is the same gate that is called “the gate of kindling” in 1:4. The gate of the offering: Through here they would bring in any sacrifice that needed to be slaughtered on the north side. The gate of women: Women who needed/wanted to lay their hands on their sacrifices could go in through this gate. The gate of song: Through which the Levites would bring in their musical instruments. Commentators identify this gate with the gate of the sparks in 1:5. Nicanor’s gate: As we have already learned, this gate was named after Nicanor who brought the gates from Egypt. On each side of the gate was a small door, and these doors were included in the overall count. Thus Nicanor’s gate gets credit for being three gates. The no-name gates: These gates were behind the Temple and were rarely used and therefore had no names.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Chapter three begins with several mishnayot describing the outer altar, upon which the sacrifices were burned.
+<b>The altar was thirty-two cubits by thirty-two.</b>  The mishnah begins to describe the altar from the very bottom. This area was 32 by 32 cubits.
+<b>It rose a cubit and went in a cubit, and this formed the foundation, leaving thirty cubits by thirty.</b>  The foundation of the altar was an amah in length and ran the entire length on the north and west but not the south and the east. On the southwestern corner and northeastern corner it took up one amah, but did not run the whole length (this will be explained in section nine). The remaining square of the altar was 30 x 30 amot.
+<b>It then rose five cubits and went in one cubit, and this formed the surround, leaving twenty-eight cubits by twenty-eight.</b>  On top of the foundation lies the surround (sovev). The sovev was five amot above the altar, and it was an amah in breadth. This left the altar with 28 x 28 amot.
+<b>The horns extended a cubit in each direction, thus leaving twenty-six by twenty-six.</b>  The four corners/horns (same word in Hebrew) of the altar each took up an amah in each direction, leaving the altar with 26 x 26 amot.
+<b>A cubit on every side was allowed for the priests to go round, thus leaving twenty-four by twenty-four as the place for the wood pile [for the altar fire].</b>  Along the sides there was an amah walkway left empty so that the priests could walk around the altar. This walkway was inside the area devoted to the horns. Thus, the final measurement of the altar is 24 x 24. It was on this space that they would set the wood for the fire.
+<b>Rabbi Yose said: Originally, the complete area [occupied by the altar] was only twenty-eight cubits by twenty-eight, and it rose with the dimensions mentioned until the space left for the altar pile was only twenty by twenty. When, however, the children of the exile returned, they added four cubits on the north, and four on the west like a gamma, since it is said: “Now the hearth shall be twelve cubits long by twelve broad, square” (Ezekiel 43:16). Is it possible that it was only twelve cubits by twelve? When it says, “With four equal sides” (, this shows that he was measuring from the middle, twelve cubits in every direction.</b>  According to Rabbi Yose, the bottom square of the original altar was 28 x 28, leaving 20 x 20 for burning the wood, after room was left for the foundation, sovev, horns and walkway. This accords with the size of the altar built by Solomon according to II Chronicles 4:1. However, when the Israelites returned from the Babylonian exile, they built the altar larger than it was before. They added four amot to two sides of the altar, forming the shape of the Greek letter Gamma, which made the usable space of the altar 24 x 24. This number is derived from an interpretation of Ezekiel 43:16, according to which the altar was 12 x 12 amot. This number strikes Rabbi Yose as being impossibly small, probably because that would make it smaller than the altar of Solomon. Therefore, he posits that the measurements were taken from the center of the altar, and that 12 amot extended in each direction, leaving a space of 24 x 24.
+<b>A line of red paint ran round it in the middle to divide between the upper and the lower blood.</b>  Some sacrifices had their blood spilt on the upper side of the altar, above the red paint (the animal hatat and bird olot) while the rest had their blood spilt on the lower side of the altar.
+<b>The foundation ran the whole length of the north and of the west sides, and it took up one cubit on the south and one on the east.</b>  This was explained above in section two.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>At the southwestern corner [of the foundation] there were two openings like two small nostrils through which the blood which was poured on the western side of the foundation and on the southern side flowed down till the two streams became mingled in the channel,   through which they made their way out to the Kidron wadi.</b> The blood of all sacrifices was either drained on the western side of the foundation (see Zevahim 5:1-2) or on the southern side (Zevahim 5:3). The blood would drain out through two holes shaped like nostrils, and then flow down to the channel that flowed through the Temple Courtyard. From there the blood would be flushed out to the Kidron wadi that flows below the Temple Mount.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>On the floor beneath at that corner there was a place a cubit square on which was a marble slab with a ring fixed in it, and through this they used to go down to the pit to clean it out.</b>  The blood and refuse would flow down to the pit (called in Hebrew the “shit” wonder if that’s coincidental?). There was a trap door that would lead down to the pit and the priests would periodically clean it out of congealed blood so that it wouldn’t get clogged. That might not have been a job that they had to fight to get.
+<b>There was an ascent on the south side of the altar, thirty-two cubits [long] by sixteen broad.</b>  The ascent was the ramp that the priests used to go up to the altar. It was long and quite broad.
+<b>It had a square window in its western side where disqualified sin-offerings of birds were placed.</b>  Sin-offerings of birds had to be left somewhere until they would begin to rot. Then they could be burned outside the Temple. To this end the birds were left in a small window/cavity cut out of the ascent.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah deals with the stones used for the altar. Deuteronomy 27:5-6 states: “You should build an altar to the Lord your God, an altar of stones. Do not wield an iron tool over them; you must build the altar of the Lord your God of unhewn stones.” These two verses and their fulfillment are the main topic of this mishnah.
+<b>The stones both of the ascent and of the altar were taken from the valley of Bet Kerem.</b>  Bet Kerem is close to Jerusalem (today it is a neighborhood in Jerusalem).
+<b>They dug into virgin soil and brought from there whole stones on which no iron had been lifted, since iron disqualifies by mere touch, though a flaw made by anything could disqualify. If one of them received a flaw, it was disqualified, but the rest were not.</b>  The quarrying would begin in soil that had not been used. They would extract whole stones without using any iron tools. Any stone which had been touched by an iron tool is disqualified. If it was flawed by a different type of tool it is also disqualified, but other types of metal do not disqualify by mere touch. If one of the stones that were already in use received a flaw, it is disqualified but the other stones are still valid. They will have to replace the flawed stone.
+<b>They were whitewashed twice a year, once at Pesah and once at Hag, and the Sanctuary was whitewashed once a year, at Pesah. Rabbi says: they were whitewashed every Friday with a cloth on account of the blood stains.</b>  The stones of the altar were whitewashed with plaster twice a year, once on Pesah (their Pesah cleaning) and once on Sukkot. The mishnah seems to say that they whitewashed the Sanctuary with plaster once a year. However, this cannot be the intention of the mishnah because the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies were both covered with gold. Therefore, Albeck explains that this refers to the porch (the Ulam) that comes before the Sanctuary. Another explanation is that the word “Sanctuary” here actually refers to the whole Temple, including the courtyards. Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] holds that they would clean the altar once a week because of the blood stains. But they would only do so with a simple cloth.
+<b>The plaster was not laid on with an iron trowel, for fear that it might touch and disqualify.</b>  When they put on the plaster, they did not use an iron trowel for fear that would disqualify the stones.
+<b>Since iron was created to shorten man's days and the altar was created to prolong man's days, and it is not right therefore that that which shortens should be lifted against that which prolongs.</b>  This section explains why iron disqualifies the stones of the altar. It is a nice midrash the material that is used to destroy life should be kept away from the altar, whose ultimate purpose is to provide and lengthen life.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>There were rings to the north of the altar, six rows of four each. And some say, four rows of six each. Upon them they used to slaughter the sacrificial animals.<br>The slaughter house was to the north of the altar, and on it were eight small pillars on top of which were blocks of cedar wood, in which were fixed hooks of iron, three rows in each, upon which they would hang [the sacrifice] and they would strip its hide on tables of marble that stood between the pillars. Section one: There were twenty-four rings on the north side of the altar, either in six rows of four, or four rows of six. They would put the animal’s head in the ring to slaughter it. Section two: The mishnah describes the slaughterhouse, especially the hooks on which they would hang the meat after the sacrifice was slaughtered. It is also describes the tables upon which the meat would be washed.</b><br>This mishnah describes the set-up used to slaughter the sacrifices. Some of this mishnah was also found in Tamid 3:5 (coincidental, I think, that the number of the mishnah is the same).
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The Mishnah continues to move in its description from the less holy places to the direction of the Sanctuary and the holiest places. Today we move from the outer altar to the Sanctuary.
+<b>The laver was between the porch and the altar, a little to the south.</b>  The laver where the priests would wash their hands and feet was found between the porch and the altar (to the west of the altar), and a little bit south.
+<b>Between the porch and the altar there were twenty-two cubits.</b>  Between the altar and the porch there were twenty-two cubits, which were taken up by steps. Each step was half a cubit above the previous step. The breadth of each step was a cubit, but some steps had some extra floor space in between them.
+<b>There were twelve steps there, each step being half a cubit high and a cubit broad. There was a cubit, a cubit and a level space of three cubits, then a cubit, a cubit and a level space of three cubits, then at the top a cubit, a cubit and a level space of four cubits.</b>  The first two steps were a cubit broad, and then there was a level space of three cubits before the next step began. This set-up occurred three times for a total of nine steps, and fifteen cubits. The final set had a level space of four cubits, bringing the total to twenty-one cubits. In addition there was another cubit between the altar and the first step, for a total of 22 cubits between the altar and the Sanctuary.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says that at the top there was a cubit, a cubit and a level space of five cubits.</b>  Rabbi Judah holds that the extra cubit was in the level space after the last step. There was no space of a cubit between the altar and the first step.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah deals with the doorway that opened onto the Porch (Oolam in Hebrew).
+<b>The doorway of the porch was forty cubits high and its breadth was twenty cubits.</b>  As we noted above in 2:3, the doorway to the Porch was larger than all of the other doorways in the Temple. It was forty cubits high, whereas all other doorways were twenty cubits high.
+<b>Over it were five main beams of ash [wood]. The lowest projected a cubit on each side beyond the doorway. The one above projected beyond this one a cubit on each side. Thus the topmost one was thirty cubits long.</b>  The lowest beam that went over the doorway would have been 22 cubits in breadth. The next was 24, the third was 26, the fourth was 28 and the fifth was thirty cubits long.
+<b>There was a layer of stones between each one and the next.</b>  Between each beam there was a layer of stones.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>There were poles of cedar wood stretching from the wall of the Sanctuary to the wall of the Porch to prevent it from bulging. There were chains of gold fixed in the roof beams of the Porch by which the priestly initiates used to ascend and see the crowns, as it says, “And the crowns shall be to Helem and to Toviyah and to Yedaya and to Hen the son of Zephaniah as a memorial in the Temple of the Lord” (Zechariah 6:14). A golden vine stood at the door of the Sanctuary trained on poles, and anyone who offered a leaf or a grape or a bunch used to bring it and hang it there. Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok said: on one occasion three hundred priests were commissioned [to clear it].</b><br>
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>The doorway of the Hekhal was twenty cubits high and ten broad.<br>It had four doors, two on the inner side, and two on the outer, as it says, “And the Hekhal and the Sanctuary had two doors” (Ezekiel 41:23).<br>The outer ones opened into the interior of the doorway so as to cover the thickness of the wall, while the inner ones opened into the Temple so as to cover the space behind the doors, because the whole of the Temple was overlaid with gold except the space behind the doors.<br>Rabbi Judah says: they stood within the doorway, and they resembled folding doors. These were two cubits and a half [of the wall] and these were two cubits and a half, leaving half a cubit as a doorpost at the one end and half a cubit as a doorpost at the other end, as it says, “And the doors had two leaves apiece, two turning leaves, two leaves for the one door and two leaves for the other” (Ezekiel 41:2.</b><br>Chapter four deals with the Sanctuary or Hekhal in Hebrew. I will call it the Hekhal henceforth in order to encourage the use of Hebrew. The Hekhal was the main structure of the Temple and it stood between the Porch and the Holy of Holies.<br>Section two: The Hekhal had four doors. Two doors were in the thickness of the wall of the Hekhal, which ran the length of the opening, facing the Hekhal, one on the left and one on the right. Two others were on the other side, facing the Porch.<br>Section three: The wall of the Hekhal was six cubits in breadth. The doors were each five cubits long, so that when they opened they would cover five of the six cubits of the thickness of the wall. The extra cubit was taken up by the door post. The inner ones opened into the Hekhal, and when opened they would cover the part of the inside of the Hekhal that was not overlaid with gold. The doors were also covered with gold, so that when they were open only gold would be seen.<br>Section four: Rabbi Judah envisions a different set-up for the doors. Each door was like a folding door and they stood within the doorway and all of them were used to cover the thickness of the wall, each covering 2 ½ cubits of the wall. In other words, the doors did not open into the Hekhal. Rabbi Judah seems to interpret “two turning leaves” as proof that each door was a type of folding door. It is interesting to note that there may be a bit of tension here between the first opinion and Rabbi Judah as to how we know what occurred in the Temple. The first opinion may be based more on tradition or even recollections whereas Rabbi Judah’s opinion is based on more on the text found in Ezekiel.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>The great gate had two small doors, one to the north and one to the south. By the one to the south no one ever went in, and concerning it was stated explicitly be Ezekiel, as it says, “And the Lord said to me: this gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, neither shall any man enter in by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut” (Ezekiel 44:2).</b>  The great gate of the Hekhal had two small doors, one to the north (to the right when facing the Hekhal) and one to the south. However, the southern door was never used, due to a direct order by God.
+<b>He [the priest] took the key and opened the [northern] door and went in to the cell, and from the cell he went into the Hekhal.</b>  When the priest wanted to open the great gate, he would take the keys to the gates, go into the cell, which was a chamber next to the gate, and then go into the Hekhal and open from the inside.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: he used to walk along in the thickness of the wall until he came to the space between the two gates. He would open the outer doors from within and the inner doors from without.</b>  Rabbi Judah says that the priest would not enter the cell but would rather walk along inside the wall which was six cubits thick. He would then open the outer doors from within, turn around and open the inner doors from without.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>There were thirty-eight cells there, fifteen on the north, fifteen on the south, and eight on the west.</b>  Around the walls of the Hekhal and the Holy of Holies there were 38 cells or small chambers.
+<b>On the north and on the south there were five over five and five again over these; On the west there were three over three and two over these.</b>  These chambers were built in three stories. On the northern and southern sides there were five on each story, and on the west there were three on the first two stories and two on the top story.
+<b>Each had three openings, one to the cell on the right and one to the cell on the left and one to the cell above.</b>  Each cell had three openings, one which would open to the cell on the right, one which would open to the cell on the left, and one which would open to the cell above. However, the top row of cells had only two openings.
+<b>In the [one at the] northeastern corner there were five openings, one to the cell on the right, one to the cell above, one to the mesibbah, one to the door, and one to the Hekhal.</b>  The cell at the northeastern corner had five openings. One to the cell on the right and one above (there was no cell to its left, because there were no cells on the east). One to the mesibbah, which was a ramp that would go up from the west to the east to the roofs of the cells and the upper level of the Sanctuary. We will learn more about the mesibbah in mishnah five. The fourth opening led to the door on the northern side of the great gate at the entrance to the Hekhal. The fifth door led straight to the Hekhal. This accords with what we learned in yesterday's mishnah, according to the opinion of the sages (and not Rabbi Judah).
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>The [chamber] of the lowest [story] was five cubits wide and at the ceiling six cubits.</b>  The mishnah's explanation of the size of the cells is based on I Kings 6:6. The bottom story's cells were each five cubits in breadth. In the walls of the Hekhal they would reduce the thickness of the wall by a cubit at this point so that the ceiling of the cell could rest on the point where the wall was brought in. This is also referred to in the continuation of the above verse from I Kings. This would mean that at the point of the ceiling the cell was one cubit broader.
+<b>The [chamber] of the middle [story] was six cubits wide and at the ceiling of seven.</b>  The second story was one cubit broader, matching the breadth of the ceiling of the first story. Again, the wall was brought in to accommodate the planks for the ceiling of the cell. This would make it seven cubits at the point of the ceiling.
+<b>The [chamber] of the top [story] was seven cubits wide, as it says, "The lowest story was five cubits wide, the middle one 6 cubits wide and the third 7 cubits wide" (I Kings 6:6).</b>  Similarly, the third story was the breadth of the ceiling of the second story. As stated above, this matches the verse in I Kings that describes Solomon's Temple. We should emphasize that this is another example where either the Second Temple was patterned after the First Temple, or the rabbis at least imagined that it was.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>The mesibbah (a winding went up from the north-east corner to the north-west corner by which they used to go up to the roofs of the cells.<br>One would ascend the messibah facing the west, traversing the whole of the northern side till he reached the west.<br>When he reached the west he turned to face south and then traversed whole of the west side till he reached the south.<br>When he reached the south he turned to face eastwards and then traversed the south side till he reached the door of the upper chamber, since the door of the upper chamber opened to the south.<br>In the doorway of the upper chamber were two columns of cedar by which they used to climb up to the roof of the upper chamber, and at the top of them was a row of stones showing the division in the upper chamber between the holy part and the Holy of Holies.<br>There were trap doors in the upper chamber opening into the Holy of Holies by which the workmen were let down in baskets so that they should not feast their eyes on the Holy of Holies.</b><br>Sections 1-4: The mesibbah was the walkway that they would use to get to the top of the Hekhal. The mishnah explains how the priest would walk on the mesibbah which began on the northeastern side (as we learned in mishnah three) and went to the northwestern side. He would then turn south (left) and walk to the end, then he would walk all the way to the southeastern cornet to get to the upper chamber that was built on top of the Hekhal and the Holy of Holies. The door of this chamber was open on the southern wall.<br>Section five: There were poles in the upper chamber which they could use to climb up to the roof. On the roof there was a division made by a wall of stones to distinguish between the Hekhal (the holy) and the Holy of Holies.<br>Section six: There were trap doors in the roof of the Holy of Holies through which they would let workmen down in baskets to fix the walls of the Hekhal and Holy of Holies when necessary. The workmen were let down in baskets that were covered on three sides so that all they could see was the wall that they were repairing. This would prevent them from unabashedly gazing at the Holy of Holies which would be considered an inappropriate means of deriving benefit from the holiest point of the Temple.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>The Hekhal was a hundred cubits by a hundred with a height of a hundred.</b>  The Hekhal as referred to in this mishnah includes the dimensions of the Porch, the Hekhal and the Holy of Holies put together.  It was a 100 cubit cube.
+<b>The foundation was six cubits, then it rose forty, then a cubit for the ornamentation, two cubits for the guttering, a cubit for the ceiling and a cubit for the plastering.</b>  The mishnah now explains the elements that lead to a height of 100 cubits (note: this is a very tall structure). The closed foundation of the entire structure was 6 cubits high. We can also see this by the need for 12 stairs to lead up from the courtyard to the floor of the Porch. Each stair was 1/2 cubit high, making a total of 6 cubits. The empty space inside the Hekhal was 40 cubits high. Before the ceiling there was a cubit of ornamentation on the walls. Then there were two cubits of guttering to catch water that might leak in from the roof. The ceiling (the boards) and the plastering were each a cubit. This would bring us to a total of 51 cubits.
+<b>The height of the upper chamber was forty cubits, there was a cubit for its ornamentation, two cubits for the guttering, a cubit for the ceiling, a cubit for the plastering, three cubits for the parapet and a cubit for the spikes.</b>  The upper chamber was also forty cubits high, then another cubit for ornamentation, two for guttering, and one each for the ceiling and its plastering. This brings us to 96 total cubits. There was a parapet (a railing) on top of the upper chamber and there were one cubit spikes coming out of the parapet. This would chase away birds which would have nested on the tops of the walls. [Funny, but we too put spikes on top of our walls to keep away the bird].
+<b>Rabbi Judah says the spikes were not included in the measurement, but the parapet was four cubits.</b>  Rabbi Judah disagrees with two minor details of the above description. He claims that the spikes were not counted in the total, and that the number 100 was reached by the parapet being four not three cubits high.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>From east to west was a hundred cubits: The wall of the porch five cubits, the porch itself eleven, the wall of the Hekhal six cubits and its interior forty, a cubit for the space between, and twenty cubits for the Holy of Holies, the wall of the Hekhal six cubits, the cell six cubits and the wall of the cell five.</b>  The mishnah now proceeds to delineate the structures, walls, etc. that took up the length and breadth of the Hekhal. The Hekhal was one hundred cubits from its eastern side to its western side. The thickness of the front wall of the Porch was five cubits. The area of the Porch was eleven cubits, and the wall separating the Porch from the Hekhal was six more. This brings us to 22. The interior of the Hekhal was 40 (total = 62). There was a one cubit space between the Hekhal and the Holy of Holies. In the First Temple there was an actual wall in this space, but in the Second Temple there were two curtains a cubit apart from one another. The interior of the Holy of Holies was 20 cubits (total = 83). The western wall of the Hekhal was six more cubits. The width of the middle cells on the western side was six cubits, and the western wall of the cell was another five, bringing us to the grand total of 100 cubits.
+<b>From north to south was seventy cubits: The wall of the mesibbah five cubits, the mesibbah itself three, the wall of the cell five and the cell itself six, the wall of the Hekhal six cubits and its interior twenty, then the wall of the Hekhal again six and the cell six and its wall five, then the place of the water descent three cubits and its wall five cubits.</b>  From north to south the entire expanse was seventy cubits. The thickness of the walls of the mesibbah was 5 cubits (concerning the mesibbah see mishnah five). The width of the mesibbah itself was three cubits. Inside the mesibbah was the cell, whose wall was five. The middle level cell itself was six cubits wide (total = 19). The wall separating the cell from the Hekhal was another six, and the width of the Hekhal was twenty (total=45). The opposite wall was also six and the cell on the south side was another six, and its wall was another five (total = 62). There was a space of three cubits between the wall of the cell and the outer wall in order to let water flow down from the roof. This was another three cubits and then another five cubits of wall, bringing us to a total of 70 cubits. It might be interesting to note that of the seventy cubits, 32 of them were taken up by wall. The walls were plentiful and very thick.
+<b>The Porch extended beyond this fifteen cubits on the north and fifteen cubits on the south, and this space was called the House of the slaughter-knives where they used to store the knives.</b>  The Porch, the structure that lay in front of the Hekhal, was fifteen cubits longer from north to south then the Hekhal on each side. This would mean that the back wall to the Porch, which serves as the front wall of the Hekhal, would have been 100 cubits, whereas the rest of the Hekhal was seventy cubits from north to south. This extra space was where the slaughterer's knives were stored. Perhaps we could surmise that they stored the knives here in order to keep them from being parallel to the altar or Holy of Holies, such that an instrument of violence, while necessary for the daily operation of the Temple, was at least not stored in a space parallel to the life-giving altar.
+<b>The Hekhal was narrow behind and broad in front, resembling a lion, as it says, "Ah, Ariel, Ariel, the city where David encamped" (Isaiah 29:1): Just as a lion is narrow behind and broad in front, so the Hekhal was narrow behind and broad in front.</b>  The final section of the mishnah and our chapter likens the entire structure of the Porch, Hekhal and Holy of Holies to a lion. It was broad in front (100 cubits) and a bit narrower in the back (70 cubits). The imagery is based on the verse which refers to Jerusalem as "Ariel" which means "lion of God."
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Chapter five backs away from the Hekhal and describes the courtyard that lay to the east of the Temple.
+If we think about Tractate Middot as a whole we can see that the first two chapters brought us on to the Temple Mount and into the outer courtyards, the fourth chapter discussed the Hekhal and the fifth chapter went back to the courtyard. At the heart of the tractate, in chapter three, is the description of the outer altar, certainly the most important piece of the Temple on an everyday basis. In my opinion, the literary structure of this tractate is clearly intentional.
+<b>The whole of the courtyard was a hundred and eighty-seven cubits long by a hundred and thirty-five broad.</b>  The 187 cubits is measured from the Israelite's courtyard (the Nicanor Gate) to the outer walls of the Temple. It does not include the Women's courtyard.
+<b>From east to west it was a hundred and eighty-seven. The space in which the Israelites could go was eleven cubits. The space in which the priests could go was eleven cubits. The altar took up thirty-two. Between the Porch and the altar was twenty-two cubits. The Hekhal took up a hundred cubits, and there were eleven cubits behind the kapporet.</b>  The Israelites' courtyard was eleven cubits wide, as was the priests' courtyard. Immediately after the priests' courtyard began the outer altar, which was thirty-two cubits broad (see 3:1). There were twenty-two cubits between the outer altar and the beginning of the Porch (see 3:6). This brings us to a total of 76 cubits. The Hekhal was 100 cubits from east to west (see 4:7). On the other side of the Holy of Holies, which held the kapporet, from the western wall of the Hekhal to the western wall of the Temple, there were another 11 cubits, bringing us to a grand total of 187 cubits.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah explains the structures that took up the space going from north to south in the courtyard.
+<b>From north to south was a hundred and thirty-five cubits.<br>The ascent and the altar took up sixty-two;</b>  Although the ascent was 32 cubits long and the altar was also thirty-two cubits long, together they took up only 62 cubits of floor space. There are some complicated equations to work this out, which I do not want to get into here. Suffice it to say, that Albeck concludes that the ascent did not reach the altar itself, but stopped about a cubit away and that the top of the ascent did not go all the way up to the altar.
+<b>From the altar to the rings was eight cubits.</b>  The rings were described in 3:5. They were eight cubits north of the altar (total 70).
+<b>The rings took up twenty-four cubits.</b>  The rings took up twenty-four cubits (total: 94).
+<b>From the rings to the tables was four cubits,</b>  See also 3:5. These were four cubits away.
+<b>From the tables to the dwarf pillars four,</b>  See also 3:5. These pillars were used to hang the sacrifices and strip their hides. The mishnah does not tell us how much space the tables took up. The Rambam writes that the tables took up eight cubits. Based on this, other commentators claim that the tables took up the space between the rings and the dwarf pillars.
+<b>And from the dwarf pillars to the wall of the courtyard eight cubits,</b>  From the dwarf pillars to the outer wall was another 8 cubits, bringing the total to 110.
+<b>And the remainder was between the ascent and the wall  and the space occupied by the dwarf pillars.</b>  The remaining 25 cubits was taken up by the space on the southern side between the ascent and the southern wall and the space of the dwarf pillars themselves. According to the Rambam, each took up 12 1/2 cubits.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>There were six chambers in the courtyard, three on the north and three on the south.<br>On the north were the salt chamber, the parvah chamber and the washer's chamber.<br>In the salt chamber they used to keep the salt for the offerings.<br>In the parvah chamber they used to salt the skins of the animal-offerings.<br>On its roof was the bath used by the high priest on Yom Kippur.<br>In the washers’ chamber they used to wash the entrails of the sacrificial animals, and from it a winding way went up to the roof of the parvah chamber.</b><br>Our mishnah that were in the Israelites' courtyard or within. Most of the mishnah is self-explanatory, but I have made a few comments below.<br>Section two: These three chambers were close to one another, on the northeastern corner of the Israelites' courtyard. There are two explanations as to why it was called the "parvah chamber." The first is that the person who dedicated it was named "Parvah" either as a first or last name. The second is that the word "parvah" is after the "parot" or cows, whose hides were treated their. In modern Hebrew the word "parvah" means fur, but cows, sheep and goats don't really have fur.<br>Section five: The high priest would immerse five times on Yom Kippur, all within the Temple confines. See Yoma 3:3. Here we learn that these immersions were done on the roof of the parvah chamber.<br>Section six: In this chamber they would wash out the animal's stomach. The intestines were washed on the tables near the dwarf pillars, as we learned in Tamid 4:3.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>On the south were the wood chamber, the chamber of the exile and the chamber of hewn stones.<br>The wood chamber: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: I forget what it was used for. Abba Shaul says: It was the chamber of the high priest, and it was behind the two of them, and one roof covered all three.<br>In the chamber of the exile there was a fixed cistern, with a wheel over it, and from there water was provided for all of the courtyard.<br>In the chamber of hewn stone the great Sanhedrin of Israel used to sit and judge the priesthood.<br>A priest in whom was found a disqualification used to put on black garments and wrap himself in black and go away. One in whom no disqualification was found used to put on white garments and wrap himself in white and go in and serve along with his brother priests.<br>They used to make a feast because no blemish had been found in the seed of Aaron the priest, and they used to say: Blessed is the Omnipresent, blessed is He, for no blemish has been found in the seed of Aaron. Blessed is He who chose Aaron and his sons to stand to minister before the Lord in the Holy of Holies.</b><br>The final mishnah of our tractate describes the three chambers that were found on the southern side of the courtyard.<br>Section two: We should note that this is the second time in our tractate that Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob did not know what a chamber was used for and Abba Shaul did. See also 2:5. According to the Abba Shaul, the chamber of wood was the chamber of the high priest, which the Talmud identifies with the chamber mentioned in the beginning of Yoma. There it is called "the chamber of parhedrin" and in it the high priest would dwell for the seven days before Yom Kippur.<br>Section three: This cistern was also mentioned in Eruvin 10:14. Some commentators explain that it was called the "chamber of the exile" because it was built by Jews who had returned from the exile. Others explain that the word "golah" which I have translated to be "exile" should be read "gulah" which refers to a large container attached to the wheel which was used to draw water.<br>Section four: In the chamber of hewn stone, the great Sanhedrin of 70 judges would sit and one of their responsibilities was to decide which priests were fit to serve in the Temple [see also Sanhedrin, chapter one]. [We should note that there is something to be said about rabbis claiming that they determined which priests were fit to serve in the Temple. One wonders whether the priests would have agreed that this was the way things were done].<br>Section five: A priest who was disqualified from serving in the Temple, either due to a physical blemish or perhaps a genealogical flaw, would dress in black and leave.<br>One who was found valid to serve, would don his white priestly clothing and head off to join his fellow priests.<br>Section five: On a day that no priests were invalidated, the priests would make a celebration and offer up a special blessing. The impression one gets is that this was not the norm most of time at least one priest was found to be disqualified.<br>Congratulations!  We have finished Tractate Middot!<br>It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.<br>Middot was an unusual tractate, much as was Tamid. Instead of the usual argumentation, we get a long physical description of the Temple. We should appreciate that although the rabbis were primarily attached to the words of the Torah, both the written and the oral Torah, they were drawn to the physical stones of the Temple, although they could no longer worship there. Perhaps we could even look at Middot as a way of bringing those stones into their own world of words.<br>This is not the place to discuss rabbinic thought on the complicated subject of animal sacrifice, but we should note that on at least one occasion in the tractate the rabbis did reveal their understanding of this subject. The altar gives life, both to Israel and perhaps to the entire world. By bringing us closer to God and maintaining our relationship with the eternal forces that rule the universe, the altar and the Temple which surround it, seem to tap into such a primal power and bring life to the worshipper's fragile human existence.<br>I hope you have enjoyed Arakhin. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Kinim.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Middot/English/merged.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Middot
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה מדות
+merged
+https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Middot
+This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
+-Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+-http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Middot
+
+Introduction
+
+Tractate Middot is a detailed description of the Second Temple as built by Herod during the end of the first century B.C.E. The word “Middot” means “measurements” and it refers to the measurements of the Temple.  
+We should note that the sources of this description can be varied. Some of the sources are from the sages own memories or transmitted oral tradition. However, the memory of the Temple sometimes contains discrepancies and is sometimes brought in piecework. There are even occasional debates as to what exactly the Temple looked like. Occasionally, the rabbis use Ezekiel’s visions of the Temple in their own description, even though they were aware that the actual Temple did not look exactly as Ezekiel described it. On other occasions they even use descriptions of Solomon’s Temple, under the assumption that the First Temple served as guideline for the building of the Second Temple. 
+Josephus also offers up a detailed description of the Temple, and his description does not always accord with the rabbis’ description. We should also note that their reasons for describing the Temple were different. The rabbis described the Temple so that subsequent generations would rebuild it, speedily and in their time. Josephus described the Temple so that he could impress the Greeks. However, both the rabbis and Josephus agree that it was a most impressive building.
+Middot has many similarities with Tamid, so we will make frequent reference to it as we learn these mishnayot. Both tractates are descriptive and differ distinctly from most of the other tractates we have learned.
+Good luck in learning Middot!
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Tractate Middot opens with the same exact line as did Tamid a list of where the priests kept watch all night. However, the interest of the two tractates is a bit different. Middot is interested in the watch itself, whereas Tamid was more interested in locating the priests before their daily work began.
+The beginning of Numbers 18 states that the priests and Levites are to stand guard at the Tabernacle, an idea that was later applied to the Temple as well. It seems that this guarding could serve two functions: practical and ceremonial. The Temple is akin to a palace and a palace needs guard both for protection and protocol (think about the guards in front of Buckingham Palace). The idea that there were a total of twenty-four places in the Temple where either priests or Levites would stand guard is mentioned also in I Chronicles 26:17-18.
+<b>In three places the priests keep watch in the Temple: in the chamber of Avtinas, in the chamber of the spark, and in the fire chamber.</b>  There were three places in the Temple where the priests would keep watch at night: The chamber of Avtinas, where they would prepare the incense. The chamber of the spark, where they kept the fire to light the fires on the altars. The fire chamber where they kept a large fire to keep the priests warm at night.
+<b>And the Levites in twenty-one places: Five at the five gates of the Temple Mount; Four at its four corners on the inside; Five at five of the gates of the courtyard; Four at its four corners on the outside; One at the offering chamber; One at the chamber of the curtain, And one behind the place of the kapporet.</b>  There were twenty-one places where the Levites kept watch: A: The five gates to enter the Temple Mount. B: The four inside corners of the walls surrounding the Temple Mount. Sort of like prison guards. C: There were seven gates to the courtyard (see mishnah four) but the Levites guarded only five of them. D: At the four corners inside the walls surrounding the Temple. E: The “offering chamber” was in the burning place. We will learn more about this place in mishnah six. F: Where the curtain was kept. G: This refers to behind the Holy of Holies.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>The officer of the Temple Mount used to go round to every watch, with lighted torches before him, and if any watcher did not rise [at his approach] and say to him, “Shalom to you, officer of the Temple Mount, it was obvious that he was asleep. Then he used to beat him with his rod.<br>And he had permission to burn his clothes. And the others would say: What is the noise in the courtyard? It is the cry of a Levite who is being beaten and whose clothes are being burned, because he was asleep at his watch. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: once they found my mother's brother asleep, and they burnt his clothes.</b><br>Today’s mishnah describes the officer in charge of security on the Temple Mount who would go around and check to make sure no one was asleep on his watch. If he found anyone asleep he would beat them, and perhaps even burn their clothes. Don’t ask me what they would do without any clothes!<br>The mishnah is straightforward (although a bit harsh) and therefore doesn’t really need explanation.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+The Temple Mount had five gates, which the mishnah now lists.
+<b>There were five gates to the Temple Mount:</b>  Huldah was a prophetess mentioned in II Kings 22:14, but there is she found in Jerusalem, not necessarily at these gates. Perhaps these were the gates where she sat, albeit in the First Temple. We should note that one can still see these southern gates at the southern walls of the Temple. This seems to be the most common entrance and exit.
+<b>The two Huldah gates on the south were used both for entrance and exit;</b>  We don’t really know who Kiponus was. It is possible that he was the man who donated the gate.
+<b>The Kiponus gate on the west was used both for entrance and exit.</b>  The Taddi gate on the north was rarely used. One exception will be brought at the end of this chapter. Again, Taddi seems possibly to have been the man who donated the gate.
+<b>The Taddi gate on the north was not used at all.</b>  Over the eastern gate was a drawing of Shushan, Persia. This was in commemoration of the place where the Jews were during the exile. It might have also served as a tribute to Cyrus who let the Jews leave Persia to return to Israel. To the east of the Temple lies the Mount of Olives, where the red heifer was burned. The high priest and the other priests involved in this ceremony would go through this gate on their way to the Mount of Olives to burn the red heifer.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>There were seven gates in the courtyard: three in the north and three in the south and one in the east.<br>In the south: the Gate of Kindling, and next to it the Gate of the First-borns, and then the Water Gate.<br>In the east: the Gate of Nicanor. It had two chambers, one on its right and one on its left. One was the chamber of Pinchas the dresser and one the other the chamber of the griddle cake makers.</b><br>Today’s mishnah lists the seven gates in the Temple courtyard.<br>Section two: The Gate of Kindling was used to bring in the wood for the altar.<br>Through the Gate of the First-borns they would bring in first-born animals on their way to being slaughtered. The Water Gate was used to bring in the water used on Sukkot for the water libation (it’s the most famous gate in history, but for other reasons).<br>Section three: Mishnah Yoma 3:10, mentions Nicanor and the doors for his gate, which according to legend were brought miraculously from Egypt. This gate was on the eastern side of the courtyard. Within the gate itself there were two chambers. In one sat Pinchas who made the priestly clothing (see Shekalim 5:1) and in the other sat the priests who made the griddle cakes that the high priest would offer every day (see Tamid 1:3).
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>On the north was the Gate of the Sparks which was shaped like a portico.</b>  On the north there was the Gate of the Sparks. There were pillars on both sides, which made it look like a portico.
+<b>It had an upper chamber built on it, and the priests used to keep watch above and the Levites below, and it had a door opening into the Hel.</b>  The Gate of the Sparks, unlike most gates, also had an upper chamber. The priests would stand on top and stand guard, as we learned in mishnah one. The Levites would stand below and guard (see also mishnah one). The Gate had a door that opened onto the Hel. The Hel was an area ten amot wide that went between the Soreg (a light fence) and the walls of the Courtyard. We will explain more about this later in 2:3.
+<b>Next to it was the Gate of the Sacrifice and next to that the fire chamber.</b>  To the east of the Gate of the Sparks was the Gate of the Sacrifice. Next to it was the fire chamber, mentioned above in mishnah one.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah describes the fire chamber. This chamber is also described in Tamid 3:3. In the first mishnah of Middot (and Tamid) we learned that the fire chamber was called as such because it had a large fire which kept the priests warm at night. Today we learn that there were different rooms within the fire chamber, each of them serving a different purpose.
+<b>There were four chambers inside the fire chamber, like sleeping chambers opening into a hall, two in sacred ground and two in non-holy, and there was a row of mosaic stones   separating the holy from the non-holy. For what were they used?</b>  The chambers of the fire chamber were small rooms that opened into a larger hall. Two of them were inside the Temple on holy ground and two were outside the Temple.  The ones on the outside of the Temple were in the Hel [in Hebrew Hel and hol (non-holy) are almost the same]. There was a fence made of mosaic stones that would separate the chambers inside the Temple from those outside.
+<b>The one on the southwest was the chamber of sacrificial lambs,</b>  The chamber on the southwest was used to store lambs. This chamber was mentioned in Arakhin 2:5, “there were never less than six inspected lambs in the chamber of lambs.”
+<b>The one on the southeast was the chamber of the showbread.</b>  In the chamber on the southeast they would knead and bake the showbread.
+<b>In the one to the northeast the Hasmoneans deposited the stones of the altar which the kings of Greece had defiled.</b>  The northeastern chamber was used to store the stones from the altar that the Greeks had defiled by offering foreign sacrifices on it. According to I Maccabees 1:54 (a non-canonical book) when the Maccabees tore down the altar that had been defiled by the Greeks, they deposited the stones until a prophet would come along and tell them what to do with them (see 4: 43-46). In Tamid 3:3 this chamber is called “the chamber of seals.”
+<b>Through the one on the northwest they used to go down to the bathing place.</b>  In the floor of the northwestern chamber there was an opening through which the priests would go down to bathe. In Tamid this is called “the fire chamber” for it was in this chamber that they would keep the fire.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>The fire chamber had two gates, one opening on to the Hel and one on to the courtyard. Rabbi Judah says: the one that opened on to the courtyard had a small opening through which they went in to search the courtyard.</b>  On the northern side of the fire chamber there was a gate opening to the Hel, the corridor that ran outside the courtyard. On the southern side there was a gate opening into the courtyard.
+Every morning they would check the courtyard to make sure everything was in its proper place. This procedure was described in Tamid 1:3. The gate to the courtyard had a small opening through which they would enter the courtyard.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah appears word for word in Tamid 1:1. My explanation here is the same as there.
+<b>The fire chamber was vaulted and it was a large room surrounded with stone projections, and the elders of the clan [serving in the Temple] used to sleep there, with the keys of the Temple courtyard in their hands.</b>  The fire chamber was vaulted, and surrounded by rows of stones. On these rows of stones the priests serving in the Temple at the time (the Temple guard was split into 24 houses) would sleep, while holding the keys to the Temple courtyard.
+The young priests did not get to sleep on the rows of stones. They had to put their bedding down on the ground and sleep on the floor.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>There was a place there [in the fire chamber] one cubit square on which was a slab of marble.<br>In this was fixed a ring and a chain on which the keys were hung.<br>When closing time came, the priest would raise the slab by the ring and take the keys from the chain.<br>Then the priest would lock up within while the Levite was sleeping outside.<br>When he had finished locking up, he would replace the keys on the chain and the slab in its place and put his garment on it and sleep there.<br>If one of them had a seminal emission, he would go out by the winding stair which went under the Birah, and which was lighted with lamps on both sides, until he reached the bathing place.<br>Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: he descended by the winding stair which went under the Hel and he went out by the Taddi gate.</b><br>Our mishnah deals with the locking of the Temple gates at night.<br>Section four: There are two explanations for “the Levite was sleeping outside.” Either it means that the Levites sat outside the courtyard and guarded from the outside. Or this refers to the locking of the fire chamber. In the fire chamber the priests were inside and the Levites outside.<br>Section six: Tamid 1:1 also discusses what would happen if a priest had an emission in the middle of the night and needed to purify himself. According to Deuteronomy 23:11 such a person must leave the “camp”, which the rabbis interpret to be parallel to the Temple. The priest would exit the Temple by using a set of underground stairs. It was forbidden for him to walk through the courtyard, or even on the Temple mount because he was impure. These stairs were lit so that he could see his way. He would then come to the ritual bath.<br>Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that when he was coming out of the ritual bath, he would not go back to the fire chamber. Rather he would go under the Hel and end up on the Temple Mount near the Taddi gate. Note that Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob does not disagree with the halakhah in our mishnah but rather with the halakhah in Tamid 1:1, according to which the priest the priest would return to the fire chamber.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Chapter two deals with the dimensions of the Temple Mount and its courtyards.
+<b>The Temple Mount was five hundred cubits by five hundred cubits.</b>  This accords with the dimensions stated in Ezekiel 42:20.
+<b>The greater part of it was on the south; next to that on the east; next to that on the north; and the smallest part on the west.</b>  The Temple was not centered in the middle of the Temple Mount. Rather it was to the northwestern side. Most of the empty ground was on the south. The second greatest empty area was on the east, then the north. The western side, or more accurately, the northwestern side, is where the Temple was located. As an aside, this is why the Western Wall is the closest of the walls to the actual Temple. Today if you go into the tunnels to the north of the western wall, you get as close as is possible to the Temple, without going onto the Temple Mount.
+<b>The part which was most extensive was the part most used.</b>  For non-priests, the most extensive use was in the south, where the largest empty area was located.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>All who entered the Temple Mount entered by the right and went round [to the right] and went out by the left, save for one to whom something had happened, who entered and went round to the left.</b>  Most people would enter the Temple Mount on the right side of the Southern Gates, and they would turn right and eventually come out on the left. The exception was one who was either a mourner or had been excommunicated. They would enter the same way, but they would go around to the left. This seems to have served as a means by which others could tell that something had happened to them and could offer them comfort.
+<b>[He was asked]: “Why do you go round to the left?” [If he answered] “Because I am a mourner,” [they said to him], “May He who dwells in this house comfort you.”</b>  When people would see others walking around to the left, they would know to ask them what had happened. If the person answered that he was a mourner, they would offer him comfort.
+<b>[If he answered] “Because I am excommunicated” [they said]: “May He who dwells in this house inspire them to draw you near again,” the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose to him: you make it seem as if they treated him unjustly. Rather [they should say]: “May He who dwells in this house inspire you to listen to the words of your colleagues so that they may draw you near again.”</b>  Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Meir debate what words they would say to a mourner. According to Rabbi Meir they would offer hope that God would inspire the people who had excommunicated him to restore him to his status. Rabbi Yose complains that such a formulation gives the impression that those who had excommunicated him had done so unjustly. Instead, Rabbi Yose formulates words of consolation that place the blame on the excommunicated party, that he should mend his ways in order to be restored to his prior place.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Within it was the Soreg, ten handbreadths high.<br>There were thirteen breaches in it, which had been originally made by the kings of Greece, and when they repaired them they enacted that thirteen prostrations should be made facing them.<br>Within this was the Hel, which was ten cubits [broad].<br>There were twelve steps there. The height of each step was half a cubit and its tread was half a cubit.<br>All the steps in the Temple were half a cubit high with a tread of half a cubit, except those of the Porch.<br>All the doorways in the Temple were twenty cubits high and ten cubits broad except those of the Porch.<br>All the doorways there had doors in them except those of the Porch.<br>All the gates there had lintels except that of Taddi which had two stones inclined to one another.<br>All the original gates were changed for gates of gold except the gates of Nicanor, because a miracle happened with them. Some say: because their copper gleamed like gold.</b><br>Section one: Around the Temple there was a small partition called the Soreg. This set the Temple off from the rest of the Temple Mount.<br>Section two: The Greeks made thirteen breaches in the Soreg in order to demonstrate that Gentiles could enter the Hel, which was inside the Soreg. This tradition is also reflected in I Maccabees 9:54: “In the year one hundred and fifty-three, in the second month, Alcimus ordered the wall of the inner court of the porch to be torn down, thus destroying the work of the prophets.”<br>When the Hasmoneans expelled the Greeks, they repaired the breaches and enacted that anytime a person would pass one of them, he would bow down and thank God for their victory over the Greeks.<br>Section three: Within the Soreg was an area called the Hel. This was an empty area ten cubits (about five meters) wide.<br>Section four: Leading up from the Hel to the Temple courtyard were twelve steps. Each step was half a cubit high and half a cubit long.<br>Section five: The only steps in the Temple that did not have this dimension were those that led up from the courtyard of the priests to the Porch, whose length varied as we shall see in 3:6.<br>Section six: The mishnah now proceeds to note several differences between the dimensions of the Porch and the dimensions found elsewhere in the Temple. The gates of the Porch were forty amot high and twenty amot wide.<br>Section seven: The entrance to the Porch was set off with a curtain and not a door.<br>Section nine: Originally the gates were made of copper. When the Jews had more money, they refurnished the Temple and covered them with gold. The only exception was the Nicanor gates, which were not changed. There are two possibilities for why they stayed the same. First of all, there was a miracle performed with them. This is explained in the Bavli (Yoma 38a) in the following way:  “What miracles happened to his doors? They say that when Nicanor had gone to bring doors from Alexandria of Egypt, on his return a storm arose in the sea to drown him. They took one of his doors and cast it into the sea and yet the sea would not stop its rage. They wanted to cast the other into the sea. He rose and clung to it, saying: ‘Cast me in with it!’ The sea immediately stopped its raging. He was deeply grieved about the other [door]. When he arrived at the harbor of Acco, it broke through and came up from under the sides of the boat.  Others say: A monster of the sea swallowed it and spat it out on the dry land.”<br>The other explanation is that there was no need to replace the gates of Nicanor because their copper shined liked gold.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>All the walls that were there [in the Temple] were high except the eastern wall, for the priest who burned the red heifer would stand on the top of the Mount of Olives and direct his gaze carefully see the opening of the Sanctuary at the time of the sprinkling of the blood.</b> The red heifer was burned on the Mount of Olives, towards the east of the Temple Mount. The priest who burned it had to see the Sanctuary when he sprinkled the blood. This is how the rabbis interpret Numbers 19:4, “the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and sprinkle it seven times toward the front of the Tent of Meeting.” Note that the priest would not have been able to see the Sanctuary through the Eastern gate because the floor of the Sanctuary was 22 amot higher than the floor of the Temple Mount, and the Eastern Gate was only 20 amot high. Thus the floor of the Sanctuary was higher than the gate, and therefore, the priest had to see over the wall. That is why they designed this wall to be shorter than the other walls.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>The courtyard of the women was a hundred and thirty-five cubits long by a hundred and thirty-five wide.<br>It had four chambers in its four corners, each of which was forty cubits.<br>They were not roofed, and so they will be in the time to come, as it says, “Then he brought me forth into the outer court, and caused me to pass by the four corners of the court, and behold in every corner of the court there was a court. In the four corners of the court there were keturot courts” (Ezekiel 46:21-22) and keturot means that they were not roofed. For what were they used?<br>The southeastern one was the chamber of the Nazirites where the Nazirites used to boil their shelamim and shave their hair and throw it under the pot.<br>The northeastern one was the wood chamber where priests with physical defects used to pick out the wood which had worms, every piece with a worm in it being unfit for use on the altar.<br>The northwestern one was the chamber of those with skin disease.<br>The southwestern one: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: I forget what it was used for. Abba Shaul says: they used to store there wine and oil, and it was called the chamber of oil.<br>It [the courtyard of the women] had originally been smooth [without protrusions in the walls] but subsequently they surrounded it with a balcony so that the women could look on from above while the men were below, and they should not mix together.<br>Fifteen steps led up from it to the courtyard of Israel, corresponding to the fifteen [songs of] ascents mentioned in the Book of Psalms, and upon which the Levites used to sing. They were not rectangular but circular like the half of a threshing floor.</b><br>Today’s mishnah is about the courtyard of the women. This was the first courtyard which one would enter upon entering the Temple.<br>I am not going to explain every section, just those that I feel are not self-explanatory.<br>Section three: The rabbis read Ezekiel as a description of the future Temple that will be built in Messianic times. Nevertheless, the current Temple is to a certain extent patterned, at least in the rabbinic mind, after Ezekiel’s description. The word “keturot” in Ezekiel is unclear, but the rabbis interpret it to mean “unroofed.” Albeck notes that this is based on the Syriac phrased “Beta Ketira” which means “unroofed house.” Syriac is a Semitic language very close to Aramaic.<br>Section four: The Nazirites would boil their shelamim, peace offering, and throw their shaven hair into the fire under the pot (see Numbers 6:18; Nazir 6:8).<br>Section five: Priests with defects could not serve at the altar. Instead, they would sit in the chamber of wood and sort out which wood had worms, because wormed wood was not welcome on the altar.<br>Section six: Those with skin disease would immerse themselves in the special chamber for those with skin disease.<br>Section seven: The rabbis aren’t exactly sure what the southwestern chamber was even used for, at least not Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Abba Shaul claims that it was used to store wine and oil and it was called “the oil chamber.”<br>Section eight: Originally the walls of the women’s courtyard were smooth, without any protrusions to uphold a balcony. However, when they saw that there was a problem with men and women mixing during the Simhat Bet Hashoevah, a raucous festival that occurred during Sukkot (see Sukkah 5:2), they made a balcony for women to be above. We should note that during the rest of the year men and women mingled together in the women’s courtyard. Only during the risky time of great celebration did they separate the genders. This balcony is an eventual, much later source for women sitting in the balcony at synagogues, but in the Temple it was only used on one special occasion.<br>Section nine: Leading up from the courtyard of the women there were fifteen steps, going through the Nicanor gates and into the courtyard of the Israelites. These fifteen steps corresponded to the fifteen “songs of ascent” in Psalms 120-134. Upon them the Levites would sing during the Simhet Bet Hashoevah. The steps were shaped in semi-circles, and not rectangles as were other steps found in the Temple.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah is mostly about the Court of Israel, which was a smaller court leading from the Court of Women to the Court of the Priests.
+<b>There were chambers underneath the Court of Israel which opened into the Court of Women, where the Levites used to keep lyres and lutes and cymbals and all kinds of musical instruments.</b>  Underneath the Court of Israel there were chambers where the Levites would deposit their instruments.
+<b>The Court of Israel was a hundred and thirty-five cubits in length by eleven in breadth. Similarly the Court of the Priests was a hundred and thirty-five cubits in length by eleven in breadth.</b>  Both of these courtyards were the same breadth as the Court of Women, but they were much shorter, extending only eleven cubits. In a sense they were just strips.
+<b>And a row of mosaic stones separated the Court of Israel from the Court of the Priests.</b>  There was a partition separating the Court of Israel from the Court of Priests, for Israelites would not typically go into the Court of Priests. They would enter only when they were going to either slaughter a sacrifice or lay their hands upon it, or wave it.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: there was a step a cubit high on which a platform was placed, and it had three steps each of half a cubit in height. In this way the Court of the Priests was made two and a half cubits higher than that of Israel.</b>  According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, there was a step with a platform on it between the two courts. On this platform the Levites would stand and sing when the tamid sacrifice was being offered (see Tamid 7:3). The Court of Priests was thus slightly higher than the Court of Israel.
+<b>The whole of the Court was a hundred and eighty-seven cubits in length by a hundred and thirty-five in breadth.</b>  The entire Courtyard in which the Temple was located was 187 cubits long. This included the entire area of the Court of Priests, and then the area of the Temple, all the way past the Holy of Holies and to the western side of the Temple.
+<b>And thirteen prostrations were made there.</b>  There were thirteen places to prostrate, as we learned in mishnah three. According to this opinion, the thirteen places of prostration were at the places where the Soreg had been broken through by the Greeks.
+<b>Abba Yose ben Hanan says: they were made facing the thirteen gates. On the south beginning from the west there were the upper gate (1), the gate of burning (2), the gate of the firstborn (3), and the water gate (4). And why was it called the water gate? Because they brought in through it the pitcher of water for libation on the festival. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: in it the water welled up, and in the time to come from there it will come out from under the threshold of the Temple. Corresponding to them in the north beginning in the west were the gate of Yehoniah (5), the gate of the offering (6), the women's gate (7), the gate of song (8). Why was it called the gate of Yehoniah? Because Yehoniah went forth into captivity through it. On the east was the gate of Nicanor (9); it had two doors, one on its right and one on its left (10 + 11). There were further two gates in the west which had no special name (12 + 13).</b>  Abba Yose ben Hanan disagrees with the anonymous mishnah found in 1:4-5, who held that there were seven gates around the Temple Court. Abba Yose ben Hanan says that there were thirteen, and at each they would prostrate. He now lists these gates. Some of them are repeats of those listed above. The upper gate: Was called “upper” because it was at the highest point on the Temple Mount. The gate of the first-borns: Through which they would bring the first-born animals to be slaughtered, for they can be slaughtered on the south. The water gate: The mishnah gives two reasons why it was called the water gate. The first is practical through this gate the water was brought in for the water libation on Sukkot. The second is more messianic: Ezekiel 47:1-2 prophesies that in the time of redemption water will burst forth from the Temple. This water will come forth from this gate. Yehoniah’s gate: Yehoniah, as will be explained later in the mishnah, is the king who was exiled to Babylonia in II Kings 24:15. He went out, according to legend, through this gate. Commentators say that this is the same gate that is called “the gate of kindling” in 1:4. The gate of the offering: Through here they would bring in any sacrifice that needed to be slaughtered on the north side. The gate of women: Women who needed/wanted to lay their hands on their sacrifices could go in through this gate. The gate of song: Through which the Levites would bring in their musical instruments. Commentators identify this gate with the gate of the sparks in 1:5. Nicanor’s gate: As we have already learned, this gate was named after Nicanor who brought the gates from Egypt. On each side of the gate was a small door, and these doors were included in the overall count. Thus Nicanor’s gate gets credit for being three gates. The no-name gates: These gates were behind the Temple and were rarely used and therefore had no names.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Chapter three begins with several mishnayot describing the outer altar, upon which the sacrifices were burned.
+<b>The altar was thirty-two cubits by thirty-two.</b>  The mishnah begins to describe the altar from the very bottom. This area was 32 by 32 cubits.
+<b>It rose a cubit and went in a cubit, and this formed the foundation, leaving thirty cubits by thirty.</b>  The foundation of the altar was an amah in length and ran the entire length on the north and west but not the south and the east. On the southwestern corner and northeastern corner it took up one amah, but did not run the whole length (this will be explained in section nine). The remaining square of the altar was 30 x 30 amot.
+<b>It then rose five cubits and went in one cubit, and this formed the surround, leaving twenty-eight cubits by twenty-eight.</b>  On top of the foundation lies the surround (sovev). The sovev was five amot above the altar, and it was an amah in breadth. This left the altar with 28 x 28 amot.
+<b>The horns extended a cubit in each direction, thus leaving twenty-six by twenty-six.</b>  The four corners/horns (same word in Hebrew) of the altar each took up an amah in each direction, leaving the altar with 26 x 26 amot.
+<b>A cubit on every side was allowed for the priests to go round, thus leaving twenty-four by twenty-four as the place for the wood pile [for the altar fire].</b>  Along the sides there was an amah walkway left empty so that the priests could walk around the altar. This walkway was inside the area devoted to the horns. Thus, the final measurement of the altar is 24 x 24. It was on this space that they would set the wood for the fire.
+<b>Rabbi Yose said: Originally, the complete area [occupied by the altar] was only twenty-eight cubits by twenty-eight, and it rose with the dimensions mentioned until the space left for the altar pile was only twenty by twenty. When, however, the children of the exile returned, they added four cubits on the north, and four on the west like a gamma, since it is said: “Now the hearth shall be twelve cubits long by twelve broad, square” (Ezekiel 43:16). Is it possible that it was only twelve cubits by twelve? When it says, “With four equal sides” (, this shows that he was measuring from the middle, twelve cubits in every direction.</b>  According to Rabbi Yose, the bottom square of the original altar was 28 x 28, leaving 20 x 20 for burning the wood, after room was left for the foundation, sovev, horns and walkway. This accords with the size of the altar built by Solomon according to II Chronicles 4:1. However, when the Israelites returned from the Babylonian exile, they built the altar larger than it was before. They added four amot to two sides of the altar, forming the shape of the Greek letter Gamma, which made the usable space of the altar 24 x 24. This number is derived from an interpretation of Ezekiel 43:16, according to which the altar was 12 x 12 amot. This number strikes Rabbi Yose as being impossibly small, probably because that would make it smaller than the altar of Solomon. Therefore, he posits that the measurements were taken from the center of the altar, and that 12 amot extended in each direction, leaving a space of 24 x 24.
+<b>A line of red paint ran round it in the middle to divide between the upper and the lower blood.</b>  Some sacrifices had their blood spilt on the upper side of the altar, above the red paint (the animal hatat and bird olot) while the rest had their blood spilt on the lower side of the altar.
+<b>The foundation ran the whole length of the north and of the west sides, and it took up one cubit on the south and one on the east.</b>  This was explained above in section two.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>At the southwestern corner [of the foundation] there were two openings like two small nostrils through which the blood which was poured on the western side of the foundation and on the southern side flowed down till the two streams became mingled in the channel,   through which they made their way out to the Kidron wadi.</b> The blood of all sacrifices was either drained on the western side of the foundation (see Zevahim 5:1-2) or on the southern side (Zevahim 5:3). The blood would drain out through two holes shaped like nostrils, and then flow down to the channel that flowed through the Temple Courtyard. From there the blood would be flushed out to the Kidron wadi that flows below the Temple Mount.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>On the floor beneath at that corner there was a place a cubit square on which was a marble slab with a ring fixed in it, and through this they used to go down to the pit to clean it out.</b>  The blood and refuse would flow down to the pit (called in Hebrew the “shit” wonder if that’s coincidental?). There was a trap door that would lead down to the pit and the priests would periodically clean it out of congealed blood so that it wouldn’t get clogged. That might not have been a job that they had to fight to get.
+<b>There was an ascent on the south side of the altar, thirty-two cubits [long] by sixteen broad.</b>  The ascent was the ramp that the priests used to go up to the altar. It was long and quite broad.
+<b>It had a square window in its western side where disqualified sin-offerings of birds were placed.</b>  Sin-offerings of birds had to be left somewhere until they would begin to rot. Then they could be burned outside the Temple. To this end the birds were left in a small window/cavity cut out of the ascent.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah deals with the stones used for the altar. Deuteronomy 27:5-6 states: “You should build an altar to the Lord your God, an altar of stones. Do not wield an iron tool over them; you must build the altar of the Lord your God of unhewn stones.” These two verses and their fulfillment are the main topic of this mishnah.
+<b>The stones both of the ascent and of the altar were taken from the valley of Bet Kerem.</b>  Bet Kerem is close to Jerusalem (today it is a neighborhood in Jerusalem).
+<b>They dug into virgin soil and brought from there whole stones on which no iron had been lifted, since iron disqualifies by mere touch, though a flaw made by anything could disqualify. If one of them received a flaw, it was disqualified, but the rest were not.</b>  The quarrying would begin in soil that had not been used. They would extract whole stones without using any iron tools. Any stone which had been touched by an iron tool is disqualified. If it was flawed by a different type of tool it is also disqualified, but other types of metal do not disqualify by mere touch. If one of the stones that were already in use received a flaw, it is disqualified but the other stones are still valid. They will have to replace the flawed stone.
+<b>They were whitewashed twice a year, once at Pesah and once at Hag, and the Sanctuary was whitewashed once a year, at Pesah. Rabbi says: they were whitewashed every Friday with a cloth on account of the blood stains.</b>  The stones of the altar were whitewashed with plaster twice a year, once on Pesah (their Pesah cleaning) and once on Sukkot. The mishnah seems to say that they whitewashed the Sanctuary with plaster once a year. However, this cannot be the intention of the mishnah because the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies were both covered with gold. Therefore, Albeck explains that this refers to the porch (the Ulam) that comes before the Sanctuary. Another explanation is that the word “Sanctuary” here actually refers to the whole Temple, including the courtyards. Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] holds that they would clean the altar once a week because of the blood stains. But they would only do so with a simple cloth.
+<b>The plaster was not laid on with an iron trowel, for fear that it might touch and disqualify.</b>  When they put on the plaster, they did not use an iron trowel for fear that would disqualify the stones.
+<b>Since iron was created to shorten man's days and the altar was created to prolong man's days, and it is not right therefore that that which shortens should be lifted against that which prolongs.</b>  This section explains why iron disqualifies the stones of the altar. It is a nice midrash the material that is used to destroy life should be kept away from the altar, whose ultimate purpose is to provide and lengthen life.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>There were rings to the north of the altar, six rows of four each. And some say, four rows of six each. Upon them they used to slaughter the sacrificial animals.<br>The slaughter house was to the north of the altar, and on it were eight small pillars on top of which were blocks of cedar wood, in which were fixed hooks of iron, three rows in each, upon which they would hang [the sacrifice] and they would strip its hide on tables of marble that stood between the pillars. Section one: There were twenty-four rings on the north side of the altar, either in six rows of four, or four rows of six. They would put the animal’s head in the ring to slaughter it. Section two: The mishnah describes the slaughterhouse, especially the hooks on which they would hang the meat after the sacrifice was slaughtered. It is also describes the tables upon which the meat would be washed.</b><br>This mishnah describes the set-up used to slaughter the sacrifices. Some of this mishnah was also found in Tamid 3:5 (coincidental, I think, that the number of the mishnah is the same).
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The Mishnah continues to move in its description from the less holy places to the direction of the Sanctuary and the holiest places. Today we move from the outer altar to the Sanctuary.
+<b>The laver was between the porch and the altar, a little to the south.</b>  The laver where the priests would wash their hands and feet was found between the porch and the altar (to the west of the altar), and a little bit south.
+<b>Between the porch and the altar there were twenty-two cubits.</b>  Between the altar and the porch there were twenty-two cubits, which were taken up by steps. Each step was half a cubit above the previous step. The breadth of each step was a cubit, but some steps had some extra floor space in between them.
+<b>There were twelve steps there, each step being half a cubit high and a cubit broad. There was a cubit, a cubit and a level space of three cubits, then a cubit, a cubit and a level space of three cubits, then at the top a cubit, a cubit and a level space of four cubits.</b>  The first two steps were a cubit broad, and then there was a level space of three cubits before the next step began. This set-up occurred three times for a total of nine steps, and fifteen cubits. The final set had a level space of four cubits, bringing the total to twenty-one cubits. In addition there was another cubit between the altar and the first step, for a total of 22 cubits between the altar and the Sanctuary.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says that at the top there was a cubit, a cubit and a level space of five cubits.</b>  Rabbi Judah holds that the extra cubit was in the level space after the last step. There was no space of a cubit between the altar and the first step.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah deals with the doorway that opened onto the Porch (Oolam in Hebrew).
+<b>The doorway of the porch was forty cubits high and its breadth was twenty cubits.</b>  As we noted above in 2:3, the doorway to the Porch was larger than all of the other doorways in the Temple. It was forty cubits high, whereas all other doorways were twenty cubits high.
+<b>Over it were five main beams of ash [wood]. The lowest projected a cubit on each side beyond the doorway. The one above projected beyond this one a cubit on each side. Thus the topmost one was thirty cubits long.</b>  The lowest beam that went over the doorway would have been 22 cubits in breadth. The next was 24, the third was 26, the fourth was 28 and the fifth was thirty cubits long.
+<b>There was a layer of stones between each one and the next.</b>  Between each beam there was a layer of stones.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>There were poles of cedar wood stretching from the wall of the Sanctuary to the wall of the Porch to prevent it from bulging. There were chains of gold fixed in the roof beams of the Porch by which the priestly initiates used to ascend and see the crowns, as it says, “And the crowns shall be to Helem and to Toviyah and to Yedaya and to Hen the son of Zephaniah as a memorial in the Temple of the Lord” (Zechariah 6:14). A golden vine stood at the door of the Sanctuary trained on poles, and anyone who offered a leaf or a grape or a bunch used to bring it and hang it there. Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok said: on one occasion three hundred priests were commissioned [to clear it].</b><br>
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>The doorway of the Hekhal was twenty cubits high and ten broad.<br>It had four doors, two on the inner side, and two on the outer, as it says, “And the Hekhal and the Sanctuary had two doors” (Ezekiel 41:23).<br>The outer ones opened into the interior of the doorway so as to cover the thickness of the wall, while the inner ones opened into the Temple so as to cover the space behind the doors, because the whole of the Temple was overlaid with gold except the space behind the doors.<br>Rabbi Judah says: they stood within the doorway, and they resembled folding doors. These were two cubits and a half [of the wall] and these were two cubits and a half, leaving half a cubit as a doorpost at the one end and half a cubit as a doorpost at the other end, as it says, “And the doors had two leaves apiece, two turning leaves, two leaves for the one door and two leaves for the other” (Ezekiel 41:2.</b><br>Chapter four deals with the Sanctuary or Hekhal in Hebrew. I will call it the Hekhal henceforth in order to encourage the use of Hebrew. The Hekhal was the main structure of the Temple and it stood between the Porch and the Holy of Holies.<br>Section two: The Hekhal had four doors. Two doors were in the thickness of the wall of the Hekhal, which ran the length of the opening, facing the Hekhal, one on the left and one on the right. Two others were on the other side, facing the Porch.<br>Section three: The wall of the Hekhal was six cubits in breadth. The doors were each five cubits long, so that when they opened they would cover five of the six cubits of the thickness of the wall. The extra cubit was taken up by the door post. The inner ones opened into the Hekhal, and when opened they would cover the part of the inside of the Hekhal that was not overlaid with gold. The doors were also covered with gold, so that when they were open only gold would be seen.<br>Section four: Rabbi Judah envisions a different set-up for the doors. Each door was like a folding door and they stood within the doorway and all of them were used to cover the thickness of the wall, each covering 2 ½ cubits of the wall. In other words, the doors did not open into the Hekhal. Rabbi Judah seems to interpret “two turning leaves” as proof that each door was a type of folding door. It is interesting to note that there may be a bit of tension here between the first opinion and Rabbi Judah as to how we know what occurred in the Temple. The first opinion may be based more on tradition or even recollections whereas Rabbi Judah’s opinion is based on more on the text found in Ezekiel.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>The great gate had two small doors, one to the north and one to the south. By the one to the south no one ever went in, and concerning it was stated explicitly be Ezekiel, as it says, “And the Lord said to me: this gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, neither shall any man enter in by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut” (Ezekiel 44:2).</b>  The great gate of the Hekhal had two small doors, one to the north (to the right when facing the Hekhal) and one to the south. However, the southern door was never used, due to a direct order by God.
+<b>He [the priest] took the key and opened the [northern] door and went in to the cell, and from the cell he went into the Hekhal.</b>  When the priest wanted to open the great gate, he would take the keys to the gates, go into the cell, which was a chamber next to the gate, and then go into the Hekhal and open from the inside.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: he used to walk along in the thickness of the wall until he came to the space between the two gates. He would open the outer doors from within and the inner doors from without.</b>  Rabbi Judah says that the priest would not enter the cell but would rather walk along inside the wall which was six cubits thick. He would then open the outer doors from within, turn around and open the inner doors from without.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>There were thirty-eight cells there, fifteen on the north, fifteen on the south, and eight on the west.</b>  Around the walls of the Hekhal and the Holy of Holies there were 38 cells or small chambers.
+<b>On the north and on the south there were five over five and five again over these; On the west there were three over three and two over these.</b>  These chambers were built in three stories. On the northern and southern sides there were five on each story, and on the west there were three on the first two stories and two on the top story.
+<b>Each had three openings, one to the cell on the right and one to the cell on the left and one to the cell above.</b>  Each cell had three openings, one which would open to the cell on the right, one which would open to the cell on the left, and one which would open to the cell above. However, the top row of cells had only two openings.
+<b>In the [one at the] northeastern corner there were five openings, one to the cell on the right, one to the cell above, one to the mesibbah, one to the door, and one to the Hekhal.</b>  The cell at the northeastern corner had five openings. One to the cell on the right and one above (there was no cell to its left, because there were no cells on the east). One to the mesibbah, which was a ramp that would go up from the west to the east to the roofs of the cells and the upper level of the Sanctuary. We will learn more about the mesibbah in mishnah five. The fourth opening led to the door on the northern side of the great gate at the entrance to the Hekhal. The fifth door led straight to the Hekhal. This accords with what we learned in yesterday's mishnah, according to the opinion of the sages (and not Rabbi Judah).
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>The [chamber] of the lowest [story] was five cubits wide and at the ceiling six cubits.</b>  The mishnah's explanation of the size of the cells is based on I Kings 6:6. The bottom story's cells were each five cubits in breadth. In the walls of the Hekhal they would reduce the thickness of the wall by a cubit at this point so that the ceiling of the cell could rest on the point where the wall was brought in. This is also referred to in the continuation of the above verse from I Kings. This would mean that at the point of the ceiling the cell was one cubit broader.
+<b>The [chamber] of the middle [story] was six cubits wide and at the ceiling of seven.</b>  The second story was one cubit broader, matching the breadth of the ceiling of the first story. Again, the wall was brought in to accommodate the planks for the ceiling of the cell. This would make it seven cubits at the point of the ceiling.
+<b>The [chamber] of the top [story] was seven cubits wide, as it says, "The lowest story was five cubits wide, the middle one 6 cubits wide and the third 7 cubits wide" (I Kings 6:6).</b>  Similarly, the third story was the breadth of the ceiling of the second story. As stated above, this matches the verse in I Kings that describes Solomon's Temple. We should emphasize that this is another example where either the Second Temple was patterned after the First Temple, or the rabbis at least imagined that it was.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>The mesibbah (a winding went up from the north-east corner to the north-west corner by which they used to go up to the roofs of the cells.<br>One would ascend the messibah facing the west, traversing the whole of the northern side till he reached the west.<br>When he reached the west he turned to face south and then traversed whole of the west side till he reached the south.<br>When he reached the south he turned to face eastwards and then traversed the south side till he reached the door of the upper chamber, since the door of the upper chamber opened to the south.<br>In the doorway of the upper chamber were two columns of cedar by which they used to climb up to the roof of the upper chamber, and at the top of them was a row of stones showing the division in the upper chamber between the holy part and the Holy of Holies.<br>There were trap doors in the upper chamber opening into the Holy of Holies by which the workmen were let down in baskets so that they should not feast their eyes on the Holy of Holies.</b><br>Sections 1-4: The mesibbah was the walkway that they would use to get to the top of the Hekhal. The mishnah explains how the priest would walk on the mesibbah which began on the northeastern side (as we learned in mishnah three) and went to the northwestern side. He would then turn south (left) and walk to the end, then he would walk all the way to the southeastern cornet to get to the upper chamber that was built on top of the Hekhal and the Holy of Holies. The door of this chamber was open on the southern wall.<br>Section five: There were poles in the upper chamber which they could use to climb up to the roof. On the roof there was a division made by a wall of stones to distinguish between the Hekhal (the holy) and the Holy of Holies.<br>Section six: There were trap doors in the roof of the Holy of Holies through which they would let workmen down in baskets to fix the walls of the Hekhal and Holy of Holies when necessary. The workmen were let down in baskets that were covered on three sides so that all they could see was the wall that they were repairing. This would prevent them from unabashedly gazing at the Holy of Holies which would be considered an inappropriate means of deriving benefit from the holiest point of the Temple.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>The Hekhal was a hundred cubits by a hundred with a height of a hundred.</b>  The Hekhal as referred to in this mishnah includes the dimensions of the Porch, the Hekhal and the Holy of Holies put together.  It was a 100 cubit cube.
+<b>The foundation was six cubits, then it rose forty, then a cubit for the ornamentation, two cubits for the guttering, a cubit for the ceiling and a cubit for the plastering.</b>  The mishnah now explains the elements that lead to a height of 100 cubits (note: this is a very tall structure). The closed foundation of the entire structure was 6 cubits high. We can also see this by the need for 12 stairs to lead up from the courtyard to the floor of the Porch. Each stair was 1/2 cubit high, making a total of 6 cubits. The empty space inside the Hekhal was 40 cubits high. Before the ceiling there was a cubit of ornamentation on the walls. Then there were two cubits of guttering to catch water that might leak in from the roof. The ceiling (the boards) and the plastering were each a cubit. This would bring us to a total of 51 cubits.
+<b>The height of the upper chamber was forty cubits, there was a cubit for its ornamentation, two cubits for the guttering, a cubit for the ceiling, a cubit for the plastering, three cubits for the parapet and a cubit for the spikes.</b>  The upper chamber was also forty cubits high, then another cubit for ornamentation, two for guttering, and one each for the ceiling and its plastering. This brings us to 96 total cubits. There was a parapet (a railing) on top of the upper chamber and there were one cubit spikes coming out of the parapet. This would chase away birds which would have nested on the tops of the walls. [Funny, but we too put spikes on top of our walls to keep away the bird].
+<b>Rabbi Judah says the spikes were not included in the measurement, but the parapet was four cubits.</b>  Rabbi Judah disagrees with two minor details of the above description. He claims that the spikes were not counted in the total, and that the number 100 was reached by the parapet being four not three cubits high.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>From east to west was a hundred cubits: The wall of the porch five cubits, the porch itself eleven, the wall of the Hekhal six cubits and its interior forty, a cubit for the space between, and twenty cubits for the Holy of Holies, the wall of the Hekhal six cubits, the cell six cubits and the wall of the cell five.</b>  The mishnah now proceeds to delineate the structures, walls, etc. that took up the length and breadth of the Hekhal. The Hekhal was one hundred cubits from its eastern side to its western side. The thickness of the front wall of the Porch was five cubits. The area of the Porch was eleven cubits, and the wall separating the Porch from the Hekhal was six more. This brings us to 22. The interior of the Hekhal was 40 (total = 62). There was a one cubit space between the Hekhal and the Holy of Holies. In the First Temple there was an actual wall in this space, but in the Second Temple there were two curtains a cubit apart from one another. The interior of the Holy of Holies was 20 cubits (total = 83). The western wall of the Hekhal was six more cubits. The width of the middle cells on the western side was six cubits, and the western wall of the cell was another five, bringing us to the grand total of 100 cubits.
+<b>From north to south was seventy cubits: The wall of the mesibbah five cubits, the mesibbah itself three, the wall of the cell five and the cell itself six, the wall of the Hekhal six cubits and its interior twenty, then the wall of the Hekhal again six and the cell six and its wall five, then the place of the water descent three cubits and its wall five cubits.</b>  From north to south the entire expanse was seventy cubits. The thickness of the walls of the mesibbah was 5 cubits (concerning the mesibbah see mishnah five). The width of the mesibbah itself was three cubits. Inside the mesibbah was the cell, whose wall was five. The middle level cell itself was six cubits wide (total = 19). The wall separating the cell from the Hekhal was another six, and the width of the Hekhal was twenty (total=45). The opposite wall was also six and the cell on the south side was another six, and its wall was another five (total = 62). There was a space of three cubits between the wall of the cell and the outer wall in order to let water flow down from the roof. This was another three cubits and then another five cubits of wall, bringing us to a total of 70 cubits. It might be interesting to note that of the seventy cubits, 32 of them were taken up by wall. The walls were plentiful and very thick.
+<b>The Porch extended beyond this fifteen cubits on the north and fifteen cubits on the south, and this space was called the House of the slaughter-knives where they used to store the knives.</b>  The Porch, the structure that lay in front of the Hekhal, was fifteen cubits longer from north to south then the Hekhal on each side. This would mean that the back wall to the Porch, which serves as the front wall of the Hekhal, would have been 100 cubits, whereas the rest of the Hekhal was seventy cubits from north to south. This extra space was where the slaughterer's knives were stored. Perhaps we could surmise that they stored the knives here in order to keep them from being parallel to the altar or Holy of Holies, such that an instrument of violence, while necessary for the daily operation of the Temple, was at least not stored in a space parallel to the life-giving altar.
+<b>The Hekhal was narrow behind and broad in front, resembling a lion, as it says, "Ah, Ariel, Ariel, the city where David encamped" (Isaiah 29:1): Just as a lion is narrow behind and broad in front, so the Hekhal was narrow behind and broad in front.</b>  The final section of the mishnah and our chapter likens the entire structure of the Porch, Hekhal and Holy of Holies to a lion. It was broad in front (100 cubits) and a bit narrower in the back (70 cubits). The imagery is based on the verse which refers to Jerusalem as "Ariel" which means "lion of God."
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Chapter five backs away from the Hekhal and describes the courtyard that lay to the east of the Temple.
+If we think about Tractate Middot as a whole we can see that the first two chapters brought us on to the Temple Mount and into the outer courtyards, the fourth chapter discussed the Hekhal and the fifth chapter went back to the courtyard. At the heart of the tractate, in chapter three, is the description of the outer altar, certainly the most important piece of the Temple on an everyday basis. In my opinion, the literary structure of this tractate is clearly intentional.
+<b>The whole of the courtyard was a hundred and eighty-seven cubits long by a hundred and thirty-five broad.</b>  The 187 cubits is measured from the Israelite's courtyard (the Nicanor Gate) to the outer walls of the Temple. It does not include the Women's courtyard.
+<b>From east to west it was a hundred and eighty-seven. The space in which the Israelites could go was eleven cubits. The space in which the priests could go was eleven cubits. The altar took up thirty-two. Between the Porch and the altar was twenty-two cubits. The Hekhal took up a hundred cubits, and there were eleven cubits behind the kapporet.</b>  The Israelites' courtyard was eleven cubits wide, as was the priests' courtyard. Immediately after the priests' courtyard began the outer altar, which was thirty-two cubits broad (see 3:1). There were twenty-two cubits between the outer altar and the beginning of the Porch (see 3:6). This brings us to a total of 76 cubits. The Hekhal was 100 cubits from east to west (see 4:7). On the other side of the Holy of Holies, which held the kapporet, from the western wall of the Hekhal to the western wall of the Temple, there were another 11 cubits, bringing us to a grand total of 187 cubits.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah explains the structures that took up the space going from north to south in the courtyard.
+<b>From north to south was a hundred and thirty-five cubits.<br>The ascent and the altar took up sixty-two;</b>  Although the ascent was 32 cubits long and the altar was also thirty-two cubits long, together they took up only 62 cubits of floor space. There are some complicated equations to work this out, which I do not want to get into here. Suffice it to say, that Albeck concludes that the ascent did not reach the altar itself, but stopped about a cubit away and that the top of the ascent did not go all the way up to the altar.
+<b>From the altar to the rings was eight cubits.</b>  The rings were described in 3:5. They were eight cubits north of the altar (total 70).
+<b>The rings took up twenty-four cubits.</b>  The rings took up twenty-four cubits (total: 94).
+<b>From the rings to the tables was four cubits,</b>  See also 3:5. These were four cubits away.
+<b>From the tables to the dwarf pillars four,</b>  See also 3:5. These pillars were used to hang the sacrifices and strip their hides. The mishnah does not tell us how much space the tables took up. The Rambam writes that the tables took up eight cubits. Based on this, other commentators claim that the tables took up the space between the rings and the dwarf pillars.
+<b>And from the dwarf pillars to the wall of the courtyard eight cubits,</b>  From the dwarf pillars to the outer wall was another 8 cubits, bringing the total to 110.
+<b>And the remainder was between the ascent and the wall  and the space occupied by the dwarf pillars.</b>  The remaining 25 cubits was taken up by the space on the southern side between the ascent and the southern wall and the space of the dwarf pillars themselves. According to the Rambam, each took up 12 1/2 cubits.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>There were six chambers in the courtyard, three on the north and three on the south.<br>On the north were the salt chamber, the parvah chamber and the washer's chamber.<br>In the salt chamber they used to keep the salt for the offerings.<br>In the parvah chamber they used to salt the skins of the animal-offerings.<br>On its roof was the bath used by the high priest on Yom Kippur.<br>In the washers’ chamber they used to wash the entrails of the sacrificial animals, and from it a winding way went up to the roof of the parvah chamber.</b><br>Our mishnah that were in the Israelites' courtyard or within. Most of the mishnah is self-explanatory, but I have made a few comments below.<br>Section two: These three chambers were close to one another, on the northeastern corner of the Israelites' courtyard. There are two explanations as to why it was called the "parvah chamber." The first is that the person who dedicated it was named "Parvah" either as a first or last name. The second is that the word "parvah" is after the "parot" or cows, whose hides were treated their. In modern Hebrew the word "parvah" means fur, but cows, sheep and goats don't really have fur.<br>Section five: The high priest would immerse five times on Yom Kippur, all within the Temple confines. See Yoma 3:3. Here we learn that these immersions were done on the roof of the parvah chamber.<br>Section six: In this chamber they would wash out the animal's stomach. The intestines were washed on the tables near the dwarf pillars, as we learned in Tamid 4:3.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>On the south were the wood chamber, the chamber of the exile and the chamber of hewn stones.<br>The wood chamber: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: I forget what it was used for. Abba Shaul says: It was the chamber of the high priest, and it was behind the two of them, and one roof covered all three.<br>In the chamber of the exile there was a fixed cistern, with a wheel over it, and from there water was provided for all of the courtyard.<br>In the chamber of hewn stone the great Sanhedrin of Israel used to sit and judge the priesthood.<br>A priest in whom was found a disqualification used to put on black garments and wrap himself in black and go away. One in whom no disqualification was found used to put on white garments and wrap himself in white and go in and serve along with his brother priests.<br>They used to make a feast because no blemish had been found in the seed of Aaron the priest, and they used to say: Blessed is the Omnipresent, blessed is He, for no blemish has been found in the seed of Aaron. Blessed is He who chose Aaron and his sons to stand to minister before the Lord in the Holy of Holies.</b><br>The final mishnah of our tractate describes the three chambers that were found on the southern side of the courtyard.<br>Section two: We should note that this is the second time in our tractate that Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob did not know what a chamber was used for and Abba Shaul did. See also 2:5. According to the Abba Shaul, the chamber of wood was the chamber of the high priest, which the Talmud identifies with the chamber mentioned in the beginning of Yoma. There it is called "the chamber of parhedrin" and in it the high priest would dwell for the seven days before Yom Kippur.<br>Section three: This cistern was also mentioned in Eruvin 10:14. Some commentators explain that it was called the "chamber of the exile" because it was built by Jews who had returned from the exile. Others explain that the word "golah" which I have translated to be "exile" should be read "gulah" which refers to a large container attached to the wheel which was used to draw water.<br>Section four: In the chamber of hewn stone, the great Sanhedrin of 70 judges would sit and one of their responsibilities was to decide which priests were fit to serve in the Temple [see also Sanhedrin, chapter one]. [We should note that there is something to be said about rabbis claiming that they determined which priests were fit to serve in the Temple. One wonders whether the priests would have agreed that this was the way things were done].<br>Section five: A priest who was disqualified from serving in the Temple, either due to a physical blemish or perhaps a genealogical flaw, would dress in black and leave.<br>One who was found valid to serve, would don his white priestly clothing and head off to join his fellow priests.<br>Section five: On a day that no priests were invalidated, the priests would make a celebration and offer up a special blessing. The impression one gets is that this was not the norm most of time at least one priest was found to be disqualified.<br>Congratulations!  We have finished Tractate Middot!<br>It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.<br>Middot was an unusual tractate, much as was Tamid. Instead of the usual argumentation, we get a long physical description of the Temple. We should appreciate that although the rabbis were primarily attached to the words of the Torah, both the written and the oral Torah, they were drawn to the physical stones of the Temple, although they could no longer worship there. Perhaps we could even look at Middot as a way of bringing those stones into their own world of words.<br>This is not the place to discuss rabbinic thought on the complicated subject of animal sacrifice, but we should note that on at least one occasion in the tractate the rabbis did reveal their understanding of this subject. The altar gives life, both to Israel and perhaps to the entire world. By bringing us closer to God and maintaining our relationship with the eternal forces that rule the universe, the altar and the Temple which surround it, seem to tap into such a primal power and bring life to the worshipper's fragile human existence.<br>I hope you have enjoyed Arakhin. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Kinim.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Tamid/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,280 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Tamid
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה תמיד
+Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Tamid
+
+Introduction
+
+Tractate Tamid describes how the sacrificial service was performed in the Temple in the morning, up until the sacrifice of the morning Tamid (daily offering). There are almost no disputes in the entire tractate, the only dispute being found in 5:2.  The Tamid offering is described in Numbers 28:3-8:
+1 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Command the Israelite people and say to them: Be punctilious in presenting to Me at stated times the offerings of food due Me, as offerings by fire of pleasing odor to Me.  3 Say to them: These are the offerings by fire that you are to present to the Lord:  As a regular burnt offering every day, two yearling lambs without blemish. 4 You shall offer one lamb in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer at twilight. 5 And as a meal offering, there shall be a tenth of an ephah of choice flour with a quarter of a hin of beaten oil mixed in 6 —the regular burnt offering instituted at Mount Sinai—an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord.  7 The libation with it shall be a quarter of a hin for each lamb, to be poured in the sacred precinct as an offering of fermented drink to the Lord. 8 The other lamb you shall offer at twilight, preparing the same meal offering and libation as in the morning—an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord.
+There is also a daily incense offering. This is described in Exodus 30:7-8:
+7 On it Aaron shall burn aromatic incense: he shall burn it every morning when he tends the lamps, 8 and Aaron shall burn it at twilight when he lights the lamps — a regular incense offering before the Lord throughout the ages. 
+Many scholars believe that Tamid is one of the earliest tractates of the Mishnah. They believe that it was composed shortly after the destruction of the Temple. While there is some Babylonian Talmud on the tractate, there is not much. This may be, in my opinion, a result of the fact that there are virtually no disputes in the tractate, which also may be a result of the tractate having been composed at a very early period. In other words, the tractate was composed early, later sages did not discuss it very much, so we don’t find them debating about it, and this lack of interest by early sages in the subject, also caused later sages to not engage much in learning this tractate.  Despite all of this, it is certainly one of the tractates of the Mishnah, so we will certainly learn it! Good luck and I hope you all enjoy tractate Tamid.
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Mishnah Tamid begins with a description of the priests sleeping in the Temple, before their daily work began.
+<b>In three places the priests keep watch in the Temple: in the chamber of Avtinas, in the chamber of the spark, and in the fire chamber.</b>  There were three places in the Temple where the priests would keep watch at night. When we learn Tractate Midot we will see a list of 21 places where the Levites kept watch. The three places here are also mentioned there. These three places are: The chamber of Avtinas, where they would prepare the incense. The chamber of the spark, where they kept the fire to light the fires on the altars. The fire chamber where they kept a large fire to keep the priests warm at night.
+<b>In the chamber of Avtinas and in the chamber of the spark there were upper chambers where the youths kept watch.</b>  Two of the chambers had upper chambers so that the younger priests who could not yet serve in the Temple could keep watch.
+<b>The fire chamber was vaulted and it was a large room surrounded with stone projections, and the elders of the clan [serving in the Temple] used to sleep there, with the keys of the Temple courtyard in their hands.</b>  The fire chamber did not have an upper chamber. Rather it was vaulted, and surrounded by rows of stones. On these rows of stones the priests serving in the Temple at the time (the Temple guard was split into 24 houses) would sleep, while holding the keys to the Temple courtyard.
+<b>The priestly initiates used to place their bedding on the ground.</b>  The young priests did not get to sleep on the rows of stones. They had to put their bedding down on the ground and sleep on the floor.
+<b>They did not sleep in their sacred garments, but they used to take them off [and fold them] and place them under their heads and cover themselves with their own ordinary clothes.</b>  None of the priests slept in the clothes that they would wear while performing the Temple service. Based on the continuation of the Mishnah it seems that they feared lest they would have an emission at night and thereby contaminate their clothes. Therefore, they slept in their regular, non-sanctified clothing.
+<b>If one of them had a seminal emission, he used to go out and make his way down the winding stairs which went under the Birah, and which was lit by lights on each side until he reached the bathing place. There was a fire close by and an honorable seat [i.e. toilet]: and this was its honor: if he found it locked, he knew there was someone there; if it was open, he knew there was no one there. He would go down and bathe and then come up and dry himself and warm himself in front of the fire. He would then go and take his seat next to his fellow priests until the gates were opened, when he would take his departure.</b>  This section describes what would happen if one of the priests had a seminal emission while sleeping in the Temple. According to Deuteronomy 23:11 such a person must leave the “camp”, which the rabbis interpret to be parallel to the Temple. The priest would exit the Temple by using a set of underground stairs. It was forbidden for him to walk through the courtyard, or even on the Temple mount because he was impure. These stairs were lit so that he could see his way. He would then come to the ritual bath and a private toilet. The mishnah notes that a private toilet was unique generally toilets were used by a number of people at the same time. So unique was this toilet that it was even called “The Seat of Honor.” After taking care of his needs, he would bathe and then warm up next to the fire kept there for his comfort (sounds like a spa!). He would then go back to the other priests until the gates of the Temple were opened, when he would exit. He could not go serve in the Temple because he was not fully pure until the following evening. However, since he had been to the mikveh, he was no longer impure, so he could exit through the normal gates.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Anyone who desired to remove the ashes from the altar used to rise early and bathe before the superintendent came.</b>  The first work done in the morning was clearing the ashes from the altar. This could be done by anyone who wished to do so (see Leviticus 1:2). Before removing the ashes, the priest would have to bathe, because it is always forbidden to enter the Temple courtyard before bathing (see Yoma 3:3).
+<b>At what time did the superintendent come? He did not always come at the same time; sometimes he came just at cock-crow, sometimes a little before or a little after.</b>  The superintendent was in charge of the lottery used to determine who would get to perform what ritual in the Temple. The lottery is described in Yoma 2:1-2. The superintendent would arrive around the time when the cock crows (see Yoma 1:8).
+<b>The superintendent would come and knock and they would open for him, and he would say to them, let all who have bathed come and draw lots. So they drew lots, and whoever was successful.</b>  The superintendent would knock on the door and let the priests know that whoever had prepared by taking a ritual bath, could come and participate in the lottery. But if you didn’t bathe you’re out of luck. The early priest gets the meat, as they say.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>He took the key and opened the small door, and went from the fire chamber into the Temple courtyard, and the priests went in after him carrying two lighted torches.</b>  After waking them up, the superintendent would take the key and open the small door in the fire chamber that was connected to the courtyard. The regular gates to the courtyard did not open until it began to be light outside. The priests then entered the courtyard each carrying two torches.
+<b>They divided into two groups, one of which went along the portico to the east, while the other went along it to the west.</b>  They then divided into two groups to check the Temple to make sure that everything was still in its proper place.
+<b>They went along inspecting until they came to the place where the griddle-cakes were made. There the two groups met and said, Is all well (? All is well (! They then appointed they that made the griddle-cakes to make griddle-cakes.</b>  Each day the high priest would offer a tenth of an ephah of griddle cakes, half in the morning and half in the evening (see Leviticus 6:13-14; Menahot 4:5). They would end their examination at the place where these cakes were made and each group would ask the other if everything was okay. They would then formally appoint those who made the griddle-cakes to make the griddle-cakes.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah deals with clearing the ashes from the altar.
+<b>The one who had merited to clear the ashes, would get ready to clear the ashes.</b>  After getting the griddle-cakes on their way, its now time to clear the ashes from the altar, the first ritual performed each morning. Mishnah two noted that the priest who performed this ritual was not chosen by lottery, but rather by his being the first to get out of bed and immerse.
+<b>They said to him: “Be careful not to touch any vessel until you have washed your hands and feet from the laver. See, the fire-pan is in the corner between the ascent and the altar on the west of the ascent.”</b>  Despite the fact that he had immersed, he still can’t touch holy vessels until he washes his feet and hands from the water in the laver. This would include the fire-pan. Therefore, before he begins the process, the other priests would remind him not to touch the fire-pan until he first washes his hands and feet. They would also remind him where the fire-pan was kept. This was helpful because it was dark in the courtyard.
+<b>No one entered with him, nor did he carry any light. Rather, he walked by the light of the altar fire.</b>  He would not carry a flame in with him rather he would walk along using only the dim light from the remaining fire on the altar.
+<b>No-one saw him or heard a sound from him until they heard the noise of the wooden wheel which Ben Katin made for hauling up the laver, when they said, “The time has come.”</b>  The other priests couldn’t see him or hear him until he began to draw water using the water wheel invented by Ben Katin. This water wheel is described in Yoma 3:10. The following is my commentary on that mishnah: Ben Katin is also credited with another improvement in the Temple, this one also connected to issue of water.  He made a wheel that went into the water cistern which would cause the water in the laver to be connected to the water in the cistern.  The reason for this is that any water left out overnight in a vessel in the Temple is rendered unfit.  Without this wheel, the water left over in the laver would need to be emptied out every morning. Once they heard the wheel, they would say, “The time has come” meaning the time to wash his hands and feet.
+<b>He washed his hands and feet from the laver, then took the silver fire-pan and went up to the top of the altar and cleared away the cinders on either side and scooped up the ashes in the centre.</b>  The priest would then wash his hands and then clear the ashes and the cinders from the Temple.
+<b>He then descended and when he reached the floor he turned his face to the north and went along the east side of the ascent for about ten cubits, and he then made a heap of the cinders on the pavement three handbreadths away from the ascent, in the place where they used to put the crop of the birds and the ashes from the inner altar and the ash from the menorah.</b>  He would then descend from the altar, and deposit the ashes in the place where they would also dump out other waste-products, including the crop from the heads of bird offerings, and the ashes from the inner altar and the menorah.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>When his fellow priests saw that he had descended, they came running and hastened to wash their hands and feet in the laver.</b>  When the other priests see that the person who cleared the ashes had descended from the altar, they knew it was their turn to wash their hands and feet.
+<b>They then took the shovels and the forks and went up to the top of the altar. The limbs and pieces of fat that had not been consumed since the evening they pushed to the sides of the altar. If there was not room on the sides they arranged them on the surround or on the ascent.</b>  Their task was to take the pieces of the sacrifices that had not been consumed the day before and to clear them to the sides of the altar to make room for the wood they were now going to burn for the new day’s sacrifices. These limbs and pieces of fat would still burn; they would just do so on the sides of the altar. If there wasn’t enough room on the sides of the altar, they would even take some pieces off of the altar and put them on the ledge surrounding the altar or on the ascent. As we will learn in mishnah five, these pieces were later put back on so that they could be consumed.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>They then began to throw the ashes on to the heap (. This heap was in the middle of the altar, and sometimes there was as much as three hundred kor on it.</b>  After having cleared the limbs and pieces of fat, the other priests would take the ashes still on the altar and heap them onto the middle of the altar, onto a place called the “tapuah.” The pile of ashes on the tapuah could get quite high, as the mishnah testifies. However, when the tapuah began to overflow with ash, they would remove all of it and take it out of the city.
+<b>On festivals they did not use to clear away the ash because it was reckoned an ornament to the altar.</b>  On festivals they let the ash heap grow even higher because by seeing the massive amounts of ashes, people could tell how many sacrifices had been offered. The large ash-heap was considered to be ornamental to the altar.
+<b>It never happened that the priest was neglectful in taking out the ashes.</b>  This section relates to the previous one. One might have thought that they neglected to clear away the ashes during the festival, perhaps because they were so busy with other matters. To dash this thought, the mishnah notes that the priests never neglected the duty of taking the ashes off of the altar. They left the ashes on the altar during the festival out of intention and not neglect.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>They then began to take up the logs to place onto the fire.</b>  After having cleared the altar of the ashes or at least pushing them into the middle of the altar, the priests can now begin to bring up new wood to use to burn the day’s sacrifices.
+<b>Were all kinds of wood valid for the fire? All kinds of wood were valid for the fire except vine and olive wood. But what they mostly used were boughs of fig trees and of nut trees and of oil trees.</b>  Any wood could be used on the altar except for olive wood and vines. These were not used for kindling because these are the primary fruit bearing trees in Israel. It would be completely wasteful to use them as firewood. The most common trees were figs, nuts and oil trees. Note that these trees also bear fruit, but they were used for fire because their fruit was less significant than the wine and oil that come from the vine and olive trees. Alternatively, some commentators claim that these types of trees can only be used if the figs, nuts or oil that they produce are of low quality.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>He then arranged a large pile on the east side of the altar, with its open side on the east, while the inner ends of the [selected] logs touched the ash heap.</b>  They now begin to arrange the logs on the altar. They begin with a large pile of logs on the eastern side of the altar. In tomorrow’s mishnah we shall see that there was a smaller pile on the other side for burning the incense. The open side of the large pile faced east. The logs were arranged in straight rows from east to west, with the ends of the logs on the eastern side.
+<b>Spaces were left between the logs in which they kindled the brushwood.</b>  They left spaces in between the logs into which they put brushwood for kindling. Anyone who has ever made a good campfire should be familiar with this practice.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>They picked out from there some good fig-tree branches to make a second fire for the incense near the south-western corner some four cubits to the north of it, using as much wood as he judged sufficient to form five seahs of coals, and on the Shabbat as much as he thought would make eight seahs of coals, because from there they used to take fire for the two dishes of frankincense for the showbread.</b>  This section describes setting up the fire from which coals would be drawn to burn the incense on the inner altar, which stood inside the sanctuary (unlike the main altar which was outside). The wood used to make these coals was set up on the south-western corner of the altar, a little bit removed to the north. They would put enough wood to make five seahs of coals. On Shabbat they needed more coals because they would use them for the two dishes of frankincense burned on Shabbat with the showbread. Evidently, these two dishes needed an extra three seahs of coals.
+<b>The limbs and the pieces of fat which had not been consumed over night were put back on the wood.</b>  The chapter concludes by returning to those limbs and pieces of fat that were moved to the side in mishnah one of the chapter. These could now be moved back to the middle so that they could keep on burning.
+<b>They then kindled the two fires and descended and went to the chamber of hewn stone.</b>  After all this hoopla, the fires can finally be lit. After having lit the fires, they would go down to the chamber of hewn stone to raise a toast (just kidding!). In the chamber of hewn stone they will cast lots to see who gets to offer which sacrifice. But stay tuned the action continues in the next chapter.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>The superintendent then said to them: come and cast lots, to see who is to slaughter, and who is to sprinkle the blood, and who is to clear the ashes from the inner altar, and who is to clear the ash from the candlestick, and who is to lift the limbs on to the ascent: the head, the right leg, the two forelegs, the tailbone, the left leg, the breast and the neck and the two flanks, the entrails, the fine flour, the griddle cakes and the wine.<br>They cast lots and whoever won, won.</b><br>The altar is heating up and ready to go. It’s now time to start figuring out who is going to do what in the Temple that day.<br>The mishnah simply lists what were the parts of the sacrificial process that were up for grabs during this lottery. Many of these actions will be further explained below, so I will not explain them now.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>He then said to them: Go out and see if it is yet time for the slaughter. If the time had come, the one who saw would say, “There are flashes.”<br>Matya ben Samuel says: [He used to say] Has the whole of the east [of the sky] lit up. as far as Hebron?<br>And he [the observer] would answer yes.</b><br>Before the sacrifices were offered, they had to make sure that it was light outside.<br>Section one: The morning sacrifice could only be sacrificed after it was light. From the chamber of hewn stone they would send someone out to see if it was light outside.<br>Note that this process is not simply the practical issue of sending someone out to see if it was yet light outside. The process is highly ritualized the mishnah tells the priests what to say (“There are flashes!”) or provides them with ritualized questions to ask.<br>Section two: Matya ben Samuel was himself the “superintendent” so his testimony here is not just about what was said at this point, but rather what he himself used to say.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>He said to them: Go out and bring a lamb from the chamber of lambs.</b>  After having cast the lots, the first thing done was to fetch a lamb to use for the morning tamid.
+<b>Now the lamb’s chamber was in the north-western corner. And there were four chambers there   the chamber of lambs, the chamber of the seals, the chamber of the fire-room and the chamber where the showbread was prepared.</b>  There were four chambers in the north-western corner of the Temple. My personal favorite is the chamber of the seals. Here the priests would teach the seals all sorts of tricks, like how to bounce a ball on your nose, how to clap your fins and most importantly, how to wave at the crowd when the show is over. I wonder where they kept the chamber of the little fish ☺. [Seriously, the seals were used to stamp the libation offerings so that the priests would easily know which libation goes with which offering. See Shekalim 5:3]
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>They went into the chamber of the vessels and they took out ninety-three vessels of silver and gold.</b>  They then went into the chamber of vessels to take out all 93 (!) vessels that would be used during the day’s worship.
+<b>They gave the animal for the daily sacrifice a drink from a cup of gold.</b>  While it might be tempting to think that they gave the animal a drink out of kindness. In reality the drink was so that its hide would be easier to strip after it was slaughtered.
+<b>Although it had been examined on the previous evening it was now examined again by torchlight.</b>  They would then reexamine the animal to make sure that it did not have a blemish that would disqualify it from being used as a sacrifice.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The mishnah now describes the bringing of the tamid to the slaughter house, and provides a description of the slaughter house.
+<b>The priest who had won the right to slaughter the tamid takes it along with him to the slaughter house, and those who had won the right to bring the limbs up followed after him.</b>  The priest who won the right to slaughter and the priests who will bring the various parts of the sacrifice onto the ramp leading up to the altar all go to the slaughter house.
+<b>The slaughter house was to the north of the altar, and on it were eight small pillars on top of which were blocks of cedar wood, in which were fixed hooks of iron, three rows in each, upon which they would hang [the tamid] and they would strip its hide on tables of marble that stood between the pillars.</b>  The mishnah describes the slaughterhouse, especially the hooks on which they would hang the meat after the tamid was slaughtered. It is also describes the tables upon which the meat would be washed. These processes will be described later in the mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Those who had won the right to clear the ashes from the inner altar and from the candlestick would go first with four vessels in their hands   the teni, the kuz and two keys.</b>  Before the people described in yesterday’s mishnah would go to bring the animal to the slaughterhouse, the priests who had won the right to clear the ashes would first go in to do their work. The mishnah describes the four objects that they would carry with them. [This mishnah does seem to be out of order. Indeed, in the Talmud it comes before the previous mishnah].
+<b>The teni resembled a large tarkav of gold and held two and a half kavs. The kuz resembled a large gold pitcher.</b>  The first two objects were used to carry out the ashes. One was called the teni, and it was the size of a basket that could hold two and a half kavs (about five liters). The kuz resembled a gold pitcher. The mishnah does not state how large the kuz was.
+<b>And two keys: One of the two keys would reach down to the “amah of the armpit” and the other opens immediately.</b>  They also held two keys to open the two locks on the first door. With one key they would open a lock below called the “amah of the armpit.” There are two reasons given for why it has this name. First of all, the priest unlocking the lock might have had to bend down a cubit (an amah) until he opened it. Alternatively, he had to stick his hand into the door until it was up until his armpit. Once the bottom lock was opened, he could open the top lock with the other key immediately.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>He then came to the small opening on the north.<br>The great gate had two small openings, one on the north and one on the south.<br>No one ever went in by the openings on the south, about which it is stated explicitly in Ezekiel, “And the Lord said to me, ‘This gate shall be closed, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it” (Ezekiel 44:2).<br>He took the key and opened the small opening and went in to the cell and from the cell to the Sanctuary, until he reached the great gate.<br>When he reached the great gate he drew back the bolt and the latches and opened it. The slaughterer did not slaughter till he heard the sound of the great gate being opened.</b><br>Section one: The priest who was to open the gates of the Sanctuary would first come to the northern opening on the outside of the great gate.<br>Section two: The great gate had two openings, but because of the verse in Ezekiel, the southern opening was never used.<br>Section three: The priest would open the northern opening (this was described at the end of yesterday’s mishnah) and then he would go in to the cell.  This was a chamber which would open up into the great gate of the Sanctuary. It seems to have been within the thickness of the walls of the great gate.<br>Section four: The priest would then open the gate of the sanctuary, which was the sign to the priest who was to slaughter the tamid that he could proceed with the slaughtering.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah describes some of the noises and sounds made in the Temple. In an exaggerated fashion, the rabbis claim that these noises could be heard in Jericho. Due to the fact that Jericho is probably 30-40 km’s from the Temple, these claims are clearly hyperbole.
+I shall explain what each of these sounds and smells were.
+<b>From Jericho they could hear the sound of the great gate being opened.</b>  Explained in yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>From Jericho they could hear the sound of the magrephah.</b>  The “magrephah” which means “shovel” was a musical instrument that was shaped like a shovel.
+<b>From Jericho they could hear the noise of the wooden pulley which Ben Katin made for the laver.</b>  This was described in 1:4.
+<b>From Jericho they could hear the voice of Gevini the herald.</b>  He would summon the priests and Levites to their places. See Shekalim 5:1.
+<b>From Jericho they could hear the sound of the pipes.</b>  See: Arakhin 2:3.
+<b>From Jericho they could hear the sound of the cymbals.</b>  The cymbals would be clashed by Ben Arza. See Tamid 7:3.
+<b>From Jericho they could hear the sound of the singing [of the Levites].</b>  This refers to singing done without instruments.
+<b>From Jericho they could hear the sound of the shofar.</b>  Refers to the daily shofar blasts. See Arakhin 2:3.
+<b>Some say also of the high priest when he pronounced the divine name on Yom Kippur.</b>  See Yoma 6:2.
+<b>From Jericho they could smell the odor of the compounding of incense.</b>  That is some powerful incense. I had a roommate in college who seems to have had a mixture with similar potency ☺.
+<b>Rabbi Elazar ben Diglai said: my father had some goats in Har Michvar, and they would sneeze from the smell of the incense.</b>  Har Michvar is on the other side of the Jordan river. Super-sensitive goats!
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah discusses removing the ashes from the inner altar and the menorah, both of which were inside the Sanctuary.
+<b>The one who had been chosen for clearing the ashes from the inner altar went in carrying the teni which he set down in front of it, and he scooped up the ash in his fists and put it into it, and in the end he swept up what was left into it, and then he left it there and went out.</b>  The teni is the basket mentioned in mishnah six. The priest would first scoop up whatever ashes he could with his hands, and then would sweep out the remainder. The teni would be left in the Sanctuary for the time being. It will be removed in mishnah 6:1.
+<b>The one who had been chosen to clear the ashes from the menorah went in. If he found the two eastern lights burning, he cleared the ash from the rest and left these two burning. If he found that these two had gone out, he cleared away their ash and kindled them from those which were still lit and then he cleared the ash from the rest. There was a stone in front of the candlestick with three steps on which the priest stood in order to trim the lights. He left the kuz on the second step and went out.</b>  The menorah stood on the southern side of the Sanctuary, aligned from east to west. The eastern lights were on the left side (when facing south). If these two lights were still lit, he would first clear the ashes and waste of the other five and put it into the kuz (see mishnah six). If these two lights were already out, then he would clear their ashes as well, and if necessary add oil and relight them from candles which were still lit. If all of the candles had gone out, then he would light the first two from the fire on the outer altar (as we shall learn in 6:1). He would then remove the ashes from these two candles after the sprinkling of the blood of the tamid, and after the limbs of the tamid had been put onto the ramp. After either relighting, or clearing the ashes from the first two, he would clear the ashes from remainder. He would leave the kuz in the Sanctuary until he had completed clearing the ashes from the other two candles, as we shall see in 6:1.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The mishnah now describes the slaughtering of the morning tamid.
+<b>They would not tie up the lamb but rather they would string its legs together.</b>  The lamb was not tied to something else to keep it from running away. Rather it was strung up, with one forefoot tied to one of the hind feet. Note that the word for “strung its legs together” in Hebrew is “akedah” which is the same word used for the binding of Isaac.
+<b>Those who merited [to bring up] the limbs took hold of it. Thus it was strung up: its head was to the south while its face was turned to the west. The slaughterer stood to the east of it, facing the west.</b>  The animal was held still by those priests who had won the right to bring the limbs up to the ramp. It was slaughtered on the northern side of the Temple courtyard, with its head toward the south, the location of the altar. Its head was turned west, so that it faced the Sanctuary and the slaughterer stood on the opposite side, also facing the Sanctuary.
+<b>The morning tamid was killed by the north-western corner of the altar at the second ring. The evening tamid was killed by the north-eastern corner at the second ring.</b>  The morning and evening tamid were sacrificed by different corners of the altar. The “rings” referred to here are rings that were set in the floor of the courtyard, on the northern side of the altar.
+<b>While one slaughtered another received the blood. He then proceeded to the north-eastern corner and cast the blood on the eastern and northern sides; he then proceeded to the southwestern corner and cast the blood on the western and southern sides. The remnant of the blood he poured out at the southern base of the altar.</b>  Once the tamid was slaughtered another priest received the blood in a vessel. By casting the blood on two corners of the altar, he could cast it against both sides. In this way, with two shpritzes he could hit all four sides of the altar. He would pour out the remainder of the blood on the southern base of the altar.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>He did not use to break the leg, but he made a hole in it at the [knee-] joint and suspended it from there.<br>He then began to flay it until he came to the breast.<br>When he came to the breast he cut off the head and gave it to the one who merited [bringing it onto the ramp].<br>He then cut off the legs [up to the knees] and gave them to the one who merited [bringing them onto the ramp].<br>He then finished the flaying.<br>He tore out the heart and squeezed out the blood in it.<br>He then cut off the forelegs and gave them to the one who merited [bringing them onto the ramp].<br>He then went back to the right leg and cut it off and gave it to the one who merited [to bring it onto the ramp], and the two testicles with it.<br>He then tore it [the remaining carcass] open so that it was all exposed before him.<br>He took the fat and put it on top of the place where the head had been severed.<br>He took the innards and gave them to the one to who had merited washing them.<br>The stomach was washed very thoroughly in the washing chamber, while the entrails were washed at least three times on marble tables which stood between the pillars.</b><br>The mishnah now describes in detail how the tamid was flayed. I think that most of this mishnah is self-explanatory, especially after it has been translated. The flaying is described in great detail, because it was an important part of the sacrificial process. Today, when most of us are greatly-distanced from the sources of the meat that we eat (or don’t eat), we might forget that cows don’t magically turn into steaks and hamburgers. The mishnah is a good reminder that inside a cow, or sheep or any animal, are internal organs that need to be removed, and for sacrifice, cleaned, before they can be put on the altar.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>He then took a knife and separated the lung from the liver and the finger of the liver from the liver, but he did not remove it from its place.<br>He cut out the breast and gave it to the one to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp].<br>He came to the right flank and cut into it as far as the spine, without touching the spine, until he came to the place between two small ribs.<br>He cut it off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], with the liver attached to it.<br>He then came to the neck, and he left two ribs on each side of it, cut it off and gave it to the one to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], with the windpipe and the heart and the lung attached to it.<br>He then came to the left flank in which he left the two thin ribs above and two thin ribs below; and he had done similarly with the other flank.<br>Thus he left two on each side above and two on each side below.<br>He cut it off and gave it to the one to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], and the spine with it and the spleen attached to it.<br>This was really the largest piece, but the right flank was called the largest, because the liver was attached to it.<br>He then came to the tail bone, which he cut off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], along with the tail, the finger of the liver and the two kidneys.<br>He then took the left leg and cut it off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp].<br>Thus they were all standing in a row with the limbs in their hands<br>The first had the head and the [right] hind leg. The head was in his right hand with its nose towards his arm, its horns between his fingers, and the place where it was severed turned upwards with the fat covering it. The right leg was in his left hand with the place where the flaying began turned away from him.<br>The second had the two fore legs, the right leg in his right hand and the left leg in his left hand, the place where the flaying began turned away from him.<br>The third had the tail bone and the other hind leg, the tail bone in his right hand with the tail hanging between his fingers and the finger of the liver and the two kidneys with it, and the left hind leg in his left hand with the place where the flaying began turned away from him.<br>The fourth had the breast and the neck, the breast in his right hand and the neck in his left hand, its ribs being between two of his fingers.<br>The fifth had the two flanks, the right one in his right hand, and the left one in his left hand, with the place where the flaying began turned away from him.<br>The sixth had the innards on a platter with the knees on top of them.<br>The seventh had the fine flour.<br>The eighth had the griddle cakes.<br>The ninth had the wine.<br>They went and placed them on the lower half of the ramp on its western side, and salted them (see Leviticus 2:13).<br>They then came down and went to the Chamber of Hewn Stone to recite the Shema.</b><br>Today’s mishnah gives an intricate description of the butchering of the tamid offering. Most of the mishnah is self-explanatory (although unless you’re a butcher or a scientist who has dissected a sheep, you might have trouble picturing the parts).<br>By the end of the mishnah, each of the parts that is put onto the altar is in the hands of the priest who won the lottery to bring that piece onto the ramp. They then go back to the Chamber of Hewn Stone to recite the Shema. We shall talk about this when we learn the next chapter.
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah discusses the blessings and verses that the priests would recite in the Chamber of Hewn Stone before the tamid sacrifice was placed on the altar.
+Historically, this mishnah is of great importance. Scholars have often asked if Jewish prayer as we know it today existed during the time of the Temple. Today’s mishnah mentions prayers that later became part of the Amidah and Shacharit service. The Mishnah was not composed until about 200 C.E., so it is debatable as to how accurately it describes history. Nevertheless, the fact that the prayers mentioned here are not exactly the same as those that exist in a later period, lends credence to the possibility that this mishnah provides some of the earliest evidence as to the existence of Jewish prayer.
+<b>The superintendent said to them: Bless one blessing!  And they blessed.</b>  The superintendent is the priest who had run the lottery (see 3:1-3). He first instructs them to recite one blessing. The mishnah seems to assume that one learning the mishnah would know what blessing was referred to. The Talmud explains the blessing to be “Ahavah Rabbah” the blessing that we recite before reading the Shema in the morning. Today we recite two blessings before Shema (“yotzer hameorot” is the other). It seems that during Temple times, only one was recited.
+<b>They then read the Ten Commandments, the Shema, the “And it will be if you hearken” (the second paragraph of and Vayomer (the third paragraph of, and they blessed the people with three blessings: Emet veYatziv, and Avodah, and the priestly benediction.</b>  The next recitation was the Ten Commandments. According to the Yerushalmi, this is part of the “Shema”.  These did not become part of the liturgy outside of the Temple because of the “murmurings of the sectarians.” According to the Talmud, the rabbis feared that Jews would say that only the Ten Commandments were given by God, and that the rest came from Moses and is not divine or binding. In order to prevent this impression, this section was removed from the prayer service. The Shema is the same three paragraphs that are still recited today. The three blessings are still recited today, although they are placed differently within the service. Today, the Emet VeYatziv is the first blessing recited after the Shema, so its place has not changed since Temple times. It ends with “who redeems Israel.”  The “avodah”, which means “worship,” is now recited towards the end of the Amidah. It begins with the word “Retzeh”.  The “priestly benediction,” “May God bless you and protect you….” is recited today as part of the last paragraph of the Amidah. All three of these prayers contain words of blessing for Israel, which seems to be appropriate for this point of the service.
+<b>On Shabbat they added a blessing to be said by the watch which was leaving.</b>  On Shabbat, the new priestly watch would take over for the outgoing watch after the musaf (additional) sacrifice was offered. To celebrate this occasion, they would offer a prayer for the outgoing watch (meaning for themselves!).
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>He said to them: those who are new to the incense come and draw lots, and who ever won, won.<br>He then said: new and old, come and draw lots to see who shall take up the limbs from the ascent to the altar.<br>Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: the one who brought the limbs on to the ascent also takes them up to the altar.</b><br>Section one: The burning of the incense was such a desirable piece of the Temple service that priests were not supposed to perform it more than once in their lives. Thus they would not draw lots to see who would offer the incense. Rather, the superintendent would call the priests who had never done so to come up and take his turn.<br>Section two: The limbs of the cut up sacrifice are currently sitting on the ramp/ascent up to the altar. They still need to be placed on the altar. According to the first opinion, there is another lottery to see who merits bringing each piece up. This lottery is open to priests who had performed this act before, as well as new priests. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that there is no new lottery. Rather, whoever brought the piece up to the ascent, he also gets to bring it up to the altar.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The lotteries are now over, the winners have won and the losers, well, they have not won. Our mishnah discusses what those who did not win any lottery do.
+<b>He then handed them over to the attendants, who stripped them of their garments, and they would leave on them only the pants.</b>  The superintendent would now turn over to the Temple attendants the priests who had not won any lottery. The attendants would strip the priests of the special clothes that they wore to work in the Temple, leaving on only their pants, so that they wouldn’t be standing there naked. After they would put on their regular clothing, they could remove the priestly pants and put on regular pants as well.
+<b>There were windows there on which was inscribed the name of the garment to which each was assigned.</b>  There were windows in the Temple into which the priests could put their clothes. Each piece of clothing would have its own slot. This would save sorting the laundry later on, a job that I too find most cumbersome.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah describes the ladle and spoon that held the incense.
+<b>The one who had been selected to offer the incense took up the ladle, which was in shape like a big tarkav of gold, and it held three kavs,</b>  The ladle which cradled the incense spoon was shaped like a big tarkav (a basket see 3:6) and it could hold up to three kavs.
+<b>And the [small] dish was in the middle of it, heaped up with incense.</b>  The small dish was placed in the middle of the tarkav, heaped up with incense. It was placed inside the larger basket so that the incense wouldn’t spill over and get lost.
+<b>This had a covering, over which was spread a piece of cloth.</b>  The dish was covered, and there was a small piece of cloth over the cover. All of this was done to keep the precious incense from getting lost.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>The priest who had won the firepan, would take the silver pan and ascend to the top of the altar and clear away the live coals to this side and that, and he would rake [the coals]. He then went down and poured them into a gold [firepan].</b>  The priest who had won the right to bring the firepan into the incense altar found inside the Sanctuary would take a silver pan and go to the top of the outer altar (see 2:5). He would clear the live coals to this side and that and rake the coals into the pan and then he would pour them into a gold firepan.
+<b>About a kav of the coals was spilt, and these he swept into the channel.</b>  The silver pan could hold four kavs and the gold pan could hold three kavs. So a kav of coals would spill onto the floor. During the week these could just be swept into the channel.
+<b>On Shabbat he used to put an overturned pot on them.</b>  On Shabbat it was forbidden to put out the coals, or to even move them. Therefore, in order to prevent them from causing damage, he would put a large vessel over them.
+<b>This pot was a large vessel which could hold a letekh.</b>  The pot was large enough to hold a letekh, which is about 90 kav. So it was plenty big to cover the coals.
+<b>It had two chains; with one he used to draw it down, and with the other he used to hold it above so that it should not roll over.</b>  This pot had two chains. The first was used to lower it down from the altar with the ashes (see next section). One priest would pull on a chain and the vessel would be lowered. The other chain was used to hold it steady. Another priest would stand up top and hold on to this chain so that it would stay steady.
+<b>It was used for three purposes   for placing over live coals, and over a [dead] creeping thing on Shabbat, and for drawing down the ashes from the top of the altar.</b>  There were three uses for this vessel, two of which have already been described here (to cover the spilled coals on Shabbat and to lower the ashes from the altar). The third use would be to cover a dead sheretz (a creepy crawly thing) so that it wouldn’t cause impurity on Shabbat in the Temple. The sheretz is “muktzeh” so it can’t be moved or even touched on Shabbat. Therefore, they would cover it with the vessel until Shabbat was over. For more on how they dealt with the sheretz in the Temple see Eruvin 10:15.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>When they came between the Sanctuary and the altar, one took the magrefah and threw it between the Sanctuary and the altar.</b>  The two priests, one who had won the right to offer the incense and the other who had won the right to the firepan, now came between the Sanctuary and the altar. They would take the magrefah, which was a musical instrument shaped like a shovel (see 3:8) and throw it. This loud noise served as a warning to the other priests, as the mishnah explains.
+<b>People could not hear one another speak in Jerusalem from the noise of the magrefah.</b>  The noise of the throwing of the magrefah was so great that all over Jerusalem people could not hear one another speak. I’m assuming this is a bit of an exaggeration.
+<b>It served three purposes: When a priest heard the sound of it he knew that his fellow priests were going in to bow down, and he would run to join them. When a Levite heard the noise he knew that his fellow Levites were going in to sing, and he would run to join them. And the head of the Ma’amad used to make the unclean stand in the east gate.</b>  The mishnah now lists the three functions that this loud noise would serve. First of all, it would warn the priests that it was time to enter the Sanctuary to bow down. We shall learn more of this in tomorrow’s mishnah. Second, it would warn the Levites that it was time to sing. We shall see more of this in 7:3. Third, the priests and Levites were split into twenty-four watches or Ma’amad’s, each serving for a week in the Temple (see Taanit 4:2). The priest who stood at the head of each Ma’amad would make the unclean priests and Levites stand at the east gate so that they could go through their purification rituals, which might allow them to serve later during the week in the Temple.
+
+Chapter 6
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The priests now make their way into the Sanctuary.
+<b>They began to ascend the steps of the Sanctuary.</b>  The two priests, one who had won the right to offer the incense and the other who had won the right to bring the coals from the outer altar to the inner altar, begin to make their way up the twelve steps that lie in front of the Sanctuary.
+<b>Those who had won the right to clear the ashes from the inner altar and from the candlestick went in front.</b>  The two priests, one who had won the right to clear the ashes off the inner altar and the other who had won the right to clear the candlestick, went before them. We should note that the Mishnah described these two jobs in 3:9. Our mishnah takes place after they have already done the work referred to there.
+<b>The one who won the right to clear the inner altar went in and took the teni and bowed down and went out again.</b>  The teni is the basket that the priest left inside the Sanctuary after clearing the altar. He now goes in takes the teni, bows down and then goes out again.
+<b>The one who had been chosen to clear the candlestick went in, and if he found the two eastern lights still burning he cleared out the eastern one and left the western one burning, since from it he lit the candlestick for the evening.</b>  This section is largely a repeat of mishnah 3:9. The two eastern lights are the first that he encounters when he enters. If both are still burning, then he cleans out the first one, which is called “the eastern one” but he leaves the “western one,” the second of these two lights, still lit. This is the light that he will use to light the other branches in the night.
+<b>If he found that this one had gone out, he cleared the ash away and lit it from the altar of burnt-offering.</b>  If he finds that both are out, then he lights the menorah with fire taken from the outer altar.
+<b>He then took the kuz from the second step and bowed down and went out.</b>  He then takes the kuz (another vessel) from the second step where he left it (3:9), bows down and then goes out. These two priests will now put the ashes from the inner altar and the menorah near the ramp, as we learned at the very end of 1:4.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>The one who had won the right to bring in the firepan made a heap of the coals on the top of the altar and then spread them about with the end of the firepan and bowed down and went out.</b> This mishnah describes what the priest who took the firepan into the Sanctuary would do. First he would make a heap of the coals on top of the altar. Then he would spread them out over the altar so that the incense could be easily placed on top. Then he bowed and went out.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>The one who had won the right to the incense took the dish from the middle of the spoon and gave it to his friend or his relative.</b>  The chapter concludes with the burning of the incense. The priest who held the incense takes the incense dish out of the large spoon and gives the spoon to a fellow priest or a related priest who had entered with him.
+<b>If some of it spilled into the spoon, he would put it into his hands.</b>  Any incense that had spilled into the large spoon, he would gather up into his hands.
+<b>They used to instruct him: Be careful not to begin immediately in front of you or else you may burn yourself.</b>  He was warned not to scatter the incense first on the side immediately in front of him, because he would burn himself as he tried to scatter the incense on the other side of the altar. Very interesting to note how concerned the rabbis were with fire safety!
+<b>He then began to scatter the incense and [after finishing] went out.</b>  Rather, he would scatter the incense first on the side opposite from him, and then on the close side. When he was done, he would go out.
+<b>The one who burned the incense did not do so until the superintendent said to him: burn the incense. If it was the high priest who burned: he would say to him: Sir, high priest, burn the incense.</b>  The priest who would scatter the incense did not begin to do so, until told by the superintendent that he could begin. If he was speaking to the high priest, he would address him with some extra respect.
+<b>Everyone left and he burned the incense and bowed down and went out.</b>  All of the priests would leave the area between the altar and the Sanctuary while the incense was being offered, because it is forbidden for anyone to be there at this time (see Leviticus 16:17).
+
+Chapter 7
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>When the high priest went in to bow down, three priests supported him, one by his right and one by his left and one by the precious stones.</b>  The high priest would then go in to the Sanctuary. He would have three priests supporting him, one on each side and one who would hold on to the precious stones embedded either in his vest or in the breastplate.
+<b>When the superintendent heard the sound of the footsteps of the high priest as he was about to go out [from the Sanctuary], he raised the curtain for him.</b>  It’s good to be the high priest he even gets the superintendent to lift up the curtain before he comes out! [By the way, does anyone else picture the superintendent with a giant ring of keys, low hanging pants, without a belt and a cigarette hanging out of the side of his mouth?].
+<b>He went in, bowed down and went out, and then his fellow priests went in and bowed down and went out.</b>  After the high priest has come out, the superintendent goes in, bows, and then goes out. Finally, all of the other priests take their turn and go in, bow down and go out.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>They went and stood on the steps of the Sanctuary.</b>  The priests now gather back at the steps going down from the Sanctuary to the courtyard.
+<b>The first ones stood at the south side of their fellow priests with five vessels in their hands: one held the teni, the second the kuz, the third the firepan, the fourth the dish, and the fifth the spoon and its covering.</b>  The “first ones” are those mentioned at the end of the last chapter: the one who cleared the inner altar, the one who cleared the menorah, the one with the firepan, the one who offered the incense, and his friend/relative. They are each holding their respective vessel in their hands. They stood on the south side. The other priests stood to their north, meaning to their left.
+<b>They blessed the people with a single blessing, except in the country they recited it as three blessings, in the Temple as one.</b>  The priests now recite the priestly blessing found in Numbers 6:24-26. In the Temple they would recite this as one blessing, meaning they would not say “amen” after each verse. In the “country,” meaning outside of the Temple, when the blessing was recited in the synagogue, they would recite it as three blessings. This is how it is done, at least in Israel, to this day.
+<b>In the Temple they pronounced the divine name as it is written, but in the country by its substitute.</b>  The mishnah now explains other differences as to how the priestly blessing was done in the Temple versus how it was done outside. In the Temple, they would pronounce the name of God as it is written. We should note that we no longer really know how the name is to be pronounced. Outside the Temple, and to this day, it is pronounced by its “nickname” Adonai.
+<b>In the country the priests raised their hands as high as their shoulders, but in the Temple above their heads, except the high priest, who did not raise his hands above the diadem. Rabbi Judah says: the high priest also raised his hands above the diadem, since it says, “And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them” (Leviticus 9:22).</b>  Outside of the Temple, the priests would lift their hands to the height of their shoulders (as they do today), whereas in the Temple, they would lift them over their heads. The one exception is the high priest who was not to lift his hands above the diadem (tzitz) on his head. This seems to be because of the holiness of the diadem. Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that the high priest also would lift his hands above his head.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b> With this mishnah, the sacrifice of the tamid comes to its thunderous conclusion.
+<b>If the high priest wished to burn the offerings [himself], he would go up the ascent with the deputy high priest at his right.</b> The high priest always had the right to put the pieces of the tamid onto the altar himself. If he didn't want to, he could have the others do so (see section seven).
+<b>The first [of the other priests] then handed to him the head and the foot and he laid his hands on them and threw them [onto the altar]. The second then handed to the first the two fore legs. And he handed them to the high priest who laid his hands on them and threw them [onto the altar]. The second then went away. In the same way all the other limbs were handed to him and he laid his hands on them and threw them [on to the altar fire].</b> Each of the priests would hand the part to the high priest, and he would lay his hands upon them. The second priest would hand up to the first, and then go. Similarly the third priest would hand to the first, etc. Thus all nine priests (see 4:3) would hand the pieces of the sacrifice which they held up to the high priest.
+<b>He then went around the altar. From where did he begin? From the southeastern corner; from there he went to the northeastern, then to the northwestern and then to the southwestern.</b> The high priest would then make his way all the way around the altar to offer the wine libation. If this was done by a regular priest, he would simply go from the southeastern corner to the southwestern corner.
+<b>They there handed him the wine for libation. The deputy high priest stood on the corner/horn of the altar with the flags in his hand, and two priests on the table of the fats with two trumpets in their hands. They blew a teki’ah, a teru’ah and a teki’ah. They then went and stood by Ben Arza, one on his right hand and one on his left. When he bent down to make the libation the deputy high priest waved the flags and Ben Arza struck the cymbals and the Levites sang the psalm. When they came to a pause they blew a teki’ah, and the public bowed down. At every pause there was a teki’ah and at every teki’ah a bowing down. This was the order of the regular daily sacrifice for the service of our Lord. May it be His will that it be rebuilt speedily in our days, Amen.</b> These sections refer to the wine libation, done after the tamid was on the altar. The “table of fats” is the marble table that stood on the western side of the ramp. They would place the limbs on this table. See Shekalim 6:4.
+Ben Arza is the nickname of the priest in charge of the cymbals (see Shekalim 5:1).
+After each set of trumpet blasts, the public standing in the Temple would bow down.
+The mishnah concludes with a prayer for the Temple to be speedily rebuilt.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>The following are the psalms that were chanted in the Temple.<br>On the first day they used to say, “The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein” (Psalms 24).<br>On the second day they used to say: “Great is the Lord and highly to be praised, in the city of our God. His holy mountain” (Psalms 48).<br>On the third day they used to say: “God stands in the congregation of God, in the midst of the judges he judges” (Psalms 82).<br>On the fourth day they used to say: “O Lord, God to whom vengeance belongs. God to whom vengeance belongs, shine forth” (Psalms 9.<br>On the fifth day they used to say: “Sing aloud unto God our strength, shout unto the God of Jacob” (Psalms 91).<br>On the sixth day they used to say: “The lord reigns, he is clothed in majesty, the Lord is clothed, He has girded himself with strength” (Psalms 93).<br>On Shabbat they used to say: “A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day” (Psalms 92).  A psalm, a song for the time to come, for the day that will be all Shabbat and rest for everlasting life.</b><br>Congratulations!  We have finished Tractate Tamid! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tamid may have been one of the more unusual tractates that we have ever learned. Instead of disputes between sages, heaps of logic and laws, we get an intricate description of the Temple service. Indeed, although the language is clearly rabbinic Hebrew, its descriptive style is more characteristic of the Bible than of rabbinic literature. It is likely that these descriptions, or at least parts thereof, come from Temple times. They were preserved because the rabbis fervently hoped that the Temple would be rebuilt during their own lifetimes. While we may or may not share in this wish, I think we can all appreciate the respect in which they held this ceremony. Despite the fact that it was performed each and every day, twice every day, they don’t seem to have lost their sense of wonder at the intimate connection that they received with God through the sacrificial process. I hope you have enjoyed Tamid. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Middot (the last tractate in Seder Kodashim!).<br>Today’s mishnah lists the psalms that were chanted by the Levites each day in the Temple. Today we still recite these Psalms in the synagogue, and before we say them we say, “This is the Psalm that they used to say in the Temple.”<br>The mishnah concludes with a sort of prayer/midrash on the last Psalm.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Tamid/English/merged.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Tamid
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה תמיד
+merged
+https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Tamid
+This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
+-Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+-http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Tamid
+
+Introduction
+
+Tractate Tamid describes how the sacrificial service was performed in the Temple in the morning, up until the sacrifice of the morning Tamid (daily offering). There are almost no disputes in the entire tractate, the only dispute being found in 5:2.  The Tamid offering is described in Numbers 28:3-8:
+1 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 Command the Israelite people and say to them: Be punctilious in presenting to Me at stated times the offerings of food due Me, as offerings by fire of pleasing odor to Me.  3 Say to them: These are the offerings by fire that you are to present to the Lord:  As a regular burnt offering every day, two yearling lambs without blemish. 4 You shall offer one lamb in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer at twilight. 5 And as a meal offering, there shall be a tenth of an ephah of choice flour with a quarter of a hin of beaten oil mixed in 6 —the regular burnt offering instituted at Mount Sinai—an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord.  7 The libation with it shall be a quarter of a hin for each lamb, to be poured in the sacred precinct as an offering of fermented drink to the Lord. 8 The other lamb you shall offer at twilight, preparing the same meal offering and libation as in the morning—an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord.
+There is also a daily incense offering. This is described in Exodus 30:7-8:
+7 On it Aaron shall burn aromatic incense: he shall burn it every morning when he tends the lamps, 8 and Aaron shall burn it at twilight when he lights the lamps — a regular incense offering before the Lord throughout the ages. 
+Many scholars believe that Tamid is one of the earliest tractates of the Mishnah. They believe that it was composed shortly after the destruction of the Temple. While there is some Babylonian Talmud on the tractate, there is not much. This may be, in my opinion, a result of the fact that there are virtually no disputes in the tractate, which also may be a result of the tractate having been composed at a very early period. In other words, the tractate was composed early, later sages did not discuss it very much, so we don’t find them debating about it, and this lack of interest by early sages in the subject, also caused later sages to not engage much in learning this tractate.  Despite all of this, it is certainly one of the tractates of the Mishnah, so we will certainly learn it! Good luck and I hope you all enjoy tractate Tamid.
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Mishnah Tamid begins with a description of the priests sleeping in the Temple, before their daily work began.
+<b>In three places the priests keep watch in the Temple: in the chamber of Avtinas, in the chamber of the spark, and in the fire chamber.</b>  There were three places in the Temple where the priests would keep watch at night. When we learn Tractate Midot we will see a list of 21 places where the Levites kept watch. The three places here are also mentioned there. These three places are: The chamber of Avtinas, where they would prepare the incense. The chamber of the spark, where they kept the fire to light the fires on the altars. The fire chamber where they kept a large fire to keep the priests warm at night.
+<b>In the chamber of Avtinas and in the chamber of the spark there were upper chambers where the youths kept watch.</b>  Two of the chambers had upper chambers so that the younger priests who could not yet serve in the Temple could keep watch.
+<b>The fire chamber was vaulted and it was a large room surrounded with stone projections, and the elders of the clan [serving in the Temple] used to sleep there, with the keys of the Temple courtyard in their hands.</b>  The fire chamber did not have an upper chamber. Rather it was vaulted, and surrounded by rows of stones. On these rows of stones the priests serving in the Temple at the time (the Temple guard was split into 24 houses) would sleep, while holding the keys to the Temple courtyard.
+<b>The priestly initiates used to place their bedding on the ground.</b>  The young priests did not get to sleep on the rows of stones. They had to put their bedding down on the ground and sleep on the floor.
+<b>They did not sleep in their sacred garments, but they used to take them off [and fold them] and place them under their heads and cover themselves with their own ordinary clothes.</b>  None of the priests slept in the clothes that they would wear while performing the Temple service. Based on the continuation of the Mishnah it seems that they feared lest they would have an emission at night and thereby contaminate their clothes. Therefore, they slept in their regular, non-sanctified clothing.
+<b>If one of them had a seminal emission, he used to go out and make his way down the winding stairs which went under the Birah, and which was lit by lights on each side until he reached the bathing place. There was a fire close by and an honorable seat [i.e. toilet]: and this was its honor: if he found it locked, he knew there was someone there; if it was open, he knew there was no one there. He would go down and bathe and then come up and dry himself and warm himself in front of the fire. He would then go and take his seat next to his fellow priests until the gates were opened, when he would take his departure.</b>  This section describes what would happen if one of the priests had a seminal emission while sleeping in the Temple. According to Deuteronomy 23:11 such a person must leave the “camp”, which the rabbis interpret to be parallel to the Temple. The priest would exit the Temple by using a set of underground stairs. It was forbidden for him to walk through the courtyard, or even on the Temple mount because he was impure. These stairs were lit so that he could see his way. He would then come to the ritual bath and a private toilet. The mishnah notes that a private toilet was unique generally toilets were used by a number of people at the same time. So unique was this toilet that it was even called “The Seat of Honor.” After taking care of his needs, he would bathe and then warm up next to the fire kept there for his comfort (sounds like a spa!). He would then go back to the other priests until the gates of the Temple were opened, when he would exit. He could not go serve in the Temple because he was not fully pure until the following evening. However, since he had been to the mikveh, he was no longer impure, so he could exit through the normal gates.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Anyone who desired to remove the ashes from the altar used to rise early and bathe before the superintendent came.</b>  The first work done in the morning was clearing the ashes from the altar. This could be done by anyone who wished to do so (see Leviticus 1:2). Before removing the ashes, the priest would have to bathe, because it is always forbidden to enter the Temple courtyard before bathing (see Yoma 3:3).
+<b>At what time did the superintendent come? He did not always come at the same time; sometimes he came just at cock-crow, sometimes a little before or a little after.</b>  The superintendent was in charge of the lottery used to determine who would get to perform what ritual in the Temple. The lottery is described in Yoma 2:1-2. The superintendent would arrive around the time when the cock crows (see Yoma 1:8).
+<b>The superintendent would come and knock and they would open for him, and he would say to them, let all who have bathed come and draw lots. So they drew lots, and whoever was successful.</b>  The superintendent would knock on the door and let the priests know that whoever had prepared by taking a ritual bath, could come and participate in the lottery. But if you didn’t bathe you’re out of luck. The early priest gets the meat, as they say.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>He took the key and opened the small door, and went from the fire chamber into the Temple courtyard, and the priests went in after him carrying two lighted torches.</b>  After waking them up, the superintendent would take the key and open the small door in the fire chamber that was connected to the courtyard. The regular gates to the courtyard did not open until it began to be light outside. The priests then entered the courtyard each carrying two torches.
+<b>They divided into two groups, one of which went along the portico to the east, while the other went along it to the west.</b>  They then divided into two groups to check the Temple to make sure that everything was still in its proper place.
+<b>They went along inspecting until they came to the place where the griddle-cakes were made. There the two groups met and said, Is all well (? All is well (! They then appointed they that made the griddle-cakes to make griddle-cakes.</b>  Each day the high priest would offer a tenth of an ephah of griddle cakes, half in the morning and half in the evening (see Leviticus 6:13-14; Menahot 4:5). They would end their examination at the place where these cakes were made and each group would ask the other if everything was okay. They would then formally appoint those who made the griddle-cakes to make the griddle-cakes.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah deals with clearing the ashes from the altar.
+<b>The one who had merited to clear the ashes, would get ready to clear the ashes.</b>  After getting the griddle-cakes on their way, its now time to clear the ashes from the altar, the first ritual performed each morning. Mishnah two noted that the priest who performed this ritual was not chosen by lottery, but rather by his being the first to get out of bed and immerse.
+<b>They said to him: “Be careful not to touch any vessel until you have washed your hands and feet from the laver. See, the fire-pan is in the corner between the ascent and the altar on the west of the ascent.”</b>  Despite the fact that he had immersed, he still can’t touch holy vessels until he washes his feet and hands from the water in the laver. This would include the fire-pan. Therefore, before he begins the process, the other priests would remind him not to touch the fire-pan until he first washes his hands and feet. They would also remind him where the fire-pan was kept. This was helpful because it was dark in the courtyard.
+<b>No one entered with him, nor did he carry any light. Rather, he walked by the light of the altar fire.</b>  He would not carry a flame in with him rather he would walk along using only the dim light from the remaining fire on the altar.
+<b>No-one saw him or heard a sound from him until they heard the noise of the wooden wheel which Ben Katin made for hauling up the laver, when they said, “The time has come.”</b>  The other priests couldn’t see him or hear him until he began to draw water using the water wheel invented by Ben Katin. This water wheel is described in Yoma 3:10. The following is my commentary on that mishnah: Ben Katin is also credited with another improvement in the Temple, this one also connected to issue of water.  He made a wheel that went into the water cistern which would cause the water in the laver to be connected to the water in the cistern.  The reason for this is that any water left out overnight in a vessel in the Temple is rendered unfit.  Without this wheel, the water left over in the laver would need to be emptied out every morning. Once they heard the wheel, they would say, “The time has come” meaning the time to wash his hands and feet.
+<b>He washed his hands and feet from the laver, then took the silver fire-pan and went up to the top of the altar and cleared away the cinders on either side and scooped up the ashes in the centre.</b>  The priest would then wash his hands and then clear the ashes and the cinders from the Temple.
+<b>He then descended and when he reached the floor he turned his face to the north and went along the east side of the ascent for about ten cubits, and he then made a heap of the cinders on the pavement three handbreadths away from the ascent, in the place where they used to put the crop of the birds and the ashes from the inner altar and the ash from the menorah.</b>  He would then descend from the altar, and deposit the ashes in the place where they would also dump out other waste-products, including the crop from the heads of bird offerings, and the ashes from the inner altar and the menorah.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>When his fellow priests saw that he had descended, they came running and hastened to wash their hands and feet in the laver.</b>  When the other priests see that the person who cleared the ashes had descended from the altar, they knew it was their turn to wash their hands and feet.
+<b>They then took the shovels and the forks and went up to the top of the altar. The limbs and pieces of fat that had not been consumed since the evening they pushed to the sides of the altar. If there was not room on the sides they arranged them on the surround or on the ascent.</b>  Their task was to take the pieces of the sacrifices that had not been consumed the day before and to clear them to the sides of the altar to make room for the wood they were now going to burn for the new day’s sacrifices. These limbs and pieces of fat would still burn; they would just do so on the sides of the altar. If there wasn’t enough room on the sides of the altar, they would even take some pieces off of the altar and put them on the ledge surrounding the altar or on the ascent. As we will learn in mishnah five, these pieces were later put back on so that they could be consumed.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>They then began to throw the ashes on to the heap (. This heap was in the middle of the altar, and sometimes there was as much as three hundred kor on it.</b>  After having cleared the limbs and pieces of fat, the other priests would take the ashes still on the altar and heap them onto the middle of the altar, onto a place called the “tapuah.” The pile of ashes on the tapuah could get quite high, as the mishnah testifies. However, when the tapuah began to overflow with ash, they would remove all of it and take it out of the city.
+<b>On festivals they did not use to clear away the ash because it was reckoned an ornament to the altar.</b>  On festivals they let the ash heap grow even higher because by seeing the massive amounts of ashes, people could tell how many sacrifices had been offered. The large ash-heap was considered to be ornamental to the altar.
+<b>It never happened that the priest was neglectful in taking out the ashes.</b>  This section relates to the previous one. One might have thought that they neglected to clear away the ashes during the festival, perhaps because they were so busy with other matters. To dash this thought, the mishnah notes that the priests never neglected the duty of taking the ashes off of the altar. They left the ashes on the altar during the festival out of intention and not neglect.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>They then began to take up the logs to place onto the fire.</b>  After having cleared the altar of the ashes or at least pushing them into the middle of the altar, the priests can now begin to bring up new wood to use to burn the day’s sacrifices.
+<b>Were all kinds of wood valid for the fire? All kinds of wood were valid for the fire except vine and olive wood. But what they mostly used were boughs of fig trees and of nut trees and of oil trees.</b>  Any wood could be used on the altar except for olive wood and vines. These were not used for kindling because these are the primary fruit bearing trees in Israel. It would be completely wasteful to use them as firewood. The most common trees were figs, nuts and oil trees. Note that these trees also bear fruit, but they were used for fire because their fruit was less significant than the wine and oil that come from the vine and olive trees. Alternatively, some commentators claim that these types of trees can only be used if the figs, nuts or oil that they produce are of low quality.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>He then arranged a large pile on the east side of the altar, with its open side on the east, while the inner ends of the [selected] logs touched the ash heap.</b>  They now begin to arrange the logs on the altar. They begin with a large pile of logs on the eastern side of the altar. In tomorrow’s mishnah we shall see that there was a smaller pile on the other side for burning the incense. The open side of the large pile faced east. The logs were arranged in straight rows from east to west, with the ends of the logs on the eastern side.
+<b>Spaces were left between the logs in which they kindled the brushwood.</b>  They left spaces in between the logs into which they put brushwood for kindling. Anyone who has ever made a good campfire should be familiar with this practice.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>They picked out from there some good fig-tree branches to make a second fire for the incense near the south-western corner some four cubits to the north of it, using as much wood as he judged sufficient to form five seahs of coals, and on the Shabbat as much as he thought would make eight seahs of coals, because from there they used to take fire for the two dishes of frankincense for the showbread.</b>  This section describes setting up the fire from which coals would be drawn to burn the incense on the inner altar, which stood inside the sanctuary (unlike the main altar which was outside). The wood used to make these coals was set up on the south-western corner of the altar, a little bit removed to the north. They would put enough wood to make five seahs of coals. On Shabbat they needed more coals because they would use them for the two dishes of frankincense burned on Shabbat with the showbread. Evidently, these two dishes needed an extra three seahs of coals.
+<b>The limbs and the pieces of fat which had not been consumed over night were put back on the wood.</b>  The chapter concludes by returning to those limbs and pieces of fat that were moved to the side in mishnah one of the chapter. These could now be moved back to the middle so that they could keep on burning.
+<b>They then kindled the two fires and descended and went to the chamber of hewn stone.</b>  After all this hoopla, the fires can finally be lit. After having lit the fires, they would go down to the chamber of hewn stone to raise a toast (just kidding!). In the chamber of hewn stone they will cast lots to see who gets to offer which sacrifice. But stay tuned the action continues in the next chapter.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>The superintendent then said to them: come and cast lots, to see who is to slaughter, and who is to sprinkle the blood, and who is to clear the ashes from the inner altar, and who is to clear the ash from the candlestick, and who is to lift the limbs on to the ascent: the head, the right leg, the two forelegs, the tailbone, the left leg, the breast and the neck and the two flanks, the entrails, the fine flour, the griddle cakes and the wine.<br>They cast lots and whoever won, won.</b><br>The altar is heating up and ready to go. It’s now time to start figuring out who is going to do what in the Temple that day.<br>The mishnah simply lists what were the parts of the sacrificial process that were up for grabs during this lottery. Many of these actions will be further explained below, so I will not explain them now.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>He then said to them: Go out and see if it is yet time for the slaughter. If the time had come, the one who saw would say, “There are flashes.”<br>Matya ben Samuel says: [He used to say] Has the whole of the east [of the sky] lit up. as far as Hebron?<br>And he [the observer] would answer yes.</b><br>Before the sacrifices were offered, they had to make sure that it was light outside.<br>Section one: The morning sacrifice could only be sacrificed after it was light. From the chamber of hewn stone they would send someone out to see if it was light outside.<br>Note that this process is not simply the practical issue of sending someone out to see if it was yet light outside. The process is highly ritualized the mishnah tells the priests what to say (“There are flashes!”) or provides them with ritualized questions to ask.<br>Section two: Matya ben Samuel was himself the “superintendent” so his testimony here is not just about what was said at this point, but rather what he himself used to say.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>He said to them: Go out and bring a lamb from the chamber of lambs.</b>  After having cast the lots, the first thing done was to fetch a lamb to use for the morning tamid.
+<b>Now the lamb’s chamber was in the north-western corner. And there were four chambers there   the chamber of lambs, the chamber of the seals, the chamber of the fire-room and the chamber where the showbread was prepared.</b>  There were four chambers in the north-western corner of the Temple. My personal favorite is the chamber of the seals. Here the priests would teach the seals all sorts of tricks, like how to bounce a ball on your nose, how to clap your fins and most importantly, how to wave at the crowd when the show is over. I wonder where they kept the chamber of the little fish ☺. [Seriously, the seals were used to stamp the libation offerings so that the priests would easily know which libation goes with which offering. See Shekalim 5:3]
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>They went into the chamber of the vessels and they took out ninety-three vessels of silver and gold.</b>  They then went into the chamber of vessels to take out all 93 (!) vessels that would be used during the day’s worship.
+<b>They gave the animal for the daily sacrifice a drink from a cup of gold.</b>  While it might be tempting to think that they gave the animal a drink out of kindness. In reality the drink was so that its hide would be easier to strip after it was slaughtered.
+<b>Although it had been examined on the previous evening it was now examined again by torchlight.</b>  They would then reexamine the animal to make sure that it did not have a blemish that would disqualify it from being used as a sacrifice.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The mishnah now describes the bringing of the tamid to the slaughter house, and provides a description of the slaughter house.
+<b>The priest who had won the right to slaughter the tamid takes it along with him to the slaughter house, and those who had won the right to bring the limbs up followed after him.</b>  The priest who won the right to slaughter and the priests who will bring the various parts of the sacrifice onto the ramp leading up to the altar all go to the slaughter house.
+<b>The slaughter house was to the north of the altar, and on it were eight small pillars on top of which were blocks of cedar wood, in which were fixed hooks of iron, three rows in each, upon which they would hang [the tamid] and they would strip its hide on tables of marble that stood between the pillars.</b>  The mishnah describes the slaughterhouse, especially the hooks on which they would hang the meat after the tamid was slaughtered. It is also describes the tables upon which the meat would be washed. These processes will be described later in the mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Those who had won the right to clear the ashes from the inner altar and from the candlestick would go first with four vessels in their hands   the teni, the kuz and two keys.</b>  Before the people described in yesterday’s mishnah would go to bring the animal to the slaughterhouse, the priests who had won the right to clear the ashes would first go in to do their work. The mishnah describes the four objects that they would carry with them. [This mishnah does seem to be out of order. Indeed, in the Talmud it comes before the previous mishnah].
+<b>The teni resembled a large tarkav of gold and held two and a half kavs. The kuz resembled a large gold pitcher.</b>  The first two objects were used to carry out the ashes. One was called the teni, and it was the size of a basket that could hold two and a half kavs (about five liters). The kuz resembled a gold pitcher. The mishnah does not state how large the kuz was.
+<b>And two keys: One of the two keys would reach down to the “amah of the armpit” and the other opens immediately.</b>  They also held two keys to open the two locks on the first door. With one key they would open a lock below called the “amah of the armpit.” There are two reasons given for why it has this name. First of all, the priest unlocking the lock might have had to bend down a cubit (an amah) until he opened it. Alternatively, he had to stick his hand into the door until it was up until his armpit. Once the bottom lock was opened, he could open the top lock with the other key immediately.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>He then came to the small opening on the north.<br>The great gate had two small openings, one on the north and one on the south.<br>No one ever went in by the openings on the south, about which it is stated explicitly in Ezekiel, “And the Lord said to me, ‘This gate shall be closed, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it” (Ezekiel 44:2).<br>He took the key and opened the small opening and went in to the cell and from the cell to the Sanctuary, until he reached the great gate.<br>When he reached the great gate he drew back the bolt and the latches and opened it. The slaughterer did not slaughter till he heard the sound of the great gate being opened.</b><br>Section one: The priest who was to open the gates of the Sanctuary would first come to the northern opening on the outside of the great gate.<br>Section two: The great gate had two openings, but because of the verse in Ezekiel, the southern opening was never used.<br>Section three: The priest would open the northern opening (this was described at the end of yesterday’s mishnah) and then he would go in to the cell.  This was a chamber which would open up into the great gate of the Sanctuary. It seems to have been within the thickness of the walls of the great gate.<br>Section four: The priest would then open the gate of the sanctuary, which was the sign to the priest who was to slaughter the tamid that he could proceed with the slaughtering.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah describes some of the noises and sounds made in the Temple. In an exaggerated fashion, the rabbis claim that these noises could be heard in Jericho. Due to the fact that Jericho is probably 30-40 km’s from the Temple, these claims are clearly hyperbole.
+I shall explain what each of these sounds and smells were.
+<b>From Jericho they could hear the sound of the great gate being opened.</b>  Explained in yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>From Jericho they could hear the sound of the magrephah.</b>  The “magrephah” which means “shovel” was a musical instrument that was shaped like a shovel.
+<b>From Jericho they could hear the noise of the wooden pulley which Ben Katin made for the laver.</b>  This was described in 1:4.
+<b>From Jericho they could hear the voice of Gevini the herald.</b>  He would summon the priests and Levites to their places. See Shekalim 5:1.
+<b>From Jericho they could hear the sound of the pipes.</b>  See: Arakhin 2:3.
+<b>From Jericho they could hear the sound of the cymbals.</b>  The cymbals would be clashed by Ben Arza. See Tamid 7:3.
+<b>From Jericho they could hear the sound of the singing [of the Levites].</b>  This refers to singing done without instruments.
+<b>From Jericho they could hear the sound of the shofar.</b>  Refers to the daily shofar blasts. See Arakhin 2:3.
+<b>Some say also of the high priest when he pronounced the divine name on Yom Kippur.</b>  See Yoma 6:2.
+<b>From Jericho they could smell the odor of the compounding of incense.</b>  That is some powerful incense. I had a roommate in college who seems to have had a mixture with similar potency ☺.
+<b>Rabbi Elazar ben Diglai said: my father had some goats in Har Michvar, and they would sneeze from the smell of the incense.</b>  Har Michvar is on the other side of the Jordan river. Super-sensitive goats!
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah discusses removing the ashes from the inner altar and the menorah, both of which were inside the Sanctuary.
+<b>The one who had been chosen for clearing the ashes from the inner altar went in carrying the teni which he set down in front of it, and he scooped up the ash in his fists and put it into it, and in the end he swept up what was left into it, and then he left it there and went out.</b>  The teni is the basket mentioned in mishnah six. The priest would first scoop up whatever ashes he could with his hands, and then would sweep out the remainder. The teni would be left in the Sanctuary for the time being. It will be removed in mishnah 6:1.
+<b>The one who had been chosen to clear the ashes from the menorah went in. If he found the two eastern lights burning, he cleared the ash from the rest and left these two burning. If he found that these two had gone out, he cleared away their ash and kindled them from those which were still lit and then he cleared the ash from the rest. There was a stone in front of the candlestick with three steps on which the priest stood in order to trim the lights. He left the kuz on the second step and went out.</b>  The menorah stood on the southern side of the Sanctuary, aligned from east to west. The eastern lights were on the left side (when facing south). If these two lights were still lit, he would first clear the ashes and waste of the other five and put it into the kuz (see mishnah six). If these two lights were already out, then he would clear their ashes as well, and if necessary add oil and relight them from candles which were still lit. If all of the candles had gone out, then he would light the first two from the fire on the outer altar (as we shall learn in 6:1). He would then remove the ashes from these two candles after the sprinkling of the blood of the tamid, and after the limbs of the tamid had been put onto the ramp. After either relighting, or clearing the ashes from the first two, he would clear the ashes from remainder. He would leave the kuz in the Sanctuary until he had completed clearing the ashes from the other two candles, as we shall see in 6:1.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The mishnah now describes the slaughtering of the morning tamid.
+<b>They would not tie up the lamb but rather they would string its legs together.</b>  The lamb was not tied to something else to keep it from running away. Rather it was strung up, with one forefoot tied to one of the hind feet. Note that the word for “strung its legs together” in Hebrew is “akedah” which is the same word used for the binding of Isaac.
+<b>Those who merited [to bring up] the limbs took hold of it. Thus it was strung up: its head was to the south while its face was turned to the west. The slaughterer stood to the east of it, facing the west.</b>  The animal was held still by those priests who had won the right to bring the limbs up to the ramp. It was slaughtered on the northern side of the Temple courtyard, with its head toward the south, the location of the altar. Its head was turned west, so that it faced the Sanctuary and the slaughterer stood on the opposite side, also facing the Sanctuary.
+<b>The morning tamid was killed by the north-western corner of the altar at the second ring. The evening tamid was killed by the north-eastern corner at the second ring.</b>  The morning and evening tamid were sacrificed by different corners of the altar. The “rings” referred to here are rings that were set in the floor of the courtyard, on the northern side of the altar.
+<b>While one slaughtered another received the blood. He then proceeded to the north-eastern corner and cast the blood on the eastern and northern sides; he then proceeded to the southwestern corner and cast the blood on the western and southern sides. The remnant of the blood he poured out at the southern base of the altar.</b>  Once the tamid was slaughtered another priest received the blood in a vessel. By casting the blood on two corners of the altar, he could cast it against both sides. In this way, with two shpritzes he could hit all four sides of the altar. He would pour out the remainder of the blood on the southern base of the altar.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>He did not use to break the leg, but he made a hole in it at the [knee-] joint and suspended it from there.<br>He then began to flay it until he came to the breast.<br>When he came to the breast he cut off the head and gave it to the one who merited [bringing it onto the ramp].<br>He then cut off the legs [up to the knees] and gave them to the one who merited [bringing them onto the ramp].<br>He then finished the flaying.<br>He tore out the heart and squeezed out the blood in it.<br>He then cut off the forelegs and gave them to the one who merited [bringing them onto the ramp].<br>He then went back to the right leg and cut it off and gave it to the one who merited [to bring it onto the ramp], and the two testicles with it.<br>He then tore it [the remaining carcass] open so that it was all exposed before him.<br>He took the fat and put it on top of the place where the head had been severed.<br>He took the innards and gave them to the one to who had merited washing them.<br>The stomach was washed very thoroughly in the washing chamber, while the entrails were washed at least three times on marble tables which stood between the pillars.</b><br>The mishnah now describes in detail how the tamid was flayed. I think that most of this mishnah is self-explanatory, especially after it has been translated. The flaying is described in great detail, because it was an important part of the sacrificial process. Today, when most of us are greatly-distanced from the sources of the meat that we eat (or don’t eat), we might forget that cows don’t magically turn into steaks and hamburgers. The mishnah is a good reminder that inside a cow, or sheep or any animal, are internal organs that need to be removed, and for sacrifice, cleaned, before they can be put on the altar.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>He then took a knife and separated the lung from the liver and the finger of the liver from the liver, but he did not remove it from its place.<br>He cut out the breast and gave it to the one to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp].<br>He came to the right flank and cut into it as far as the spine, without touching the spine, until he came to the place between two small ribs.<br>He cut it off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], with the liver attached to it.<br>He then came to the neck, and he left two ribs on each side of it, cut it off and gave it to the one to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], with the windpipe and the heart and the lung attached to it.<br>He then came to the left flank in which he left the two thin ribs above and two thin ribs below; and he had done similarly with the other flank.<br>Thus he left two on each side above and two on each side below.<br>He cut it off and gave it to the one to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], and the spine with it and the spleen attached to it.<br>This was really the largest piece, but the right flank was called the largest, because the liver was attached to it.<br>He then came to the tail bone, which he cut off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], along with the tail, the finger of the liver and the two kidneys.<br>He then took the left leg and cut it off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp].<br>Thus they were all standing in a row with the limbs in their hands<br>The first had the head and the [right] hind leg. The head was in his right hand with its nose towards his arm, its horns between his fingers, and the place where it was severed turned upwards with the fat covering it. The right leg was in his left hand with the place where the flaying began turned away from him.<br>The second had the two fore legs, the right leg in his right hand and the left leg in his left hand, the place where the flaying began turned away from him.<br>The third had the tail bone and the other hind leg, the tail bone in his right hand with the tail hanging between his fingers and the finger of the liver and the two kidneys with it, and the left hind leg in his left hand with the place where the flaying began turned away from him.<br>The fourth had the breast and the neck, the breast in his right hand and the neck in his left hand, its ribs being between two of his fingers.<br>The fifth had the two flanks, the right one in his right hand, and the left one in his left hand, with the place where the flaying began turned away from him.<br>The sixth had the innards on a platter with the knees on top of them.<br>The seventh had the fine flour.<br>The eighth had the griddle cakes.<br>The ninth had the wine.<br>They went and placed them on the lower half of the ramp on its western side, and salted them (see Leviticus 2:13).<br>They then came down and went to the Chamber of Hewn Stone to recite the Shema.</b><br>Today’s mishnah gives an intricate description of the butchering of the tamid offering. Most of the mishnah is self-explanatory (although unless you’re a butcher or a scientist who has dissected a sheep, you might have trouble picturing the parts).<br>By the end of the mishnah, each of the parts that is put onto the altar is in the hands of the priest who won the lottery to bring that piece onto the ramp. They then go back to the Chamber of Hewn Stone to recite the Shema. We shall talk about this when we learn the next chapter.
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah discusses the blessings and verses that the priests would recite in the Chamber of Hewn Stone before the tamid sacrifice was placed on the altar.
+Historically, this mishnah is of great importance. Scholars have often asked if Jewish prayer as we know it today existed during the time of the Temple. Today’s mishnah mentions prayers that later became part of the Amidah and Shacharit service. The Mishnah was not composed until about 200 C.E., so it is debatable as to how accurately it describes history. Nevertheless, the fact that the prayers mentioned here are not exactly the same as those that exist in a later period, lends credence to the possibility that this mishnah provides some of the earliest evidence as to the existence of Jewish prayer.
+<b>The superintendent said to them: Bless one blessing!  And they blessed.</b>  The superintendent is the priest who had run the lottery (see 3:1-3). He first instructs them to recite one blessing. The mishnah seems to assume that one learning the mishnah would know what blessing was referred to. The Talmud explains the blessing to be “Ahavah Rabbah” the blessing that we recite before reading the Shema in the morning. Today we recite two blessings before Shema (“yotzer hameorot” is the other). It seems that during Temple times, only one was recited.
+<b>They then read the Ten Commandments, the Shema, the “And it will be if you hearken” (the second paragraph of and Vayomer (the third paragraph of, and they blessed the people with three blessings: Emet veYatziv, and Avodah, and the priestly benediction.</b>  The next recitation was the Ten Commandments. According to the Yerushalmi, this is part of the “Shema”.  These did not become part of the liturgy outside of the Temple because of the “murmurings of the sectarians.” According to the Talmud, the rabbis feared that Jews would say that only the Ten Commandments were given by God, and that the rest came from Moses and is not divine or binding. In order to prevent this impression, this section was removed from the prayer service. The Shema is the same three paragraphs that are still recited today. The three blessings are still recited today, although they are placed differently within the service. Today, the Emet VeYatziv is the first blessing recited after the Shema, so its place has not changed since Temple times. It ends with “who redeems Israel.”  The “avodah”, which means “worship,” is now recited towards the end of the Amidah. It begins with the word “Retzeh”.  The “priestly benediction,” “May God bless you and protect you….” is recited today as part of the last paragraph of the Amidah. All three of these prayers contain words of blessing for Israel, which seems to be appropriate for this point of the service.
+<b>On Shabbat they added a blessing to be said by the watch which was leaving.</b>  On Shabbat, the new priestly watch would take over for the outgoing watch after the musaf (additional) sacrifice was offered. To celebrate this occasion, they would offer a prayer for the outgoing watch (meaning for themselves!).
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>He said to them: those who are new to the incense come and draw lots, and who ever won, won.<br>He then said: new and old, come and draw lots to see who shall take up the limbs from the ascent to the altar.<br>Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: the one who brought the limbs on to the ascent also takes them up to the altar.</b><br>Section one: The burning of the incense was such a desirable piece of the Temple service that priests were not supposed to perform it more than once in their lives. Thus they would not draw lots to see who would offer the incense. Rather, the superintendent would call the priests who had never done so to come up and take his turn.<br>Section two: The limbs of the cut up sacrifice are currently sitting on the ramp/ascent up to the altar. They still need to be placed on the altar. According to the first opinion, there is another lottery to see who merits bringing each piece up. This lottery is open to priests who had performed this act before, as well as new priests. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that there is no new lottery. Rather, whoever brought the piece up to the ascent, he also gets to bring it up to the altar.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The lotteries are now over, the winners have won and the losers, well, they have not won. Our mishnah discusses what those who did not win any lottery do.
+<b>He then handed them over to the attendants, who stripped them of their garments, and they would leave on them only the pants.</b>  The superintendent would now turn over to the Temple attendants the priests who had not won any lottery. The attendants would strip the priests of the special clothes that they wore to work in the Temple, leaving on only their pants, so that they wouldn’t be standing there naked. After they would put on their regular clothing, they could remove the priestly pants and put on regular pants as well.
+<b>There were windows there on which was inscribed the name of the garment to which each was assigned.</b>  There were windows in the Temple into which the priests could put their clothes. Each piece of clothing would have its own slot. This would save sorting the laundry later on, a job that I too find most cumbersome.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah describes the ladle and spoon that held the incense.
+<b>The one who had been selected to offer the incense took up the ladle, which was in shape like a big tarkav of gold, and it held three kavs,</b>  The ladle which cradled the incense spoon was shaped like a big tarkav (a basket see 3:6) and it could hold up to three kavs.
+<b>And the [small] dish was in the middle of it, heaped up with incense.</b>  The small dish was placed in the middle of the tarkav, heaped up with incense. It was placed inside the larger basket so that the incense wouldn’t spill over and get lost.
+<b>This had a covering, over which was spread a piece of cloth.</b>  The dish was covered, and there was a small piece of cloth over the cover. All of this was done to keep the precious incense from getting lost.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>The priest who had won the firepan, would take the silver pan and ascend to the top of the altar and clear away the live coals to this side and that, and he would rake [the coals]. He then went down and poured them into a gold [firepan].</b>  The priest who had won the right to bring the firepan into the incense altar found inside the Sanctuary would take a silver pan and go to the top of the outer altar (see 2:5). He would clear the live coals to this side and that and rake the coals into the pan and then he would pour them into a gold firepan.
+<b>About a kav of the coals was spilt, and these he swept into the channel.</b>  The silver pan could hold four kavs and the gold pan could hold three kavs. So a kav of coals would spill onto the floor. During the week these could just be swept into the channel.
+<b>On Shabbat he used to put an overturned pot on them.</b>  On Shabbat it was forbidden to put out the coals, or to even move them. Therefore, in order to prevent them from causing damage, he would put a large vessel over them.
+<b>This pot was a large vessel which could hold a letekh.</b>  The pot was large enough to hold a letekh, which is about 90 kav. So it was plenty big to cover the coals.
+<b>It had two chains; with one he used to draw it down, and with the other he used to hold it above so that it should not roll over.</b>  This pot had two chains. The first was used to lower it down from the altar with the ashes (see next section). One priest would pull on a chain and the vessel would be lowered. The other chain was used to hold it steady. Another priest would stand up top and hold on to this chain so that it would stay steady.
+<b>It was used for three purposes   for placing over live coals, and over a [dead] creeping thing on Shabbat, and for drawing down the ashes from the top of the altar.</b>  There were three uses for this vessel, two of which have already been described here (to cover the spilled coals on Shabbat and to lower the ashes from the altar). The third use would be to cover a dead sheretz (a creepy crawly thing) so that it wouldn’t cause impurity on Shabbat in the Temple. The sheretz is “muktzeh” so it can’t be moved or even touched on Shabbat. Therefore, they would cover it with the vessel until Shabbat was over. For more on how they dealt with the sheretz in the Temple see Eruvin 10:15.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>When they came between the Sanctuary and the altar, one took the magrefah and threw it between the Sanctuary and the altar.</b>  The two priests, one who had won the right to offer the incense and the other who had won the right to the firepan, now came between the Sanctuary and the altar. They would take the magrefah, which was a musical instrument shaped like a shovel (see 3:8) and throw it. This loud noise served as a warning to the other priests, as the mishnah explains.
+<b>People could not hear one another speak in Jerusalem from the noise of the magrefah.</b>  The noise of the throwing of the magrefah was so great that all over Jerusalem people could not hear one another speak. I’m assuming this is a bit of an exaggeration.
+<b>It served three purposes: When a priest heard the sound of it he knew that his fellow priests were going in to bow down, and he would run to join them. When a Levite heard the noise he knew that his fellow Levites were going in to sing, and he would run to join them. And the head of the Ma’amad used to make the unclean stand in the east gate.</b>  The mishnah now lists the three functions that this loud noise would serve. First of all, it would warn the priests that it was time to enter the Sanctuary to bow down. We shall learn more of this in tomorrow’s mishnah. Second, it would warn the Levites that it was time to sing. We shall see more of this in 7:3. Third, the priests and Levites were split into twenty-four watches or Ma’amad’s, each serving for a week in the Temple (see Taanit 4:2). The priest who stood at the head of each Ma’amad would make the unclean priests and Levites stand at the east gate so that they could go through their purification rituals, which might allow them to serve later during the week in the Temple.
+
+Chapter 6
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The priests now make their way into the Sanctuary.
+<b>They began to ascend the steps of the Sanctuary.</b>  The two priests, one who had won the right to offer the incense and the other who had won the right to bring the coals from the outer altar to the inner altar, begin to make their way up the twelve steps that lie in front of the Sanctuary.
+<b>Those who had won the right to clear the ashes from the inner altar and from the candlestick went in front.</b>  The two priests, one who had won the right to clear the ashes off the inner altar and the other who had won the right to clear the candlestick, went before them. We should note that the Mishnah described these two jobs in 3:9. Our mishnah takes place after they have already done the work referred to there.
+<b>The one who won the right to clear the inner altar went in and took the teni and bowed down and went out again.</b>  The teni is the basket that the priest left inside the Sanctuary after clearing the altar. He now goes in takes the teni, bows down and then goes out again.
+<b>The one who had been chosen to clear the candlestick went in, and if he found the two eastern lights still burning he cleared out the eastern one and left the western one burning, since from it he lit the candlestick for the evening.</b>  This section is largely a repeat of mishnah 3:9. The two eastern lights are the first that he encounters when he enters. If both are still burning, then he cleans out the first one, which is called “the eastern one” but he leaves the “western one,” the second of these two lights, still lit. This is the light that he will use to light the other branches in the night.
+<b>If he found that this one had gone out, he cleared the ash away and lit it from the altar of burnt-offering.</b>  If he finds that both are out, then he lights the menorah with fire taken from the outer altar.
+<b>He then took the kuz from the second step and bowed down and went out.</b>  He then takes the kuz (another vessel) from the second step where he left it (3:9), bows down and then goes out. These two priests will now put the ashes from the inner altar and the menorah near the ramp, as we learned at the very end of 1:4.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>The one who had won the right to bring in the firepan made a heap of the coals on the top of the altar and then spread them about with the end of the firepan and bowed down and went out.</b> This mishnah describes what the priest who took the firepan into the Sanctuary would do. First he would make a heap of the coals on top of the altar. Then he would spread them out over the altar so that the incense could be easily placed on top. Then he bowed and went out.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>The one who had won the right to the incense took the dish from the middle of the spoon and gave it to his friend or his relative.</b>  The chapter concludes with the burning of the incense. The priest who held the incense takes the incense dish out of the large spoon and gives the spoon to a fellow priest or a related priest who had entered with him.
+<b>If some of it spilled into the spoon, he would put it into his hands.</b>  Any incense that had spilled into the large spoon, he would gather up into his hands.
+<b>They used to instruct him: Be careful not to begin immediately in front of you or else you may burn yourself.</b>  He was warned not to scatter the incense first on the side immediately in front of him, because he would burn himself as he tried to scatter the incense on the other side of the altar. Very interesting to note how concerned the rabbis were with fire safety!
+<b>He then began to scatter the incense and [after finishing] went out.</b>  Rather, he would scatter the incense first on the side opposite from him, and then on the close side. When he was done, he would go out.
+<b>The one who burned the incense did not do so until the superintendent said to him: burn the incense. If it was the high priest who burned: he would say to him: Sir, high priest, burn the incense.</b>  The priest who would scatter the incense did not begin to do so, until told by the superintendent that he could begin. If he was speaking to the high priest, he would address him with some extra respect.
+<b>Everyone left and he burned the incense and bowed down and went out.</b>  All of the priests would leave the area between the altar and the Sanctuary while the incense was being offered, because it is forbidden for anyone to be there at this time (see Leviticus 16:17).
+
+Chapter 7
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>When the high priest went in to bow down, three priests supported him, one by his right and one by his left and one by the precious stones.</b>  The high priest would then go in to the Sanctuary. He would have three priests supporting him, one on each side and one who would hold on to the precious stones embedded either in his vest or in the breastplate.
+<b>When the superintendent heard the sound of the footsteps of the high priest as he was about to go out [from the Sanctuary], he raised the curtain for him.</b>  It’s good to be the high priest he even gets the superintendent to lift up the curtain before he comes out! [By the way, does anyone else picture the superintendent with a giant ring of keys, low hanging pants, without a belt and a cigarette hanging out of the side of his mouth?].
+<b>He went in, bowed down and went out, and then his fellow priests went in and bowed down and went out.</b>  After the high priest has come out, the superintendent goes in, bows, and then goes out. Finally, all of the other priests take their turn and go in, bow down and go out.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>They went and stood on the steps of the Sanctuary.</b>  The priests now gather back at the steps going down from the Sanctuary to the courtyard.
+<b>The first ones stood at the south side of their fellow priests with five vessels in their hands: one held the teni, the second the kuz, the third the firepan, the fourth the dish, and the fifth the spoon and its covering.</b>  The “first ones” are those mentioned at the end of the last chapter: the one who cleared the inner altar, the one who cleared the menorah, the one with the firepan, the one who offered the incense, and his friend/relative. They are each holding their respective vessel in their hands. They stood on the south side. The other priests stood to their north, meaning to their left.
+<b>They blessed the people with a single blessing, except in the country they recited it as three blessings, in the Temple as one.</b>  The priests now recite the priestly blessing found in Numbers 6:24-26. In the Temple they would recite this as one blessing, meaning they would not say “amen” after each verse. In the “country,” meaning outside of the Temple, when the blessing was recited in the synagogue, they would recite it as three blessings. This is how it is done, at least in Israel, to this day.
+<b>In the Temple they pronounced the divine name as it is written, but in the country by its substitute.</b>  The mishnah now explains other differences as to how the priestly blessing was done in the Temple versus how it was done outside. In the Temple, they would pronounce the name of God as it is written. We should note that we no longer really know how the name is to be pronounced. Outside the Temple, and to this day, it is pronounced by its “nickname” Adonai.
+<b>In the country the priests raised their hands as high as their shoulders, but in the Temple above their heads, except the high priest, who did not raise his hands above the diadem. Rabbi Judah says: the high priest also raised his hands above the diadem, since it says, “And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them” (Leviticus 9:22).</b>  Outside of the Temple, the priests would lift their hands to the height of their shoulders (as they do today), whereas in the Temple, they would lift them over their heads. The one exception is the high priest who was not to lift his hands above the diadem (tzitz) on his head. This seems to be because of the holiness of the diadem. Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that the high priest also would lift his hands above his head.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b> With this mishnah, the sacrifice of the tamid comes to its thunderous conclusion.
+<b>If the high priest wished to burn the offerings [himself], he would go up the ascent with the deputy high priest at his right.</b> The high priest always had the right to put the pieces of the tamid onto the altar himself. If he didn't want to, he could have the others do so (see section seven).
+<b>The first [of the other priests] then handed to him the head and the foot and he laid his hands on them and threw them [onto the altar]. The second then handed to the first the two fore legs. And he handed them to the high priest who laid his hands on them and threw them [onto the altar]. The second then went away. In the same way all the other limbs were handed to him and he laid his hands on them and threw them [on to the altar fire].</b> Each of the priests would hand the part to the high priest, and he would lay his hands upon them. The second priest would hand up to the first, and then go. Similarly the third priest would hand to the first, etc. Thus all nine priests (see 4:3) would hand the pieces of the sacrifice which they held up to the high priest.
+<b>He then went around the altar. From where did he begin? From the southeastern corner; from there he went to the northeastern, then to the northwestern and then to the southwestern.</b> The high priest would then make his way all the way around the altar to offer the wine libation. If this was done by a regular priest, he would simply go from the southeastern corner to the southwestern corner.
+<b>They there handed him the wine for libation. The deputy high priest stood on the corner/horn of the altar with the flags in his hand, and two priests on the table of the fats with two trumpets in their hands. They blew a teki’ah, a teru’ah and a teki’ah. They then went and stood by Ben Arza, one on his right hand and one on his left. When he bent down to make the libation the deputy high priest waved the flags and Ben Arza struck the cymbals and the Levites sang the psalm. When they came to a pause they blew a teki’ah, and the public bowed down. At every pause there was a teki’ah and at every teki’ah a bowing down. This was the order of the regular daily sacrifice for the service of our Lord. May it be His will that it be rebuilt speedily in our days, Amen.</b> These sections refer to the wine libation, done after the tamid was on the altar. The “table of fats” is the marble table that stood on the western side of the ramp. They would place the limbs on this table. See Shekalim 6:4.
+Ben Arza is the nickname of the priest in charge of the cymbals (see Shekalim 5:1).
+After each set of trumpet blasts, the public standing in the Temple would bow down.
+The mishnah concludes with a prayer for the Temple to be speedily rebuilt.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>The following are the psalms that were chanted in the Temple.<br>On the first day they used to say, “The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein” (Psalms 24).<br>On the second day they used to say: “Great is the Lord and highly to be praised, in the city of our God. His holy mountain” (Psalms 48).<br>On the third day they used to say: “God stands in the congregation of God, in the midst of the judges he judges” (Psalms 82).<br>On the fourth day they used to say: “O Lord, God to whom vengeance belongs. God to whom vengeance belongs, shine forth” (Psalms 9.<br>On the fifth day they used to say: “Sing aloud unto God our strength, shout unto the God of Jacob” (Psalms 91).<br>On the sixth day they used to say: “The lord reigns, he is clothed in majesty, the Lord is clothed, He has girded himself with strength” (Psalms 93).<br>On Shabbat they used to say: “A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day” (Psalms 92).  A psalm, a song for the time to come, for the day that will be all Shabbat and rest for everlasting life.</b><br>Congratulations!  We have finished Tractate Tamid! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tamid may have been one of the more unusual tractates that we have ever learned. Instead of disputes between sages, heaps of logic and laws, we get an intricate description of the Temple service. Indeed, although the language is clearly rabbinic Hebrew, its descriptive style is more characteristic of the Bible than of rabbinic literature. It is likely that these descriptions, or at least parts thereof, come from Temple times. They were preserved because the rabbis fervently hoped that the Temple would be rebuilt during their own lifetimes. While we may or may not share in this wish, I think we can all appreciate the respect in which they held this ceremony. Despite the fact that it was performed each and every day, twice every day, they don’t seem to have lost their sense of wonder at the intimate connection that they received with God through the sacrificial process. I hope you have enjoyed Tamid. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Middot (the last tractate in Seder Kodashim!).<br>Today’s mishnah lists the psalms that were chanted by the Levites each day in the Temple. Today we still recite these Psalms in the synagogue, and before we say them we say, “This is the Psalm that they used to say in the Temple.”<br>The mishnah concludes with a sort of prayer/midrash on the last Psalm.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Temurah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,314 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Temurah
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה תמורה
+Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Temurah
+
+Introduction
+
+“Temurah” means “substitute” and Tractate Temurah deals with cases where a person tries to substitute a non-sacred animal for another animal that has already been dedicated to be a sacrifice. This subject is dealt with in two parts of Leviticus 27, which I have quoted below:
+Leviticus 27: 9-10 9 If [the vow concerns] any animal that may be brought as an offering to the Lord, any such that may be given to the Lord shall be holy. 10 One may not exchange or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good; if one does substitute one animal for another, the thing vowed and its substitute shall both be holy.
+Leviticus 27:32-33 32 All tithes of the herd or flock — of all that passes under the shepherd's staff, every tenth one — shall be holy to the Lord. 33 He must not look out for good as against bad, or make substitution for it. If he does make substitution for it, then it and its substitute shall both be holy: it cannot be redeemed.
+Since there are not that many laws that are connected to substituting non-sacred animals for sacrifices, our tractate also deals with the status of the offspring of dedicated animals. The commonality between these two subjects is that the sanctity of one animal (the substitute or the offspring) comes as a result of the sanctity of the other animal (the original sacrifice or the parent).
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first mishnah of Temurah explains who has the ability to substitute a non-sacred animal for an already dedicated one. Remember: when one does this, both animals become sacred. The substitution in essence fails to remove the holiness from the original animal but succeeds in making the substituted animal holy. So throughout this tractate whenever the mishnah says “can substitute” what it means is that the substituted animal is sacred. It does not mean that the original animal becomes non-sacred.
+<b>All persons can substitute, both men and women. Not that one is permitted to substitute, but that if one did so, the substitute is sacred, and he receives forty lashes.</b>  The owner of a sacrifice has the ability to substitute one animal for another. The mishnah immediately notes that what this means is that when one tries to make such a substitution the substituted animal becomes holy. It is not permitted to try to make such a substitution, and one who does try to do so is punished, for transgressing the negative commandment of “do not make a substitute” (Leviticus 27:10).
+<b>Priests have the power to substitute their own [animal] and Israelites also have the power to substitute their own [animal].</b>  People can substitute only sacrifices that they actually own. Israelites can substitute sacrifices that they bring and priests can substitute sacrifices that they bring on their own behalf, but not sacrifices that other people bring to them to offer.
+<b>Priests do not have the power to substitute a hatat, an asham or a first-born: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: what is the reason [priests] do not have the power to substitute a first-born? Rabbi Akiva said: a hatat and an asham are priestly gifts and a first-born is also a priestly gift. Just as in the case of a hatat and an asham [priests] have no power to substitute them, so in the case of a first-born [priests] have no power to substitute it. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him: So what that priests should have no power to substitute a hatat and an asham, for there they have do not have a claim on these [offerings] while they are alive. How can you say that the same applies to a first-born upon which [the priests] do have a claim when it is alive? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Has not Scripture already said: “Then it and its substitute shall be holy?” (Leviticus 27:10).  Now where does the holiness [of the original animal] occur? In the house of the owners; so too the substitution occurs in the house of the owners.</b>  When it comes to an asham (guilt offering) or a hatat (sin offering) brought to a priest by an Israelite all agree that priests cannot affect substitutes for them. Even though the priest does get to eat the meat of the asham and hatat, they are still not his when they are alive, and therefore he cannot substitute for them. The argument is over the first-born. Rabbi Akiva says that the first-born is like the asham and the hatat and the priest cannot substitute for them. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri responds that there is a difference. The priest receives the meat of the asham and hatat only once the animals have been sacrificed. He has no share in them when they are alive, and therefore he cannot substitute for them, because substitution must be done with a live animal. But when it comes to a first-born, the animal is given to the priests when it is alive, and therefore, if a priest substitutes for it, the substitution is effective. Rabbi Akiva responds with a midrash. The Torah compares the sanctity of the substitute with the sanctity of the original animal. Since the sanctity of the original animal has to occur with the original owners, so too the sanctity of the substitute must occur with the original owners.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>One can substitute Herd animals for flock animals and flock animals for herd animals; Sheep for goats and goats for sheep; Males for females and females for males; Unblemished animals for blemished animals and blemished animals for unblemished animals, since Scripture says: “One may not exchange or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good” (Leviticus 27:10). What is meant by “good for bad”? (1) Blemished animals whose dedication was prior to their blemish.</b>  One can substitute any type of animal for any other type of animal. The reason this works is that the substitution is not effective, so it doesn’t really matter if there is a match between the original and the substitute. One can even substitute a blemished (bad) animal for an unblemished (good) sacrifice. The mishnah clarifies that if the original sacrifice was blemished, the blemish must have occurred after it was sanctified. When one sanctifies a blemished animal, he is really sanctifying its value because the animal itself cannot be sacrificed, and when one sanctifies the value of an animal, it cannot be substituted for.
+<b>One can substitute one [hullin animal] for two [consecrated animals], and two [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; One [hullin animal] for a hundred [consecrated animals] and a hundred [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; Rabbi Shimon says: one can only substitute one for one, as it says, “Then it and its substitute” (, just as “it” [the consecrated animal] is only one, so [its substitute] must also be only one.</b>  According to the first opinion, it doesn’t matter how many animals are substituted or substituted for. Since the substitution is ineffective, all of the original animals remain holy, and all of the substitute animals become holy. Rabbi Shimon derives from the verse that one can only do a one for one substitute. The Torah uses singular language to designate that both the original animal and the substitute animal must be singular. So if one tries to substitute many hullin animals for a sacred animal, the hullin animals do not become sacred.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with a person who tries to substitute either parts of an animal or embryos for a whole dedicated animal, or vice versa.
+<b>One cannot substitute limbs [of hullin] for [dedicated] embryos; Or embryos [of hullin] for [dedicated] limbs; Or embryos and limbs [of hullin] for whole [dedicated animals]; Or whole [animals of hullin] for them.</b>  According to the first opinion, one can substitute only whole animals for other whole animals. One cannot substitute parts or embryos for whole animals, or whole animals for parts or embryos that have been dedicated to the Temple.
+<b>Rabbi Yose says: limbs [of hullin] can be substituted for whole [dedicated animals], but whole [animals of hullin] cannot be substitute for them.</b>  According to Rabbi Yose if a person says, “This limb is in place of this dedicated animal,” the limb does become holy as a substitute. Once the limb is holy its holiness “spreads” over the entire animal and the entire animal is holy.
+<b>Rabbi Yose said: When it comes to dedicating animals, is it not true that if one says: “This foot shall be an olah (a burnt,” the whole [animal] becomes an olah? Similarly, if one says, “This foot shall be in place of this [whole dedicated animal],” the whole [animal] should become a substitute in its place!</b>  Rabbi Yose explains his opinion by analogizing it to a case where a person dedicates the limb of an animal. In such a case the entire animal becomes an olah (assuming that is what he said it would be). So too, when one tries to substitute a limb for an entire animal, the entire substitute animal becomes holy.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah has nothing to do with temurah. It is here because it is similar to tomorrow’s mishnah, which does have some connection to our tractate.
+<b>[Anything which has become subject to the law of terumah through] a mixture can affect a [second] mixture only in proportion.</b>  If terumah and hullin (non-sacred things) become mixed up with, for instance, terumah wine and hullin wine, and there are 100 parts hullin for every part terumah, one can simply remove one part terumah, and the remainder becomes hullin. However, if there is less than a 100 to 1 ratio, the mixture, called “meduma” has to be treated with the stringency of terumah. It can only be eaten or drunk by priests. If this “meduma” mixture becomes mixed in with other hullin, it only affects the hullin according to the amount of terumah that is in the meduma. As long as there are 100 parts hullin for every part terumah in the “meduma” mixture, the entire mixture can be treated as hullin. We should note that it is forbidden to intentionally mix meduma with more hullin in order to nullify the presence of the terumah. Our mishnah refers to a case where this occurs accidentally.
+<b>[Dough] leavened [through terumah] can affect [other dough] only in proportion.</b>  If hullin dough is leavened by terumah sour dough, the hullin dough must be treated as terumah. However, if some of this dough falls into more hullin dough, it causes the new dough take on the status of terumah only if there was enough terumah in it to leaven the new dough. This is basically the same principle we saw in section one, just in reference to dough.
+<b>Drawn water can disqualify a mikweh only in proportion.</b>  If a mikveh has less than 40 seahs of water, and three logs of drawn water fall into it, the mikveh is disqualified. If, however, these three logs of drawn water became mixed in with water that was not drawn, water that can be used for a mikveh, then they disqualify the mikveh only according to amount of drawn water that is in the mixture. To summarize: in all of these cases, there is a mixture of problematic substances (terumah or drawn water) and non-problematic substances. If this mixture is mixed in with something else that is not problematic (hullin or a mikveh) we only consider the problematic parts of the mixture when determining the status of what it fell into.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Hatat water does not become hatat water except with the putting of ashes [in the water].</b>  “Hatat water” is the water mixed in the ashes of the red heifer that is used in the purification ritual. The water does not become hatat water until the ashes are put into them. This also can mean that if there is some water that already has the ashes mixed in, and then more water falls in, they must again put more ashes in so that the new water can become “hatat water.”
+<b>A doubtful graveyard cannot make another doubtful graveyard.</b>  A field in which there was a grave and then was plowed becomes a “doubtful graveyard.” This status extends for 100 cubits from where the grave was. However, if the “doubtful graveyard” is then plowed again, it does not make another doubtful graveyard.
+<b>Nor can terumah be made after terumah.</b>  If one separates terumah from his produce, and then separates terumah a second time, the second batch of terumah is not terumah.
+<b>A substitute cannot make another substitute.</b>  If one has an animal that is holy because he attempted to substitute it for another animal, and then he tries to substitute another animal for the substitute, the second substitute is not holy. That is what the mishnah means when it says, “A substitute [that has already been made holy] does not make another substitute.
+<b>The offspring of a dedicated animal cannot make a substitute. Rabbi Judah says: the offspring of a dedicated animal can make a substitute. They said to him: a dedicated animal can make a substitute, but neither the offspring of a dedicated animal nor a substitute can make a substitute.</b>  The sages debate whether when one substitutes an animal for the offspring of a dedicated animal, the substitute is holy. The sages say that it is not, for they hold that only the originally dedicated animal can make another animal into a substitute. Rabbi Judah expands the laws of substitutes and holds that even the offspring can make a substitute.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah provides some limits to the applicability of the law of substitutes.
+<b>Birds and menahot do not make a substitute, since it only says “a beast” (Leviticus 27:10).</b>  The laws of substitutes apply only to beasts, cows, goats and sheep. They do not apply to bird offerings or meal offering (menahot).
+<b>A congregation or partners cannot make a substitute, since it says: “He shall not substitute for it” an individual can make a substitute but a congregation or partners cannot make substitute.</b>  The laws of substitutes apply only to sacrifices brought by individuals and not to those brought by the congregation or to those brought by partners. This is derived from the singular language used by the Torah.
+<b>One cannot make a substitute with [objects] dedicated for Temple repairs. Rabbi Shimon said:  Now is not tithe included [in the laws of substitutes]? Then why was it specially mentioned?  In order to make a comparison with it: tithe is a private offering, it thus excludes congregational offerings. And tithe is a dedication for the altar, it thus excludes offerings dedicated for Temple repairs.</b>  If someone has an animal that is dedicated not to be a sacrifice but to be sold for profit for Temple repairs, that animal cannot make a substitute. Rabi Shimon derives this midrashically from the comparison of the two sets of verses that deal with substitutes in Leviticus 27. The first set deals with regular animals and the second set (vs. 32-33) deals with tithes. Why would the Torah mention tithes, asks Rabbi Shimon, if not to teach us some extra information that we could not have learned from the first group of verses? Rabbi Shimon answers that these verses are there to compare animal tithes with other sacrifices that can make a substitute. Just as tithes are brought in order to offer them as sacrifices, and not to go to Temple repairs, so too only animals brought to be offered can make a substitute. Similarly, just as tithes are brought by individuals, so too only sacrifices brought by individuals can make substitutes, and not those brought by the congregation.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah compares the laws of sacrifices brought by an individual with the laws of sacrifices brought by the congregation.
+<b>There are [laws relating] to the sacrifices of an individual which do not apply to congregational sacrifices and [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals. For sacrifices of an individual can make a substitute whereas congregational sacrifices cannot make a substitute; Sacrifices of an individual can be either males or females, whereas congregational sacrifices can be only males. For sacrifices of an individual the owner is responsible for them and their libations, whereas for congregational sacrifices they are not liable for them or for their libations, although they are liable for their libations once the sacrifice has been offered.</b>  There are three ways in which sacrifices brought by an individual differ from the public sacrifices brought by the congregation. First of all, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, sacrifices brought by an individual can make substitutes whereas those brought by the congregation do not. Second, sacrifices brought by the congregation must always be brought from male animals. Third, if an individual is obligated to bring a sacrifice within a certain time, and the time passes, he must still bring the sacrifice and all of its libations (wine and oil). In contrast, if a congregational sacrifice, such as a tamid (daily) or musaf (additional) offering is not brought at its correct time, the congregation need not bring it later, nor need they bring its libations at a later time. The one caveat is that if the offering was sacrificed at the correct time and the congregation for some reason did not bring its libations, they must do so at a later date.
+<b>There are [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals: For congregational sacrifices override Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity, whereas sacrifices of individuals do not override the Shabbat or [the laws] of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said: but do not the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim  which are sacrifices of individuals and yet override the Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity? The matter therefore depends on [whether] the time [for the offering up] is fixed.</b>  Congregational sacrifices can be brought on Shabbat and if there are no ritually clean priests, even impure priests can bring them. However, individual sacrifices are never offered on Shabbat and if there are no pure priests to offer them, they simply must wait until a priest is purified. While the first opinion seems to hold that the reason for this difference between congregational and individual sacrifices is that the former is brought by the many and the latter is not, Rabbi Meir points out that there are two individual sacrifices that do not conform to these rules. The griddle cakes that the priest offers on a daily basis (see Menahot 4:5) and the bull he offers on Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:7) are both individual sacrifices and yet they both override the Shabbat and the laws of impurity. Rabbi Meir explains that the reason a sacrifice overrides Shabbat and the impurity laws is that its time is fixed. Congregational sacrifices and a couple of individual sacrifices have fixed times, whereas other individual sacrifices do not. That is why they do not override the Shabbat or impurity laws.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah continues to explain the differences between sacrifices of an individual and those of the congregation.
+To understand our mishnah we must discuss the category of a hatat (a sin-offering) that is left to die. There are five types of hatats that must be left to die: 1) the offspring of a hatat; 2) the substitute of a hatat; 3) a hatat whose owners have died; 4) a hatat whose owners were atoned for by a different hatat; 5) a hatat whose year has passed.
+The sages in our mishnah argue whether these laws apply to all hatats, or just to those brought by an individual. The argument is really only over the last two categories, because the first three are not relevant to a congregational hatat. The hatat brought by the congregation is always male (so no offspring, at least not that we can be certain about) and it cannot make a substitute (as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah). Furthermore, it is impossible to conceive of a hatat brought by the congregation whose owners have all died. Therefore, the argument is only about the last two categories, and whether they apply to the congregational hatat.
+<b>A hatat of an individual whose owners have been atoned for is left to die, whereas that of a congregation is not left to die. Rabbi Judah says: it is left to die.</b>  If a person sets aside an animal to be a hatat, a sin-offering, and then loses the offering, and then sets aside and brings a different animal to be a hatat, the first animal, if found, must be left to die. According to the Bavli, it is put into a pen and is starved to death. Our mishnah limits this to the hatat of an individual. According to the first opinion, the hatat of a congregation is not left to die. Rather, it goes out to pasture until it becomes blemished at which point it can be sold and the proceeds used to buy another sacrifice. Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that the same rules apply to the hatat of the congregation.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon said: Just as we have found with regard to the offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat and a hatat whose owners died, that these rules apply only to an individual but not to a congregation, so too [the rules concerning] the hatat whose owners have been atoned for and [a hatat] whose year has passed apply only to an individual but not a congregation.</b>  Rabbi Shimon defends the first opinion. Just as the first three types of hatat are left to die only if they belong to an individual and not to the congregation, so too when it comes to the other two types of hatat, the rules of being left to die apply only to that brought by the individual and not to that brought by the congregation. In other words, although it is possible for there to be a hatat whose congregation has already been atoned for or a hatat brought by a congregation, but whose year has already passed, nevertheless, these hatats are not left to die.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah compares the laws that relate to dedicating something to the Temple with the laws that relate to an animal that has been substituted. As the rabbis love to do, they note that sometimes the laws governing dedications are more stringent, whereas at other times, the laws governing substitutes are more stringent.
+<b>In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [that those relating to] a substitute, and in some ways [those relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications.</b>  This section introduces the rest of the mishnah.
+<b>In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [those relating to] a substitute, For dedicated animals can make a substitute whereas a substitute cannot make another substitute. A congregation or partners can dedicate but cannot make a substitute. One can dedicate embryos and limbs, but one cannot make a substitute with them.</b>  There are three ways in which dedications are treated more stringently than substitutes, all of which we have learned before. In 1:5-6 we learned that a dedicated animal can make a substitute but that a substitute cannot make another substitute. In 2:1 we learned that only individuals can make substitutes. In 1:3 we learned that one can dedicate embryos and limbs but that one cannot make them a substitute for a dedicated animal.
+<b>[The laws relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications, since a substitute applies to a permanently blemished animal and it does not become hullin to be sheared or worked.</b>  One can substitute a permanently blemished animal for an unblemished animal, as we learned in 1:2. When the person comes to redeem the blemished animal from its holiness, which he must do because it cannot be sacrificed, the substituted animal does not become completely hullin, non-sacred. It still retains its holiness in that it cannot be sheared or worked. All that one can do with it is slaughter it for food. In contrast, if one dedicates an animal that already has a permanent blemish, it can be redeemed and when it is redeemed it can be sheared and put to work (see Hullin 10:2). In this way we can see that the laws governing the substitute are more stringent.
+<b>Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: they made an error to be the same as intent when it comes to a substitute, but they did not make an error to be the same as intent when it comes to dedication.</b>  If one substitutes an animal for another animal in error, the substitution works and the animal becomes holy, despite the fact that he didn’t know what he was doing. This is not so when it comes to dedications.
+<b>Rabbi Elazar says: kilayim, terefah, a fetus extracted by means of a cesarean section, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, cannot become sacred nor can they make sacred.</b>  “Kilayim” is an animal born of two different species, for instance a goat and sheep. A “tumtum” is an animal whose sex cannot be easily determined and a hermaphrodite (“androgynous”) is one who has signs of being both male and female. These animals cannot be dedicated, and if one tries to dedicate them, they are not holy. Furthermore, they cannot cause other animals to become holy. For instance, if they are already holy due to the fact that their parents were dedicated animals, they cannot make a substitute. One who tries to substitute another animal for them, the substituted animal is not holy. This is true even for Rabbi Judah who in mishnah five said that offspring of dedicated animals can make a substitute.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The third chapter discusses the status of the offspring and the substitutes of sacrifices, and whether or not they have the same exact status as the original/mother animal.
+In our mishnah the sages debate the status of the offspring of a shelamim, an offering of well-being.
+<b>The following are sacrifices whose offspring and substitutes are the same as them:<br>The offspring of shelamim and their substitutes, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, till the end of time, are regarded as shelamim, and they require the laying on of hands, libations and the waving of the breast and shoulder.</b>  According to the first opinion, animals whose sanctity is derived from the original shelamim offering are treated exactly like shelamim. This means they require laying on of the hands (semikhah) before they are sacrificed, they require libations (grain, wine and oil) and the breast and shoulder must be waved, as is done with the shelamim itself. This would include the offspring of the original shelamim, the substitute and its offspring, and even any offspring of other offspring of the original or its substitute.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: the offspring of a shelamim must not be offered as a shelamim. The sages say: it is offered.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that the offspring of a shelamim is not offered as a shelamim. Rather it must be left to die of starvation, as was the case in mishnah 2:2. The other sages again reiterate their opinion from section one.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon said: there is no dispute between them as regards the offspring of the offspring of a shelamim or the offspring of the offspring of a substitute that they are not offered. What did they dispute? The offspring [of a shelamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not offered, But the sages say: it is offered.</b>  According to Rabbi Shimon everyone holds that the offspring of the offspring or the offspring of the offspring of the substitute may not be offered as a shelamim. The reason for this prohibition is that if we let such animals be offered as shelamim, people would see that owners delaying bringing their offerings to the Temple and rather holding them long enough for a third generation to be born. The only reason to do so is that the person wants to grow flocks of shelamim, since he can eat most of the meat. This is a problem for two reasons. First of all, the Torah says that one should not delay in bringing one’s vows to the Temple. Second, it is prohibited to shear or work these animals and if he keeps them around for a long time, the chances that he will transgress this commandment go up. To prevent people from holding on to their shelamim offerings, Rabbi Shimon says that we rule that their third generation can no longer be eaten. The sages and Rabbi Eliezer debate only with regard to the original offspring. It is, after all, possible that the shelamim (or its substitute) will have offspring without having a long delay between its sanctification and its being brought to the Temple. Therefore, the sages say that this offspring can be offered.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon said: there is no dispute between them as regards the offspring of the offspring of a shelamim or the offspring of the offspring of a substitute that they are not offered. What did they dispute? The offspring [of a shelamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not offered, But the sages say: it is offered.</b>  Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias testify that they have a tradition that supports the sages in their dispute with Rabbi Eliezer. Furthermore, Rabbi Papias testifies that they did eat the offspring of a shelamim. This testimony is found also in tractate Eduyot (testimonies) 7:6. There the testimony is explicitly brought as a refutation of Rabbi Eliezer.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah deals with the offspring and substitutes of a todah (thanksgiving offering) or of an olah (whole burnt offering).
+<b>The offspring of a todah and its substitute, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time, are considered as a todah, only they do not require the accompaniment of loaves of bread.</b>  Basically, the animals whose holiness comes about as a result of a todah (offspring, and their offspring) have the status of a todah. The one difference is that the original todah is brought with a bread offering, whereas the offspring is brought without a bread offering. This law was derived midrashically in Menahot 7:4.
+<b>The substitute of an olah, the offspring of its substitute, its offspring and the offspring of its offspring, until the end of time, are regarded as an olah: they require flaying, cutting into pieces and to be altogether burned.</b>  The substitute of an olah is a case where a person substituted a male animal for an olah. If one substitutes a female for the male olah, then the female is holy, and its offspring is sacrificed as an olah. But the olah itself does not have halakhic offspring, because the olah is a male. All of the offspring in this section, therefore, refer to a case where a female was substituted for a male. These offspring must all be flayed, cut into pieces and then burned on the altar. These laws are outlined in the first chapter of Leviticus.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>If one set aside a female animal for an olah and it gave birth to a male, it goes out to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and with its money he brings an olah. Rabbi Elazar says: the [male] animal itself is offered as an olah.</b>  An olah must be a male animal. If one sets aside a female animal to be an olah, he has sanctified it, but it cannot be offered up in the manner he wished. To solve this problem, we let the animal go out to pasture until it is blemished. Once it is blemished it can be sold, because it can no longer be sacrificed. Our mishnah points out that if the female animal has male offspring, the same process is undergone by that animal. We can’t sacrifice it because its sanctity came from its mother and its mother was improperly dedicated to be an olah. In both cases the profits from the sale go towards buying another olah. Rabbi Elazar disagrees and holds that the male offspring can be offered as an olah, even though its mother could not.
+<b>If one sets aside a female [animal] for an asham, it goes out to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and with its money he brings an asham. If he has already offered an asham [in its place], its money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Shimon says: it is sold without [waiting for] a blemish.</b>  The asham (a guilt-offering) must also be male. The same solution is employed as was used above. There is an additional issue with the asham. If before he buys the new asham he brings another animal through which he atones for his guilt, then he can’t use the proceeds from the blemished asham to buy a new asham, because one can’t bring two ashamot for one sin. In this case, the proceeds go to a fund that is used to buy freewill offerings. Rabbi Shimon says that they can sell the original asham without even waiting for it to be blemished. In his opinion, the fact that it can’t be sacrificed as an asham already is a blemish, and we need not wait for another one.
+<b>The substitute of an asham, the young of its substitute, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, go out to pasture until unfit for sacrifice. They are then sold and their money goes for a freewill-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: he brings olot [burnt sacrifices] with their money.</b>  As stated above, one can’t bring two ashamot for one sin. So while an asham can make a substitute, the substitute cannot be offered as an asham. Neither can the offspring or any subsequent offspring of the substitute or the asham. According to the first opinion, all of these animals must go out to pasture, become blemished and then sold for money to be used for freewill offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says that these animals must be left to die, just as they are in the case of a hatat (see 2:2; we will learn more about the hatat in the next mishnah). Rabbi Elazar says that he can bring olot (burnt offerings) with the proceeds. His opinion will be explained in tomorrow’s mishnah.
+<b>An asham whose owner died or whose owner obtained atonement [through another animal] goes out to pasture until unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and its money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: he brings olot [burnt sacrifices] with their money.</b>  If the asham itself cannot be sacrificed because either its owner died or he already achieved atonement through another animal, then the same debate about what to do with the proceeds of its sale occurs as we saw in section three above.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>But cannot a nedavah [freewill-offering] also be an olah? What then is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and that of the sages?</b>  In the last two sections of yesterday’s mishnah Rabbi Elazar and the sages argued what to do with the proceeds from the sale of an asham that couldn’t have been sacrificed. Rabbi Elazar said they would buy an olah, and the sages said that the money would go into the treasury of funds used to buy freewill offerings. The problem is that the money from this fund would be used to buy olot, which can be brought as freewill offerings. So what is the difference between Rabbi Elazar’s opinion and that of the sages?
+<b>Only in that when the offering comes as an obligation, he lays his hands on it and he brings libations and the libations must be from him; and if he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to him.</b>  The difference is that when an individual brings the olah, as Rabbi Elazar stated, he must lay his hands upon the sacrifice, he is responsible for the libations (wine, grain and oil) and if he is a priest, he gets to sacrifice it, and he keeps its hide, as the officiating priest always does with an olah.
+<b>Whereas when he brings it as a freewill-offering, he does not lay his hands [on it], he does not bring libations with it, the libations are provided by the congregation, and although he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to the men of the division [officiating that particular week].</b>  However, if it is brought from the funds for freewill offerings, then it is a communal sacrifice. He does not lay his hands on it, the libations come from communal funds and even if he is a priest, he does not get to sacrifice it himself. Rather the duty falls to whatever division of priests is serving in the Temple that week, and they receive the hide.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah, the final of our chapter, deals with the first-born and a tithed animal.
+<b>The substitute of a first-born and an animal tithed, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, they are all treated like a first-born and an animal tithed, and are eaten by the owners when blemished.</b>  The substitute and offspring of a first-born and an animal tithed, and all of their subsequent substitutes and offspring, all are treated just like a first-born or a tithe. They can be eaten by their owners once they have become blemished [the priest who receives the first-born is considered its owner once he receives it]. However, the substitute of a first-born is not sacrificed, as is the first-born.
+<b>What is the difference between a first-born and an animal tithed [on the one hand] and other dedications [on the other]? All [blemished] dedications are sold in the market, killed in the market, and weighed by the pound, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] and their substitutes are redeemed, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] come from outside the land [to the land], but not a first-born and an animal tithed. [If] they however came from [outside the holy land] unblemished, they are offered, if blemished they are eaten by their owners with their blemishes. Rabbi Shimon: what is the reason?   Because a first-born and an animal tithed have a remedy wherever they are, whereas all other dedications, although a blemish has occurred in them, remain holy.</b>  The mishnah now lists ways in which the first-born and tithe differ from all other animals dedicated to be sacrifices. If a blemish occurs to any other dedicated animal, it must be redeemed for money, and only then it can be eaten. Once it is redeemed, the animal can be sold and slaughtered in the marketplace, and its meat can be weighed out, because the animal is no longer holy. In contrast, the first-born and tithe are not redeemed, so they remain holy. Therefore, when they are eaten, they must not be treated in the normal way that meat is treated, for this is considered to be disgraceful. [As an aside, it is interesting to note that the sages believed that the way in which meat is treated is considered as either disgraceful or respectful to the animal]. Other animals are sometimes dedicated outside the land of Israel and then brought to Israel to be sacrifices. In contrast, while a first-born and tithe outside the land is holy, they are not generally brought to the land of Israel. However, if they are brought to the land of Israel, the same rules apply when they are blemished they can be eaten, and if they are not, they are sacrificed. Rabbi Shimon explains that the difference between the first-born and tithe on the one hand and the other dedications is that the former have a “remedy” when they are outside of Israel. There, they can go out to pasture and then when they become blemished, they can be eaten by their owners. There is no real reason to bring them to the land of Israel. In contrast, while other dedicated animals can be let out to pasture and become blemished, even once they are blemished they must be redeemed and a sacrifice must be brought with the proceeds. In which case, it is just as easy to bring them directly to Israel to be sacrificed themselves.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Chapter four is about the hatat, the sin-offering. As we have learned in 2:2, there are five types of hataot (pl. of hatat) that are left to die because they can’t be sacrificed and neither can they be eaten. Our mishnah deals with these five hataot.
+<b>The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die.</b>  These are the first three categories of hataot that are left to die. Basically, once the owner has been atoned for, the hatat cannot be sacrificed. The first two cannot be sacrificed because the owner received atonement from the original animal. If the owner died, then he no longer needs atonement so his hatat too cannot be sacrificed.
+<b>A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the laws of sacrilege do not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the laws of sacrilege do apply.</b>  When it comes to the fourth and fifth types of hatat that must be left to die, it depends on whether the owners have already received atonement through another animal. If the owners have already been atoned for by bringing another animal as a hatat, then the original hatat (the one whose year had passed or which had been lost and then was found) must be left to die. If the owner tries to substitute for it, it no longer can make a substitute. It is forbidden to derive any benefit from it, as it is always forbidden to derive benefit from dedicated animals; however, if one does derive benefit from it, it is not considered sacrilege because the animal is not really sanctified any more. If, however, the original hatat is found (and is blemished) or passed a year before the owners had been atoned for, then the animal need not be left to die. The hatat whose year had passed is let out to pasture until it is blemished and then it can be sold. The hatat that was found blemished can be sold immediately. With the proceeds he buys a new hatat, and that hatat has all of the sanctity of regular hatat. It can make a substitute and if one derives benefit from it, he has committed sacrilege and will have to make restitution.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with the case of someone who set aside an animal to be a hatat, and then it was lost.
+<b>If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he sacrificed another in its place, if then the first [animal] is found, it is left to die.</b>  As we explained in yesterday’s mishnah, once the owners received atonement from another animal, the original animal cannot be used as a hatat and rather must be left to die.
+<b>If one set aside money for his hatat and they were lost and he offered a hatat instead of it, if then the money was found, it goes to the Dead Sea.</b>  Similarly, one cannot use money set aside to purchase a hatat if he already received atonement from another hatat. Rather the money must be thrown into the Dead Sea, which is another way of saying that it must be put somewhere where he cannot derive any benefit from it.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah deals with various scenarios where one sets aside a hatat or money for a hatat and it or the money is lost, and then he sets aside another hatat or more money to buy another hatat and he then finds the first one before he offers the second one.
+<b>If one set aside money for his hatat, and it was lost and he set aside other money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat with it until the [first] money was found, he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest of the money is used for a freewill-offering.</b>  This case, and all of the cases in this mishnah, differ from those in yesterday’s mishnah because in these cases the original money or hatat is found before a replacement hatat is offered. In this first section, both sets of money must be used to buy a hatat. They are mixed in together to buy one hatat through which the owner receives atonement and any extra money goes to a fund for freewill offerings.
+<b>If one set aside money for his hatat and it was lost and he set aside a hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the money was found, and the hatat was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used as a freewill-offering.</b>  In this case, the second hatat is blemished so it can be sold. If it had been unblemished, it could have been sacrificed (as we shall see in section five). Here, since it is blemished it is sold and again, both sums are used to buy one hatat and the extra goes for freewill offerings.
+<b>If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat until his hatat was found and it was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used for a freewill-offering.</b>  This is similar to the situation in section two, except here he originally set aside a hatat and then set aside money. Again, since the hatat is blemished, it can be sold and both sums are used to buy one hatat.
+<b>If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the first hatat was found and both were blemished, they are to be sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums] and the rest is used for a freewill-offering.</b>  Again, a very similar scenario, except this time both animals were set aside (and not just money for animals). Since both are blemished, the same procedure as above is followed.
+<b>If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place, if he did not have the opportunity of offering it until the first hatat was found and both animals were unblemished, one of them is offered as a hatat and the second must be left to die, the words of Rabbi. The sages say: the only hatat which is left to die is a case where it is found after the owners obtained atonement, and the money does not go to the Dead Sea except where found after the owners have obtained atonement.</b>  Ah! Finally a debate! In this case both the original hatat and the replacement hatat are unblemished. According, to Rabbi [Judah HaNasi] one of the two hataot has to be left to die, and the other one can be sacrificed. The rabbis disagree. Since the first hatat wasn’t yet sacrificed, neither of them needs to be left to die. The only type of hatat that is lost that needs to be left to die is one where the replacement hatat was sacrificed. Here, since the replacement wasn’t yet sacrificed, both can go out to pasture until they are blemished. The rabbis also add in that the only case where the money must be thrown into the Dead Sea is the case that we discussed in yesterday’s mishnah the replacement hatat was sacrificed. If the replacement hatat was not sacrificed then the hatat is left to become blemished and then both sums are used to buy a new hatat.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final mishnah of our chapter has another case of a hatat that must be left to die.
+<b>If one set aside a hatat and it is blemished, he sells it and brings another with its money.</b>  In this case he can’t sacrifice the first hatat because it is blemished. Therefore, he sells it and brings another with the proceeds.
+<b>Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: if the second animal was offered before the first was killed, it is left to die, since the owners have [already] obtained atonement.</b>  Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon thinks that this too can become a case of a hatat left to die. Even though the original hatat was sold and now belongs to another person, if it is still alive when the second animal is offered, it still counts as a hatat whose owners had received atonement from another hatat and it too must be left to die. In other words, even though the first hatat wasn’t a “lost hatat” it still must be left to die if it is alive when the owners receive atonement.
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first three mishnayot of our chapter deal with what is called “acting deceptively with regard to the first born.” The first-born animal has to be offered as a sacrifice, unless it is blemished. The idea with acting deceptively is that the owner of the animal giving birth wants to use the offspring as another sacrifice that he is obligated to bring. For instance, he vowed to bring an olah, and now he wants to bring the first-born and have it count as the olah. This is sort of like “double-dipping” when it comes to sacrifices, but we can easily understand why this was helpful to someone who might not be able to afford to give away both the first-born and another animal that he owes as a sacrifice.
+<b>How can we act deceptively with regard to the first-born?<br>He says in respect of a pregnant animal which was giving birth for the first time: if what is in the inside of this [animal] is a male, let it be an olah. If it then gave birth to a male, it is offered as an olah.</b>  One can dedicate an animal while it is still in its mother’s womb. Since this animal was dedicated before it was born and become a “first-born” it has the status of an olah and he can use it as such.
+<b>[If he said:] if it is a female, let it be a shelamim, then if it gave birth to a female, it is offered as a shelamim.</b>  He can make the animal into a shelamim (an offering of wellbeing) by stipulating that it will be a shelamim if it is female. Note that this has nothing to do with the acting deceptively with a first-born because a female animal does not have the status of a first-born. It is only taught here because of the clauses that follow.
+<b>[If he said:] if it is a female, let it be a shelamim, then if it gave birth to a female, it is offered as a shelamim.</b>  The person can make a double stipulation and then if both are born, the male is an olah and the female is a shelamim.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. The situation discussed is when a person says about a pregnant animal, “If it gives birth to a male, then it shall be an olah, and if it gives birth to a female, it shall be a shelamim.”
+<b>If it gave birth to two males, one of them shall be offered as an olah and the second shall be sold to persons obligated to bring an olah and its money becomes hullin.</b>  If it gives birth to two males he does not need to bring both as olot (pl. of olah) because he vowed to bring only one olah. However, the sanctity of an olah does apply to the animal because it is unclear which of them he vowed to be his olah. So what he can do is sell the animal as an olah to another person to be used as an olah and that money he can keep as his own, as hullin (non-sacred money).
+<b>If it gave birth to two females, one of them is offered as a shelamim and the second is sold to persons obligated to bring shelamim and the money becomes hullin.</b>  The same is true when it comes to the shelamim, because only a female animal can be a shelamim.
+<b>If [the animal] gave birth to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: no holiness attaches to them.</b>  A tumtum (an animal with neither sexual signs) and a hermaphrodite (one with signs of being both male and female) do not count full as either male or female. Since neither of them fulfills the conditions of his vow, neither of them is holy.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah deals with someone who wants to make a pregnant animal one type of sacrifice but dedicate its offspring to be a different type.
+<b>If one says: “The offspring of this [pregnant animal] shall be an olah and it [the animal itself] shall be a shelamim,” his words stand.</b>  If he first dedicates the offspring and then the mother, there is no problem. The mother will be a shelamim and the offspring an olah (if it is male). Note that it is probably intentional that the mother is a shelamim and the offspring an olah, because the owner doesn’t get any parts of the olah, whereas he does get to eat a majority of the shelamim. Naturally, he would be more interested in making the larger animal into the sacrifice that he can eat.
+<b>But if he says [first]: “It [the animal] shall be a shelamim” [and then], “and its offspring shall be an olah,” [its offspring] is regarded as the offspring of an shelamim, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: if he intended [to say] this at first, since it is impossible to mention both kinds [of sacrifices] simultaneously, his words stand; but if after he already said [intentionally]: this shall be a shelamim, and then he changed his mind and says: its offspring shall be an olah, [its offspring] is regarded as the offspring of a shelamim.</b>  The problem here is that he first makes the mother into a shelamim and then tries to make the offspring into an olah. According to Rabbi Meir, once the mother is a shelamim, its offspring will automatically have the same status. He cannot change that by trying to make it into an olah. Rabbi Yose disagrees. If from the outset he intended to make the mother a shelamim and the offspring an olah, but he just happened to dedicate the mother first, then his words do stand. The fact that he dedicated the mother right before the offspring does not matter. However, if he intended at first to make the mother into a shelamim, and then later changed his mind, then both the mother and the offspring are shelamim.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah contains a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose that is very similar to the debate found in yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>[If one says:] “Behold, this animal shall be the substitute of an olah and the substitute of a shelamim,” it is the substitute of an olah, the words of Rabbi Meir.</b>  Again in this situation a person said two things that are contradictory. One animal cannot be a substitute for both an olah and a shelamim. According to Rabbi Meir, we take into consideration only his first words, and the animal is the substitute of an olah, and not the substitute of a shelamim.
+<b>Rabbi Yose says: if he originally intended this, since it is impossible to mention both names [of sacrifices] simultaneously, his words stand. But if after he had already said: “This shall be the substitute of an olah,” he changed his mind and then said: “The substitute of a shelamim,” it is the substitute of an olah.</b>  Rabbi Yose says that if he intended to make the animal both the substitute of a shelamim and the substitute of an olah, his words count. Such an animal is half a substitute for an olah and half for a shelamim. Obviously it cannot be sacrificed; rather it must be let out to pasture until it is blemished, then sold and with half of the proceeds he brings an olah and with the other half he brings a shelamim. If, however, he said one thing and then changed his mind, his first words count. Once one has dedicated an animal or made it into a substitute, he cannot subsequently change his mind.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah teaches what actual words are capable of making one animal a substitute for another. We should again remember that the laws of “temurah” refer to one who tries to make one animal holy in place of another animal that is already dedicated. The substitution works in making the new animal holy, but it does not work in making the original animal into hullin (non-sacred). In other words, he was trying to redeem one animal for another, but since he used the language of substituting, his redemption fails.
+<b>[If one says:] “Behold this [animal] is tahat [instead of] this,” [or] “Behold this is temurat [a substitute] this,” [or] “Behold this is halufat [in place of] this,” [each of these] is a substitute.</b>  There are three different words that can cause a substitute to be made: “tahat” “temurat” and “halufat.” If any of these three phrases are used the new animal is holy and the original animal is still holy.
+<b>[If however one says:] “This shall be redeemed for this,” it is not the case of a [valid] substitute. And if the dedicated animal was blemished, it becomes hullin and he is required to make up [the hullin] to the value [of the dedicated animal].</b>  However, if one uses the word for redeem, then he has not made a substitute. If the original dedicated animal is not blemished then it cannot be redeemed and his words do not have any effect. If the dedicated animal was blemished then his redemption is successful and the original animal is now hullin and the substitute animal is holy. However, he must make sure that the value of the hullin animal he used to redeem is at least equal to the value of the dedicated animal that was being redeemed, as is always the case when redeeming blemished sacrifices.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b> The final mishnah of chapter five discusses the precise language that must be used for a substitute to be valid.
+<b>[If one says:] “Behold this animal shall be instead of a hatat,” [or] “instead of an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Instead of this hatat” [or] “Instead of this olah,” [or] “Instead of the hatat or the olah which I have in the house,” and he had it in the house, his words stand.</b>  In order for the substitute to be valid he must specify the animal that is being substituted for. If he does not specify an animal that he owns, then his words have no validity.
+<b>If he says concerning an unclean animal or a blemished animal: “Behold these shall be an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Behold they shall be for an olah,” they are sold and he brings with their money an olah.</b>  One cannot make an unclean animal (such as a pig or camel) into an olah, or any sacrifice for that matter. If one takes such an animal and declares it to be an olah, he has said nothing. However, if he says that the animal will “be for an olah” we interpret him as meaning that the animal will be used to bring another animal for an olah. Therefore the unclean or blemished animal can be sold and with its proceeds an olah is brought.
+
+Chapter 6
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Chapter six contains information concerning animals that cannot be put onto the altar for various reasons.
+<b>All [animals] forbidden for the altar render [others] unfit however few there are.</b>  If an animal is one of the kinds of animals that cannot be put onto the altar, then if it becomes mixed up with other animals, all of the animals are forbidden, even if there were many permitted animals and only one forbidden one. In other words, there is no measure in which the forbidden animals are nullified, as there are in other forbidden mixtures.
+<b>[These are the animals forbidden for the altar]: An animal which had sexual relations with [a woman] or [an animal] that had sexual relations [with a man], an animal set aside ( [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped (ne’ [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through a caesarean section,<br>What is meant by muktzeh? That which has been set aside for idolatrous use. It [the animal itself] is forbidden, but what is upon it, is permitted.</b>  This is the list of animals that cannot be put on the altar. We have explained these in Zevahim 8:1 and our mishnah and the following ones will deal below with categories b-c. Kilayim is an animal born from two different species of parents, such as a goat and a sheep. A terefah is an animal with a wound/disease that will cause it to die imminently.
+<b>And what is meant by ne'evad? That which has been used for idolatry. Both it [the animal itself] and that which is upon it, are forbidden. In both cases the animal may be eaten.</b>  “Muktzeh” means “set aside” and here it refers to an animal that has been set aside to be used in an idolatrous ritual, but that has not yet been used. It itself cannot be offered as a Jewish sacrifice, but anything on it, jewels, a saddle, etc. is not yet forbidden.
+“Ne’evad” means that the animal has already been used in idolatry. Here the prohibition is broader and includes even the things that decorate the animal. However, both animals can be eaten as non-sacrificial meat as long as they were not already slaughtered for the sake of idolatry.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+According to Deuteronomy 23:19 one may not bring “a prostitute’s fee or the pay of a dog into the house of the Lord.” The rabbis understand these two things to be an animal used to pay a prostitute or an ox used as payment for a dog. Neither of them can be used as a sacrifice.
+The next three mishnayot explain what constitutes the “a prostitute’s fee” or “the pay of a dog.”
+<b>What is meant by “a prostitute’s fee”?<br>If one says to a prostitute, “Take this lamb as your fee,” even if there are a hundred lambs, they are all forbidden [for the altar].</b>  According to Albeck, this means that a man gives even 100 lambs to a prostitute as her fee, none of the lambs can be used as a sacrifice. The Talmud adds that even if her stated fee was only one lamb and he gave her another 99 lambs as a bonus, they are all prohibited.
+<b>If one says to his fellow: Here is a lamb and have your female slave sleep with my servant, Rabbi Meir says: it [the lamb] is not regarded as a prostitute’s fee. But the sages say: it is regarded as a prostitute’s fee.</b>  A slave owner has a right to give his female Canaanite(non-Jewish)  slave to his male Hebrew slave. Rabbi Meir says that if someone tries to pay another slave owner for him to have his female slave sleep with his male slave, it is not prostitution and the fee is not a prostitute’s fee. According to Rabbi Meir the reason is that a Hebrew slave cannot marry a female Canaanite slave, therefore the master has a right to designate her to have relations with someone not for the sake of marriage. The other sages hold that he could marry her and therefore when she is paid to have relations with him it is a prostitute’s fee.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>What is meant by the “price of a dog”?<br>If one says to his fellow, here is this lamb instead of [this] dog.</b>  The price of a dog means an animal used to pay for a dog. Such an animal cannot be used as a sacrifice. Assumedly, the dog was considered a lowly animal in the biblical world and therefore something used to buy a dog itself had a lowly status and could not be used a sacrifice.
+<b>And similarly if two partners divided [an estate] and one took ten lambs and the other nine and a dog, all those taken in place of the dog are forbidden [for the altar], but those taken with a dog are valid [for the altar].</b>  The lamb taken by one partner in exchange for the dog taken by the other partner is considered to be the “price of a dog.”
+<b>An animal that is the fee of a dog and the price of a prostitute are permitted [for the altar], since it says: “[For] both [of these]” (Deuteronomy 23:19): both’ but not four.</b>  The mishnah here reverses the biblical “prostitute’s fee and price of a dog” and comes up with “the fee of a dog and price of a prostitute.” The “fee of a dog” is when someone gives a lamb to his fellow in return for a dog to be used for sexual relations (I know, a bit sick, but that’s what it says). The “price of a prostitute” refers to a case where one exchanges a prostitute for a lamb. These lambs are not prohibited because the Torah prohibits only two things the prostitute’s fee and the price of a dog. Any other combo, no matter how morally troubling, does not cause the lamb to become prohibited.
+<b>Their offspring are permitted [for the altar since it says]: “[Both of these]” implying they but not their offspring.</b>  Only the animal itself is prohibited, not their offspring.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah is the last mishnah to deal with the topic of “the price of a dog” and the “fee of a prostitute.”
+<b>If he gave her [a prostitute] money, it is permitted [for use for the altar.] [But if he gave her] wine, oil, flour and anything similar which is offered on the altar, it is forbidden for the altar.</b>  If one pays a prostitute with money (I think today that this is preferred over giving her a lamb), the money can later be used to buy a sacrifice.  The only thing that becomes prohibited is something can be sacrifice, such as wine, oil and flour.
+<b>If he gave her dedicated [animals] they are permitted [for the altar].</b>  If he gives her an animal already dedicated to the Temple, it does not become prohibited. This is because an animal that is already dedicated is not his money any more, and one cannot prohibit something that does not belong to him.
+<b>If he gave her birds [of hullin] they are disqualified.</b>  The mishnah includes birds as being prohibited if given to a prostitute for her fee.
+<b>For one might have reasoned [as follows]: if in the case of dedicated animals, where a blemish disqualifies them, [the law] of [the prostitute’s] fee and price [of a dog] does not apply to them, in the case of birds, where a blemish does not disqualify, is it not all the more reason that the law of [the prostitute’s] fee and the price [of a dog] should not apply? Scripture says, “For any vow,” (Deuteronomy 23:19) this includes a bird.</b>  The mishnah now explains why one might have even thought that these laws don’t apply to a bird. We have already learned in section two that the laws of the fee of a prostitute and the price of a dog don’t apply to dedicated animals. The laws concerning blemishes (that a blemished animal cannot be sacrificed) do, however, apply to dedicated animals. This makes the laws governing dedicated animals more stringent than the laws governing birds, which are not disqualified by defects. Therefore, if the laws of the fee of a prostitute and the price of a dog don’t apply to the more stringent case of dedicated animals, all the more so they should not apply to the more lenient case of the bird. Therefore, the Torah teaches “for any vow” to let us know that birds are included in the prohibition.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>With regard to any animals that are disqualified for the altar, their offspring are permitted for the altar.</b>  If an animal cannot be offered for the altar, for instance an animal given as prostitute’s fee or the price of a dog (see mishnah three), its offspring can still be offered.
+<b>The offspring of a terefah: Rabbi Elazar says it may not be offered on the altar.</b>  Rabbi Elazar says that when it comes to a terefah, an animal with a physical defect that will eventually cause it to die, the offspring cannot be offered. Evidently, according to Rabbi Elazar, such a defect is inherited.
+<b>Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: a ritually clean animal which nursed from a terefah is disqualified from the altar.</b>  The milk in this animal’s stomach is prohibited because it comes from a terefah. Therefore, according to Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus, it is prohibited from the altar.
+<b>Any dedicated animal which became terefah one may not dedicate them, since we may not redeem dedicated [animals] in order to give them to dogs to eat.</b>  One cannot dedicate a living terefah to be a sacrifice because there would be nothing to do with that animal. It cannot be offered on the altar because it is a terefah. It cannot be redeemed, because the only thing one could do with it after it is redeemed is feed it to the dogs, and this is considered disgraceful to a formerly holy thing. Therefore, one should not dedicate it in the first place.
+
+Chapter 7
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first three mishnayot of our chapter deal with the differences between the laws that apply to things that are dedicated to the altar to be sacrifices and things that are dedicated to the Temple for their proceeds to be used for Temple repairs.
+Our mishnah deals with the first half of this equation laws that apply to dedications to the altar that don’t apply to dedications made for Temple repair.
+<b>There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the altar which do not apply to dedications   for repairs of the Temple, and there are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which do not apply to dedications for the altar.<br>Dedications for the altar effect a substitute;</b>  If one tries to make a substitute for an animal that has been dedicated to be a sacrifice, then the substitute is holy and the original animal retains its holiness. This is not so when it comes to an animal dedicated for Temple repairs (see 1:6).
+<b>They are subject to the laws of piggul, remnant   and ritual uncleanness;</b>  If while offering an animal to be a sacrifice one has the intention to eat it or offer its innards on the altar after its prescribed time has expired, the animal is piggul and anyone who eats it is liable for karet (see Zevahim 2:2-3). Remnant (notar) is the meat of a sacrifice that has been left over after its time has expired. Ritual uncleanness refers to either the person eating the sacrifice, or the meat of the sacrifice. These laws refer only to the animals dedicated to be sacrifices, but not to animals dedicated for Temple repairs.
+<b>Their offspring and milk are forbidden [even] after their redemption;</b>  The offspring and milk of animals dedicated for the altar are always forbidden, even if the animals should become blemished and are then redeemed. Their holiness remains after redemption, and therefore things that come from them are also holy. See Hullin 10:2.
+<b>If one kills them outside [the Temple] he is guilty;</b>  Slaughtering such an animal outside the Temple is forbidden and will make one liable for karet (see Zevahim 14:1-2).
+<b>And wages are not paid from them to artisans, Which is not the case with dedications for temple repairs.</b>  Artisans who work in the Temple, building or repairing or other such work, their wages are not paid from animals dedicated for the altar. However, their wages can come from animals dedicated for Temple repairs.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is the second half of yesterday’s mishnah. Here we learn that there are laws that apply to dedications made for the repair of the Temple that don’t apply to animals dedicated to be sacrifices.
+<b>There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which don’t apply to dedications to the altar.<br>Unspecified dedications go to the repairs of the Temple.</b>  If one dedicates something to the Temple, even an animal that can be a sacrifice, it automatically goes towards Temple repair. If he wishes it to be a sacrifice, he must specify that the animal is to be a sacrifice.
+<b>Dedication for the repairs of the temple can have an effect on all things,</b>  Anything can be dedicated to be used for repairs for the Temple, even an animal that cannot be sacrificed, such as a pig or camel. The animal is sold and the proceeds go to the Temple. In contrast, only an unblemished kosher animal, bird or other sacrificable object can be dedicated to be put on the altar.
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to things that grow from them.</b>  If one makes use of something that comes from an animal dedicated for Temple repair, such as milk from an animal or eggs from a bird, he has committed sacrilege (illicit use of holy property). The same is not true if he makes use of the same object that comes from an animal that has been dedicated to be a sacrifice. We will learn more about the laws of sacrilege in tractate Meilah.
+<b>And there is no benefit to be derived from them for the priest.</b>  Priests do not derive any personal benefit from animals or any other product dedicated for Temple repair. In contrast, they receive part of all animals dedicated to be sacrifices, either part of the meat or the hide.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In today’s mishnah we learn ways in which dedications for the repairs of the Temple are treated the same as dedications for the altar.
+<b>Both dedications for the altar and dedications for the repairs of the Temple may not be changed from one holiness to another.</b>  Once someone has dedicated an animal for a certain purpose he cannot change that purpose. For instance, if one dedicated an animal to be an olah, he can’t later change his mind and make it into a shelamim. Similarly, if one dedicated an animal to be sold and used for Temple repairs, he can’t change his mind and dedicate it for the altar.
+<b>One may dedicate them with a value-dedication, and one may conscribe them.</b>  A person can use either type of dedicated thing to make a vow of value. This is a subject we just learned in Arakhin 8:7. A person can dedicate to the Temple the benefit that he gets from bringing an already dedicated ox (or other animal) to the Temple. In other words, how much would you pay to bring this ox as a sacrifice? If someone makes such a vow, he owes that much money to the Temple. Similarly one can conscribe an already dedicated thing. Again this means that he owes the monetary amount of benefit he is receiving by having the merit to bring this sacrifice.
+<b>If they die, they are buried. Rabbi Shimon says: dedications for the repairs of the temple, if they died, they are redeemed.</b>  If either type of dedicated animal dies, it cannot be redeemed because it cannot be stood up for a formal process of evaluation. Since there is no way to “remove” the holiness, the animal must be buried. Rabbi Shimon holds that animals dedicated for Temple repair can be redeemed without a formal process of evaluation. Therefore, they can be redeemed even after death.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>And the following are things which must be buried:<br>A dedicated animal which had a miscarriage, [the miscarriage] must be buried.<br>A dedicated animal which expelled a placenta, [the placenta] must be buried.<br>An ox which was condemned to be stoned.<br>The heifer whose neck was broken.<br>The birds [brought in connection with the purification] of one with skin disease (.<br>The hair of a nazirite.<br>The first-born of a donkey.<br>[A mixture of] meat [cooked] in milk.<br>And hullin which were slaughtered in the Temple court. Shimon says: hullin which were slaughtered in the Temple court must be burned. And similarly a wild animal killed in the Temple court [is also burned].</b><br>At the end of yesterday’s mishnah we learned that animals dedicated, either for the altar or for Temple repair, that then die, must be buried because they cannot be redeemed. Our mishnah lists other things that must be buried.<br>Section one: The aborted fetus carries the holiness of its mother, but it can’t be redeemed. Therefore it must be buried. The same is true with regard to the placenta mentioned in the next section. The placenta here refers to an early miscarriage which might have a fetus in it, and therefore it too must be buried.<br>Section three: An ox which committed a crime (murder or sex with a human being) must be stoned. Once it is stoned, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it (see Exodus 21:28). The same is true with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken as part of the ritual that atones for an unknown murder. See Deuteronomy 21; Mishnah Kiddushin 2:9 and Avodah Zarah 5:9.<br>Section five: There are two birds used in the purification of the leper (see Leviticus 14). One bird is slaughtered and the other bird is set free. It is forbidden to use these birds for any other purpose. The slaughtered bird must be buried, and if it should die before being released, the other bird must be buried as well. However, once the other bird is released, it is permitted.<br>Section six: It is forbidden to derive any benefit from the hair that the nazirite shaves during the ritual which observed if he became impure (see Numbers 6:9). However, the hair that he shaves at the end of his term of naziriteship is burned (see vs. 18).<br>Section seven:  The first born of a donkey must be redeemed with a sheep. It is prohibited to derive any benefit from the sheep after it has been used to redeem the donkey.<br>Section eight: It is prohibited to derive benefit from milk and meat cooked together. If one does cook them together they must be buried, which basically means that the mixture must be thrown away.<br>Section nine: According to the first opinion, if a non-sacred animal is slaughtered in the Temple court, it must be buried. Rabbi Shimon says that it must be burned, which is the same rule that applies to sanctified animals that become disqualified in the Temple court (see mishnah six below). He holds that all animals that are improperly slaughtered in the Temple court must be burned this is to prevent confusion.  Indeed, Rabbi Shimon holds that even though wild animals cannot be sacrificed they too must be burned.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>And the following are to be burned:<br>Chametz on Pesah is burned;<br>Unclean terumah;<br>Orlah;<br>Kilayim (mixed in the vineyard--that which it is customary to burn is to be burned and that which it is customary to bury is to be buried.<br>We may kindle with the bread and oil of [unclean] terumah.</b><br>In yesterday’s mishnah we learned which forbidden items must be buried. Today we learn that other forbidden things must be burned.<br>Section one: If one finds chametz (leavened bread) on Pesah, he must burn it.<br>Sections two-four: Unclean terumah, orlah (fruit in its first three years of growth) and seeds sewn in a vineyard must be burned. If these come in a form that is impossible to burn, such as juice made of orlah fruit, then it should be buried. But if it can be burned, than it should be burned.<br>Section five: When burning unclean terumah, one may use the light and heat to derive benefit. This is not the case when it comes to burning chametz on Pesah, orlah, or kilayim. It is forbidden to derive any benefit from these substances, even from the fire in which they are being burned.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final mishnah in Temurah deals with prohibited things that must be burned.
+<b>All dedicated animals which were slaughtered [with the intention of being eaten] after their set time or outside of their set place must be burned.</b>  An animal dedicated to be a sacrifice which was slaughtered with a disqualifying intention to eat it or burn it at the wrong time or place is fully disqualified and must be burned. The same is true with regard to a sacrifice that is in another way disqualified, such as remnant or a meat that has been made impure (see Leviticus 7:17, 19; see also Leviticus 6:23).
+<b>An asham offered by one in doubt [as to whether he has transgressed] is to be burned. Rabbi Judah says: it is to be buried.</b>  An “asham offered by one in doubt” is brought by someone who is not sure if he committed a sin that if he knew for certain he had committed he would have had to bring a hatat. If he brings this type of asham and then before its blood is sprinkled on the altar he finds out that he did not sin, the asham is disqualified. According to the first opinion it is to be burned, whereas Rabbi Judah holds that it is buried.
+<b>A hatat of a bird that is brought for a doubt is burned. Rabbi Judah says: it is cast into the sewer.</b>  This section could refer to a case where a woman is not sure if she gave birth (for instance she had a very early miscarriage and is unsure whether it was just some blood or was a miscarriage). After child birth a woman brings a hatat, but in this case her hatat is of doubtful status. It cannot be eaten. According to the first opinion, it is burned. Rabbi Judah says that it can be cast into the sewer that flows through the Temple courtyard, which is, according to the Tosefta, equivalent to burial. Rabbi Judah holds that both this and the doubtful hatat are looked at like non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple court, which means they are to be buried.
+<b>All things which must be buried must not be burned, and all things which must be burned must not be buried. Rabbi Judah says: if one wishes to be stringent with himself, to burn things which are buried, he is permitted to do so. They said to him: he is not allowed to change.</b>  According to the sages, if one is obligated to burn or bury a specific item, he must do so in the specified manner. He cannot change from one means of disposal to the other. Rabbi Judah is more flexible and allows one to burn things that can be buried. He does not allow one to bury things that need to be burned. Congratulations!  We have finished Tractate Temurah! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Temurah contained many quite technical details concerning sacrificial law (a topic you should be used to by now) but perhaps you will allow me a little “derashah” at this point. The verses in Leviticus 27 concerning substituting teach us that it is basically impossible to substitute one sanctified animal for another. Once an animal has become sacred, and dedicated to be a sacrifice, it must fulfill its destiny and become a sacrifice. Perhaps in a broader sense this teaches us that sometimes once something has attained a certain status, there just is no substitute for it. Once it has become “holy” in our lives, even if we try to put something else in its place, the holiness of the original object can never be removed. There are many things that play such a role in our lives, and I don’t wish to limit the imagination by specifying. Substitutions, sometimes, simply don’t work, and perhaps, in a very symbolic fashion, that is what these sacrificial laws are trying to teach us. I hope you have enjoyed Temurah. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Keritot.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Temurah/English/merged.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,317 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Temurah
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה תמורה
+merged
+https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Temurah
+This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
+-Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+-http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Temurah
+
+Introduction
+
+“Temurah” means “substitute” and Tractate Temurah deals with cases where a person tries to substitute a non-sacred animal for another animal that has already been dedicated to be a sacrifice. This subject is dealt with in two parts of Leviticus 27, which I have quoted below:
+Leviticus 27: 9-10 9 If [the vow concerns] any animal that may be brought as an offering to the Lord, any such that may be given to the Lord shall be holy. 10 One may not exchange or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good; if one does substitute one animal for another, the thing vowed and its substitute shall both be holy.
+Leviticus 27:32-33 32 All tithes of the herd or flock — of all that passes under the shepherd's staff, every tenth one — shall be holy to the Lord. 33 He must not look out for good as against bad, or make substitution for it. If he does make substitution for it, then it and its substitute shall both be holy: it cannot be redeemed.
+Since there are not that many laws that are connected to substituting non-sacred animals for sacrifices, our tractate also deals with the status of the offspring of dedicated animals. The commonality between these two subjects is that the sanctity of one animal (the substitute or the offspring) comes as a result of the sanctity of the other animal (the original sacrifice or the parent).
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first mishnah of Temurah explains who has the ability to substitute a non-sacred animal for an already dedicated one. Remember: when one does this, both animals become sacred. The substitution in essence fails to remove the holiness from the original animal but succeeds in making the substituted animal holy. So throughout this tractate whenever the mishnah says “can substitute” what it means is that the substituted animal is sacred. It does not mean that the original animal becomes non-sacred.
+<b>All persons can substitute, both men and women. Not that one is permitted to substitute, but that if one did so, the substitute is sacred, and he receives forty lashes.</b>  The owner of a sacrifice has the ability to substitute one animal for another. The mishnah immediately notes that what this means is that when one tries to make such a substitution the substituted animal becomes holy. It is not permitted to try to make such a substitution, and one who does try to do so is punished, for transgressing the negative commandment of “do not make a substitute” (Leviticus 27:10).
+<b>Priests have the power to substitute their own [animal] and Israelites also have the power to substitute their own [animal].</b>  People can substitute only sacrifices that they actually own. Israelites can substitute sacrifices that they bring and priests can substitute sacrifices that they bring on their own behalf, but not sacrifices that other people bring to them to offer.
+<b>Priests do not have the power to substitute a hatat, an asham or a first-born: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri: what is the reason [priests] do not have the power to substitute a first-born? Rabbi Akiva said: a hatat and an asham are priestly gifts and a first-born is also a priestly gift. Just as in the case of a hatat and an asham [priests] have no power to substitute them, so in the case of a first-born [priests] have no power to substitute it. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said to him: So what that priests should have no power to substitute a hatat and an asham, for there they have do not have a claim on these [offerings] while they are alive. How can you say that the same applies to a first-born upon which [the priests] do have a claim when it is alive? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Has not Scripture already said: “Then it and its substitute shall be holy?” (Leviticus 27:10).  Now where does the holiness [of the original animal] occur? In the house of the owners; so too the substitution occurs in the house of the owners.</b>  When it comes to an asham (guilt offering) or a hatat (sin offering) brought to a priest by an Israelite all agree that priests cannot affect substitutes for them. Even though the priest does get to eat the meat of the asham and hatat, they are still not his when they are alive, and therefore he cannot substitute for them. The argument is over the first-born. Rabbi Akiva says that the first-born is like the asham and the hatat and the priest cannot substitute for them. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri responds that there is a difference. The priest receives the meat of the asham and hatat only once the animals have been sacrificed. He has no share in them when they are alive, and therefore he cannot substitute for them, because substitution must be done with a live animal. But when it comes to a first-born, the animal is given to the priests when it is alive, and therefore, if a priest substitutes for it, the substitution is effective. Rabbi Akiva responds with a midrash. The Torah compares the sanctity of the substitute with the sanctity of the original animal. Since the sanctity of the original animal has to occur with the original owners, so too the sanctity of the substitute must occur with the original owners.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>One can substitute Herd animals for flock animals and flock animals for herd animals; Sheep for goats and goats for sheep; Males for females and females for males; Unblemished animals for blemished animals and blemished animals for unblemished animals, since Scripture says: “One may not exchange or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good” (Leviticus 27:10). What is meant by “good for bad”? (1) Blemished animals whose dedication was prior to their blemish.</b>  One can substitute any type of animal for any other type of animal. The reason this works is that the substitution is not effective, so it doesn’t really matter if there is a match between the original and the substitute. One can even substitute a blemished (bad) animal for an unblemished (good) sacrifice. The mishnah clarifies that if the original sacrifice was blemished, the blemish must have occurred after it was sanctified. When one sanctifies a blemished animal, he is really sanctifying its value because the animal itself cannot be sacrificed, and when one sanctifies the value of an animal, it cannot be substituted for.
+<b>One can substitute one [hullin animal] for two [consecrated animals], and two [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; One [hullin animal] for a hundred [consecrated animals] and a hundred [hullin animals] for one [consecrated animal]; Rabbi Shimon says: one can only substitute one for one, as it says, “Then it and its substitute” (, just as “it” [the consecrated animal] is only one, so [its substitute] must also be only one.</b>  According to the first opinion, it doesn’t matter how many animals are substituted or substituted for. Since the substitution is ineffective, all of the original animals remain holy, and all of the substitute animals become holy. Rabbi Shimon derives from the verse that one can only do a one for one substitute. The Torah uses singular language to designate that both the original animal and the substitute animal must be singular. So if one tries to substitute many hullin animals for a sacred animal, the hullin animals do not become sacred.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with a person who tries to substitute either parts of an animal or embryos for a whole dedicated animal, or vice versa.
+<b>One cannot substitute limbs [of hullin] for [dedicated] embryos; Or embryos [of hullin] for [dedicated] limbs; Or embryos and limbs [of hullin] for whole [dedicated animals]; Or whole [animals of hullin] for them.</b>  According to the first opinion, one can substitute only whole animals for other whole animals. One cannot substitute parts or embryos for whole animals, or whole animals for parts or embryos that have been dedicated to the Temple.
+<b>Rabbi Yose says: limbs [of hullin] can be substituted for whole [dedicated animals], but whole [animals of hullin] cannot be substitute for them.</b>  According to Rabbi Yose if a person says, “This limb is in place of this dedicated animal,” the limb does become holy as a substitute. Once the limb is holy its holiness “spreads” over the entire animal and the entire animal is holy.
+<b>Rabbi Yose said: When it comes to dedicating animals, is it not true that if one says: “This foot shall be an olah (a burnt,” the whole [animal] becomes an olah? Similarly, if one says, “This foot shall be in place of this [whole dedicated animal],” the whole [animal] should become a substitute in its place!</b>  Rabbi Yose explains his opinion by analogizing it to a case where a person dedicates the limb of an animal. In such a case the entire animal becomes an olah (assuming that is what he said it would be). So too, when one tries to substitute a limb for an entire animal, the entire substitute animal becomes holy.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah has nothing to do with temurah. It is here because it is similar to tomorrow’s mishnah, which does have some connection to our tractate.
+<b>[Anything which has become subject to the law of terumah through] a mixture can affect a [second] mixture only in proportion.</b>  If terumah and hullin (non-sacred things) become mixed up with, for instance, terumah wine and hullin wine, and there are 100 parts hullin for every part terumah, one can simply remove one part terumah, and the remainder becomes hullin. However, if there is less than a 100 to 1 ratio, the mixture, called “meduma” has to be treated with the stringency of terumah. It can only be eaten or drunk by priests. If this “meduma” mixture becomes mixed in with other hullin, it only affects the hullin according to the amount of terumah that is in the meduma. As long as there are 100 parts hullin for every part terumah in the “meduma” mixture, the entire mixture can be treated as hullin. We should note that it is forbidden to intentionally mix meduma with more hullin in order to nullify the presence of the terumah. Our mishnah refers to a case where this occurs accidentally.
+<b>[Dough] leavened [through terumah] can affect [other dough] only in proportion.</b>  If hullin dough is leavened by terumah sour dough, the hullin dough must be treated as terumah. However, if some of this dough falls into more hullin dough, it causes the new dough take on the status of terumah only if there was enough terumah in it to leaven the new dough. This is basically the same principle we saw in section one, just in reference to dough.
+<b>Drawn water can disqualify a mikweh only in proportion.</b>  If a mikveh has less than 40 seahs of water, and three logs of drawn water fall into it, the mikveh is disqualified. If, however, these three logs of drawn water became mixed in with water that was not drawn, water that can be used for a mikveh, then they disqualify the mikveh only according to amount of drawn water that is in the mixture. To summarize: in all of these cases, there is a mixture of problematic substances (terumah or drawn water) and non-problematic substances. If this mixture is mixed in with something else that is not problematic (hullin or a mikveh) we only consider the problematic parts of the mixture when determining the status of what it fell into.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Hatat water does not become hatat water except with the putting of ashes [in the water].</b>  “Hatat water” is the water mixed in the ashes of the red heifer that is used in the purification ritual. The water does not become hatat water until the ashes are put into them. This also can mean that if there is some water that already has the ashes mixed in, and then more water falls in, they must again put more ashes in so that the new water can become “hatat water.”
+<b>A doubtful graveyard cannot make another doubtful graveyard.</b>  A field in which there was a grave and then was plowed becomes a “doubtful graveyard.” This status extends for 100 cubits from where the grave was. However, if the “doubtful graveyard” is then plowed again, it does not make another doubtful graveyard.
+<b>Nor can terumah be made after terumah.</b>  If one separates terumah from his produce, and then separates terumah a second time, the second batch of terumah is not terumah.
+<b>A substitute cannot make another substitute.</b>  If one has an animal that is holy because he attempted to substitute it for another animal, and then he tries to substitute another animal for the substitute, the second substitute is not holy. That is what the mishnah means when it says, “A substitute [that has already been made holy] does not make another substitute.
+<b>The offspring of a dedicated animal cannot make a substitute. Rabbi Judah says: the offspring of a dedicated animal can make a substitute. They said to him: a dedicated animal can make a substitute, but neither the offspring of a dedicated animal nor a substitute can make a substitute.</b>  The sages debate whether when one substitutes an animal for the offspring of a dedicated animal, the substitute is holy. The sages say that it is not, for they hold that only the originally dedicated animal can make another animal into a substitute. Rabbi Judah expands the laws of substitutes and holds that even the offspring can make a substitute.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah provides some limits to the applicability of the law of substitutes.
+<b>Birds and menahot do not make a substitute, since it only says “a beast” (Leviticus 27:10).</b>  The laws of substitutes apply only to beasts, cows, goats and sheep. They do not apply to bird offerings or meal offering (menahot).
+<b>A congregation or partners cannot make a substitute, since it says: “He shall not substitute for it” an individual can make a substitute but a congregation or partners cannot make substitute.</b>  The laws of substitutes apply only to sacrifices brought by individuals and not to those brought by the congregation or to those brought by partners. This is derived from the singular language used by the Torah.
+<b>One cannot make a substitute with [objects] dedicated for Temple repairs. Rabbi Shimon said:  Now is not tithe included [in the laws of substitutes]? Then why was it specially mentioned?  In order to make a comparison with it: tithe is a private offering, it thus excludes congregational offerings. And tithe is a dedication for the altar, it thus excludes offerings dedicated for Temple repairs.</b>  If someone has an animal that is dedicated not to be a sacrifice but to be sold for profit for Temple repairs, that animal cannot make a substitute. Rabi Shimon derives this midrashically from the comparison of the two sets of verses that deal with substitutes in Leviticus 27. The first set deals with regular animals and the second set (vs. 32-33) deals with tithes. Why would the Torah mention tithes, asks Rabbi Shimon, if not to teach us some extra information that we could not have learned from the first group of verses? Rabbi Shimon answers that these verses are there to compare animal tithes with other sacrifices that can make a substitute. Just as tithes are brought in order to offer them as sacrifices, and not to go to Temple repairs, so too only animals brought to be offered can make a substitute. Similarly, just as tithes are brought by individuals, so too only sacrifices brought by individuals can make substitutes, and not those brought by the congregation.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah compares the laws of sacrifices brought by an individual with the laws of sacrifices brought by the congregation.
+<b>There are [laws relating] to the sacrifices of an individual which do not apply to congregational sacrifices and [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals. For sacrifices of an individual can make a substitute whereas congregational sacrifices cannot make a substitute; Sacrifices of an individual can be either males or females, whereas congregational sacrifices can be only males. For sacrifices of an individual the owner is responsible for them and their libations, whereas for congregational sacrifices they are not liable for them or for their libations, although they are liable for their libations once the sacrifice has been offered.</b>  There are three ways in which sacrifices brought by an individual differ from the public sacrifices brought by the congregation. First of all, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, sacrifices brought by an individual can make substitutes whereas those brought by the congregation do not. Second, sacrifices brought by the congregation must always be brought from male animals. Third, if an individual is obligated to bring a sacrifice within a certain time, and the time passes, he must still bring the sacrifice and all of its libations (wine and oil). In contrast, if a congregational sacrifice, such as a tamid (daily) or musaf (additional) offering is not brought at its correct time, the congregation need not bring it later, nor need they bring its libations at a later time. The one caveat is that if the offering was sacrificed at the correct time and the congregation for some reason did not bring its libations, they must do so at a later date.
+<b>There are [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals: For congregational sacrifices override Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity, whereas sacrifices of individuals do not override the Shabbat or [the laws] of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said: but do not the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim  which are sacrifices of individuals and yet override the Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity? The matter therefore depends on [whether] the time [for the offering up] is fixed.</b>  Congregational sacrifices can be brought on Shabbat and if there are no ritually clean priests, even impure priests can bring them. However, individual sacrifices are never offered on Shabbat and if there are no pure priests to offer them, they simply must wait until a priest is purified. While the first opinion seems to hold that the reason for this difference between congregational and individual sacrifices is that the former is brought by the many and the latter is not, Rabbi Meir points out that there are two individual sacrifices that do not conform to these rules. The griddle cakes that the priest offers on a daily basis (see Menahot 4:5) and the bull he offers on Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:7) are both individual sacrifices and yet they both override the Shabbat and the laws of impurity. Rabbi Meir explains that the reason a sacrifice overrides Shabbat and the impurity laws is that its time is fixed. Congregational sacrifices and a couple of individual sacrifices have fixed times, whereas other individual sacrifices do not. That is why they do not override the Shabbat or impurity laws.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah continues to explain the differences between sacrifices of an individual and those of the congregation.
+To understand our mishnah we must discuss the category of a hatat (a sin-offering) that is left to die. There are five types of hatats that must be left to die: 1) the offspring of a hatat; 2) the substitute of a hatat; 3) a hatat whose owners have died; 4) a hatat whose owners were atoned for by a different hatat; 5) a hatat whose year has passed.
+The sages in our mishnah argue whether these laws apply to all hatats, or just to those brought by an individual. The argument is really only over the last two categories, because the first three are not relevant to a congregational hatat. The hatat brought by the congregation is always male (so no offspring, at least not that we can be certain about) and it cannot make a substitute (as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah). Furthermore, it is impossible to conceive of a hatat brought by the congregation whose owners have all died. Therefore, the argument is only about the last two categories, and whether they apply to the congregational hatat.
+<b>A hatat of an individual whose owners have been atoned for is left to die, whereas that of a congregation is not left to die. Rabbi Judah says: it is left to die.</b>  If a person sets aside an animal to be a hatat, a sin-offering, and then loses the offering, and then sets aside and brings a different animal to be a hatat, the first animal, if found, must be left to die. According to the Bavli, it is put into a pen and is starved to death. Our mishnah limits this to the hatat of an individual. According to the first opinion, the hatat of a congregation is not left to die. Rather, it goes out to pasture until it becomes blemished at which point it can be sold and the proceeds used to buy another sacrifice. Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that the same rules apply to the hatat of the congregation.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon said: Just as we have found with regard to the offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat and a hatat whose owners died, that these rules apply only to an individual but not to a congregation, so too [the rules concerning] the hatat whose owners have been atoned for and [a hatat] whose year has passed apply only to an individual but not a congregation.</b>  Rabbi Shimon defends the first opinion. Just as the first three types of hatat are left to die only if they belong to an individual and not to the congregation, so too when it comes to the other two types of hatat, the rules of being left to die apply only to that brought by the individual and not to that brought by the congregation. In other words, although it is possible for there to be a hatat whose congregation has already been atoned for or a hatat brought by a congregation, but whose year has already passed, nevertheless, these hatats are not left to die.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah compares the laws that relate to dedicating something to the Temple with the laws that relate to an animal that has been substituted. As the rabbis love to do, they note that sometimes the laws governing dedications are more stringent, whereas at other times, the laws governing substitutes are more stringent.
+<b>In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [that those relating to] a substitute, and in some ways [those relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications.</b>  This section introduces the rest of the mishnah.
+<b>In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [those relating to] a substitute, For dedicated animals can make a substitute whereas a substitute cannot make another substitute. A congregation or partners can dedicate but cannot make a substitute. One can dedicate embryos and limbs, but one cannot make a substitute with them.</b>  There are three ways in which dedications are treated more stringently than substitutes, all of which we have learned before. In 1:5-6 we learned that a dedicated animal can make a substitute but that a substitute cannot make another substitute. In 2:1 we learned that only individuals can make substitutes. In 1:3 we learned that one can dedicate embryos and limbs but that one cannot make them a substitute for a dedicated animal.
+<b>[The laws relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications, since a substitute applies to a permanently blemished animal and it does not become hullin to be sheared or worked.</b>  One can substitute a permanently blemished animal for an unblemished animal, as we learned in 1:2. When the person comes to redeem the blemished animal from its holiness, which he must do because it cannot be sacrificed, the substituted animal does not become completely hullin, non-sacred. It still retains its holiness in that it cannot be sheared or worked. All that one can do with it is slaughter it for food. In contrast, if one dedicates an animal that already has a permanent blemish, it can be redeemed and when it is redeemed it can be sheared and put to work (see Hullin 10:2). In this way we can see that the laws governing the substitute are more stringent.
+<b>Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: they made an error to be the same as intent when it comes to a substitute, but they did not make an error to be the same as intent when it comes to dedication.</b>  If one substitutes an animal for another animal in error, the substitution works and the animal becomes holy, despite the fact that he didn’t know what he was doing. This is not so when it comes to dedications.
+<b>Rabbi Elazar says: kilayim, terefah, a fetus extracted by means of a cesarean section, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, cannot become sacred nor can they make sacred.</b>  “Kilayim” is an animal born of two different species, for instance a goat and sheep. A “tumtum” is an animal whose sex cannot be easily determined and a hermaphrodite (“androgynous”) is one who has signs of being both male and female. These animals cannot be dedicated, and if one tries to dedicate them, they are not holy. Furthermore, they cannot cause other animals to become holy. For instance, if they are already holy due to the fact that their parents were dedicated animals, they cannot make a substitute. One who tries to substitute another animal for them, the substituted animal is not holy. This is true even for Rabbi Judah who in mishnah five said that offspring of dedicated animals can make a substitute.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The third chapter discusses the status of the offspring and the substitutes of sacrifices, and whether or not they have the same exact status as the original/mother animal.
+In our mishnah the sages debate the status of the offspring of a shelamim, an offering of well-being.
+<b>The following are sacrifices whose offspring and substitutes are the same as them:<br>The offspring of shelamim and their substitutes, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, till the end of time, are regarded as shelamim, and they require the laying on of hands, libations and the waving of the breast and shoulder.</b>  According to the first opinion, animals whose sanctity is derived from the original shelamim offering are treated exactly like shelamim. This means they require laying on of the hands (semikhah) before they are sacrificed, they require libations (grain, wine and oil) and the breast and shoulder must be waved, as is done with the shelamim itself. This would include the offspring of the original shelamim, the substitute and its offspring, and even any offspring of other offspring of the original or its substitute.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: the offspring of a shelamim must not be offered as a shelamim. The sages say: it is offered.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that the offspring of a shelamim is not offered as a shelamim. Rather it must be left to die of starvation, as was the case in mishnah 2:2. The other sages again reiterate their opinion from section one.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon said: there is no dispute between them as regards the offspring of the offspring of a shelamim or the offspring of the offspring of a substitute that they are not offered. What did they dispute? The offspring [of a shelamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not offered, But the sages say: it is offered.</b>  According to Rabbi Shimon everyone holds that the offspring of the offspring or the offspring of the offspring of the substitute may not be offered as a shelamim. The reason for this prohibition is that if we let such animals be offered as shelamim, people would see that owners delaying bringing their offerings to the Temple and rather holding them long enough for a third generation to be born. The only reason to do so is that the person wants to grow flocks of shelamim, since he can eat most of the meat. This is a problem for two reasons. First of all, the Torah says that one should not delay in bringing one’s vows to the Temple. Second, it is prohibited to shear or work these animals and if he keeps them around for a long time, the chances that he will transgress this commandment go up. To prevent people from holding on to their shelamim offerings, Rabbi Shimon says that we rule that their third generation can no longer be eaten. The sages and Rabbi Eliezer debate only with regard to the original offspring. It is, after all, possible that the shelamim (or its substitute) will have offspring without having a long delay between its sanctification and its being brought to the Temple. Therefore, the sages say that this offspring can be offered.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon said: there is no dispute between them as regards the offspring of the offspring of a shelamim or the offspring of the offspring of a substitute that they are not offered. What did they dispute? The offspring [of a shelamim]: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is not offered, But the sages say: it is offered.</b>  Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Papias testify that they have a tradition that supports the sages in their dispute with Rabbi Eliezer. Furthermore, Rabbi Papias testifies that they did eat the offspring of a shelamim. This testimony is found also in tractate Eduyot (testimonies) 7:6. There the testimony is explicitly brought as a refutation of Rabbi Eliezer.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah deals with the offspring and substitutes of a todah (thanksgiving offering) or of an olah (whole burnt offering).
+<b>The offspring of a todah and its substitute, their offspring and the offspring of their offspring, until the end of all time, are considered as a todah, only they do not require the accompaniment of loaves of bread.</b>  Basically, the animals whose holiness comes about as a result of a todah (offspring, and their offspring) have the status of a todah. The one difference is that the original todah is brought with a bread offering, whereas the offspring is brought without a bread offering. This law was derived midrashically in Menahot 7:4.
+<b>The substitute of an olah, the offspring of its substitute, its offspring and the offspring of its offspring, until the end of time, are regarded as an olah: they require flaying, cutting into pieces and to be altogether burned.</b>  The substitute of an olah is a case where a person substituted a male animal for an olah. If one substitutes a female for the male olah, then the female is holy, and its offspring is sacrificed as an olah. But the olah itself does not have halakhic offspring, because the olah is a male. All of the offspring in this section, therefore, refer to a case where a female was substituted for a male. These offspring must all be flayed, cut into pieces and then burned on the altar. These laws are outlined in the first chapter of Leviticus.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>If one set aside a female animal for an olah and it gave birth to a male, it goes out to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and with its money he brings an olah. Rabbi Elazar says: the [male] animal itself is offered as an olah.</b>  An olah must be a male animal. If one sets aside a female animal to be an olah, he has sanctified it, but it cannot be offered up in the manner he wished. To solve this problem, we let the animal go out to pasture until it is blemished. Once it is blemished it can be sold, because it can no longer be sacrificed. Our mishnah points out that if the female animal has male offspring, the same process is undergone by that animal. We can’t sacrifice it because its sanctity came from its mother and its mother was improperly dedicated to be an olah. In both cases the profits from the sale go towards buying another olah. Rabbi Elazar disagrees and holds that the male offspring can be offered as an olah, even though its mother could not.
+<b>If one sets aside a female [animal] for an asham, it goes out to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and with its money he brings an asham. If he has already offered an asham [in its place], its money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Shimon says: it is sold without [waiting for] a blemish.</b>  The asham (a guilt-offering) must also be male. The same solution is employed as was used above. There is an additional issue with the asham. If before he buys the new asham he brings another animal through which he atones for his guilt, then he can’t use the proceeds from the blemished asham to buy a new asham, because one can’t bring two ashamot for one sin. In this case, the proceeds go to a fund that is used to buy freewill offerings. Rabbi Shimon says that they can sell the original asham without even waiting for it to be blemished. In his opinion, the fact that it can’t be sacrificed as an asham already is a blemish, and we need not wait for another one.
+<b>The substitute of an asham, the young of its substitute, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, go out to pasture until unfit for sacrifice. They are then sold and their money goes for a freewill-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: he brings olot [burnt sacrifices] with their money.</b>  As stated above, one can’t bring two ashamot for one sin. So while an asham can make a substitute, the substitute cannot be offered as an asham. Neither can the offspring or any subsequent offspring of the substitute or the asham. According to the first opinion, all of these animals must go out to pasture, become blemished and then sold for money to be used for freewill offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says that these animals must be left to die, just as they are in the case of a hatat (see 2:2; we will learn more about the hatat in the next mishnah). Rabbi Elazar says that he can bring olot (burnt offerings) with the proceeds. His opinion will be explained in tomorrow’s mishnah.
+<b>An asham whose owner died or whose owner obtained atonement [through another animal] goes out to pasture until unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and its money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are left to die. Rabbi Elazar says: he brings olot [burnt sacrifices] with their money.</b>  If the asham itself cannot be sacrificed because either its owner died or he already achieved atonement through another animal, then the same debate about what to do with the proceeds of its sale occurs as we saw in section three above.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>But cannot a nedavah [freewill-offering] also be an olah? What then is the difference between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and that of the sages?</b>  In the last two sections of yesterday’s mishnah Rabbi Elazar and the sages argued what to do with the proceeds from the sale of an asham that couldn’t have been sacrificed. Rabbi Elazar said they would buy an olah, and the sages said that the money would go into the treasury of funds used to buy freewill offerings. The problem is that the money from this fund would be used to buy olot, which can be brought as freewill offerings. So what is the difference between Rabbi Elazar’s opinion and that of the sages?
+<b>Only in that when the offering comes as an obligation, he lays his hands on it and he brings libations and the libations must be from him; and if he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to him.</b>  The difference is that when an individual brings the olah, as Rabbi Elazar stated, he must lay his hands upon the sacrifice, he is responsible for the libations (wine, grain and oil) and if he is a priest, he gets to sacrifice it, and he keeps its hide, as the officiating priest always does with an olah.
+<b>Whereas when he brings it as a freewill-offering, he does not lay his hands [on it], he does not bring libations with it, the libations are provided by the congregation, and although he is a priest, the privilege of officiating and its hide belong to the men of the division [officiating that particular week].</b>  However, if it is brought from the funds for freewill offerings, then it is a communal sacrifice. He does not lay his hands on it, the libations come from communal funds and even if he is a priest, he does not get to sacrifice it himself. Rather the duty falls to whatever division of priests is serving in the Temple that week, and they receive the hide.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah, the final of our chapter, deals with the first-born and a tithed animal.
+<b>The substitute of a first-born and an animal tithed, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, they are all treated like a first-born and an animal tithed, and are eaten by the owners when blemished.</b>  The substitute and offspring of a first-born and an animal tithed, and all of their subsequent substitutes and offspring, all are treated just like a first-born or a tithe. They can be eaten by their owners once they have become blemished [the priest who receives the first-born is considered its owner once he receives it]. However, the substitute of a first-born is not sacrificed, as is the first-born.
+<b>What is the difference between a first-born and an animal tithed [on the one hand] and other dedications [on the other]? All [blemished] dedications are sold in the market, killed in the market, and weighed by the pound, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] and their substitutes are redeemed, but not a first-born and an animal tithed. They [other dedications] come from outside the land [to the land], but not a first-born and an animal tithed. [If] they however came from [outside the holy land] unblemished, they are offered, if blemished they are eaten by their owners with their blemishes. Rabbi Shimon: what is the reason?   Because a first-born and an animal tithed have a remedy wherever they are, whereas all other dedications, although a blemish has occurred in them, remain holy.</b>  The mishnah now lists ways in which the first-born and tithe differ from all other animals dedicated to be sacrifices. If a blemish occurs to any other dedicated animal, it must be redeemed for money, and only then it can be eaten. Once it is redeemed, the animal can be sold and slaughtered in the marketplace, and its meat can be weighed out, because the animal is no longer holy. In contrast, the first-born and tithe are not redeemed, so they remain holy. Therefore, when they are eaten, they must not be treated in the normal way that meat is treated, for this is considered to be disgraceful. [As an aside, it is interesting to note that the sages believed that the way in which meat is treated is considered as either disgraceful or respectful to the animal]. Other animals are sometimes dedicated outside the land of Israel and then brought to Israel to be sacrifices. In contrast, while a first-born and tithe outside the land is holy, they are not generally brought to the land of Israel. However, if they are brought to the land of Israel, the same rules apply when they are blemished they can be eaten, and if they are not, they are sacrificed. Rabbi Shimon explains that the difference between the first-born and tithe on the one hand and the other dedications is that the former have a “remedy” when they are outside of Israel. There, they can go out to pasture and then when they become blemished, they can be eaten by their owners. There is no real reason to bring them to the land of Israel. In contrast, while other dedicated animals can be let out to pasture and become blemished, even once they are blemished they must be redeemed and a sacrifice must be brought with the proceeds. In which case, it is just as easy to bring them directly to Israel to be sacrificed themselves.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Chapter four is about the hatat, the sin-offering. As we have learned in 2:2, there are five types of hataot (pl. of hatat) that are left to die because they can’t be sacrificed and neither can they be eaten. Our mishnah deals with these five hataot.
+<b>The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die.</b>  These are the first three categories of hataot that are left to die. Basically, once the owner has been atoned for, the hatat cannot be sacrificed. The first two cannot be sacrificed because the owner received atonement from the original animal. If the owner died, then he no longer needs atonement so his hatat too cannot be sacrificed.
+<b>A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the laws of sacrilege do not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the laws of sacrilege do apply.</b>  When it comes to the fourth and fifth types of hatat that must be left to die, it depends on whether the owners have already received atonement through another animal. If the owners have already been atoned for by bringing another animal as a hatat, then the original hatat (the one whose year had passed or which had been lost and then was found) must be left to die. If the owner tries to substitute for it, it no longer can make a substitute. It is forbidden to derive any benefit from it, as it is always forbidden to derive benefit from dedicated animals; however, if one does derive benefit from it, it is not considered sacrilege because the animal is not really sanctified any more. If, however, the original hatat is found (and is blemished) or passed a year before the owners had been atoned for, then the animal need not be left to die. The hatat whose year had passed is let out to pasture until it is blemished and then it can be sold. The hatat that was found blemished can be sold immediately. With the proceeds he buys a new hatat, and that hatat has all of the sanctity of regular hatat. It can make a substitute and if one derives benefit from it, he has committed sacrilege and will have to make restitution.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with the case of someone who set aside an animal to be a hatat, and then it was lost.
+<b>If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he sacrificed another in its place, if then the first [animal] is found, it is left to die.</b>  As we explained in yesterday’s mishnah, once the owners received atonement from another animal, the original animal cannot be used as a hatat and rather must be left to die.
+<b>If one set aside money for his hatat and they were lost and he offered a hatat instead of it, if then the money was found, it goes to the Dead Sea.</b>  Similarly, one cannot use money set aside to purchase a hatat if he already received atonement from another hatat. Rather the money must be thrown into the Dead Sea, which is another way of saying that it must be put somewhere where he cannot derive any benefit from it.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah deals with various scenarios where one sets aside a hatat or money for a hatat and it or the money is lost, and then he sets aside another hatat or more money to buy another hatat and he then finds the first one before he offers the second one.
+<b>If one set aside money for his hatat, and it was lost and he set aside other money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat with it until the [first] money was found, he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest of the money is used for a freewill-offering.</b>  This case, and all of the cases in this mishnah, differ from those in yesterday’s mishnah because in these cases the original money or hatat is found before a replacement hatat is offered. In this first section, both sets of money must be used to buy a hatat. They are mixed in together to buy one hatat through which the owner receives atonement and any extra money goes to a fund for freewill offerings.
+<b>If one set aside money for his hatat and it was lost and he set aside a hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the money was found, and the hatat was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used as a freewill-offering.</b>  In this case, the second hatat is blemished so it can be sold. If it had been unblemished, it could have been sacrificed (as we shall see in section five). Here, since it is blemished it is sold and again, both sums are used to buy one hatat and the extra goes for freewill offerings.
+<b>If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat until his hatat was found and it was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used for a freewill-offering.</b>  This is similar to the situation in section two, except here he originally set aside a hatat and then set aside money. Again, since the hatat is blemished, it can be sold and both sums are used to buy one hatat.
+<b>If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the first hatat was found and both were blemished, they are to be sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums] and the rest is used for a freewill-offering.</b>  Again, a very similar scenario, except this time both animals were set aside (and not just money for animals). Since both are blemished, the same procedure as above is followed.
+<b>If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place, if he did not have the opportunity of offering it until the first hatat was found and both animals were unblemished, one of them is offered as a hatat and the second must be left to die, the words of Rabbi. The sages say: the only hatat which is left to die is a case where it is found after the owners obtained atonement, and the money does not go to the Dead Sea except where found after the owners have obtained atonement.</b>  Ah! Finally a debate! In this case both the original hatat and the replacement hatat are unblemished. According, to Rabbi [Judah HaNasi] one of the two hataot has to be left to die, and the other one can be sacrificed. The rabbis disagree. Since the first hatat wasn’t yet sacrificed, neither of them needs to be left to die. The only type of hatat that is lost that needs to be left to die is one where the replacement hatat was sacrificed. Here, since the replacement wasn’t yet sacrificed, both can go out to pasture until they are blemished. The rabbis also add in that the only case where the money must be thrown into the Dead Sea is the case that we discussed in yesterday’s mishnah the replacement hatat was sacrificed. If the replacement hatat was not sacrificed then the hatat is left to become blemished and then both sums are used to buy a new hatat.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final mishnah of our chapter has another case of a hatat that must be left to die.
+<b>If one set aside a hatat and it is blemished, he sells it and brings another with its money.</b>  In this case he can’t sacrifice the first hatat because it is blemished. Therefore, he sells it and brings another with the proceeds.
+<b>Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: if the second animal was offered before the first was killed, it is left to die, since the owners have [already] obtained atonement.</b>  Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon thinks that this too can become a case of a hatat left to die. Even though the original hatat was sold and now belongs to another person, if it is still alive when the second animal is offered, it still counts as a hatat whose owners had received atonement from another hatat and it too must be left to die. In other words, even though the first hatat wasn’t a “lost hatat” it still must be left to die if it is alive when the owners receive atonement.
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first three mishnayot of our chapter deal with what is called “acting deceptively with regard to the first born.” The first-born animal has to be offered as a sacrifice, unless it is blemished. The idea with acting deceptively is that the owner of the animal giving birth wants to use the offspring as another sacrifice that he is obligated to bring. For instance, he vowed to bring an olah, and now he wants to bring the first-born and have it count as the olah. This is sort of like “double-dipping” when it comes to sacrifices, but we can easily understand why this was helpful to someone who might not be able to afford to give away both the first-born and another animal that he owes as a sacrifice.
+<b>How can we act deceptively with regard to the first-born?<br>He says in respect of a pregnant animal which was giving birth for the first time: if what is in the inside of this [animal] is a male, let it be an olah. If it then gave birth to a male, it is offered as an olah.</b>  One can dedicate an animal while it is still in its mother’s womb. Since this animal was dedicated before it was born and become a “first-born” it has the status of an olah and he can use it as such.
+<b>[If he said:] if it is a female, let it be a shelamim, then if it gave birth to a female, it is offered as a shelamim.</b>  He can make the animal into a shelamim (an offering of wellbeing) by stipulating that it will be a shelamim if it is female. Note that this has nothing to do with the acting deceptively with a first-born because a female animal does not have the status of a first-born. It is only taught here because of the clauses that follow.
+<b>[If he said:] if it is a female, let it be a shelamim, then if it gave birth to a female, it is offered as a shelamim.</b>  The person can make a double stipulation and then if both are born, the male is an olah and the female is a shelamim.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. The situation discussed is when a person says about a pregnant animal, “If it gives birth to a male, then it shall be an olah, and if it gives birth to a female, it shall be a shelamim.”
+<b>If it gave birth to two males, one of them shall be offered as an olah and the second shall be sold to persons obligated to bring an olah and its money becomes hullin.</b>  If it gives birth to two males he does not need to bring both as olot (pl. of olah) because he vowed to bring only one olah. However, the sanctity of an olah does apply to the animal because it is unclear which of them he vowed to be his olah. So what he can do is sell the animal as an olah to another person to be used as an olah and that money he can keep as his own, as hullin (non-sacred money).
+<b>If it gave birth to two females, one of them is offered as a shelamim and the second is sold to persons obligated to bring shelamim and the money becomes hullin.</b>  The same is true when it comes to the shelamim, because only a female animal can be a shelamim.
+<b>If [the animal] gave birth to a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: no holiness attaches to them.</b>  A tumtum (an animal with neither sexual signs) and a hermaphrodite (one with signs of being both male and female) do not count full as either male or female. Since neither of them fulfills the conditions of his vow, neither of them is holy.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah deals with someone who wants to make a pregnant animal one type of sacrifice but dedicate its offspring to be a different type.
+<b>If one says: “The offspring of this [pregnant animal] shall be an olah and it [the animal itself] shall be a shelamim,” his words stand.</b>  If he first dedicates the offspring and then the mother, there is no problem. The mother will be a shelamim and the offspring an olah (if it is male). Note that it is probably intentional that the mother is a shelamim and the offspring an olah, because the owner doesn’t get any parts of the olah, whereas he does get to eat a majority of the shelamim. Naturally, he would be more interested in making the larger animal into the sacrifice that he can eat.
+<b>But if he says [first]: “It [the animal] shall be a shelamim” [and then], “and its offspring shall be an olah,” [its offspring] is regarded as the offspring of an shelamim, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: if he intended [to say] this at first, since it is impossible to mention both kinds [of sacrifices] simultaneously, his words stand; but if after he already said [intentionally]: this shall be a shelamim, and then he changed his mind and says: its offspring shall be an olah, [its offspring] is regarded as the offspring of a shelamim.</b>  The problem here is that he first makes the mother into a shelamim and then tries to make the offspring into an olah. According to Rabbi Meir, once the mother is a shelamim, its offspring will automatically have the same status. He cannot change that by trying to make it into an olah. Rabbi Yose disagrees. If from the outset he intended to make the mother a shelamim and the offspring an olah, but he just happened to dedicate the mother first, then his words do stand. The fact that he dedicated the mother right before the offspring does not matter. However, if he intended at first to make the mother into a shelamim, and then later changed his mind, then both the mother and the offspring are shelamim.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah contains a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose that is very similar to the debate found in yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>[If one says:] “Behold, this animal shall be the substitute of an olah and the substitute of a shelamim,” it is the substitute of an olah, the words of Rabbi Meir.</b>  Again in this situation a person said two things that are contradictory. One animal cannot be a substitute for both an olah and a shelamim. According to Rabbi Meir, we take into consideration only his first words, and the animal is the substitute of an olah, and not the substitute of a shelamim.
+<b>Rabbi Yose says: if he originally intended this, since it is impossible to mention both names [of sacrifices] simultaneously, his words stand. But if after he had already said: “This shall be the substitute of an olah,” he changed his mind and then said: “The substitute of a shelamim,” it is the substitute of an olah.</b>  Rabbi Yose says that if he intended to make the animal both the substitute of a shelamim and the substitute of an olah, his words count. Such an animal is half a substitute for an olah and half for a shelamim. Obviously it cannot be sacrificed; rather it must be let out to pasture until it is blemished, then sold and with half of the proceeds he brings an olah and with the other half he brings a shelamim. If, however, he said one thing and then changed his mind, his first words count. Once one has dedicated an animal or made it into a substitute, he cannot subsequently change his mind.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah teaches what actual words are capable of making one animal a substitute for another. We should again remember that the laws of “temurah” refer to one who tries to make one animal holy in place of another animal that is already dedicated. The substitution works in making the new animal holy, but it does not work in making the original animal into hullin (non-sacred). In other words, he was trying to redeem one animal for another, but since he used the language of substituting, his redemption fails.
+<b>[If one says:] “Behold this [animal] is tahat [instead of] this,” [or] “Behold this is temurat [a substitute] this,” [or] “Behold this is halufat [in place of] this,” [each of these] is a substitute.</b>  There are three different words that can cause a substitute to be made: “tahat” “temurat” and “halufat.” If any of these three phrases are used the new animal is holy and the original animal is still holy.
+<b>[If however one says:] “This shall be redeemed for this,” it is not the case of a [valid] substitute. And if the dedicated animal was blemished, it becomes hullin and he is required to make up [the hullin] to the value [of the dedicated animal].</b>  However, if one uses the word for redeem, then he has not made a substitute. If the original dedicated animal is not blemished then it cannot be redeemed and his words do not have any effect. If the dedicated animal was blemished then his redemption is successful and the original animal is now hullin and the substitute animal is holy. However, he must make sure that the value of the hullin animal he used to redeem is at least equal to the value of the dedicated animal that was being redeemed, as is always the case when redeeming blemished sacrifices.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b> The final mishnah of chapter five discusses the precise language that must be used for a substitute to be valid.
+<b>[If one says:] “Behold this animal shall be instead of a hatat,” [or] “instead of an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Instead of this hatat” [or] “Instead of this olah,” [or] “Instead of the hatat or the olah which I have in the house,” and he had it in the house, his words stand.</b>  In order for the substitute to be valid he must specify the animal that is being substituted for. If he does not specify an animal that he owns, then his words have no validity.
+<b>If he says concerning an unclean animal or a blemished animal: “Behold these shall be an olah,” he has said nothing. [But if he says:] “Behold they shall be for an olah,” they are sold and he brings with their money an olah.</b>  One cannot make an unclean animal (such as a pig or camel) into an olah, or any sacrifice for that matter. If one takes such an animal and declares it to be an olah, he has said nothing. However, if he says that the animal will “be for an olah” we interpret him as meaning that the animal will be used to bring another animal for an olah. Therefore the unclean or blemished animal can be sold and with its proceeds an olah is brought.
+
+Chapter 6
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Chapter six contains information concerning animals that cannot be put onto the altar for various reasons.
+<b>All [animals] forbidden for the altar render [others] unfit however few there are.</b>  If an animal is one of the kinds of animals that cannot be put onto the altar, then if it becomes mixed up with other animals, all of the animals are forbidden, even if there were many permitted animals and only one forbidden one. In other words, there is no measure in which the forbidden animals are nullified, as there are in other forbidden mixtures.
+<b>[These are the animals forbidden for the altar]: An animal which had sexual relations with [a woman] or [an animal] that had sexual relations [with a man], an animal set aside ( [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped (ne’ [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through a caesarean section,<br>What is meant by muktzeh? That which has been set aside for idolatrous use. It [the animal itself] is forbidden, but what is upon it, is permitted.</b>  This is the list of animals that cannot be put on the altar. We have explained these in Zevahim 8:1 and our mishnah and the following ones will deal below with categories b-c. Kilayim is an animal born from two different species of parents, such as a goat and a sheep. A terefah is an animal with a wound/disease that will cause it to die imminently.
+<b>And what is meant by ne'evad? That which has been used for idolatry. Both it [the animal itself] and that which is upon it, are forbidden. In both cases the animal may be eaten.</b>  “Muktzeh” means “set aside” and here it refers to an animal that has been set aside to be used in an idolatrous ritual, but that has not yet been used. It itself cannot be offered as a Jewish sacrifice, but anything on it, jewels, a saddle, etc. is not yet forbidden.
+“Ne’evad” means that the animal has already been used in idolatry. Here the prohibition is broader and includes even the things that decorate the animal. However, both animals can be eaten as non-sacrificial meat as long as they were not already slaughtered for the sake of idolatry.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+According to Deuteronomy 23:19 one may not bring “a prostitute’s fee or the pay of a dog into the house of the Lord.” The rabbis understand these two things to be an animal used to pay a prostitute or an ox used as payment for a dog. Neither of them can be used as a sacrifice.
+The next three mishnayot explain what constitutes the “a prostitute’s fee” or “the pay of a dog.”
+<b>What is meant by “a prostitute’s fee”?<br>If one says to a prostitute, “Take this lamb as your fee,” even if there are a hundred lambs, they are all forbidden [for the altar].</b>  According to Albeck, this means that a man gives even 100 lambs to a prostitute as her fee, none of the lambs can be used as a sacrifice. The Talmud adds that even if her stated fee was only one lamb and he gave her another 99 lambs as a bonus, they are all prohibited.
+<b>If one says to his fellow: Here is a lamb and have your female slave sleep with my servant, Rabbi Meir says: it [the lamb] is not regarded as a prostitute’s fee. But the sages say: it is regarded as a prostitute’s fee.</b>  A slave owner has a right to give his female Canaanite(non-Jewish)  slave to his male Hebrew slave. Rabbi Meir says that if someone tries to pay another slave owner for him to have his female slave sleep with his male slave, it is not prostitution and the fee is not a prostitute’s fee. According to Rabbi Meir the reason is that a Hebrew slave cannot marry a female Canaanite slave, therefore the master has a right to designate her to have relations with someone not for the sake of marriage. The other sages hold that he could marry her and therefore when she is paid to have relations with him it is a prostitute’s fee.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>What is meant by the “price of a dog”?<br>If one says to his fellow, here is this lamb instead of [this] dog.</b>  The price of a dog means an animal used to pay for a dog. Such an animal cannot be used as a sacrifice. Assumedly, the dog was considered a lowly animal in the biblical world and therefore something used to buy a dog itself had a lowly status and could not be used a sacrifice.
+<b>And similarly if two partners divided [an estate] and one took ten lambs and the other nine and a dog, all those taken in place of the dog are forbidden [for the altar], but those taken with a dog are valid [for the altar].</b>  The lamb taken by one partner in exchange for the dog taken by the other partner is considered to be the “price of a dog.”
+<b>An animal that is the fee of a dog and the price of a prostitute are permitted [for the altar], since it says: “[For] both [of these]” (Deuteronomy 23:19): both’ but not four.</b>  The mishnah here reverses the biblical “prostitute’s fee and price of a dog” and comes up with “the fee of a dog and price of a prostitute.” The “fee of a dog” is when someone gives a lamb to his fellow in return for a dog to be used for sexual relations (I know, a bit sick, but that’s what it says). The “price of a prostitute” refers to a case where one exchanges a prostitute for a lamb. These lambs are not prohibited because the Torah prohibits only two things the prostitute’s fee and the price of a dog. Any other combo, no matter how morally troubling, does not cause the lamb to become prohibited.
+<b>Their offspring are permitted [for the altar since it says]: “[Both of these]” implying they but not their offspring.</b>  Only the animal itself is prohibited, not their offspring.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah is the last mishnah to deal with the topic of “the price of a dog” and the “fee of a prostitute.”
+<b>If he gave her [a prostitute] money, it is permitted [for use for the altar.] [But if he gave her] wine, oil, flour and anything similar which is offered on the altar, it is forbidden for the altar.</b>  If one pays a prostitute with money (I think today that this is preferred over giving her a lamb), the money can later be used to buy a sacrifice.  The only thing that becomes prohibited is something can be sacrifice, such as wine, oil and flour.
+<b>If he gave her dedicated [animals] they are permitted [for the altar].</b>  If he gives her an animal already dedicated to the Temple, it does not become prohibited. This is because an animal that is already dedicated is not his money any more, and one cannot prohibit something that does not belong to him.
+<b>If he gave her birds [of hullin] they are disqualified.</b>  The mishnah includes birds as being prohibited if given to a prostitute for her fee.
+<b>For one might have reasoned [as follows]: if in the case of dedicated animals, where a blemish disqualifies them, [the law] of [the prostitute’s] fee and price [of a dog] does not apply to them, in the case of birds, where a blemish does not disqualify, is it not all the more reason that the law of [the prostitute’s] fee and the price [of a dog] should not apply? Scripture says, “For any vow,” (Deuteronomy 23:19) this includes a bird.</b>  The mishnah now explains why one might have even thought that these laws don’t apply to a bird. We have already learned in section two that the laws of the fee of a prostitute and the price of a dog don’t apply to dedicated animals. The laws concerning blemishes (that a blemished animal cannot be sacrificed) do, however, apply to dedicated animals. This makes the laws governing dedicated animals more stringent than the laws governing birds, which are not disqualified by defects. Therefore, if the laws of the fee of a prostitute and the price of a dog don’t apply to the more stringent case of dedicated animals, all the more so they should not apply to the more lenient case of the bird. Therefore, the Torah teaches “for any vow” to let us know that birds are included in the prohibition.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>With regard to any animals that are disqualified for the altar, their offspring are permitted for the altar.</b>  If an animal cannot be offered for the altar, for instance an animal given as prostitute’s fee or the price of a dog (see mishnah three), its offspring can still be offered.
+<b>The offspring of a terefah: Rabbi Elazar says it may not be offered on the altar.</b>  Rabbi Elazar says that when it comes to a terefah, an animal with a physical defect that will eventually cause it to die, the offspring cannot be offered. Evidently, according to Rabbi Elazar, such a defect is inherited.
+<b>Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: a ritually clean animal which nursed from a terefah is disqualified from the altar.</b>  The milk in this animal’s stomach is prohibited because it comes from a terefah. Therefore, according to Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus, it is prohibited from the altar.
+<b>Any dedicated animal which became terefah one may not dedicate them, since we may not redeem dedicated [animals] in order to give them to dogs to eat.</b>  One cannot dedicate a living terefah to be a sacrifice because there would be nothing to do with that animal. It cannot be offered on the altar because it is a terefah. It cannot be redeemed, because the only thing one could do with it after it is redeemed is feed it to the dogs, and this is considered disgraceful to a formerly holy thing. Therefore, one should not dedicate it in the first place.
+
+Chapter 7
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first three mishnayot of our chapter deal with the differences between the laws that apply to things that are dedicated to the altar to be sacrifices and things that are dedicated to the Temple for their proceeds to be used for Temple repairs.
+Our mishnah deals with the first half of this equation laws that apply to dedications to the altar that don’t apply to dedications made for Temple repair.
+<b>There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the altar which do not apply to dedications   for repairs of the Temple, and there are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which do not apply to dedications for the altar.<br>Dedications for the altar effect a substitute;</b>  If one tries to make a substitute for an animal that has been dedicated to be a sacrifice, then the substitute is holy and the original animal retains its holiness. This is not so when it comes to an animal dedicated for Temple repairs (see 1:6).
+<b>They are subject to the laws of piggul, remnant   and ritual uncleanness;</b>  If while offering an animal to be a sacrifice one has the intention to eat it or offer its innards on the altar after its prescribed time has expired, the animal is piggul and anyone who eats it is liable for karet (see Zevahim 2:2-3). Remnant (notar) is the meat of a sacrifice that has been left over after its time has expired. Ritual uncleanness refers to either the person eating the sacrifice, or the meat of the sacrifice. These laws refer only to the animals dedicated to be sacrifices, but not to animals dedicated for Temple repairs.
+<b>Their offspring and milk are forbidden [even] after their redemption;</b>  The offspring and milk of animals dedicated for the altar are always forbidden, even if the animals should become blemished and are then redeemed. Their holiness remains after redemption, and therefore things that come from them are also holy. See Hullin 10:2.
+<b>If one kills them outside [the Temple] he is guilty;</b>  Slaughtering such an animal outside the Temple is forbidden and will make one liable for karet (see Zevahim 14:1-2).
+<b>And wages are not paid from them to artisans, Which is not the case with dedications for temple repairs.</b>  Artisans who work in the Temple, building or repairing or other such work, their wages are not paid from animals dedicated for the altar. However, their wages can come from animals dedicated for Temple repairs.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is the second half of yesterday’s mishnah. Here we learn that there are laws that apply to dedications made for the repair of the Temple that don’t apply to animals dedicated to be sacrifices.
+<b>There are [laws] which apply to dedications for the repairs of the Temple which don’t apply to dedications to the altar.<br>Unspecified dedications go to the repairs of the Temple.</b>  If one dedicates something to the Temple, even an animal that can be a sacrifice, it automatically goes towards Temple repair. If he wishes it to be a sacrifice, he must specify that the animal is to be a sacrifice.
+<b>Dedication for the repairs of the temple can have an effect on all things,</b>  Anything can be dedicated to be used for repairs for the Temple, even an animal that cannot be sacrificed, such as a pig or camel. The animal is sold and the proceeds go to the Temple. In contrast, only an unblemished kosher animal, bird or other sacrificable object can be dedicated to be put on the altar.
+<b>The law of sacrilege applies to things that grow from them.</b>  If one makes use of something that comes from an animal dedicated for Temple repair, such as milk from an animal or eggs from a bird, he has committed sacrilege (illicit use of holy property). The same is not true if he makes use of the same object that comes from an animal that has been dedicated to be a sacrifice. We will learn more about the laws of sacrilege in tractate Meilah.
+<b>And there is no benefit to be derived from them for the priest.</b>  Priests do not derive any personal benefit from animals or any other product dedicated for Temple repair. In contrast, they receive part of all animals dedicated to be sacrifices, either part of the meat or the hide.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In today’s mishnah we learn ways in which dedications for the repairs of the Temple are treated the same as dedications for the altar.
+<b>Both dedications for the altar and dedications for the repairs of the Temple may not be changed from one holiness to another.</b>  Once someone has dedicated an animal for a certain purpose he cannot change that purpose. For instance, if one dedicated an animal to be an olah, he can’t later change his mind and make it into a shelamim. Similarly, if one dedicated an animal to be sold and used for Temple repairs, he can’t change his mind and dedicate it for the altar.
+<b>One may dedicate them with a value-dedication, and one may conscribe them.</b>  A person can use either type of dedicated thing to make a vow of value. This is a subject we just learned in Arakhin 8:7. A person can dedicate to the Temple the benefit that he gets from bringing an already dedicated ox (or other animal) to the Temple. In other words, how much would you pay to bring this ox as a sacrifice? If someone makes such a vow, he owes that much money to the Temple. Similarly one can conscribe an already dedicated thing. Again this means that he owes the monetary amount of benefit he is receiving by having the merit to bring this sacrifice.
+<b>If they die, they are buried. Rabbi Shimon says: dedications for the repairs of the temple, if they died, they are redeemed.</b>  If either type of dedicated animal dies, it cannot be redeemed because it cannot be stood up for a formal process of evaluation. Since there is no way to “remove” the holiness, the animal must be buried. Rabbi Shimon holds that animals dedicated for Temple repair can be redeemed without a formal process of evaluation. Therefore, they can be redeemed even after death.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>And the following are things which must be buried:<br>A dedicated animal which had a miscarriage, [the miscarriage] must be buried.<br>A dedicated animal which expelled a placenta, [the placenta] must be buried.<br>An ox which was condemned to be stoned.<br>The heifer whose neck was broken.<br>The birds [brought in connection with the purification] of one with skin disease (.<br>The hair of a nazirite.<br>The first-born of a donkey.<br>[A mixture of] meat [cooked] in milk.<br>And hullin which were slaughtered in the Temple court. Shimon says: hullin which were slaughtered in the Temple court must be burned. And similarly a wild animal killed in the Temple court [is also burned].</b><br>At the end of yesterday’s mishnah we learned that animals dedicated, either for the altar or for Temple repair, that then die, must be buried because they cannot be redeemed. Our mishnah lists other things that must be buried.<br>Section one: The aborted fetus carries the holiness of its mother, but it can’t be redeemed. Therefore it must be buried. The same is true with regard to the placenta mentioned in the next section. The placenta here refers to an early miscarriage which might have a fetus in it, and therefore it too must be buried.<br>Section three: An ox which committed a crime (murder or sex with a human being) must be stoned. Once it is stoned, it is forbidden to derive benefit from it (see Exodus 21:28). The same is true with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken as part of the ritual that atones for an unknown murder. See Deuteronomy 21; Mishnah Kiddushin 2:9 and Avodah Zarah 5:9.<br>Section five: There are two birds used in the purification of the leper (see Leviticus 14). One bird is slaughtered and the other bird is set free. It is forbidden to use these birds for any other purpose. The slaughtered bird must be buried, and if it should die before being released, the other bird must be buried as well. However, once the other bird is released, it is permitted.<br>Section six: It is forbidden to derive any benefit from the hair that the nazirite shaves during the ritual which observed if he became impure (see Numbers 6:9). However, the hair that he shaves at the end of his term of naziriteship is burned (see vs. 18).<br>Section seven:  The first born of a donkey must be redeemed with a sheep. It is prohibited to derive any benefit from the sheep after it has been used to redeem the donkey.<br>Section eight: It is prohibited to derive benefit from milk and meat cooked together. If one does cook them together they must be buried, which basically means that the mixture must be thrown away.<br>Section nine: According to the first opinion, if a non-sacred animal is slaughtered in the Temple court, it must be buried. Rabbi Shimon says that it must be burned, which is the same rule that applies to sanctified animals that become disqualified in the Temple court (see mishnah six below). He holds that all animals that are improperly slaughtered in the Temple court must be burned this is to prevent confusion.  Indeed, Rabbi Shimon holds that even though wild animals cannot be sacrificed they too must be burned.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>And the following are to be burned:<br>Chametz on Pesah is burned;<br>Unclean terumah;<br>Orlah;<br>Kilayim (mixed in the vineyard--that which it is customary to burn is to be burned and that which it is customary to bury is to be buried.<br>We may kindle with the bread and oil of [unclean] terumah.</b><br>In yesterday’s mishnah we learned which forbidden items must be buried. Today we learn that other forbidden things must be burned.<br>Section one: If one finds chametz (leavened bread) on Pesah, he must burn it.<br>Sections two-four: Unclean terumah, orlah (fruit in its first three years of growth) and seeds sewn in a vineyard must be burned. If these come in a form that is impossible to burn, such as juice made of orlah fruit, then it should be buried. But if it can be burned, than it should be burned.<br>Section five: When burning unclean terumah, one may use the light and heat to derive benefit. This is not the case when it comes to burning chametz on Pesah, orlah, or kilayim. It is forbidden to derive any benefit from these substances, even from the fire in which they are being burned.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final mishnah in Temurah deals with prohibited things that must be burned.
+<b>All dedicated animals which were slaughtered [with the intention of being eaten] after their set time or outside of their set place must be burned.</b>  An animal dedicated to be a sacrifice which was slaughtered with a disqualifying intention to eat it or burn it at the wrong time or place is fully disqualified and must be burned. The same is true with regard to a sacrifice that is in another way disqualified, such as remnant or a meat that has been made impure (see Leviticus 7:17, 19; see also Leviticus 6:23).
+<b>An asham offered by one in doubt [as to whether he has transgressed] is to be burned. Rabbi Judah says: it is to be buried.</b>  An “asham offered by one in doubt” is brought by someone who is not sure if he committed a sin that if he knew for certain he had committed he would have had to bring a hatat. If he brings this type of asham and then before its blood is sprinkled on the altar he finds out that he did not sin, the asham is disqualified. According to the first opinion it is to be burned, whereas Rabbi Judah holds that it is buried.
+<b>A hatat of a bird that is brought for a doubt is burned. Rabbi Judah says: it is cast into the sewer.</b>  This section could refer to a case where a woman is not sure if she gave birth (for instance she had a very early miscarriage and is unsure whether it was just some blood or was a miscarriage). After child birth a woman brings a hatat, but in this case her hatat is of doubtful status. It cannot be eaten. According to the first opinion, it is burned. Rabbi Judah says that it can be cast into the sewer that flows through the Temple courtyard, which is, according to the Tosefta, equivalent to burial. Rabbi Judah holds that both this and the doubtful hatat are looked at like non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple court, which means they are to be buried.
+<b>All things which must be buried must not be burned, and all things which must be burned must not be buried. Rabbi Judah says: if one wishes to be stringent with himself, to burn things which are buried, he is permitted to do so. They said to him: he is not allowed to change.</b>  According to the sages, if one is obligated to burn or bury a specific item, he must do so in the specified manner. He cannot change from one means of disposal to the other. Rabbi Judah is more flexible and allows one to burn things that can be buried. He does not allow one to bury things that need to be burned. Congratulations!  We have finished Tractate Temurah! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Temurah contained many quite technical details concerning sacrificial law (a topic you should be used to by now) but perhaps you will allow me a little “derashah” at this point. The verses in Leviticus 27 concerning substituting teach us that it is basically impossible to substitute one sanctified animal for another. Once an animal has become sacred, and dedicated to be a sacrifice, it must fulfill its destiny and become a sacrifice. Perhaps in a broader sense this teaches us that sometimes once something has attained a certain status, there just is no substitute for it. Once it has become “holy” in our lives, even if we try to put something else in its place, the holiness of the original object can never be removed. There are many things that play such a role in our lives, and I don’t wish to limit the imagination by specifying. Substitutions, sometimes, simply don’t work, and perhaps, in a very symbolic fashion, that is what these sacrificial laws are trying to teach us. I hope you have enjoyed Temurah. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Keritot.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Beitzah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,372 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Beitzah
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה ביצה
+Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Beitzah
+
+Introduction
+
+Tractate Betzah (Egg) teaches the laws governing Yom Tov (the festival), which means the first and last days of Pesah, the first day of Sukkot, Shmini Atzeret and Shavuot.  It is usually called “Betzah” after the first word of the first mishnah, although it was alternatively called Tractate Yom Tov.  
+The Torah does not provide much information about the special laws of Yom Tov, those which would distinguish it from Shabbat.  They are mostly contained in Exodus 12:16, “And on the first day you shall celebrate a sacred occasion and on the last day, a sacred occasion; no work at all shall be done on them; only what every person is to eat, that alone may be prepared by you.”  In other words, Yom Tov is like Shabbat in that work is prohibited, with one major exception—one can prepare food.  Although this verse relates specifically to Pesah, it was interpreted as referring to all of the festival days. 
+Not all food preparations were permitted on Yom Tov.  The general explanation is that all preparatory work that could have been done before Yom Tov without any loss to the quality of the food must be done before Yom Tov.  For instance, one cannot harvest wheat on Yom Tov, but one can knead and bake dough.  One cannot trap an animal on Yom Tov but one can slaughter, skin, salt and cut up the meat.  Lighting a fire is permitted, as is carrying from domain to domain because these actions are typically involved in preparing food. 
+One of the reasons that one was allowed to prepare food on Yom Tov was that Yom Tov was supposed to be a big celebration.  The festival was supposed to be sanctified by eating and drinking and without being able to prepare fresh food (remember they had no refrigeration), the celebration would be lessened.
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first part of the first mishnah of Betzah is about its namesake, an egg born on Yom Tov. The second part is associated with the first part because both contain debates between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel, and in both Bet Hillel rules strictly.
+<b>An egg laid on Yom Tov: Bet Shammai say: it may be eaten [on the same day]; But Bet Hillel say: it may not be eaten [until the day is over].</b>  According to Bet Shammai, just as it is permitted to slaughter a chicken on Yom Tov, it is also permitted to eat an egg that is laid on Yom Tov.  In other words, the chicken and everything in it is permitted on Yom Tov.  In contrast, Bet Hillel hold that while the chicken itself is permitted, the egg that is laid is prohibited.  The egg is what is called “nolad” it is born, or new, something that was not there when Yom Tov began and hence was not set aside for use at the beginning of Yom Tov. This prohibition is similar to muktzeh the idea that something that was not set aside before Yom Tov to be used on Yom Tov may not be used on Yom Tov.
+<b>Bet Shammai say: [the quantity of] leaven is of the size of an olive and leavened bread is of the size of a date; But Bet Hillel say: both are of the size of an olive.</b>  Exodus 13:7 says, “No leavened bread shall be seen with you and no leaven shall be found in all your territory.”  The verse mentions two things:  the leavening agent (starter dough) and the leavened bread, both of which are prohibited.  According to Bet Shammai the point of the verse is to teach that the two prohibitions are different.  Leaven is prohibited at the size of an olive, whereas leavened bread is prohibited at a larger amount, the size of a date.  Beth Hillel hold that in both cases an olive’s worth is prohibited.  Note that smaller amounts are not permitted either.  A smaller amount is still forbidden but one who consumes a smaller amount has not transgressed the Biblical prohibition of leaven or leavened bread on Passover.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with slaughtering animals on Yom Tov.
+<b>He who slaughters a wild animal or a bird on a festival   Bet Shammai says: he may dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood], but Bet Hillel says: he may not slaughter unless he has had earth made ready.</b>  According to Leviticus 17:13, when one slaughters an undomesticated animal or any type of fowl the blood must be poured out of the animal and covered with earth.  One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or fowl on the festival has a problem.  Although it is permitted to slaughter, if he doesn’t have any prepared earth to cover the blood newly dug earth is “muktzeh” and cannot be used.  Nevertheless, Bet Shammai permits one to dig up new earth and cover the blood.  Bet Hillel says one cannot slaughter unless one has earth already prepared.
+<b>But they agree that if he did slaughter he should dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood, and] that the ashes of a stove count as being prepared for the holiday.</b>  However, they all agree that if he had already slaughtered the animal, even though Bet Hillel says he should not have done so without already prepared earth, he may still dig new earth to cover the blood.  This is because the principle of muktzeh is only rabbinically ordained and the obligation to cover the blood is Biblical.  When one has two competing commandments, one rabbinic and one Biblical, the latter takes precedence.  The two houses also agree that the ashes in the oven are considered prepared for the festival, in other words they are not muktzeh.  Since people used these ashes for various purposes, we can make the assumption that before the festival began he knew in his mind that he would use these ashes.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues with two more debates between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel over what types of food preparations one can do on Yom Tov. Today’s mishnah again deals with muktzeh, the concept that something that was designated for use on Yom Tov or Shabbat may not subsequently be used then.  The specific topic is fetching pigeon-doves from a dovecote in order to eat them on Yom Tov.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may not carry a ladder [on Yom Tov] from one dovecote to another, but he may incline it from one pigeon-hole to another. But Bet Hillel permits [this].</b>  In ancient Israel dovecotes were typically underground caves with many holes carved into the walls, each hole housing a dove.  There would be ladders inside the dovecote so that the owner could reach the doves situated high up.  According to Bet Shammai one may not move a ladder from one dovecote to another on Yom Tov, however one may move the ladder from one hole to the other within the dovecote.  Bet Hillel is more lenient in this case and permits one to move the ladder even from one dovecote to the other.  One cogent explanation for this debate is that Bet Shammai prohibits moving the ladder from one dovecote to another lest it look like he is bringing the ladder to the shop to get it fixed.  Bet Hillel is not concerned since everyone should know why he would be moving the ladder.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may not take [doves] unless he has shaken [them] the day before [Yom Tov]: But Bet Hillel says: he stands and declares: this one or that one I am taking.</b>  Doves that were not set aside to be slaughtered and then eaten on Yom Tov are muktzeh and may not be used on Yom Tov.  However, if they are designated before Yom Tov to be slaughtered on Yom Tov, one may use them.  In this mishnah Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate how one designates before Yom Tov that he will slaughter certain birds on the next day.  According to Bet Shammai one must designate the birds by physically lifting each one up and moving it around. This demonstrates that he intends to use that specific pigeon the next day (if only the pigeon knew that tomorrow won’t be such a Yom Tov for him).  Bet Hillel says that the designation is verbal he stands in front of the pigeons and says that he will use these pigeons (good thing they don’t know Hebrew).
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that in order to slaughter and eat doves on Yom Tov one must designate them for use before Yom Tov begins.  Otherwise they are muktzeh.  Our mishnah discusses what happens if he designated doves before Yom Tov but then is not sure that the doves that he finds in the nest or dovecote are the same ones.
+<b>If he designated black [doves] but found [on Yom Tov] white ones, white [doves] but found black ones, two but found three, they are [all] forbidden.</b>  If the doves which he finds are a different color from those that he designated it is obvious that they are not the same doves that he designated the previous day.  If he designated two doves and there are now three there, one of the doves is certainly muktzeh.  The problem is that he doesn’t know which one because all three look alike (I wonder if doves think all humans look alike).  Hence they are all prohibited.
+<b>[If he designated] three but found two, they are permitted.</b>  If he designated three but finds only two we can assume that one flew off and that the other two are the same ones he designated.  Hence they are permitted.
+<b>[If he designated doves] inside the nest and found them in front of the nest, they are forbidden. But if none were there except these, they are permitted.</b>  If the doves are found outside of the nest but he designated them in the nest, then they may not be the same doves.  If there is another nearby dovecote then he must be concerned about this possibility and he may not use those doves.  However, if there are no nearby dovecotes then he can assume that these doves just found their way out and he may use them.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues with four more debates between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel on the laws of Yom Tov.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may not remove shutters on Yom Tov. But Bet Hillel permits even to return them to their place.</b>  In mishnaic times the shutters which were used to close windows and closets were removable.  Bet Shammai forbade removing them because they considered this similar to tearing down a building, a forbidden labor on Shabbat and Yom Tov.  All the more so they would hold that putting the shutters back in their place is forbidden because it is similar to “building”.  Bet Hillel holds that it is permitted even to put the shutters back in their place.  Bet Hillel’s general principle is that if an activity is permitted because it is done in the preparation of food, then it is permitted even when it is done for another purpose.  Removing a shutter to take food out of a closet is permitted therefore removing shutters is always permitted, even if it is not for the sake of removing food.   Bet Hillel even allows returning the shutter to its place, because if it were prohibited people would hesitate to remove them, knowing that they would not be able to put them back in their place afterwards.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may not take a pestle even to cut up meat on it. But Bet Hillel permits [it].</b>  A pestle is a wooden board used to grind things which cannot be ground on Yom Tov because they can be ground the day before.  Bet Shammai says that the pestle cannot even be used for things that can be done on Yom Tov such as cutting up meat.  The pestle is completely muktzeh because its general use is for something that is prohibited.  Bet Hillel disagrees and holds that even though it is usually used during the week for things that cannot be done on Yom Tov, it may be used on Yom Tov for something that is permitted.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may not place a hide in front of one who treads upon it nor may he even lift it up unless there is an olive’s worth of flesh on it. But Bet hillel permit it.</b>  Once one has slaughtered and skinned an animal Bet Shammai prohibits one from giving the hide over to someone who will tread on it to prepare it for processing.  Indeed, Bet Shammiai add that he may not even touch the removed hide. Since the hide is not food, it becomes muktzeh.   One may touch the hide only if it has some flesh on it, because then it is considered “food.”  Bet Hillel however allows one to give a hide over to someone who will tread on it since if this was not permitted people wouldn’t slaughter animals on Yom Tov because the valuable hides would be ruined by waiting until the next day to begin working on them.  This would result in a reduction of the rejoicing on Yom Tov because there would be no fresh meat.  It is noteworthy that Bet Hillel allows activities that would seemingly be prohibited if they contribute to the celebration of Yom Tov.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may not carry out an infant or a lulav or a Torah scroll into the public domain. But Bet Hillel permit [it].</b>  According to Bet Shammai carrying something through the public domain is permitted on Yom Tov only in a case where one carries in order to prepare or eat food.  Carrying a child, a lulav or a Torah scroll is not done for eating and hence it is prohibited.  Bet Hillel again permits this.  Since carrying is permitted in some cases (for food) it is permitted in other cases as well.  However, Bet Hillel limits this to cases which involve a mitzvah or some other benefit.  Taking a child for a stroll is pleasurable (as long as they’re not screaming their little heads off).  The lulav and the Torah scroll are for mitzvot.  To carry something with no purpose is however forbidden even according to Bet Hillel.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In this mishnah Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate whether one may carry to a priest hallah and priestly gifts on Yom Tov.  Hallah is dough which one must separate from the dough that one kneads to bake bread (Numbers 15:17-21).  Priestly gifts refers to the parts of a sacrificial animal which must be given to the priest (Deuteronomy 18:3).
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may not take hallah or priestly gifts to a priest on Yom Tov, whether they were separated on the day before or on that day. But Bet Hillel permits it.</b>  In this first section we learn that Bet Shammai prohibits carrying the hallah and priestly gifts to the priest, whether they were separated on that day or earlier, whereas Bet Hillel permits this.  The reasons for this debate come in the following mishnah.
+<b>Bet Shammai said them: An analogy [supports our view]: hallah and priestly gifts go to the priest and terumah is [likewise] goes to the priest; just as one may not take [to the priest] terumah so one may not take [to him] priestly gifts. Bet Hillel said to them: No! If you say in the case of terumah which he has not the right to separate, will you say [the same] with respect to priestly gifts which he is permitted to separate?</b>  We now learn Bet Shammai’s reasoning.  They compare hallah and priestly gifts to terumah, the portion of one’s produce that one separates and gives to the priest.  Terumah may not be separated on Yom Tov because it can be separated from one’s produce on the day before.  Since one is not allowed to separate terumah on Yom Tov it is also forbidden to carry it to the priest.  Bet Shammai reasons that the same holds true for the other things which one gives to a priest they too cannot be carried to the priest on Yom Tov. Bet Hillel critiques this analogy.  One cannot carry terumah to a priest precisely because one cannot separate it on Yom Tov.  However, one may separate hallah and priestly gifts on Yom Tov and therefore one is allowed to carry them to the priest as well.  The reason that one may separate hallah and priestly gifts on Yom Tov is that one can slaughter an animal and knead dough on Yom Tov, and when one does so the gifts and hallah must be separated.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with grinding spices on Yom Tov.  Everyone agrees that they can be ground.  The debate is over whether they can be done in the normal way or they must be done differently somehow.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: spices may be crushed with a wooden pestle and salt in a small cruse or with a wooden ladle.</b>  According to Bet Shammai when one crushes spices on Yom Tov they have to be crushed differently.  Normally spices are crushed with a stone pestle on Yom Tov they need to use a wooden pestle.  When crushing salt he shouldn’t use a pestle at all, rather he should use a small earthenware cruse and a wooden soup ladle.
+<b>But Bet Hillel says: spices may be crushed in the usual way with a stone pestle and salt with a wooden pestle.</b>  Bet Hillel holds that since it is permitted to crush spices and grind salt on Yom Tov, it is also permissible to crush them in a normal fashion spices with a stone pestle and salt with a wooden pestle.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with how one separates out the dirt and inedible parts from a pile of beans on Yom Tov.  “Sorting” is one of the prohibited labors on Shabbat, but it is permitted on Yom Tov because it is done in preparation of food.
+<b>One who sorts beans on Yom Tov:<br>Bet Shammai says: he must sort the edible parts and eat [them immediate].</b>  According to Bet Shammai he is not really allowed to sort out the beans and make two piles, one of edible beans and one of dirt and other such yucky stuff.  Rather all that he is allowed to do is sort out the beans and either eat them immediately, or put them in water to cook them if they are the type of bean that requires cooking.  Again we see that Bet Shammai allows one to prepare food on Yom Tov but requires it to be done in a very minimal way, and with some significant differences from how it is done during the week.
+<b>But Bet Hillel says: he may sort as usual in his lap or in a basket or in a dish; but not with a board or in a sifter or in a sieve.</b>  Bet Hillel allows one to sort beans but only if he does so in a more make-shift fashion, using his lap a basket or a dish.  He may not use the instruments that he regularly uses during the week, vessels such as a board, a sifter or a sieve.
+<b>Rabban Gamaliel says: he may even rinse them [in water] and skim off [the refuse].</b>  Rabban Gamaliel is the most lenient of the opinions in the mishnah.  He allows one to sort beans even by rinsing the beans in water and skimming off the refuse that floats to the surface.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In our mishnah the two houses debate what types of food gifts one person may send to his neighbor on Yom Tov.  The problem with gifts would occur if they cannot be used on Yom Tov itself.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may not send [gifts to a neighbor] on Yom Tov except portions [of food, ready to be eaten].</b>  Bet Shammai says that one shouldn’t send gifts on Yom Tov unless they are ready to be eaten immediately.  Thus one could send pieces of meat or fish that have already been prepared.
+<b>But Bet Hillel says: one may send cattle, game and poultry whether alive or slaughtered. One may [also] send wine, oil, flour or pulse but not grain.</b>  Bet Hillel extends this even more and allows one to send whole live animals to one’s friends, because he could slaughter the animals and eat them on Yom Tov.   Bet Hillel also permits one to send other food items to one’s friend on Yom Tov. The only exception is grain.  Since grain cannot be ground into flour on Yom Tov, because one can grind it the day before, one cannot send it as a gift on Yom Tov.
+<b>And Rabbi Shimon permits [even] grain.</b>  Rabbi Shimon continues the trend to leniency by allowing one to send even grain.  Although one cannot grind the grain on Yom Tov, he is allowed to cook the grain whole and eat it as cereal.  In other words, even grain is edible on Yom Tov.
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final mishnah of chapter one discusses sending clothing as a gift on Yom Tov.
+<b>One may send clothes, whether they are sewn up or not sewn up, and even though there is kil'ayim (mixed wool and in them, provided they are necessary for the festival.</b>  On Yom Tov one may send even unfinished clothing which hasn’t been fully sewn because it can be used as a covering, such as a blanket.  One can even send clothing that is forbidden to wear because it has a mixture of wool and linen (kilayim, also called shatnez).  Although it is forbidden to wear such clothing, it is permitted to hang it up as a decoration and in certain cases to lie on top of it.  In other words, as long as there is some potential use to the clothing, he may use it on Yom Tov.
+<b>But [one may] not [send] nailed sandals nor unfinished shoes.</b>  Sandals that have nails in them were not worn on Yom Tov.  These seem to have been some sort of work shoe and since one doesn’t work on Yom Tov, one can’t wear them. Since they cannot be worn, they cannot be sent to friends either.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: not even white shoes because they [still] require an artisan [to blacken them].</b>  Rabbi Judah says even shoes that are only missing the “finishing touches”, such as white shoes that need to be blackened, cannot be sent on Yom Tov because they are not generally worn.
+<b>This is the general rule: whatever may be used on Yom Tov may [also] be sent [on Yom Tov].</b>  This is the general rule that summarizes the entire mishnah. If the object could be used as is on Yom Tov, then it can’t be sent.  But if it is missing some step in its preparation then it may not be sent because it is not generally used.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with preparing food on Yom Tov to use on Shabbat which falls the day after.  While cooking on Yom Tov is permitted, it is only permitted to cook on Yom Tov for that day.
+This mishnah discusses what is called “eruv tavshilin.”  This is a type of “eruv” whereby one begins to cook a meal for Shabbat on the day before Yom Tov which falls before Shabbat.  Beginning to cook this meal allows him to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbat.  This halakhah is still observed to this day, and if you look in siddurim you will even find a blessing which one recites before setting aside the food.
+<b>Yom Tov which fell on the eve of Shabbat, one should not begin to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbat.</b>  Although one is allowed to cook on Yom Tov, one may not cook food on Yom Tov that will be eaten on the next day, even if the next day is Shabbat.  We should note that this would have presented a bigger practical problem in the ancient world than it does today.  They did not have preservatives or refrigeration (or those fantastic lock-top plastic containers) and hence it would not have been simple to prepare food for Shabbat on Thursday.  Therefore, the remainder of the mishnah seems to present some ways of avoiding this problem.
+<b>But he may cook for Yom Tov, and if any is left over it is left over for Shabbat.</b>  If he cooks on Yom Tov with the intention of eating some of the food on that very day, he may eat on Shabbat whatever food was left over. It would even seem possible to make a large meal on Yom Tov knowing that there would be leftovers and to eat those leftovers on Shabbat.
+<b>And he may prepare a dish on the eve of Yom Tov and rely upon it [to prepare food] for Shabbat.</b>  This is the section that deals with “eruv tavshilin.”  A person may begin to make a meal on the day before Yom Tov and then on Yom Tov “continue” to cook the meal.  In this way he will not be starting to cook a meal on Yom Tov for Shabbat but rather just continuing a meal that he already began to cook the day before.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: two dishes. But Bet Hillel says: one dish. Yet they [both] agree that a fish and an egg upon it are [considered as] two dishes.</b>  The two houses debate how many different food items he needs to begin to prepare on the day before Yom Tov in order for it to count as an “eruv tavshilin.”  According to Bet Shammai a meal consists of at least two dishes therefore he must begin to cook two dishes for it to count.  Bet Hillel thinks that a meal need consist of only one dish and hence one dish is sufficient for eruv tavshilin.  Bet Shammai however is lenient in what counts as two dishes even a fish with an egg on top of it counts as two dishes.
+<b>[If] he ate it or it was lost, he may not begin to cook [relying] on it. But if he left over any [small] portion of it, he may rely on it [to cook] for Shabbat.</b>  If the eruv tavshilin is eaten or lost before he begins to cook for Shabbat, then he may not rely on it to begin cooking a meal for Shabbat.  However, if even a little bit of the eruv still remains before he begins cooking he may rely on it to cook for Shabbat.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In mishnaic times it was customary for people who observed the laws of purity to immerse vessels and for people to immerse before Yom Tov so that everything would be pure.  In our mishnah Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate whether or not one can immerse on Shabbat in preparation for a Yom Tov which falls on Sunday.
+<b>If [Yom Tov] fell on the day after Shabbat:<br>Bet Shammai says: one must immerse everything [unclean] before Shabbat.</b>  According to Bet Shammai both vessels and people must be immersed before Shabbat.  They hold that it is forbidden to immerse on Shabbat.
+<b>But Bet Hillel says: vessels [must be immersed] before Shabbat but people [may immerse] on Shabbat.</b>  Bet Hillel holds that it is permitted to immerse on Shabbat but that one should nevertheless immerse the vessels before Shabbat.  The reason not to immerse the vessels on Shabbat is that by immersing the vessels he makes them usable. This is like “completing a vessel” which is forbidden on Shabbat.  However, when a person immerses him/herself it might just look like she/he is washing, and hence it is permitted.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to deal with immersing things on Yom Tov in order to purify them.
+<b>They agree that one may effect surface contact for [unclean] water in a stone vessel in order to purify it, but one may not immerse [it];</b>  Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that one may purify water on Shabbat that falls the day before Yom Tov. Drinking water was purified by putting it into a stone vessel (a stone vessel cannot become impure). The vessel was then immersed in a pure mikveh until the top of the vessel just touched the water from the mikveh. The reason that a stone vessel was used was to make sure that this was not done in order to purify the vessel, which as we learned yesterday, both Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel prohibit. They both agree that one should not fully immerse the vessel because that would be similar to immersing an unclean vessel in order to purify it.  In other words, only the water may be purified but not the vessels.  This is also taken to mean that one should not do this with a wooden vessel because wooden vessels become impure through the contact with the unclean water and then they would require immersion.
+<b>And one may immerse [to change] from one intention to another or from one company to another.</b>  If a vessel is already pure it will still need to be immersed if it is going to be used for a “holier” purpose. For instance, if one immersed his vessels to purify them with the intent of using them for non-sacred things, such as regular oil, and then decided he wanted to use them to make terumah wine, he needs to immerse the vessels again.  Our mishnah teaches that this is permitted on Shabbat before Yom Tov because the vessels were in any case pure before they were immersed. A person who is pure and is eating non-sacred food with one eating company and then wants to eat terumah with another company must first immerse.  Again, this immersion is permitted on Yom Tov even according to Bet Shammai because the person was already pure.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with bringing certain sacrifices on Yom Tov and laying one’s hands upon them (see Leviticus 3:2).
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may bring peace-offerings [on Yom Tov] but may not lay [hands] upon them, but one may not bring burnt-offerings [on Yom Tov].</b>  One of the sacrifices which a person would bring on Yom Tov was a peace-offering.  Part of the sacrifice would be offered on the altar, part would be eaten by the priests and part would be eaten by those who brought the sacrifice. Since this sacrifice is eaten, Bet Shammai allows one to offer it on Yom Tov.  As we have learned before one is allowed to prepare food on Yom Tov, and this includes offering edible sacrifices. However, Bet Shammai holds that one cannot lay his hands on the sacrifice because leaning on an animal is considered using the animal and this is prohibited on Yom Tov.  Bet Shammai holds that the laying of the hands must be done the day before. Furthermore, Bet Shammai does not allow the sacrifice of burnt-offerings on Yom Tov, because burnt offerings are completely consumed on the altar.  Since they are not eaten they cannot be offered.  One who wants to bring a burnt-offering would have to do so on Hol Hamoed, the intermediate days of the festival.
+<b>Bet Hillel says: one may bring peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and also lay hands upon them.</b>  Bet Hillel allows the laying of the hands on the animal since this is part of the sacrificial process. The Talmud also explains that according to Bet Hillel the laying of the hands must be done right before it is offered, and therefore he could not do it before Yom Tov.  Bet Hillel also allows burnt offerings to be brought even though they are not eaten, since they are brought in fulfillment of the commandments of the festival.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+It is permitted to make a fire on Yom Tov in order that one can cook food.  Our mishnah discusses making a fire so that one can heat up water to wash one’s feet.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: a man may not heat water for his feet unless it is also fit for drinking.</b>  Bet Shammai holds that labors that are permitted on Yom Tov because they are necessary for preparing food are permitted only if they are done in the preparation of food.  One may not heat water just to wash one’s body. The only leniency for which Bet Shammai allows is that if one heats up water that is fit for drinking, one can also use it for other purposes.  This is similar to cooking on Yom Tov for the day after.  If one can eat some of the food cooked on Yom Tov, one is allowed to cook, knowing that there will be leftovers.
+<b>But Bet Hillel permits it.</b>  Bet Hillel generally holds that labors permitted in order to prepare food are permitted even if they are done not to prepare food.  Hence, heating water is permitted whether one does so for drinking water or to wash one’s feet.
+<b>A man may make a fire and warm himself at it.</b>  The final clause in the mishnah seems to also go according to Bet Hillel.  It is not only permitted to heat water in order to wash one’s feet, one may even make a fire just to keep warm.  The reason we might have thought that Bet Hillel prohibits this is that in this case there is no water being heated, water which one could claim one might drink in time of great thirst.  This section lets us know that Bet Hillel allows one to make a fire on Yom Tov even if there is no chance that it will lead to food preparation.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Mishnah six contains three cases in which Rabban Gamaliel ruled like Beth Shammai in connection with the laws of Yom Tov.  This mishnah is also found in its entirety in tractate Eduyot 3:10.
+This mishnah lists three cases in which Rabban Gamaliel ruled strictly, as had Bet Shammai.  Although later Sages generally ruled like Beth Hillel, there were some exceptions, and some of those are listed in our mishnah.
+<b>In three cases Rabban Gamaliel was strict like the words of Beth Shammai.<br>One may not cover up hot food on Yom Tov for Shabbat;</b>  As we learned above, it is forbidden to prepare food on Yom Tov for Shabbat, since that would be considered an insult to the honor of the festival.   In our mishnah we learn that Bet Shammai and Rabban Gamaliel prohibit one from hiding food in a warm place to preserve its heat for Shabbat (see Shabbat 4:1). This is true even if he made an “eruv tavshilin” because in this case everyone can tell that he is putting food aside just for Shabbat.  In contrast, when one cooks, one might be cooking to eat the food on Yom Tov.  Bet Hillel would allow one to put food in something that preserves its warmth.  For a somewhat different explanation see my commentary on Eduyou 3:10.
+<b>And one may not join together a lamp on a festival;</b>  The Talmud explains that this is a case where a lamp made of several parts breaks on Yom Tov. Rabban Gamaliel forbids one to fix it, since this is a type of “building” which is forbidden on the Sabbath.  Beth Hillel holds that there is no prohibition of “building” with regards to erecting vessels, and therefore this is permitted.
+<b>And one may not bake [on Yom] thick loaves but only wafer-cakes.</b>  Rabban Gamaliel holds that it is forbidden to bake large loaves on Yom Tov, and that only thin loaves are permitted.  This is meant to prevent one from making too much bread on the festival, lest he make some for after the festival.  Beth Hillel holds that it is permitted to bake large loaves, since bread cooks better when the oven is full.  Furthermore, Bet Hillel in general is far more lenient when it comes to cooking on Yom Tov.
+<b>Rabban Gamaliel said:  “In all their days, my father’s house never baked large loaves but only wafer-cakes.” They said to him: “What can we do with regards to your father’s house, for they were strict in respect to themselves but were lenient towards Israel to let them bake both large loaves and even charcoal-roasted loaves.”</b>  The final section of the mishnah contains some interaction between Rabban Gamaliel and the other sages, who hold like Beth Hillel. Rabban Gamaliel testifies that his father’s house indeed acted in this manner, and only baked wafer-cakes on the festival.  The other sages accept this testimony of Rabban Gamaliel as being an accurate description of what Rabban Gamaliel’s father’s house used to do, but they understand its significance differently.  The sages say that Rabban Gamaliel’s father’s house was strict upon themselves, but allowed the rest of Israel to cook large loaves, even charcoal roasted loaves which are very difficult to make.  The strict actions of Rabban Gamaliel’s father’s house were only meant for themselves and were not meant to set precedent for everyone else.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In mishnah six we learned of three cases where Rabban Gamaliel was strict like Beth Shammai.  In mishnah seven we learn three cases where he adopted a more lenient position than the other Sages.
+<b>Also he declared three decisions of a lenient character:<br>One may sweep up [on a festival] between the couches,</b>  In the time of the Mishnah, during formal meals people would recline on couches on the ground and eat off personal tables which were more like trays.  According to Rabban Gamaliel one can sweep up between the couches after the meal on Yom Tov.  The Sages forbid this for fear that one might fill in a hole that is in the floor, which could be considered a form of building, which is forbidden on the Sabbath and Yom Tov.
+<b>And put spices [on the coals] on a festival;</b>  As we have learned many times already, cooking food is allowed on Yom Tov.  Rabban Gamaliel allowed people to put spices on coals, which would make a pleasant scent.  Even though this is not cooking food, it is permitted since it is still a bodily pleasure.  The sages forbid doing so since not all people are equally accustomed to put spices on coals after a meal.  Cooking food is permitted because everyone eats; putting spices on coals is prohibited because this is not a practice in which all classes of people engage.
+<b>And roast a kid whole on the night of Passover. But the sages forbid them.</b>  When there was a Temple in Jerusalem, people would roast kids (lambs, not the human kind) as Passover sacrifices on the day before Passover and eat them at night.  When the Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. sacrifices could no longer be offered.  Nevertheless, Rabban Gamaliel permitted people to make roasted kids at their own seders.  The other Sages forbid this, lest someone think that they were eating sacrificial meat outside of Jerusalem (for more on this topic see Pesahim 7:1).
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Mishnah twelve contains three cases where Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah was more lenient than the other Sages.  We should note that not all of these sections deal with the laws of Yom Tov.
+<b>Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah allows three things and the Sages forbid them:<br>His cow used to go out with the strap which she had between her horns;</b>  It is forbidden to carry things in the public domain on Shabbat.  This is true even for a person’s animal, since it is forbidden to make one’s animal perform work on the Sabbath.  Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah allowed his cow to go out with a strap between its horns, since this strap was only an adornment and therefore he did not consider it “work”.  In the same way a person can wear clothing in the public domain and that is not considered carrying.  However, the Sages forbid cows from carrying anything, since most cows do not do so.  Furthermore, if others were to see this they would think that it is permitted for an animal to work on the Sabbath.  (See also Shabbat 5:4).
+<b>One may curry cattle on a festival;</b>  Currying is a type of combing done with a sharp metal comb.  Rabbi Eleazar permits a person to curry an animal on the festival, even though that might cause a wound.  Rabbi Eleazar permits this since even if he does cause a wound he did not intend to do so and unintentionally performed work is permitted on Shabbat and Yom Tov.
+<b>And one may grind pepper in its own mill.</b>  Rabbi Elazar holds that grinding pepper is permitted on Yom Tov because it is done in preparation of food, even if the grinding is done in a large mill.  The sages however allow the grinding of pepper only in a small mill, one which will produce less ground pepper and that is easier.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: one may not curry cattle on a festival, because it may cause a wound, but one may comb them.</b>  Rabbi Judah states that currying is forbidden since it will cause a wound, but combing with a wooden comb is permitted since it will not cause a wound.
+<b>But the Sages say: one may not curry them, and one may not even comb them.</b>  The Sages rule even more strictly.  Even combing is forbidden, lest by permitting combing one might assume that currying is also permitted.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is brought here on account of section three in yesterday’s mishnah which dealt with using a pepper-mill on Yom Tov.  As an aside, the mishnah teaches the susceptibility of a pepper-mill to impurities.
+<b>A pepper-mill is susceptible to impurity on account of [it consisting of] three [separate] utensils; on account of a receptacle, on account of a metal utensil and on account of a sifting utensil.</b> A pepper-mill has three separate parts. Our mishnah teaches that each part is itself considered a “vessel” and therefore each part on its own can receive impurities.  If one of the parts should break, while it can no longer become impure, because broken vessels are not receptive to impurities, the other two parts can still become impure. The bottom part of the pepper-mill is a wooden receptacle for the ground pepper.  All vessels which have a receptacle are susceptible to impurity. The top part is made of metal. This is the part that grinds the pepper.  It is susceptible to impurity because it is metal and all metal vessels are susceptible to impurity, even if they don’t have a receptacle. The middle part of the pepper-mill sifts the ground pepper.  Some commentators explain that since some of the pepper gets stuck here, this part is also considered to be a receptacle and hence susceptible to impurity.
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is here because of its connection with the previous mishnah, and not because of any connection with the laws of Yom Tov.  It continues to deal with the impurity of vessels.
+<b>A child’s cart is susceptible to the impurity of midras, and it may be handled on Shabbat, and it is dragged along only on matting.</b>  A child’s cart is one that a small child would push around while learning how to walk (today these make sounds and have spinning things to keep your child entertained while you fold the laundry).  Since the cart is made to lean upon, it can receive a type of impurity called “midras.”   “Midras” means pressure.  A zav or a zavah (a man or woman with an abnormal genital discharge) who steps, sits, lies or leans upon this cart, in other words applies bodily pressure to the cart, will render it impure. This type of impurity is derived from Leviticus 15:4. The cart may be handled on Shabbat and on Yom Tov.  It is not muktzeh.  However, it is forbidden to drag it along the ground because it will make grooves in the ground.  This is a forbidden labor on Shabbat and on Yom Tov which is derived from the forbidden labor of plowing.  The only way to use it is to drag it on some type of matting.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: no vessels may be dragged along [the ground] except a wagon because it [only] presses [the earth] down.</b>  Rabbi Judah holds that the cart is the one type of vessel that may be dragged on the ground on Shabbat.  All other vessels when dragged will create grooves in the ground.  The cart when dragged will only press down the ground, without creating grooves.  Hence, your little toddler can push his little cart knowing that he is not violating Shabbat.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with catching fish, fowl or game on Yom Tov.  While slaughtering an animal is permitted on Yom Tov because it is done in the preparation of food, catching is not permitted because it could have been done the day before.  Our mishnah defines what is considered “catching.”  As an aside, the word in Hebrew for “catching” or “trapping” animals, fish or fowl is the same word as for hunting.  However, I have translated the word as “catching” because hunting, that is killing the animal while catching it, is not allowed.
+<b>One may not catch fish from a fishpond on Yom Tov nor give them food,</b>  While fish in a pond are already to a certain extent trapped in a small enclosure, they still must be caught in order to eat them.  Since catching a fish from a fish pond is still considered catching it is therefore forbidden on Yom Tov.  It is forbidden to feed these fish lest by doing so he come to catch one of them.
+<b>But one may catch game or fowl from animal enclosures and one may put food before them.</b>  However, an animal which is trapped in a small enclosure is considered to already have been caught and hence one may “catch” such an animal or fowl on Yom Tov. Since it is permitted to catch them, he may also put food in front of them.
+<b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: not all enclosures are alike. This is the general rule: anything that still needs to be trapped is forbidden but anything that need not be trapped is permitted.</b>  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel points out that not all enclosures are alike. Fish in a bucket are basically already caught, whereas a deer in a very large pen is not caught. The general rule is that anything that still needs to be caught may not be caught on Yom Tov.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that one may not hunt (trap) animals on Yom Tov because he could do it the day before. Today we learn about taking animals out of traps on Yom Tov when the traps were set before Yom Tov.
+<b>Traps for wild animals, birds or fish which were set on the eve of Yom Tov, one may not take from them on Yom Tov unless he knows that they were [already] caught on the eve of Yom Tov.</b>  If the animals, birds or fish were caught in the traps the day before Yom Tov it would be permitted to take them out and slaughter them on Yom Tov.  However, if they were trapped on Yom Tov then they are muktzeh because they could not have been used when Yom Tov began. When Yom Tov began he would have still had to trap them and trapping is prohibited on Yom Tov.  If he finds them in the traps on Yom Tov he cannot use them unless he knows for certain that they were caught before Yom Tov.  According to this opinion, something that is “doubtful muktzeh”, meaning it might or might not be muktzeh, it is prohibited.
+<b>It once happened that a certain non-Jew brought fish to Rabban Gamaliel [on Yom Tov] and he said: they are permitted, but I have no wish to accept [them] from him.</b>  In this story we see that Rabban Gamaliel disagrees with the previous clause.  The non-Jew brings him a fish as a gift and we don’t know whether he caught the fish the day before or today.  Rabban Gamaliel states that the fish is permitted because he holds that doubtful muktzeh is permitted.  However, he adds that he himself acts more stringently and therefore he refuses to accept the fish.  Note that we also saw in the previous chapter that Rabban Gamaliel acted strictly with regard to himself.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In this mishnah we learn two laws concerning slaughtering an animal on Yom Tov.
+<b>One may not slaughter [on Yom Tov] an animal which is about to die unless there is time enough on that day to eat from it as much as an olive of roasted flesh. Rabbi Akiva says: even [if there is only time to eat] as much as an olive of raw flesh [taken] from the place of slaughter.</b>  Slaughtering on Yom Tov is permitted as long as the person will have time left over in the day to eat some of the animal’s meat. If there is no time to eat any part of the animal then he can’t slaughter it because he would be doing so in order to eat it on another day.  In the case in our mishnah it is clear that the person wants to slaughter the animal on Yom Tov because the animal is getting sick and if it dies he won’t be able to eat it.  Even though it is clear that he is slaughtering it only in order to preserve some of its value, and that eating it is a sort of legal fiction, he still may do so, provided there is time left in the day for him to roast a small piece of meat and eat it.  Roasting is the quickest form of cooking, hence the mishnah mentions roasting.  Note that he does not actually have to roast and eat some of the meat, there just has to be time for him to do so. Rabbi Akiva is even more lenient and allows one to slaughter the animal even if there is only enough time to rip out a small piece of flesh from the animal’s throat (“the place of slaughter) and eat it raw.  Rabbi Akiva mentions taking the meat out from the throat because to do this he wouldn’t even need to skin the animal.  It seems even clearer here that this is not actually going to be done there just needs to be enough time so that it could have been done.
+<b>If he slaughtered it in the field, he may not bring it in on a pole or a barrow, but he may bring it in piece by piece in his hand.</b>  The mishnah rules that if someone slaughters an animal in the field he should not hoist it up on a pole or put it in a wheelbarrow in order to bring it back into his courtyard or other living quarters.  Doing so would look too much like ordinary weekday work and hence it should be avoided on Yom Tov. Rather he may carry it back home piece by piece, a more modest act that others will notice less.  Note that in this case there are values competing against one another.  Carrying it back piece by piece is more work for him and nevertheless the mishnah recommends doing so to avoid the act looking like weekday work. To put this otherwise, the mishnah preserves the overall communal character of the day as a day free from work at the expense of the individual’s own experience.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+A first-born animal may not be eaten until it becomes blemished (Deuteronomy 15:21-22).  Experts would determine whether an animal was blemished.  Our mishnah deals with a first-born that fell into a pit on Yom Tov and may have been blemished there.  The debate is over whether they may send down an expert to see if the animal had become blemished and if so, bring it up and slaughter it on Yom Tov.
+<b>A first-born beast that fell into a pit:<br>Rabbi Judah says: let an expert go down and inspect [it].  If it had a blemish he may bring it up and slaughter it, but if not, he may not slaughter it.</b>  Rabbi Judah allows the expert to go down into the pit to examine the animal.  If the animal is blemished they may bring the animal out of the pit and slaughter it on Yom Tov.  But if there is no blemish he may not slaughter it nor may he even bring it up from the pit.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon says: any animals whose blemish was not observed on the day before the Yom Tov, it is not prepared (.</b>  Rabbi Shimon holds that even if the animal should be found to have a blemish, they still may not bring it out of the pit and slaughter it on Yom Tov because when Yom Tov began that animal could not be slaughtered.  The animal was not “mukhan”, or ready.  Mukhan is the opposite muktzeh.  The animal is muktzeh because when Yom Tov began it could not be used for food because it was still a first-born on whom no blemish had been found.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with what may be done with a beast (a cow, sheep, goat or bull) that has died on Yom Tov.
+<b>If a beast died [on Yom Tov] it may not be moved from its place.</b>  Since the beast died and was not slaughtered, it cannot be eaten.  Since it cannot be eaten there is nothing that one may do with it on Yom Tov.  Hence, it is muktzeh.  All that he can do is leave it in its place and then when Yom Tov is over he can cut it up, use its hide and feed dogs with its meat.
+<b>And it happened that they once asked Rabbi Tarfon concerning this and concerning hallah that had become defiled.  He went into the bet midrash and inquired, and they answered him: they may not be moved from their place.</b>  The mishnah now relates that this halakhah was asked of Rabbi Tarfon and he didn’t know the answer until he went and asked the question in the study house, the bet midrash.  He also was asked about hallah, the part of the dough that is given to the priest, that had become impure on Yom Tov.  Impure hallah, like an animal that died without being slaughtered, cannot be eaten and hence it is also muktzeh on Yom Tov.  The answer therefore to both questions was that both are muktzeh and that neither can be moved until Yom Tov is over.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+As we have learned many times, it is permitted to slaughter an animal on Yom Tov.  In the mishnaic times most people would have bought shares in an animal from a butcher before the day the animal was slaughtered and then paid for it on the day it was slaughtered.  Our mishnah teaches how this arrangement may be worked out so that people may buy freshly slaughtered meat on Yom Tov without it looking as if they are conducting business as usual.
+<b>They may not be counted as having a share in an animal at the outset on Yom Tov, but they may be counted [as having a share in an animal] on the eve of Yom Tov, and they may then slaughter it and divide it between them [on Yom Tov].</b>  People may not go to a butcher on Yom Tov and decide how to divide up and pay for an animal that is to be slaughtered on that day.  The problem with this is that it looks too much like one is engaging in business as usual.  Hence it is prohibited.  Rather what they may do is divvy up the various parts of the animal before Yom Tov before it is slaughtered and set a price for each part. Then on Yom Tov they may come have the butcher slaughter the animal and collect the parts which they reserved and pay for them at a later date.  Since there is no verbal give and take on Yom Tov, it does not look as much like business as usual.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: a man may weigh meat [on Yom Tov] against a utensil or against a butcher's chopper. But the sages say: one may not pay attention to the scales at all.</b>  The debate here is concerning weighing out meat at the butcher’s on Yom Tov.  All agree that the butcher cannot just weigh out meat as usual, using weights on the scale, because that looks too much like conducting business as usual. They also all agree that one can go to a butcher and get meat on Yom Tov.  This is necessary to ensure that the average person has access to fresh meat so that he can enjoy his Yom Tov to the fullest extent.  As a solution to the problem of the butcher weighing out the meat, Rabbi Judah says that the butcher may use other utensils on the other side of the scales.  For instance, if he knows that his chopping knife weighs 2 kilo, he can weigh out meat according to the weight of his knife.  This looks different enough that everyone will know that he is not engaging in business as usual. The sages say that this is still too much like business as usual.  The sages forbid any use of the scales on Yom Tov.  All that the butcher and client may do is estimate the weight of the meat and then hope that it turns out to be fair.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to deal with the laws of slaughtering and divvying up meat on Yom Tov.
+<b>One may not sharpen a knife on a festival, but one may draw it over another knife.</b>  He shouldn’t sharpen a knife with a sharpening stone on Yom Tov because this is similar to completing work on a vessel which is forbidden on Yom Tov.  Furthermore, he could have sharpened the knife before Yom Tov.  However, if he sharpens it in an unusual manner, by using another knife, then it is permitted.
+<b>A man may not say to a butcher, “Weigh me a dinar’s worth of meat” but he may slaughter [the animal] and shares it among them.</b>  This section returns to discussing the problem discussed in yesterday’s mishnah, the problem of buying meat on Yom Tov.  One cannot tell a butcher to give him a piece of meat worth a certain amount of money because this is considered conducting business as usual on Yom Tov, which is forbidden.  This is forbidden even if he weighs the meat out in a manner that is usually permitted, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.  Merely mentioning the price seems to be forbidden.  However, the butcher may slaughter the animal and divide it up among his clients keeping in mind how much each owes him.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+After having dealt with how one may get meat from a butcher on Yom Tov, our mishnah deals with how one can buy other food supplies from others or from a storekeeper.
+We will see again that the mishnah is very concerned with protecting the atmosphere of Yom Tov.  Cooking is permitted and therefore we must allow people to get things at the store (remember they had no refrigeration and probably stored very little food at home), but when they do so they should refrain from any action that would send the message that business is being conducted as usual.
+<b>A man may say [on Yom Tov] to his fellow, “Fill me this vessel,” but not in a specific measure.</b>  A person can bring a vessel to his friend or to a storekeeper and ask him to fill it up for him on Yom Tov with wine or oil but he may not mention to him a specific amount.  Since this is not the way that business is usually conducted it is permitted on Yom Tov.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: if it was a measuring-vessel he may not fill it.</b>  Rabbi Judah says that this is not permitted if the vessel is one used for measuring.  Although the person does not mention a specific amount, in other words, he does not say, “fill up this ten liter jug”, it is still forbidden because both he and the person giving him the wine or oil know exactly how much is being given.
+<b>It happened that Abba Shaul ben Batnit used to fill up his measures on the eve of Yom Tov and give them to his customers on Yom Tov. Abba Shaul says: he used to do so even during hol hamoed (the intermediate days of the, on account of clarifying the measures. But the sages say: he used also to do so on an ordinary day for the sake of the draining of the measures.</b>  In order to avoid the problem of measuring out wine or oil when giving it out on Yom Tov, Abba Shaul ben Batnit used to fill his measuring vessels before Yom Tov and then just give them out on Yom Tov. Abba Shaul says that Abba Shaul ben Batnit used to do the same thing on the intermediate days of the festival, hol hamoed.  During these days people were not supposed to be doing work (we will learn this in Tractate Moed Katan) and so they had time to learn how to measure things out.  Because there were so many people who came to him, he didn’t have time to fill up all of the measuring vessels that they should be completely full without any froth.  Therefore he filled them up at night. Good manuscripts of the Mishnah do not contain the words “on account of clarifying the measures.”  Indeed there is another explanation in the Talmud. There it says “on account of not attending the Bet Midrash.”  Abba Shaul ben Batnit filled up his measuring vessels early so that he could spend all of hol hamoed teaching Torah.  Rashi explains that many people would come to see him on hol hamoed because they were free from doing work, and hence he didn’t want to waste any time filling up his measures.  Notice Abba Shaul ben Batnit was a businessman he just made sure that he conducted his business in a manner in which he could still teach and learn Torah. The sages say that Abba Shaul ben Batnit always filled up his measuring vessels ahead of time, even on ordinary weekdays.  He would then pour from his vessels into his customers’ vessels and then wait overnight and fill them up more, depending upon how much the clay vessel had soaked up into its walls.  This was his way of making sure that his customers received the full amount that they paid for.
+<b>A man may go to a shopkeeper to whom he generally goes and say to him, “Give me [so many] eggs and nuts” since this is the way of a householder to reckon in his own home.</b>  A person can go to a storekeeper with whom he is familiar, one that will give him food now and not make him pay back until a later day. To this storekeeper he may even tell the number of eggs or nuts that he wants. This does not look like “business as usual” because the customer does not usually count the eggs or nuts until he goes home.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Even though carrying is allowed on Yom Tov, he should not carry things the same way that he carries things during the week because this makes it look like “business as usual.”
+<b>One who carries jars of wine from place to place, he may not carry them in a basket or in a large basket, but he may carry [them] on his shoulder or in front of him.</b>  It is permitted to carry jars of wine from place to place on Yom Tov, as long as one is within the Shabbat border limit.  However, when carrying them he should not carry them in the same manner that he does during the week (non-Yom Tov). What he should do is carry them with his hands on his shoulder or in front of him, held against his body. This looks less like he is delivering merchandise and more like he is just bringing wine to a friend’s house.
+<b>Similarly, one who brings straw, he may no drape a large basket over his back, rather he must carry it in his hand.</b>  Basically, the same holds true for carrying straw used for lighting a fire or for animal feed.
+<b>And one may start [using] a heap of straw, but [one may] not [start using wood] from the back-yard.</b>  This third section deals with the concept of muktzeh something is prohibited if it was not designated for use on Yom Tov. He may use the heap of straw even though he did not specifically designate it and has never used that heap before. This is because heaps of straw are automatically set aside for use and do not require any special and intentional designation that they will be used on Yom Tov. In contrast, wood which is in the backyard is not necessarily designated to be used for something that can be done on Yom Tov and one cannot begin to use from that wood on Yom Tov.  Indeed, the Hebrew word in this mishnah for backyard is muktzeh because in that area one sets aside things that one doesn’t have a specific intention to use (for those of you learning modern Hebrew, muktzeh is most definitely not a word for backyard.)
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with the places where a person can collect kindling wood in order to cook on Yom Tov.
+<b>One may not take wood from a sukkah but only from [what is] next to it.</b>  The “sukkah” referred to here is not a sukkah used on the festival of Sukkot, but rather a sort of hut used for shade by farmers out in the field.  It is forbidden to take wood that was used in building the sukkah because this is considered “tearing down” which is forbidden on Shabbat and Yom Tov.  However, he may take the wood gathered next to the sukkah.
+<b>One may bring in from the field wood that is gathered together, and from a karpef [an enclosure] even though it is scattered about.</b>  He can bring in wood from the field if it has already been gathered together.  However, if it is scattered then it is muktzeh because there was no intent to use that wood for building a fire, and therefore he may not bring it in. From a karpef, a type of enclosure used for storage (see also Eruvin 2:3, 2:5 and 5:2) he may gather even loose wood.  Since this wood was put into an enclosure, it has already been designated for use and it is not muktzeh.
+<b>What is a karpef?  Any [enclosure] next to the town, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says: Any [enclosure] which one enters with a key, even if it is [only just] within the Shabbat border.</b>  In this section Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Yose debate from what kind of a karpef he can bring in wood.  According to Rabbi Judah the karpef has to be close to the city, since only if it is close to the city does he intend to use it on Yom Tov. Rabbi Yose says that the criterion is that the karpef is locked and can only be opened with a key. The wood in such a karpef is not muktzeh, even if the karpef is not next to the city.  However, the karpef must be within the Shabbat limit (2,000 cubits in all directions), otherwise he won’t be able to even get there.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first topic of this mishnah is chopping wood to make firewood on Yom Tov. The second topic is opening up a sealed storage room to take out produce. Both of these topics touch at least indirectly upon the subject of muktzeh.
+<b>One may not chop up wood, neither from beams nor from a beam which was broken on Yom Tov.</b>  This first section is concerned with chopping wood from a beam that was not designated for use as firewood before Yom Tov began.  One may not chop up a beam that was meant to be used in building because it is muktzeh before Yom Tov there was no intention to use it for fire.  Even if the beam breaks on Yom Tov and is now only good for lighting fires, he can’t chop it up into firewood because when Yom Tov began it was muktzeh.  Only if it was broken before Yom Tov can he chop it up.
+<b>And one may not chop with an axe or with a saw or with a sickle but only with a [butcher's] chopper.</b>  This section refers to wood that one is allowed to chop up on Yom Tov.  Even though it is permitted to do so, one shouldn’t do so in a normal fashion because this looks too much like “business as usual.”  One shouldn’t use the normal instruments but rather a butcher’s knife, one usually used for cutting bones and meat.  This requirement will probably make people prefer to chop up their wood before Yom Tov begins chopping wood with a butcher’s knife won’t make the butcher very happy and it’s not a good idea to tick off people who own big knives.
+<b>A [closed] room full of produce which was burst open [on Yom Tov] he may take [produce] out through the breach. Rabbi Meir says: he may make a hole at the outset and bring out [the produce].</b>  This section refers to a storage room that has been closed off by a row of bricks that have not been cemented together.  According to the first opinion, if some of the bricks should fall away he may go into the room through the opening and take out the produce and use it on Yom Tov.  Since there was no cement sealing the bricks together, the produce is not considered muktzeh.  However, according to this opinion, he may not himself remove the bricks because this is too close to “tearing down” a building, a prohibited labor on Shabbat and Yom Tov.  Concerning this last ruling, Rabbi Meir disagrees.  Since the bricks were not cemented together, he may even take them down and create a new opening on Yom Tov.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with several laws concerning the use and production of lamps on Yom Tov.
+<b>One may not make a hole in a [lump of clay for use as a] lamp because that is making a vessel.</b>  Lamps in mishnaic times were basically lumps of clay with a receptacle for oil and a small hole in which one could put a wick.  While lighting a lamp is allowed on Yom Tov, making a lamp is not.  One may not make a hole in a lump of clay in order to make it into a lamp because making a vessel is forbidden on Yom Tov.
+<b>One may not make charcoal on Yom Tov.</b>  Charcoal is also considered to be a vessel, or at least as important as a vessel.  Therefore it is forbidden to make charcoal on Yom Tov.
+<b>And one may not cut a wick into two. Rabbi Judah says:  he may cut it into two lamps using a fire.</b>  Cutting a piece of twine or other material into two in order to make two wicks is also considered similar to making a vessel and is therefore prohibited on Yom Tov.  Rabbi Judah says that while one cannot cut the twine into two with a knife or scissors, he can cut it into two by using fire. The Talmud explains that he places two lamps next to each other and one wick in the two lamps, one end in each.  He then lights the wick in the middle and it will split in two.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with certain preparations made in order to facilitate cooking.
+<b>One may not break up a potsherd or cut paper in order to roast on it a salty fish.</b>  When grilling a fish it would often be put on a broken shard of a pottery or on a piece of paper in order to prevent it from being burned.  The mishnah considers breaking some pottery or cutting a piece of paper to be used as such to be “making a vessel” which is not permitted on Yom Tov.
+<b>And one may not rake out an oven or a range, but one may press [the ashes] down.</b>  One should not rake out the ashes and dirt from an oven or a range. This is also considered to be “making a vessel” because it makes the oven usable.  However, it is permitted to “press down” the ashes, which seems to be a means of getting them out of the way in order to facilitate cooking.  The Rambam notes that if one cannot cook unless the ashes are raked out, he may do so because one is allowed to cook on Yom Tov.
+<b>And one may not place two jars side by side in order to balance upon them saucepan.</b>  Putting two jars next to each other so that there is a fire in between them and then balancing a pan upon them is like building a makeshift range. This is prohibited because it is forbidden to build on Yom Tov.
+<b>And one may not prop up a pot with a wooden wedge and the same applies to a door.</b>  One may not use small pieces of wood to prop things up on Yom Tov because the wood was intended to be used as kindling.  All other uses are prohibited.
+<b>And one may not drive cattle with a staff on a festival. But Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon permits it.</b>  According to the Talmud, one may not drive cattle with a stick because it looks like he is bringing them to the marketplace to sell.  Rabbi Elazar disagrees.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In the middle of yesterday’s mishnah we learned that chips of wood can be used only as kindling. Today’s mishnah continues to discuss this subject.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: a man may take a chip from that which is lying before him to pick his teeth with it, and he may collect [chips] from the court yard and make a fire, for everything in a court is prepared [for use on Yom Tov].</b>  Rabbi Eliezer says that one may take a chip of wood that is lying inside his house and use it to pick his teeth clean (aren’t you glad we have toothbrushes).  From outside the house one may collect chips of wood and use them to build a fire because according to Rabbi Eliezer all chips of wood are “prepared” to be used as wood for a fire that is they are not muktzeh.
+<b>But the sages say: he may collect only from that which is before him and make a fire.</b>  The sages disagree with Rabbi Eliezer on two accounts. First of all, one cannot gather wood from outside the house because it was not designated for use on Yom Tov.  Only the wood from inside the house that has been set aside for use can be used.  Secondly, they hold that wood can only be used to build a fire.  It cannot be used to pick one’s teeth (sorry if you’re a dentist).
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first section of this mishnah teaches that it is forbidden to produce new fire on Yom Tov.  This is related to the prohibition of “muktzeh” which was the topic of yesterday’s mishnah.  The second half of the mishnah continues to deal with the laws of muktzeh.
+<b>One may not produce fire either from wood, or from stones, or from dirt, or from water (.</b>  While one is allowed to use fire on Shabbat, one is not allowed to create a new fire by “bringing it out” of a substance such as wood (rubbing sticks together) or from stones (striking a stone against another) or dirt (I  don’t really know how this was done) or from water, which is the mishnah’s word for gas.  We should remember that today creating new fire is exceedingly easy  one just flicks a lighter or strikes a match.  In ancient times starting a new fire would have been difficult.  Most fire was probably just passed from one existing fire to another.  The rabbis prohibited creating a new fire because it didn’t exist before Yom Tov began, much as they forbid the egg that was laid on Yom Tov in the first mishnah of this tractate.
+<b>Nor may one make tiles red-hot in order to roast on them.</b>  It is also forbidden to heat up tiles to cook on them because by heating them up he is forging them. This is considered like completing the making of a vessel which is forbidden on Yom Tov.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer further said: A man may stand near his “muktzeh” on the eve of Shabbat in the sabbatical year and say: “From here I will eat tomorrow.” But the sages say: [This doesn’t work] unless he marks it out and says, “From here to there.”</b>  These words of Rabbi Eliezer are a continuation of his words above in mishnah six, which dealt with muktzeh.  The word “muktzeh” here refers, according to its accepted interpretation, to a place where a person has set his fruit to dry out (dates, figs and grapes).  In order for these fruits to be available for use on Yom Tov, in other words in order for the things in the “muktzeh” to not be “muktzeh”, one must designate them for use before Yom Tov.  Furthermore, this can only happen on the Sabbatical year during which one doesn’t have to separate tithes.  During the other years because the fruit in the muktzeh has not generally been tithed, and it is forbidden to tithe on Yom Tov, one cannot eat them on Yom Tov even if he had designated them for use. He could only eat them if they had already been tithed. The mishnah now brings a debate concerning how one designates drying fruit for use.  According to Rabbi Eliezer all one needs to do is say “From here I will eat.”  The rabbis are stricter and rule that he must point specifically to the area of fruit from which he will eat.  Just as Rabbi Eliezer was more lenient in mishnah six, so too he is more lenient than the other sages here.
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to deal with laws concerning fruit set out to dry and things that one may and may not do with this fruit on Yom Tov.
+<b>One may let down fruit through a trap-door on Yom Tov but not on Shabbat.</b>  This section deals with a person who has put his fruit up onto his roof to dry out on Yom Tov and then he sees that it is going to rain.  The mishnah allows him to drop the fruit down through a trap-door in the roof because this is not considered to be a lot of work.  He would not be allowed to take them down through a window or through the door because this is a greater amount of work.  Furthermore, they only allowed this on Yom Tov on Shabbat it was prohibited.
+<b>And one may cover up fruit with vessels on account of the rain, and likewise jars of wine and jars of oil.</b>  One also may cover up fruit, jars of wine and jars of oil if rain is leaking down on them.  Covering up fruit or bringing it into the house so it doesn’t get wet are activities done not in order to eat the fruit on Yom Tov, but they are nevertheless permitted in order to prevent the financial loss.
+<b>And one may place a vessel beneath the drops of rain [even] on Shabbat.</b>  On Shabbat one can even put a vessel underneath drops of rain coming down from a leaky roof.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This long mishnah deals with three categories of acts that are prohibited by the rabbis on Shabbat and on Yom Tov. They are all considered to be prohibited “derabbanan”, by the rabbis and not by the Torah.  The three categories are:
+Shevut mandated rest on Shabbat.  These are activities that are prohibited because they are generally not in the spirit of the day or because by doing one of them one might come to transgress a biblical prohibition.
+Reshut optional activities. These have some aspect of mitzvah in them but can be done on other days. Therefore one doesn’t do them on Yom Tov or Shabbat.
+Mitzvah these are commandments that can be performed on other days and therefore shouldn’t be done on Shabbat.
+The main point of the mishnah is that the only actions which are allowed on Yom Tov but prohibited on Shabbat those done while preparing food.  All of the other Shabbat prohibitions still hold true.
+<b>Every [act] for which one is liable on Shabbat because of mandated rest [shevut], [or] because it is only optional [reshut], [or] even though it is a religious act [mitzvah], he is also liable on Yom Tov.<br>For the following acts he is liable because of shevut: One may not climb a tree, And one may not ride on an animal. And one may not swim in water. And one may not clap hands, nor slap [thighs], nor dance.</b>  Climbing a tree is forbidden lest one breaks a branch, which is forbidden to do on Shabbat.   Riding an animal is considered prohibited lest one while riding break a branch to use as a switch in guiding an animal.  It seems that a deeper reason for why the rabbis prohibited this was that they did not believe that riding an animal was in the spirit of Shabbat.  Swimming was prohibited lest while swimming one makes a raft on which to float. Finally, certain types of clapping, slapping of thighs and dancing were prohibited on Shabbat lest one begin to make music and then come to make a musical instrument.  We should note that some of these activities are no longer generally prohibited because the likelihood that by doing one of them one will come to transgress a more serious commandment is minimal.  In my mind the most important thing to remember is that while one follows the minutiae of Shabbat, one should also be mindful of the spirit of Shabbat. Even things that are permitted should not always be done.
+<b>For the following acts he is liable because they are only optional: One may not judge; And one may not betroth a wife, nor perform halizah, nor perform yibbum [consumate a levirate marriage].</b>  This section contains activities that have some aspect of “commandment” to them but can be done on other days. Judging, betrothing and other legal aspects of arranging various types of marriages can be done any day of the week, therefore one should not do them on Shabbat.  In my opinion, this is again because these activities are not in the “spirit of Shabbat.”  They might detract from the special sanctity of Shabbat, a day set aside.  A more technical reason why these things are prohibited is that by doing one of them one might come to write.
+<b>And for the following acts one is liable even though it is a religious act [mitzvah]: One may not dedicate [anything to the Temple], nor vow a personal valuation, nor make a vow of herem, nor set aside terumah or tithes.</b>  These acts are actually mitzvot, but still one may not perform them on Shabbat or Yom Tov because they can all be done with as much ease on other days.  The Rambam explains that donating something to the Temple is similar to engaging in business and hence one does not do so on Shabbat.  One does not separate tithes or terumah on Yom Tov or Shabbat because by doing so one “fixes” something to make it usable.  Also, this could have just as easily been done the day before.
+<b>All these things they [the rabbis said that they are forbidden] on Yom Tov, how much more so [are they forbidden] on Shabbat. There is no difference between Yom Tov and Shabbat except for the preparation of food alone.</b>  In conclusion the mishnah notes that when discussing the laws of Yom Tov the rabbis prohibited these activities, but they are nevertheless even more prohibited on Shabbat.  The mishnah reminds us that the only type of activity which is permitted on Yom Tov but not on Shabbat is something done while preparing food.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final three mishnayot of the chapter discuss Shabbat border limits, a topic which was discussed in far greater length in tractate Eruvin.  The Shabbat border limit is 2000 cubits to each side of the city. One can set up an eruv, a meal, at the end of the limit and thereby extend it another 2000 cubits in that direction. This extension only works in extending is Shabbat border limit in one direction and causes him to lose a matching amount of distance on the opposite side of the city.  Hence, one who sets up an eruv at the end of 2000 cubits on the western side of the city can now go 4000 cubits in that direction but cannot go outside the city at all on the eastern side.  Our mishnah teaches that these limits apply not only to the person himself but to his animals and his utensils as well.
+<b>A beast and utensils are [restricted to the same limits] as the feet of the owners.</b>  As stated in the introduction, just as a person cannot go past his own personal Shabbat border limit, so too the things that belong to him cannot beyond that point.
+<b>One who gives his cow over to his son or to a cowherd [to tend], they are [restricted to the same limits] as the feet of the owner.</b>  The mishnah adds that if a person gives his cow over to someone just to watch it, then the cow stays under the possession of the owner and may only go as far as the owner may go on Shabbat. Therefore, if the owner set his eruv to the west side of the city, his son or his cowherd may not take the cow outside the city on the eastern side.
+<b>Vessels which have been set apart for [the use or] one of the brothers in a house, are [restricted to the same limits] as his feet, but [those utensils] which have not been so set apart, can be taken [only] to a place where [all the brothers] may go.</b>  If a vessel (in Hebrew the word for “vessel” includes clothing, bedding and many more objects than the word connotes in English) belonged jointly to some brothers but one brother generally used it, then it can go on Shabbat to any place where that brother may go. So if that brother set his eruv to the west, that vessel can go to the west. However, if all brothers make use of the vessel than it can only go to a place where all of the brothers can go. So if one brother set his eruv to the north and one to the south then the vessel can’t leave the city at all because each brother prevents the other one from bringing the vessel to “his” side.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to deal with the Shabbat/Yom Tov border limits placed on things. Since the mishnah deals with carrying, the rules are only applicable to Yom Tov on Shabbat all carrying is prohibited.
+<b>One who borrows a vessel from his neighbor on the eve of Yom Tov, [it is restricted to the same limits] as the feet of the borrower. [But if he borrowed it] on Yom Tov, it is as the feet of the lender.</b>  If one borrows an object it is considered as if the object belongs to the borrower and therefore it can go on Yom Tov to any place where he/she may go. However, this is only true if he borrowed it the day before Yom Tov, such that when Yom Tov began the object was in his possession.  In other words, the border limits of the object are determined by the one who possessed the object when Yom Tov began.  If he borrowed it on Yom Tov then it can go only where the feet of the lender can go.
+<b>A woman who borrowed from her neighbor spices, water or salt for her dough, these are [restricted to the same limits] as the feet of both them. Rabbi Judah exempts in the case of water, because it is not substantial.</b>  In this case a woman borrows some ingredients from another woman to use them in making dough on Yom Tov. Some of the ingredients therefore belong to the lender and some belong to the borrower.  Since the ownership is mixed (like the dough) the dough can only go to a place where they both can go.  This again means that if one set an eruv to the south and one to the north, the dough cannot leave the city at all. Rabbi Judah says that if all she borrowed was water then the dough is not restricted by the lender since the water is not substantial enough.  Water is not recognized in the final product or its taste and therefore it doesn’t count towards where the dough can go.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first section of the mishnah teaches that while a live coal is considered as having substance, a flame does not have any substance.
+The second half of the mishnah deals with the restrictions on the carrying of water drawn from a well.
+<b>A live coal is [restricted to the same limits] as its owner, but a flame can be taken anywhere.</b>  A live coal, one that is burning, is considered to be an object of substance and therefore it is limited to going where its owner can go.  In contrast, a flame has no substance and therefore is not limited in where it can go.  What this means is that a person could take a lamp and light it from somewhat else’s lamp and then not be limited by the other person’s eruv.  The flame that he “takes” from another person has no substance so it is not like borrowing something from another person.
+<b>In respect of a live coal of sanctified property [one who makes use of it] is considered as having trespassed, but as for a flame [of sanctified property], one may not derive benefit from it, but [one who does] has not trespassed.</b>  One who makes non-holy use out of something dedicated to the Temple has “trespassed (me’ilah).”  He must make financial restitution and bring an asham, a guilt offering.  One who makes non-holy use out of a live coal has trespassed because a live coal has substance.  In contrast, one who makes non-holy use out of a flame has not trespassed.  Nevertheless, it is still forbidden to do so. The prohibition is “derabbanan” it is forbidden lest he trespass something with substance.
+<b>If one carries out a live coal into the public domain [on Shabbat] he is liable, but [if he carries out] a flame he is exempt.</b>  Carrying a live coal into the public domain on Shabbat counts as carrying, and hence he has transgressed.  However, carrying a flame does not count as carrying and hence he has not transgressed.  If you ask, how can you carry a flame?  (Ouch!)  The answer is that one could blow a flame from the private domain out into the public domain and that would count as carrying because it moved as a result of his force.
+<b>[The water from]: A private well is [restricted to the same limits] as its owner, And [the water from a well] belonging to the inhabitants of that town is [restricted to the same limits] as the people of that town; And [the water from a well] belonging to those who came up from Babylonia is [restricted to the same limits] as he who draws [the water].</b>  There are three types of wells referred to here. The first is that of a private person. The water in that well can go on Yom Tov wherever he can go. The second is that of a public well. This water belongs to everyone in the city and therefore it can only go where everyone can go.  This means that unless everyone who set up an eruv put it on the same side of the city, the water wouldn’t be able to leave the city. The third type of well is one of the public wells dug for the benefit of the people coming back from Babylonia after the exile.  These wells can be used by any traveler.  They can go anywhere that the person who fills them up can go. The difference between these wells and those shared by the people of a city is that the latter type is jointly owned by the people of the town whereas the former are not owned by anyone.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with a person whose produce is in another town and he wishes to retrieve it on Yom Tov.
+<b>If one has his produce in another town, and the inhabitants of that city made an eruv in order to bring to him some of his produce, they may not bring it to him.</b>  In the case under discussion here the inhabitants of the other city made an eruv that would allow them to get to the city of the owner of the produce.  Nevertheless, they may not bring him his produce because his produce is limited by where he can go and since he didn’t set up an eruv to get to the other city, it can’t come to him.  Again, a person’s things are limited to going where he may go.
+<b>But if he himself made an eruv, his produce is like himself.</b>  If the owner of the produce set up an eruv then he can go to the other city and bring his produce back with him.  It is irrelevant whether the people of the other city set up an eruv since they are not the owners of the produce.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first section of the last mishnah of Betzah deals with guests taking food home with them. The last part of the mishnah deals with giving water to animals.
+<b>If one invited guests to his home, they may not take away with them [any] portions unless he [the host] had assigned for them their portions on the eve of Yom Tov.</b>  In mishnaic times the portion of meat that one received at a dinner party was considered very important.  Important guests might receive bigger portions. Sometimes people wouldn’t eat their entire portion and they would be allowed to bring home the leftovers.  After all, with no refrigeration the host wouldn’t be able to do anything with the leftovers in any case. Our mishnah teaches that on Yom Tov guests can’t take their leftovers home with them unless the host gave them ownership over the portions before Yom Tov began. In this way, the portions belong to the guests when Yom Tov begins and they can then go as far as they can go.
+<b>One may not give drink and then slaughter wilderness animals, but one may give drink and slaughter household animals. The following are household animals: they that spend the night in town. Pasture animals are they that spend the night in pasture ground.</b>  Animals that pasture out in the wild are muktzeh they have not been set aside before Yom Tov for use on Yom Tov. Hence one cannot give them water or slaughter them on Yom Tov.  However, one can give water to and slaughter household animals because they are automatically “set aside” to be slaughtered. The mishnah goes on to define what household animals are and what pasture animals are. Congratulations!  We have finished Betzah. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Mishnah Betzah was all about the laws of Yom Tov.  I think at this point it would be worth it to think about how important the Jewish holidays are to the Jewish people.  The matzot and seders of Pesah, sitting in the sukkah on Sukkot, waving the lulav and receiving the Torah on Shavuot these are some of the most important parts of the Jewish year. They remind us of our shared history and hopefully our shared destiny.  Unfortunately I think that the sanctity of Yom Tov has eroded substantially in many of our communities.  I hope that learning this tractate will help inspire you to increase your own personal commitment and to help lead others to increase their commitment as well. And again, as always, congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah.  We are getting close to having finished half of the Mishnah.  May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more! Tomorrow we begin Rosh Hashanah.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Beitzah/English/merged.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,375 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Beitzah
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה ביצה
+merged
+https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Beitzah
+This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
+-Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+-http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Beitzah
+
+Introduction
+
+Tractate Betzah (Egg) teaches the laws governing Yom Tov (the festival), which means the first and last days of Pesah, the first day of Sukkot, Shmini Atzeret and Shavuot.  It is usually called “Betzah” after the first word of the first mishnah, although it was alternatively called Tractate Yom Tov.  
+The Torah does not provide much information about the special laws of Yom Tov, those which would distinguish it from Shabbat.  They are mostly contained in Exodus 12:16, “And on the first day you shall celebrate a sacred occasion and on the last day, a sacred occasion; no work at all shall be done on them; only what every person is to eat, that alone may be prepared by you.”  In other words, Yom Tov is like Shabbat in that work is prohibited, with one major exception—one can prepare food.  Although this verse relates specifically to Pesah, it was interpreted as referring to all of the festival days. 
+Not all food preparations were permitted on Yom Tov.  The general explanation is that all preparatory work that could have been done before Yom Tov without any loss to the quality of the food must be done before Yom Tov.  For instance, one cannot harvest wheat on Yom Tov, but one can knead and bake dough.  One cannot trap an animal on Yom Tov but one can slaughter, skin, salt and cut up the meat.  Lighting a fire is permitted, as is carrying from domain to domain because these actions are typically involved in preparing food. 
+One of the reasons that one was allowed to prepare food on Yom Tov was that Yom Tov was supposed to be a big celebration.  The festival was supposed to be sanctified by eating and drinking and without being able to prepare fresh food (remember they had no refrigeration), the celebration would be lessened.
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first part of the first mishnah of Betzah is about its namesake, an egg born on Yom Tov. The second part is associated with the first part because both contain debates between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel, and in both Bet Hillel rules strictly.
+<b>An egg laid on Yom Tov: Bet Shammai say: it may be eaten [on the same day]; But Bet Hillel say: it may not be eaten [until the day is over].</b>  According to Bet Shammai, just as it is permitted to slaughter a chicken on Yom Tov, it is also permitted to eat an egg that is laid on Yom Tov.  In other words, the chicken and everything in it is permitted on Yom Tov.  In contrast, Bet Hillel hold that while the chicken itself is permitted, the egg that is laid is prohibited.  The egg is what is called “nolad” it is born, or new, something that was not there when Yom Tov began and hence was not set aside for use at the beginning of Yom Tov. This prohibition is similar to muktzeh the idea that something that was not set aside before Yom Tov to be used on Yom Tov may not be used on Yom Tov.
+<b>Bet Shammai say: [the quantity of] leaven is of the size of an olive and leavened bread is of the size of a date; But Bet Hillel say: both are of the size of an olive.</b>  Exodus 13:7 says, “No leavened bread shall be seen with you and no leaven shall be found in all your territory.”  The verse mentions two things:  the leavening agent (starter dough) and the leavened bread, both of which are prohibited.  According to Bet Shammai the point of the verse is to teach that the two prohibitions are different.  Leaven is prohibited at the size of an olive, whereas leavened bread is prohibited at a larger amount, the size of a date.  Beth Hillel hold that in both cases an olive’s worth is prohibited.  Note that smaller amounts are not permitted either.  A smaller amount is still forbidden but one who consumes a smaller amount has not transgressed the Biblical prohibition of leaven or leavened bread on Passover.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with slaughtering animals on Yom Tov.
+<b>He who slaughters a wild animal or a bird on a festival   Bet Shammai says: he may dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood], but Bet Hillel says: he may not slaughter unless he has had earth made ready.</b>  According to Leviticus 17:13, when one slaughters an undomesticated animal or any type of fowl the blood must be poured out of the animal and covered with earth.  One who slaughters an undomesticated animal or fowl on the festival has a problem.  Although it is permitted to slaughter, if he doesn’t have any prepared earth to cover the blood newly dug earth is “muktzeh” and cannot be used.  Nevertheless, Bet Shammai permits one to dig up new earth and cover the blood.  Bet Hillel says one cannot slaughter unless one has earth already prepared.
+<b>But they agree that if he did slaughter he should dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood, and] that the ashes of a stove count as being prepared for the holiday.</b>  However, they all agree that if he had already slaughtered the animal, even though Bet Hillel says he should not have done so without already prepared earth, he may still dig new earth to cover the blood.  This is because the principle of muktzeh is only rabbinically ordained and the obligation to cover the blood is Biblical.  When one has two competing commandments, one rabbinic and one Biblical, the latter takes precedence.  The two houses also agree that the ashes in the oven are considered prepared for the festival, in other words they are not muktzeh.  Since people used these ashes for various purposes, we can make the assumption that before the festival began he knew in his mind that he would use these ashes.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues with two more debates between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel over what types of food preparations one can do on Yom Tov. Today’s mishnah again deals with muktzeh, the concept that something that was designated for use on Yom Tov or Shabbat may not subsequently be used then.  The specific topic is fetching pigeon-doves from a dovecote in order to eat them on Yom Tov.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may not carry a ladder [on Yom Tov] from one dovecote to another, but he may incline it from one pigeon-hole to another. But Bet Hillel permits [this].</b>  In ancient Israel dovecotes were typically underground caves with many holes carved into the walls, each hole housing a dove.  There would be ladders inside the dovecote so that the owner could reach the doves situated high up.  According to Bet Shammai one may not move a ladder from one dovecote to another on Yom Tov, however one may move the ladder from one hole to the other within the dovecote.  Bet Hillel is more lenient in this case and permits one to move the ladder even from one dovecote to the other.  One cogent explanation for this debate is that Bet Shammai prohibits moving the ladder from one dovecote to another lest it look like he is bringing the ladder to the shop to get it fixed.  Bet Hillel is not concerned since everyone should know why he would be moving the ladder.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may not take [doves] unless he has shaken [them] the day before [Yom Tov]: But Bet Hillel says: he stands and declares: this one or that one I am taking.</b>  Doves that were not set aside to be slaughtered and then eaten on Yom Tov are muktzeh and may not be used on Yom Tov.  However, if they are designated before Yom Tov to be slaughtered on Yom Tov, one may use them.  In this mishnah Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate how one designates before Yom Tov that he will slaughter certain birds on the next day.  According to Bet Shammai one must designate the birds by physically lifting each one up and moving it around. This demonstrates that he intends to use that specific pigeon the next day (if only the pigeon knew that tomorrow won’t be such a Yom Tov for him).  Bet Hillel says that the designation is verbal he stands in front of the pigeons and says that he will use these pigeons (good thing they don’t know Hebrew).
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that in order to slaughter and eat doves on Yom Tov one must designate them for use before Yom Tov begins.  Otherwise they are muktzeh.  Our mishnah discusses what happens if he designated doves before Yom Tov but then is not sure that the doves that he finds in the nest or dovecote are the same ones.
+<b>If he designated black [doves] but found [on Yom Tov] white ones, white [doves] but found black ones, two but found three, they are [all] forbidden.</b>  If the doves which he finds are a different color from those that he designated it is obvious that they are not the same doves that he designated the previous day.  If he designated two doves and there are now three there, one of the doves is certainly muktzeh.  The problem is that he doesn’t know which one because all three look alike (I wonder if doves think all humans look alike).  Hence they are all prohibited.
+<b>[If he designated] three but found two, they are permitted.</b>  If he designated three but finds only two we can assume that one flew off and that the other two are the same ones he designated.  Hence they are permitted.
+<b>[If he designated doves] inside the nest and found them in front of the nest, they are forbidden. But if none were there except these, they are permitted.</b>  If the doves are found outside of the nest but he designated them in the nest, then they may not be the same doves.  If there is another nearby dovecote then he must be concerned about this possibility and he may not use those doves.  However, if there are no nearby dovecotes then he can assume that these doves just found their way out and he may use them.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues with four more debates between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel on the laws of Yom Tov.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may not remove shutters on Yom Tov. But Bet Hillel permits even to return them to their place.</b>  In mishnaic times the shutters which were used to close windows and closets were removable.  Bet Shammai forbade removing them because they considered this similar to tearing down a building, a forbidden labor on Shabbat and Yom Tov.  All the more so they would hold that putting the shutters back in their place is forbidden because it is similar to “building”.  Bet Hillel holds that it is permitted even to put the shutters back in their place.  Bet Hillel’s general principle is that if an activity is permitted because it is done in the preparation of food, then it is permitted even when it is done for another purpose.  Removing a shutter to take food out of a closet is permitted therefore removing shutters is always permitted, even if it is not for the sake of removing food.   Bet Hillel even allows returning the shutter to its place, because if it were prohibited people would hesitate to remove them, knowing that they would not be able to put them back in their place afterwards.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may not take a pestle even to cut up meat on it. But Bet Hillel permits [it].</b>  A pestle is a wooden board used to grind things which cannot be ground on Yom Tov because they can be ground the day before.  Bet Shammai says that the pestle cannot even be used for things that can be done on Yom Tov such as cutting up meat.  The pestle is completely muktzeh because its general use is for something that is prohibited.  Bet Hillel disagrees and holds that even though it is usually used during the week for things that cannot be done on Yom Tov, it may be used on Yom Tov for something that is permitted.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may not place a hide in front of one who treads upon it nor may he even lift it up unless there is an olive’s worth of flesh on it. But Bet hillel permit it.</b>  Once one has slaughtered and skinned an animal Bet Shammai prohibits one from giving the hide over to someone who will tread on it to prepare it for processing.  Indeed, Bet Shammiai add that he may not even touch the removed hide. Since the hide is not food, it becomes muktzeh.   One may touch the hide only if it has some flesh on it, because then it is considered “food.”  Bet Hillel however allows one to give a hide over to someone who will tread on it since if this was not permitted people wouldn’t slaughter animals on Yom Tov because the valuable hides would be ruined by waiting until the next day to begin working on them.  This would result in a reduction of the rejoicing on Yom Tov because there would be no fresh meat.  It is noteworthy that Bet Hillel allows activities that would seemingly be prohibited if they contribute to the celebration of Yom Tov.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may not carry out an infant or a lulav or a Torah scroll into the public domain. But Bet Hillel permit [it].</b>  According to Bet Shammai carrying something through the public domain is permitted on Yom Tov only in a case where one carries in order to prepare or eat food.  Carrying a child, a lulav or a Torah scroll is not done for eating and hence it is prohibited.  Bet Hillel again permits this.  Since carrying is permitted in some cases (for food) it is permitted in other cases as well.  However, Bet Hillel limits this to cases which involve a mitzvah or some other benefit.  Taking a child for a stroll is pleasurable (as long as they’re not screaming their little heads off).  The lulav and the Torah scroll are for mitzvot.  To carry something with no purpose is however forbidden even according to Bet Hillel.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In this mishnah Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate whether one may carry to a priest hallah and priestly gifts on Yom Tov.  Hallah is dough which one must separate from the dough that one kneads to bake bread (Numbers 15:17-21).  Priestly gifts refers to the parts of a sacrificial animal which must be given to the priest (Deuteronomy 18:3).
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may not take hallah or priestly gifts to a priest on Yom Tov, whether they were separated on the day before or on that day. But Bet Hillel permits it.</b>  In this first section we learn that Bet Shammai prohibits carrying the hallah and priestly gifts to the priest, whether they were separated on that day or earlier, whereas Bet Hillel permits this.  The reasons for this debate come in the following mishnah.
+<b>Bet Shammai said them: An analogy [supports our view]: hallah and priestly gifts go to the priest and terumah is [likewise] goes to the priest; just as one may not take [to the priest] terumah so one may not take [to him] priestly gifts. Bet Hillel said to them: No! If you say in the case of terumah which he has not the right to separate, will you say [the same] with respect to priestly gifts which he is permitted to separate?</b>  We now learn Bet Shammai’s reasoning.  They compare hallah and priestly gifts to terumah, the portion of one’s produce that one separates and gives to the priest.  Terumah may not be separated on Yom Tov because it can be separated from one’s produce on the day before.  Since one is not allowed to separate terumah on Yom Tov it is also forbidden to carry it to the priest.  Bet Shammai reasons that the same holds true for the other things which one gives to a priest they too cannot be carried to the priest on Yom Tov. Bet Hillel critiques this analogy.  One cannot carry terumah to a priest precisely because one cannot separate it on Yom Tov.  However, one may separate hallah and priestly gifts on Yom Tov and therefore one is allowed to carry them to the priest as well.  The reason that one may separate hallah and priestly gifts on Yom Tov is that one can slaughter an animal and knead dough on Yom Tov, and when one does so the gifts and hallah must be separated.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with grinding spices on Yom Tov.  Everyone agrees that they can be ground.  The debate is over whether they can be done in the normal way or they must be done differently somehow.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: spices may be crushed with a wooden pestle and salt in a small cruse or with a wooden ladle.</b>  According to Bet Shammai when one crushes spices on Yom Tov they have to be crushed differently.  Normally spices are crushed with a stone pestle on Yom Tov they need to use a wooden pestle.  When crushing salt he shouldn’t use a pestle at all, rather he should use a small earthenware cruse and a wooden soup ladle.
+<b>But Bet Hillel says: spices may be crushed in the usual way with a stone pestle and salt with a wooden pestle.</b>  Bet Hillel holds that since it is permitted to crush spices and grind salt on Yom Tov, it is also permissible to crush them in a normal fashion spices with a stone pestle and salt with a wooden pestle.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with how one separates out the dirt and inedible parts from a pile of beans on Yom Tov.  “Sorting” is one of the prohibited labors on Shabbat, but it is permitted on Yom Tov because it is done in preparation of food.
+<b>One who sorts beans on Yom Tov:<br>Bet Shammai says: he must sort the edible parts and eat [them immediate].</b>  According to Bet Shammai he is not really allowed to sort out the beans and make two piles, one of edible beans and one of dirt and other such yucky stuff.  Rather all that he is allowed to do is sort out the beans and either eat them immediately, or put them in water to cook them if they are the type of bean that requires cooking.  Again we see that Bet Shammai allows one to prepare food on Yom Tov but requires it to be done in a very minimal way, and with some significant differences from how it is done during the week.
+<b>But Bet Hillel says: he may sort as usual in his lap or in a basket or in a dish; but not with a board or in a sifter or in a sieve.</b>  Bet Hillel allows one to sort beans but only if he does so in a more make-shift fashion, using his lap a basket or a dish.  He may not use the instruments that he regularly uses during the week, vessels such as a board, a sifter or a sieve.
+<b>Rabban Gamaliel says: he may even rinse them [in water] and skim off [the refuse].</b>  Rabban Gamaliel is the most lenient of the opinions in the mishnah.  He allows one to sort beans even by rinsing the beans in water and skimming off the refuse that floats to the surface.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In our mishnah the two houses debate what types of food gifts one person may send to his neighbor on Yom Tov.  The problem with gifts would occur if they cannot be used on Yom Tov itself.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may not send [gifts to a neighbor] on Yom Tov except portions [of food, ready to be eaten].</b>  Bet Shammai says that one shouldn’t send gifts on Yom Tov unless they are ready to be eaten immediately.  Thus one could send pieces of meat or fish that have already been prepared.
+<b>But Bet Hillel says: one may send cattle, game and poultry whether alive or slaughtered. One may [also] send wine, oil, flour or pulse but not grain.</b>  Bet Hillel extends this even more and allows one to send whole live animals to one’s friends, because he could slaughter the animals and eat them on Yom Tov.   Bet Hillel also permits one to send other food items to one’s friend on Yom Tov. The only exception is grain.  Since grain cannot be ground into flour on Yom Tov, because one can grind it the day before, one cannot send it as a gift on Yom Tov.
+<b>And Rabbi Shimon permits [even] grain.</b>  Rabbi Shimon continues the trend to leniency by allowing one to send even grain.  Although one cannot grind the grain on Yom Tov, he is allowed to cook the grain whole and eat it as cereal.  In other words, even grain is edible on Yom Tov.
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final mishnah of chapter one discusses sending clothing as a gift on Yom Tov.
+<b>One may send clothes, whether they are sewn up or not sewn up, and even though there is kil'ayim (mixed wool and in them, provided they are necessary for the festival.</b>  On Yom Tov one may send even unfinished clothing which hasn’t been fully sewn because it can be used as a covering, such as a blanket.  One can even send clothing that is forbidden to wear because it has a mixture of wool and linen (kilayim, also called shatnez).  Although it is forbidden to wear such clothing, it is permitted to hang it up as a decoration and in certain cases to lie on top of it.  In other words, as long as there is some potential use to the clothing, he may use it on Yom Tov.
+<b>But [one may] not [send] nailed sandals nor unfinished shoes.</b>  Sandals that have nails in them were not worn on Yom Tov.  These seem to have been some sort of work shoe and since one doesn’t work on Yom Tov, one can’t wear them. Since they cannot be worn, they cannot be sent to friends either.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: not even white shoes because they [still] require an artisan [to blacken them].</b>  Rabbi Judah says even shoes that are only missing the “finishing touches”, such as white shoes that need to be blackened, cannot be sent on Yom Tov because they are not generally worn.
+<b>This is the general rule: whatever may be used on Yom Tov may [also] be sent [on Yom Tov].</b>  This is the general rule that summarizes the entire mishnah. If the object could be used as is on Yom Tov, then it can’t be sent.  But if it is missing some step in its preparation then it may not be sent because it is not generally used.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with preparing food on Yom Tov to use on Shabbat which falls the day after.  While cooking on Yom Tov is permitted, it is only permitted to cook on Yom Tov for that day.
+This mishnah discusses what is called “eruv tavshilin.”  This is a type of “eruv” whereby one begins to cook a meal for Shabbat on the day before Yom Tov which falls before Shabbat.  Beginning to cook this meal allows him to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbat.  This halakhah is still observed to this day, and if you look in siddurim you will even find a blessing which one recites before setting aside the food.
+<b>Yom Tov which fell on the eve of Shabbat, one should not begin to cook on Yom Tov for Shabbat.</b>  Although one is allowed to cook on Yom Tov, one may not cook food on Yom Tov that will be eaten on the next day, even if the next day is Shabbat.  We should note that this would have presented a bigger practical problem in the ancient world than it does today.  They did not have preservatives or refrigeration (or those fantastic lock-top plastic containers) and hence it would not have been simple to prepare food for Shabbat on Thursday.  Therefore, the remainder of the mishnah seems to present some ways of avoiding this problem.
+<b>But he may cook for Yom Tov, and if any is left over it is left over for Shabbat.</b>  If he cooks on Yom Tov with the intention of eating some of the food on that very day, he may eat on Shabbat whatever food was left over. It would even seem possible to make a large meal on Yom Tov knowing that there would be leftovers and to eat those leftovers on Shabbat.
+<b>And he may prepare a dish on the eve of Yom Tov and rely upon it [to prepare food] for Shabbat.</b>  This is the section that deals with “eruv tavshilin.”  A person may begin to make a meal on the day before Yom Tov and then on Yom Tov “continue” to cook the meal.  In this way he will not be starting to cook a meal on Yom Tov for Shabbat but rather just continuing a meal that he already began to cook the day before.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: two dishes. But Bet Hillel says: one dish. Yet they [both] agree that a fish and an egg upon it are [considered as] two dishes.</b>  The two houses debate how many different food items he needs to begin to prepare on the day before Yom Tov in order for it to count as an “eruv tavshilin.”  According to Bet Shammai a meal consists of at least two dishes therefore he must begin to cook two dishes for it to count.  Bet Hillel thinks that a meal need consist of only one dish and hence one dish is sufficient for eruv tavshilin.  Bet Shammai however is lenient in what counts as two dishes even a fish with an egg on top of it counts as two dishes.
+<b>[If] he ate it or it was lost, he may not begin to cook [relying] on it. But if he left over any [small] portion of it, he may rely on it [to cook] for Shabbat.</b>  If the eruv tavshilin is eaten or lost before he begins to cook for Shabbat, then he may not rely on it to begin cooking a meal for Shabbat.  However, if even a little bit of the eruv still remains before he begins cooking he may rely on it to cook for Shabbat.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In mishnaic times it was customary for people who observed the laws of purity to immerse vessels and for people to immerse before Yom Tov so that everything would be pure.  In our mishnah Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate whether or not one can immerse on Shabbat in preparation for a Yom Tov which falls on Sunday.
+<b>If [Yom Tov] fell on the day after Shabbat:<br>Bet Shammai says: one must immerse everything [unclean] before Shabbat.</b>  According to Bet Shammai both vessels and people must be immersed before Shabbat.  They hold that it is forbidden to immerse on Shabbat.
+<b>But Bet Hillel says: vessels [must be immersed] before Shabbat but people [may immerse] on Shabbat.</b>  Bet Hillel holds that it is permitted to immerse on Shabbat but that one should nevertheless immerse the vessels before Shabbat.  The reason not to immerse the vessels on Shabbat is that by immersing the vessels he makes them usable. This is like “completing a vessel” which is forbidden on Shabbat.  However, when a person immerses him/herself it might just look like she/he is washing, and hence it is permitted.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to deal with immersing things on Yom Tov in order to purify them.
+<b>They agree that one may effect surface contact for [unclean] water in a stone vessel in order to purify it, but one may not immerse [it];</b>  Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that one may purify water on Shabbat that falls the day before Yom Tov. Drinking water was purified by putting it into a stone vessel (a stone vessel cannot become impure). The vessel was then immersed in a pure mikveh until the top of the vessel just touched the water from the mikveh. The reason that a stone vessel was used was to make sure that this was not done in order to purify the vessel, which as we learned yesterday, both Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel prohibit. They both agree that one should not fully immerse the vessel because that would be similar to immersing an unclean vessel in order to purify it.  In other words, only the water may be purified but not the vessels.  This is also taken to mean that one should not do this with a wooden vessel because wooden vessels become impure through the contact with the unclean water and then they would require immersion.
+<b>And one may immerse [to change] from one intention to another or from one company to another.</b>  If a vessel is already pure it will still need to be immersed if it is going to be used for a “holier” purpose. For instance, if one immersed his vessels to purify them with the intent of using them for non-sacred things, such as regular oil, and then decided he wanted to use them to make terumah wine, he needs to immerse the vessels again.  Our mishnah teaches that this is permitted on Shabbat before Yom Tov because the vessels were in any case pure before they were immersed. A person who is pure and is eating non-sacred food with one eating company and then wants to eat terumah with another company must first immerse.  Again, this immersion is permitted on Yom Tov even according to Bet Shammai because the person was already pure.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with bringing certain sacrifices on Yom Tov and laying one’s hands upon them (see Leviticus 3:2).
+<b>Bet Shammai says: one may bring peace-offerings [on Yom Tov] but may not lay [hands] upon them, but one may not bring burnt-offerings [on Yom Tov].</b>  One of the sacrifices which a person would bring on Yom Tov was a peace-offering.  Part of the sacrifice would be offered on the altar, part would be eaten by the priests and part would be eaten by those who brought the sacrifice. Since this sacrifice is eaten, Bet Shammai allows one to offer it on Yom Tov.  As we have learned before one is allowed to prepare food on Yom Tov, and this includes offering edible sacrifices. However, Bet Shammai holds that one cannot lay his hands on the sacrifice because leaning on an animal is considered using the animal and this is prohibited on Yom Tov.  Bet Shammai holds that the laying of the hands must be done the day before. Furthermore, Bet Shammai does not allow the sacrifice of burnt-offerings on Yom Tov, because burnt offerings are completely consumed on the altar.  Since they are not eaten they cannot be offered.  One who wants to bring a burnt-offering would have to do so on Hol Hamoed, the intermediate days of the festival.
+<b>Bet Hillel says: one may bring peace-offerings and burnt-offerings and also lay hands upon them.</b>  Bet Hillel allows the laying of the hands on the animal since this is part of the sacrificial process. The Talmud also explains that according to Bet Hillel the laying of the hands must be done right before it is offered, and therefore he could not do it before Yom Tov.  Bet Hillel also allows burnt offerings to be brought even though they are not eaten, since they are brought in fulfillment of the commandments of the festival.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+It is permitted to make a fire on Yom Tov in order that one can cook food.  Our mishnah discusses making a fire so that one can heat up water to wash one’s feet.
+<b>Bet Shammai says: a man may not heat water for his feet unless it is also fit for drinking.</b>  Bet Shammai holds that labors that are permitted on Yom Tov because they are necessary for preparing food are permitted only if they are done in the preparation of food.  One may not heat water just to wash one’s body. The only leniency for which Bet Shammai allows is that if one heats up water that is fit for drinking, one can also use it for other purposes.  This is similar to cooking on Yom Tov for the day after.  If one can eat some of the food cooked on Yom Tov, one is allowed to cook, knowing that there will be leftovers.
+<b>But Bet Hillel permits it.</b>  Bet Hillel generally holds that labors permitted in order to prepare food are permitted even if they are done not to prepare food.  Hence, heating water is permitted whether one does so for drinking water or to wash one’s feet.
+<b>A man may make a fire and warm himself at it.</b>  The final clause in the mishnah seems to also go according to Bet Hillel.  It is not only permitted to heat water in order to wash one’s feet, one may even make a fire just to keep warm.  The reason we might have thought that Bet Hillel prohibits this is that in this case there is no water being heated, water which one could claim one might drink in time of great thirst.  This section lets us know that Bet Hillel allows one to make a fire on Yom Tov even if there is no chance that it will lead to food preparation.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Mishnah six contains three cases in which Rabban Gamaliel ruled like Beth Shammai in connection with the laws of Yom Tov.  This mishnah is also found in its entirety in tractate Eduyot 3:10.
+This mishnah lists three cases in which Rabban Gamaliel ruled strictly, as had Bet Shammai.  Although later Sages generally ruled like Beth Hillel, there were some exceptions, and some of those are listed in our mishnah.
+<b>In three cases Rabban Gamaliel was strict like the words of Beth Shammai.<br>One may not cover up hot food on Yom Tov for Shabbat;</b>  As we learned above, it is forbidden to prepare food on Yom Tov for Shabbat, since that would be considered an insult to the honor of the festival.   In our mishnah we learn that Bet Shammai and Rabban Gamaliel prohibit one from hiding food in a warm place to preserve its heat for Shabbat (see Shabbat 4:1). This is true even if he made an “eruv tavshilin” because in this case everyone can tell that he is putting food aside just for Shabbat.  In contrast, when one cooks, one might be cooking to eat the food on Yom Tov.  Bet Hillel would allow one to put food in something that preserves its warmth.  For a somewhat different explanation see my commentary on Eduyou 3:10.
+<b>And one may not join together a lamp on a festival;</b>  The Talmud explains that this is a case where a lamp made of several parts breaks on Yom Tov. Rabban Gamaliel forbids one to fix it, since this is a type of “building” which is forbidden on the Sabbath.  Beth Hillel holds that there is no prohibition of “building” with regards to erecting vessels, and therefore this is permitted.
+<b>And one may not bake [on Yom] thick loaves but only wafer-cakes.</b>  Rabban Gamaliel holds that it is forbidden to bake large loaves on Yom Tov, and that only thin loaves are permitted.  This is meant to prevent one from making too much bread on the festival, lest he make some for after the festival.  Beth Hillel holds that it is permitted to bake large loaves, since bread cooks better when the oven is full.  Furthermore, Bet Hillel in general is far more lenient when it comes to cooking on Yom Tov.
+<b>Rabban Gamaliel said:  “In all their days, my father’s house never baked large loaves but only wafer-cakes.” They said to him: “What can we do with regards to your father’s house, for they were strict in respect to themselves but were lenient towards Israel to let them bake both large loaves and even charcoal-roasted loaves.”</b>  The final section of the mishnah contains some interaction between Rabban Gamaliel and the other sages, who hold like Beth Hillel. Rabban Gamaliel testifies that his father’s house indeed acted in this manner, and only baked wafer-cakes on the festival.  The other sages accept this testimony of Rabban Gamaliel as being an accurate description of what Rabban Gamaliel’s father’s house used to do, but they understand its significance differently.  The sages say that Rabban Gamaliel’s father’s house was strict upon themselves, but allowed the rest of Israel to cook large loaves, even charcoal roasted loaves which are very difficult to make.  The strict actions of Rabban Gamaliel’s father’s house were only meant for themselves and were not meant to set precedent for everyone else.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In mishnah six we learned of three cases where Rabban Gamaliel was strict like Beth Shammai.  In mishnah seven we learn three cases where he adopted a more lenient position than the other Sages.
+<b>Also he declared three decisions of a lenient character:<br>One may sweep up [on a festival] between the couches,</b>  In the time of the Mishnah, during formal meals people would recline on couches on the ground and eat off personal tables which were more like trays.  According to Rabban Gamaliel one can sweep up between the couches after the meal on Yom Tov.  The Sages forbid this for fear that one might fill in a hole that is in the floor, which could be considered a form of building, which is forbidden on the Sabbath and Yom Tov.
+<b>And put spices [on the coals] on a festival;</b>  As we have learned many times already, cooking food is allowed on Yom Tov.  Rabban Gamaliel allowed people to put spices on coals, which would make a pleasant scent.  Even though this is not cooking food, it is permitted since it is still a bodily pleasure.  The sages forbid doing so since not all people are equally accustomed to put spices on coals after a meal.  Cooking food is permitted because everyone eats; putting spices on coals is prohibited because this is not a practice in which all classes of people engage.
+<b>And roast a kid whole on the night of Passover. But the sages forbid them.</b>  When there was a Temple in Jerusalem, people would roast kids (lambs, not the human kind) as Passover sacrifices on the day before Passover and eat them at night.  When the Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. sacrifices could no longer be offered.  Nevertheless, Rabban Gamaliel permitted people to make roasted kids at their own seders.  The other Sages forbid this, lest someone think that they were eating sacrificial meat outside of Jerusalem (for more on this topic see Pesahim 7:1).
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Mishnah twelve contains three cases where Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah was more lenient than the other Sages.  We should note that not all of these sections deal with the laws of Yom Tov.
+<b>Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah allows three things and the Sages forbid them:<br>His cow used to go out with the strap which she had between her horns;</b>  It is forbidden to carry things in the public domain on Shabbat.  This is true even for a person’s animal, since it is forbidden to make one’s animal perform work on the Sabbath.  Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah allowed his cow to go out with a strap between its horns, since this strap was only an adornment and therefore he did not consider it “work”.  In the same way a person can wear clothing in the public domain and that is not considered carrying.  However, the Sages forbid cows from carrying anything, since most cows do not do so.  Furthermore, if others were to see this they would think that it is permitted for an animal to work on the Sabbath.  (See also Shabbat 5:4).
+<b>One may curry cattle on a festival;</b>  Currying is a type of combing done with a sharp metal comb.  Rabbi Eleazar permits a person to curry an animal on the festival, even though that might cause a wound.  Rabbi Eleazar permits this since even if he does cause a wound he did not intend to do so and unintentionally performed work is permitted on Shabbat and Yom Tov.
+<b>And one may grind pepper in its own mill.</b>  Rabbi Elazar holds that grinding pepper is permitted on Yom Tov because it is done in preparation of food, even if the grinding is done in a large mill.  The sages however allow the grinding of pepper only in a small mill, one which will produce less ground pepper and that is easier.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: one may not curry cattle on a festival, because it may cause a wound, but one may comb them.</b>  Rabbi Judah states that currying is forbidden since it will cause a wound, but combing with a wooden comb is permitted since it will not cause a wound.
+<b>But the Sages say: one may not curry them, and one may not even comb them.</b>  The Sages rule even more strictly.  Even combing is forbidden, lest by permitting combing one might assume that currying is also permitted.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is brought here on account of section three in yesterday’s mishnah which dealt with using a pepper-mill on Yom Tov.  As an aside, the mishnah teaches the susceptibility of a pepper-mill to impurities.
+<b>A pepper-mill is susceptible to impurity on account of [it consisting of] three [separate] utensils; on account of a receptacle, on account of a metal utensil and on account of a sifting utensil.</b> A pepper-mill has three separate parts. Our mishnah teaches that each part is itself considered a “vessel” and therefore each part on its own can receive impurities.  If one of the parts should break, while it can no longer become impure, because broken vessels are not receptive to impurities, the other two parts can still become impure. The bottom part of the pepper-mill is a wooden receptacle for the ground pepper.  All vessels which have a receptacle are susceptible to impurity. The top part is made of metal. This is the part that grinds the pepper.  It is susceptible to impurity because it is metal and all metal vessels are susceptible to impurity, even if they don’t have a receptacle. The middle part of the pepper-mill sifts the ground pepper.  Some commentators explain that since some of the pepper gets stuck here, this part is also considered to be a receptacle and hence susceptible to impurity.
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is here because of its connection with the previous mishnah, and not because of any connection with the laws of Yom Tov.  It continues to deal with the impurity of vessels.
+<b>A child’s cart is susceptible to the impurity of midras, and it may be handled on Shabbat, and it is dragged along only on matting.</b>  A child’s cart is one that a small child would push around while learning how to walk (today these make sounds and have spinning things to keep your child entertained while you fold the laundry).  Since the cart is made to lean upon, it can receive a type of impurity called “midras.”   “Midras” means pressure.  A zav or a zavah (a man or woman with an abnormal genital discharge) who steps, sits, lies or leans upon this cart, in other words applies bodily pressure to the cart, will render it impure. This type of impurity is derived from Leviticus 15:4. The cart may be handled on Shabbat and on Yom Tov.  It is not muktzeh.  However, it is forbidden to drag it along the ground because it will make grooves in the ground.  This is a forbidden labor on Shabbat and on Yom Tov which is derived from the forbidden labor of plowing.  The only way to use it is to drag it on some type of matting.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: no vessels may be dragged along [the ground] except a wagon because it [only] presses [the earth] down.</b>  Rabbi Judah holds that the cart is the one type of vessel that may be dragged on the ground on Shabbat.  All other vessels when dragged will create grooves in the ground.  The cart when dragged will only press down the ground, without creating grooves.  Hence, your little toddler can push his little cart knowing that he is not violating Shabbat.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with catching fish, fowl or game on Yom Tov.  While slaughtering an animal is permitted on Yom Tov because it is done in the preparation of food, catching is not permitted because it could have been done the day before.  Our mishnah defines what is considered “catching.”  As an aside, the word in Hebrew for “catching” or “trapping” animals, fish or fowl is the same word as for hunting.  However, I have translated the word as “catching” because hunting, that is killing the animal while catching it, is not allowed.
+<b>One may not catch fish from a fishpond on Yom Tov nor give them food,</b>  While fish in a pond are already to a certain extent trapped in a small enclosure, they still must be caught in order to eat them.  Since catching a fish from a fish pond is still considered catching it is therefore forbidden on Yom Tov.  It is forbidden to feed these fish lest by doing so he come to catch one of them.
+<b>But one may catch game or fowl from animal enclosures and one may put food before them.</b>  However, an animal which is trapped in a small enclosure is considered to already have been caught and hence one may “catch” such an animal or fowl on Yom Tov. Since it is permitted to catch them, he may also put food in front of them.
+<b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: not all enclosures are alike. This is the general rule: anything that still needs to be trapped is forbidden but anything that need not be trapped is permitted.</b>  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel points out that not all enclosures are alike. Fish in a bucket are basically already caught, whereas a deer in a very large pen is not caught. The general rule is that anything that still needs to be caught may not be caught on Yom Tov.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that one may not hunt (trap) animals on Yom Tov because he could do it the day before. Today we learn about taking animals out of traps on Yom Tov when the traps were set before Yom Tov.
+<b>Traps for wild animals, birds or fish which were set on the eve of Yom Tov, one may not take from them on Yom Tov unless he knows that they were [already] caught on the eve of Yom Tov.</b>  If the animals, birds or fish were caught in the traps the day before Yom Tov it would be permitted to take them out and slaughter them on Yom Tov.  However, if they were trapped on Yom Tov then they are muktzeh because they could not have been used when Yom Tov began. When Yom Tov began he would have still had to trap them and trapping is prohibited on Yom Tov.  If he finds them in the traps on Yom Tov he cannot use them unless he knows for certain that they were caught before Yom Tov.  According to this opinion, something that is “doubtful muktzeh”, meaning it might or might not be muktzeh, it is prohibited.
+<b>It once happened that a certain non-Jew brought fish to Rabban Gamaliel [on Yom Tov] and he said: they are permitted, but I have no wish to accept [them] from him.</b>  In this story we see that Rabban Gamaliel disagrees with the previous clause.  The non-Jew brings him a fish as a gift and we don’t know whether he caught the fish the day before or today.  Rabban Gamaliel states that the fish is permitted because he holds that doubtful muktzeh is permitted.  However, he adds that he himself acts more stringently and therefore he refuses to accept the fish.  Note that we also saw in the previous chapter that Rabban Gamaliel acted strictly with regard to himself.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In this mishnah we learn two laws concerning slaughtering an animal on Yom Tov.
+<b>One may not slaughter [on Yom Tov] an animal which is about to die unless there is time enough on that day to eat from it as much as an olive of roasted flesh. Rabbi Akiva says: even [if there is only time to eat] as much as an olive of raw flesh [taken] from the place of slaughter.</b>  Slaughtering on Yom Tov is permitted as long as the person will have time left over in the day to eat some of the animal’s meat. If there is no time to eat any part of the animal then he can’t slaughter it because he would be doing so in order to eat it on another day.  In the case in our mishnah it is clear that the person wants to slaughter the animal on Yom Tov because the animal is getting sick and if it dies he won’t be able to eat it.  Even though it is clear that he is slaughtering it only in order to preserve some of its value, and that eating it is a sort of legal fiction, he still may do so, provided there is time left in the day for him to roast a small piece of meat and eat it.  Roasting is the quickest form of cooking, hence the mishnah mentions roasting.  Note that he does not actually have to roast and eat some of the meat, there just has to be time for him to do so. Rabbi Akiva is even more lenient and allows one to slaughter the animal even if there is only enough time to rip out a small piece of flesh from the animal’s throat (“the place of slaughter) and eat it raw.  Rabbi Akiva mentions taking the meat out from the throat because to do this he wouldn’t even need to skin the animal.  It seems even clearer here that this is not actually going to be done there just needs to be enough time so that it could have been done.
+<b>If he slaughtered it in the field, he may not bring it in on a pole or a barrow, but he may bring it in piece by piece in his hand.</b>  The mishnah rules that if someone slaughters an animal in the field he should not hoist it up on a pole or put it in a wheelbarrow in order to bring it back into his courtyard or other living quarters.  Doing so would look too much like ordinary weekday work and hence it should be avoided on Yom Tov. Rather he may carry it back home piece by piece, a more modest act that others will notice less.  Note that in this case there are values competing against one another.  Carrying it back piece by piece is more work for him and nevertheless the mishnah recommends doing so to avoid the act looking like weekday work. To put this otherwise, the mishnah preserves the overall communal character of the day as a day free from work at the expense of the individual’s own experience.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+A first-born animal may not be eaten until it becomes blemished (Deuteronomy 15:21-22).  Experts would determine whether an animal was blemished.  Our mishnah deals with a first-born that fell into a pit on Yom Tov and may have been blemished there.  The debate is over whether they may send down an expert to see if the animal had become blemished and if so, bring it up and slaughter it on Yom Tov.
+<b>A first-born beast that fell into a pit:<br>Rabbi Judah says: let an expert go down and inspect [it].  If it had a blemish he may bring it up and slaughter it, but if not, he may not slaughter it.</b>  Rabbi Judah allows the expert to go down into the pit to examine the animal.  If the animal is blemished they may bring the animal out of the pit and slaughter it on Yom Tov.  But if there is no blemish he may not slaughter it nor may he even bring it up from the pit.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon says: any animals whose blemish was not observed on the day before the Yom Tov, it is not prepared (.</b>  Rabbi Shimon holds that even if the animal should be found to have a blemish, they still may not bring it out of the pit and slaughter it on Yom Tov because when Yom Tov began that animal could not be slaughtered.  The animal was not “mukhan”, or ready.  Mukhan is the opposite muktzeh.  The animal is muktzeh because when Yom Tov began it could not be used for food because it was still a first-born on whom no blemish had been found.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with what may be done with a beast (a cow, sheep, goat or bull) that has died on Yom Tov.
+<b>If a beast died [on Yom Tov] it may not be moved from its place.</b>  Since the beast died and was not slaughtered, it cannot be eaten.  Since it cannot be eaten there is nothing that one may do with it on Yom Tov.  Hence, it is muktzeh.  All that he can do is leave it in its place and then when Yom Tov is over he can cut it up, use its hide and feed dogs with its meat.
+<b>And it happened that they once asked Rabbi Tarfon concerning this and concerning hallah that had become defiled.  He went into the bet midrash and inquired, and they answered him: they may not be moved from their place.</b>  The mishnah now relates that this halakhah was asked of Rabbi Tarfon and he didn’t know the answer until he went and asked the question in the study house, the bet midrash.  He also was asked about hallah, the part of the dough that is given to the priest, that had become impure on Yom Tov.  Impure hallah, like an animal that died without being slaughtered, cannot be eaten and hence it is also muktzeh on Yom Tov.  The answer therefore to both questions was that both are muktzeh and that neither can be moved until Yom Tov is over.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+As we have learned many times, it is permitted to slaughter an animal on Yom Tov.  In the mishnaic times most people would have bought shares in an animal from a butcher before the day the animal was slaughtered and then paid for it on the day it was slaughtered.  Our mishnah teaches how this arrangement may be worked out so that people may buy freshly slaughtered meat on Yom Tov without it looking as if they are conducting business as usual.
+<b>They may not be counted as having a share in an animal at the outset on Yom Tov, but they may be counted [as having a share in an animal] on the eve of Yom Tov, and they may then slaughter it and divide it between them [on Yom Tov].</b>  People may not go to a butcher on Yom Tov and decide how to divide up and pay for an animal that is to be slaughtered on that day.  The problem with this is that it looks too much like one is engaging in business as usual.  Hence it is prohibited.  Rather what they may do is divvy up the various parts of the animal before Yom Tov before it is slaughtered and set a price for each part. Then on Yom Tov they may come have the butcher slaughter the animal and collect the parts which they reserved and pay for them at a later date.  Since there is no verbal give and take on Yom Tov, it does not look as much like business as usual.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: a man may weigh meat [on Yom Tov] against a utensil or against a butcher's chopper. But the sages say: one may not pay attention to the scales at all.</b>  The debate here is concerning weighing out meat at the butcher’s on Yom Tov.  All agree that the butcher cannot just weigh out meat as usual, using weights on the scale, because that looks too much like conducting business as usual. They also all agree that one can go to a butcher and get meat on Yom Tov.  This is necessary to ensure that the average person has access to fresh meat so that he can enjoy his Yom Tov to the fullest extent.  As a solution to the problem of the butcher weighing out the meat, Rabbi Judah says that the butcher may use other utensils on the other side of the scales.  For instance, if he knows that his chopping knife weighs 2 kilo, he can weigh out meat according to the weight of his knife.  This looks different enough that everyone will know that he is not engaging in business as usual. The sages say that this is still too much like business as usual.  The sages forbid any use of the scales on Yom Tov.  All that the butcher and client may do is estimate the weight of the meat and then hope that it turns out to be fair.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to deal with the laws of slaughtering and divvying up meat on Yom Tov.
+<b>One may not sharpen a knife on a festival, but one may draw it over another knife.</b>  He shouldn’t sharpen a knife with a sharpening stone on Yom Tov because this is similar to completing work on a vessel which is forbidden on Yom Tov.  Furthermore, he could have sharpened the knife before Yom Tov.  However, if he sharpens it in an unusual manner, by using another knife, then it is permitted.
+<b>A man may not say to a butcher, “Weigh me a dinar’s worth of meat” but he may slaughter [the animal] and shares it among them.</b>  This section returns to discussing the problem discussed in yesterday’s mishnah, the problem of buying meat on Yom Tov.  One cannot tell a butcher to give him a piece of meat worth a certain amount of money because this is considered conducting business as usual on Yom Tov, which is forbidden.  This is forbidden even if he weighs the meat out in a manner that is usually permitted, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.  Merely mentioning the price seems to be forbidden.  However, the butcher may slaughter the animal and divide it up among his clients keeping in mind how much each owes him.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+After having dealt with how one may get meat from a butcher on Yom Tov, our mishnah deals with how one can buy other food supplies from others or from a storekeeper.
+We will see again that the mishnah is very concerned with protecting the atmosphere of Yom Tov.  Cooking is permitted and therefore we must allow people to get things at the store (remember they had no refrigeration and probably stored very little food at home), but when they do so they should refrain from any action that would send the message that business is being conducted as usual.
+<b>A man may say [on Yom Tov] to his fellow, “Fill me this vessel,” but not in a specific measure.</b>  A person can bring a vessel to his friend or to a storekeeper and ask him to fill it up for him on Yom Tov with wine or oil but he may not mention to him a specific amount.  Since this is not the way that business is usually conducted it is permitted on Yom Tov.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: if it was a measuring-vessel he may not fill it.</b>  Rabbi Judah says that this is not permitted if the vessel is one used for measuring.  Although the person does not mention a specific amount, in other words, he does not say, “fill up this ten liter jug”, it is still forbidden because both he and the person giving him the wine or oil know exactly how much is being given.
+<b>It happened that Abba Shaul ben Batnit used to fill up his measures on the eve of Yom Tov and give them to his customers on Yom Tov. Abba Shaul says: he used to do so even during hol hamoed (the intermediate days of the, on account of clarifying the measures. But the sages say: he used also to do so on an ordinary day for the sake of the draining of the measures.</b>  In order to avoid the problem of measuring out wine or oil when giving it out on Yom Tov, Abba Shaul ben Batnit used to fill his measuring vessels before Yom Tov and then just give them out on Yom Tov. Abba Shaul says that Abba Shaul ben Batnit used to do the same thing on the intermediate days of the festival, hol hamoed.  During these days people were not supposed to be doing work (we will learn this in Tractate Moed Katan) and so they had time to learn how to measure things out.  Because there were so many people who came to him, he didn’t have time to fill up all of the measuring vessels that they should be completely full without any froth.  Therefore he filled them up at night. Good manuscripts of the Mishnah do not contain the words “on account of clarifying the measures.”  Indeed there is another explanation in the Talmud. There it says “on account of not attending the Bet Midrash.”  Abba Shaul ben Batnit filled up his measuring vessels early so that he could spend all of hol hamoed teaching Torah.  Rashi explains that many people would come to see him on hol hamoed because they were free from doing work, and hence he didn’t want to waste any time filling up his measures.  Notice Abba Shaul ben Batnit was a businessman he just made sure that he conducted his business in a manner in which he could still teach and learn Torah. The sages say that Abba Shaul ben Batnit always filled up his measuring vessels ahead of time, even on ordinary weekdays.  He would then pour from his vessels into his customers’ vessels and then wait overnight and fill them up more, depending upon how much the clay vessel had soaked up into its walls.  This was his way of making sure that his customers received the full amount that they paid for.
+<b>A man may go to a shopkeeper to whom he generally goes and say to him, “Give me [so many] eggs and nuts” since this is the way of a householder to reckon in his own home.</b>  A person can go to a storekeeper with whom he is familiar, one that will give him food now and not make him pay back until a later day. To this storekeeper he may even tell the number of eggs or nuts that he wants. This does not look like “business as usual” because the customer does not usually count the eggs or nuts until he goes home.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Even though carrying is allowed on Yom Tov, he should not carry things the same way that he carries things during the week because this makes it look like “business as usual.”
+<b>One who carries jars of wine from place to place, he may not carry them in a basket or in a large basket, but he may carry [them] on his shoulder or in front of him.</b>  It is permitted to carry jars of wine from place to place on Yom Tov, as long as one is within the Shabbat border limit.  However, when carrying them he should not carry them in the same manner that he does during the week (non-Yom Tov). What he should do is carry them with his hands on his shoulder or in front of him, held against his body. This looks less like he is delivering merchandise and more like he is just bringing wine to a friend’s house.
+<b>Similarly, one who brings straw, he may no drape a large basket over his back, rather he must carry it in his hand.</b>  Basically, the same holds true for carrying straw used for lighting a fire or for animal feed.
+<b>And one may start [using] a heap of straw, but [one may] not [start using wood] from the back-yard.</b>  This third section deals with the concept of muktzeh something is prohibited if it was not designated for use on Yom Tov. He may use the heap of straw even though he did not specifically designate it and has never used that heap before. This is because heaps of straw are automatically set aside for use and do not require any special and intentional designation that they will be used on Yom Tov. In contrast, wood which is in the backyard is not necessarily designated to be used for something that can be done on Yom Tov and one cannot begin to use from that wood on Yom Tov.  Indeed, the Hebrew word in this mishnah for backyard is muktzeh because in that area one sets aside things that one doesn’t have a specific intention to use (for those of you learning modern Hebrew, muktzeh is most definitely not a word for backyard.)
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with the places where a person can collect kindling wood in order to cook on Yom Tov.
+<b>One may not take wood from a sukkah but only from [what is] next to it.</b>  The “sukkah” referred to here is not a sukkah used on the festival of Sukkot, but rather a sort of hut used for shade by farmers out in the field.  It is forbidden to take wood that was used in building the sukkah because this is considered “tearing down” which is forbidden on Shabbat and Yom Tov.  However, he may take the wood gathered next to the sukkah.
+<b>One may bring in from the field wood that is gathered together, and from a karpef [an enclosure] even though it is scattered about.</b>  He can bring in wood from the field if it has already been gathered together.  However, if it is scattered then it is muktzeh because there was no intent to use that wood for building a fire, and therefore he may not bring it in. From a karpef, a type of enclosure used for storage (see also Eruvin 2:3, 2:5 and 5:2) he may gather even loose wood.  Since this wood was put into an enclosure, it has already been designated for use and it is not muktzeh.
+<b>What is a karpef?  Any [enclosure] next to the town, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says: Any [enclosure] which one enters with a key, even if it is [only just] within the Shabbat border.</b>  In this section Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Yose debate from what kind of a karpef he can bring in wood.  According to Rabbi Judah the karpef has to be close to the city, since only if it is close to the city does he intend to use it on Yom Tov. Rabbi Yose says that the criterion is that the karpef is locked and can only be opened with a key. The wood in such a karpef is not muktzeh, even if the karpef is not next to the city.  However, the karpef must be within the Shabbat limit (2,000 cubits in all directions), otherwise he won’t be able to even get there.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first topic of this mishnah is chopping wood to make firewood on Yom Tov. The second topic is opening up a sealed storage room to take out produce. Both of these topics touch at least indirectly upon the subject of muktzeh.
+<b>One may not chop up wood, neither from beams nor from a beam which was broken on Yom Tov.</b>  This first section is concerned with chopping wood from a beam that was not designated for use as firewood before Yom Tov began.  One may not chop up a beam that was meant to be used in building because it is muktzeh before Yom Tov there was no intention to use it for fire.  Even if the beam breaks on Yom Tov and is now only good for lighting fires, he can’t chop it up into firewood because when Yom Tov began it was muktzeh.  Only if it was broken before Yom Tov can he chop it up.
+<b>And one may not chop with an axe or with a saw or with a sickle but only with a [butcher's] chopper.</b>  This section refers to wood that one is allowed to chop up on Yom Tov.  Even though it is permitted to do so, one shouldn’t do so in a normal fashion because this looks too much like “business as usual.”  One shouldn’t use the normal instruments but rather a butcher’s knife, one usually used for cutting bones and meat.  This requirement will probably make people prefer to chop up their wood before Yom Tov begins chopping wood with a butcher’s knife won’t make the butcher very happy and it’s not a good idea to tick off people who own big knives.
+<b>A [closed] room full of produce which was burst open [on Yom Tov] he may take [produce] out through the breach. Rabbi Meir says: he may make a hole at the outset and bring out [the produce].</b>  This section refers to a storage room that has been closed off by a row of bricks that have not been cemented together.  According to the first opinion, if some of the bricks should fall away he may go into the room through the opening and take out the produce and use it on Yom Tov.  Since there was no cement sealing the bricks together, the produce is not considered muktzeh.  However, according to this opinion, he may not himself remove the bricks because this is too close to “tearing down” a building, a prohibited labor on Shabbat and Yom Tov.  Concerning this last ruling, Rabbi Meir disagrees.  Since the bricks were not cemented together, he may even take them down and create a new opening on Yom Tov.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with several laws concerning the use and production of lamps on Yom Tov.
+<b>One may not make a hole in a [lump of clay for use as a] lamp because that is making a vessel.</b>  Lamps in mishnaic times were basically lumps of clay with a receptacle for oil and a small hole in which one could put a wick.  While lighting a lamp is allowed on Yom Tov, making a lamp is not.  One may not make a hole in a lump of clay in order to make it into a lamp because making a vessel is forbidden on Yom Tov.
+<b>One may not make charcoal on Yom Tov.</b>  Charcoal is also considered to be a vessel, or at least as important as a vessel.  Therefore it is forbidden to make charcoal on Yom Tov.
+<b>And one may not cut a wick into two. Rabbi Judah says:  he may cut it into two lamps using a fire.</b>  Cutting a piece of twine or other material into two in order to make two wicks is also considered similar to making a vessel and is therefore prohibited on Yom Tov.  Rabbi Judah says that while one cannot cut the twine into two with a knife or scissors, he can cut it into two by using fire. The Talmud explains that he places two lamps next to each other and one wick in the two lamps, one end in each.  He then lights the wick in the middle and it will split in two.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with certain preparations made in order to facilitate cooking.
+<b>One may not break up a potsherd or cut paper in order to roast on it a salty fish.</b>  When grilling a fish it would often be put on a broken shard of a pottery or on a piece of paper in order to prevent it from being burned.  The mishnah considers breaking some pottery or cutting a piece of paper to be used as such to be “making a vessel” which is not permitted on Yom Tov.
+<b>And one may not rake out an oven or a range, but one may press [the ashes] down.</b>  One should not rake out the ashes and dirt from an oven or a range. This is also considered to be “making a vessel” because it makes the oven usable.  However, it is permitted to “press down” the ashes, which seems to be a means of getting them out of the way in order to facilitate cooking.  The Rambam notes that if one cannot cook unless the ashes are raked out, he may do so because one is allowed to cook on Yom Tov.
+<b>And one may not place two jars side by side in order to balance upon them saucepan.</b>  Putting two jars next to each other so that there is a fire in between them and then balancing a pan upon them is like building a makeshift range. This is prohibited because it is forbidden to build on Yom Tov.
+<b>And one may not prop up a pot with a wooden wedge and the same applies to a door.</b>  One may not use small pieces of wood to prop things up on Yom Tov because the wood was intended to be used as kindling.  All other uses are prohibited.
+<b>And one may not drive cattle with a staff on a festival. But Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Shimon permits it.</b>  According to the Talmud, one may not drive cattle with a stick because it looks like he is bringing them to the marketplace to sell.  Rabbi Elazar disagrees.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In the middle of yesterday’s mishnah we learned that chips of wood can be used only as kindling. Today’s mishnah continues to discuss this subject.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: a man may take a chip from that which is lying before him to pick his teeth with it, and he may collect [chips] from the court yard and make a fire, for everything in a court is prepared [for use on Yom Tov].</b>  Rabbi Eliezer says that one may take a chip of wood that is lying inside his house and use it to pick his teeth clean (aren’t you glad we have toothbrushes).  From outside the house one may collect chips of wood and use them to build a fire because according to Rabbi Eliezer all chips of wood are “prepared” to be used as wood for a fire that is they are not muktzeh.
+<b>But the sages say: he may collect only from that which is before him and make a fire.</b>  The sages disagree with Rabbi Eliezer on two accounts. First of all, one cannot gather wood from outside the house because it was not designated for use on Yom Tov.  Only the wood from inside the house that has been set aside for use can be used.  Secondly, they hold that wood can only be used to build a fire.  It cannot be used to pick one’s teeth (sorry if you’re a dentist).
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first section of this mishnah teaches that it is forbidden to produce new fire on Yom Tov.  This is related to the prohibition of “muktzeh” which was the topic of yesterday’s mishnah.  The second half of the mishnah continues to deal with the laws of muktzeh.
+<b>One may not produce fire either from wood, or from stones, or from dirt, or from water (.</b>  While one is allowed to use fire on Shabbat, one is not allowed to create a new fire by “bringing it out” of a substance such as wood (rubbing sticks together) or from stones (striking a stone against another) or dirt (I  don’t really know how this was done) or from water, which is the mishnah’s word for gas.  We should remember that today creating new fire is exceedingly easy  one just flicks a lighter or strikes a match.  In ancient times starting a new fire would have been difficult.  Most fire was probably just passed from one existing fire to another.  The rabbis prohibited creating a new fire because it didn’t exist before Yom Tov began, much as they forbid the egg that was laid on Yom Tov in the first mishnah of this tractate.
+<b>Nor may one make tiles red-hot in order to roast on them.</b>  It is also forbidden to heat up tiles to cook on them because by heating them up he is forging them. This is considered like completing the making of a vessel which is forbidden on Yom Tov.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer further said: A man may stand near his “muktzeh” on the eve of Shabbat in the sabbatical year and say: “From here I will eat tomorrow.” But the sages say: [This doesn’t work] unless he marks it out and says, “From here to there.”</b>  These words of Rabbi Eliezer are a continuation of his words above in mishnah six, which dealt with muktzeh.  The word “muktzeh” here refers, according to its accepted interpretation, to a place where a person has set his fruit to dry out (dates, figs and grapes).  In order for these fruits to be available for use on Yom Tov, in other words in order for the things in the “muktzeh” to not be “muktzeh”, one must designate them for use before Yom Tov.  Furthermore, this can only happen on the Sabbatical year during which one doesn’t have to separate tithes.  During the other years because the fruit in the muktzeh has not generally been tithed, and it is forbidden to tithe on Yom Tov, one cannot eat them on Yom Tov even if he had designated them for use. He could only eat them if they had already been tithed. The mishnah now brings a debate concerning how one designates drying fruit for use.  According to Rabbi Eliezer all one needs to do is say “From here I will eat.”  The rabbis are stricter and rule that he must point specifically to the area of fruit from which he will eat.  Just as Rabbi Eliezer was more lenient in mishnah six, so too he is more lenient than the other sages here.
+
+Chapter 5
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to deal with laws concerning fruit set out to dry and things that one may and may not do with this fruit on Yom Tov.
+<b>One may let down fruit through a trap-door on Yom Tov but not on Shabbat.</b>  This section deals with a person who has put his fruit up onto his roof to dry out on Yom Tov and then he sees that it is going to rain.  The mishnah allows him to drop the fruit down through a trap-door in the roof because this is not considered to be a lot of work.  He would not be allowed to take them down through a window or through the door because this is a greater amount of work.  Furthermore, they only allowed this on Yom Tov on Shabbat it was prohibited.
+<b>And one may cover up fruit with vessels on account of the rain, and likewise jars of wine and jars of oil.</b>  One also may cover up fruit, jars of wine and jars of oil if rain is leaking down on them.  Covering up fruit or bringing it into the house so it doesn’t get wet are activities done not in order to eat the fruit on Yom Tov, but they are nevertheless permitted in order to prevent the financial loss.
+<b>And one may place a vessel beneath the drops of rain [even] on Shabbat.</b>  On Shabbat one can even put a vessel underneath drops of rain coming down from a leaky roof.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This long mishnah deals with three categories of acts that are prohibited by the rabbis on Shabbat and on Yom Tov. They are all considered to be prohibited “derabbanan”, by the rabbis and not by the Torah.  The three categories are:
+Shevut mandated rest on Shabbat.  These are activities that are prohibited because they are generally not in the spirit of the day or because by doing one of them one might come to transgress a biblical prohibition.
+Reshut optional activities. These have some aspect of mitzvah in them but can be done on other days. Therefore one doesn’t do them on Yom Tov or Shabbat.
+Mitzvah these are commandments that can be performed on other days and therefore shouldn’t be done on Shabbat.
+The main point of the mishnah is that the only actions which are allowed on Yom Tov but prohibited on Shabbat those done while preparing food.  All of the other Shabbat prohibitions still hold true.
+<b>Every [act] for which one is liable on Shabbat because of mandated rest [shevut], [or] because it is only optional [reshut], [or] even though it is a religious act [mitzvah], he is also liable on Yom Tov.<br>For the following acts he is liable because of shevut: One may not climb a tree, And one may not ride on an animal. And one may not swim in water. And one may not clap hands, nor slap [thighs], nor dance.</b>  Climbing a tree is forbidden lest one breaks a branch, which is forbidden to do on Shabbat.   Riding an animal is considered prohibited lest one while riding break a branch to use as a switch in guiding an animal.  It seems that a deeper reason for why the rabbis prohibited this was that they did not believe that riding an animal was in the spirit of Shabbat.  Swimming was prohibited lest while swimming one makes a raft on which to float. Finally, certain types of clapping, slapping of thighs and dancing were prohibited on Shabbat lest one begin to make music and then come to make a musical instrument.  We should note that some of these activities are no longer generally prohibited because the likelihood that by doing one of them one will come to transgress a more serious commandment is minimal.  In my mind the most important thing to remember is that while one follows the minutiae of Shabbat, one should also be mindful of the spirit of Shabbat. Even things that are permitted should not always be done.
+<b>For the following acts he is liable because they are only optional: One may not judge; And one may not betroth a wife, nor perform halizah, nor perform yibbum [consumate a levirate marriage].</b>  This section contains activities that have some aspect of “commandment” to them but can be done on other days. Judging, betrothing and other legal aspects of arranging various types of marriages can be done any day of the week, therefore one should not do them on Shabbat.  In my opinion, this is again because these activities are not in the “spirit of Shabbat.”  They might detract from the special sanctity of Shabbat, a day set aside.  A more technical reason why these things are prohibited is that by doing one of them one might come to write.
+<b>And for the following acts one is liable even though it is a religious act [mitzvah]: One may not dedicate [anything to the Temple], nor vow a personal valuation, nor make a vow of herem, nor set aside terumah or tithes.</b>  These acts are actually mitzvot, but still one may not perform them on Shabbat or Yom Tov because they can all be done with as much ease on other days.  The Rambam explains that donating something to the Temple is similar to engaging in business and hence one does not do so on Shabbat.  One does not separate tithes or terumah on Yom Tov or Shabbat because by doing so one “fixes” something to make it usable.  Also, this could have just as easily been done the day before.
+<b>All these things they [the rabbis said that they are forbidden] on Yom Tov, how much more so [are they forbidden] on Shabbat. There is no difference between Yom Tov and Shabbat except for the preparation of food alone.</b>  In conclusion the mishnah notes that when discussing the laws of Yom Tov the rabbis prohibited these activities, but they are nevertheless even more prohibited on Shabbat.  The mishnah reminds us that the only type of activity which is permitted on Yom Tov but not on Shabbat is something done while preparing food.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final three mishnayot of the chapter discuss Shabbat border limits, a topic which was discussed in far greater length in tractate Eruvin.  The Shabbat border limit is 2000 cubits to each side of the city. One can set up an eruv, a meal, at the end of the limit and thereby extend it another 2000 cubits in that direction. This extension only works in extending is Shabbat border limit in one direction and causes him to lose a matching amount of distance on the opposite side of the city.  Hence, one who sets up an eruv at the end of 2000 cubits on the western side of the city can now go 4000 cubits in that direction but cannot go outside the city at all on the eastern side.  Our mishnah teaches that these limits apply not only to the person himself but to his animals and his utensils as well.
+<b>A beast and utensils are [restricted to the same limits] as the feet of the owners.</b>  As stated in the introduction, just as a person cannot go past his own personal Shabbat border limit, so too the things that belong to him cannot beyond that point.
+<b>One who gives his cow over to his son or to a cowherd [to tend], they are [restricted to the same limits] as the feet of the owner.</b>  The mishnah adds that if a person gives his cow over to someone just to watch it, then the cow stays under the possession of the owner and may only go as far as the owner may go on Shabbat. Therefore, if the owner set his eruv to the west side of the city, his son or his cowherd may not take the cow outside the city on the eastern side.
+<b>Vessels which have been set apart for [the use or] one of the brothers in a house, are [restricted to the same limits] as his feet, but [those utensils] which have not been so set apart, can be taken [only] to a place where [all the brothers] may go.</b>  If a vessel (in Hebrew the word for “vessel” includes clothing, bedding and many more objects than the word connotes in English) belonged jointly to some brothers but one brother generally used it, then it can go on Shabbat to any place where that brother may go. So if that brother set his eruv to the west, that vessel can go to the west. However, if all brothers make use of the vessel than it can only go to a place where all of the brothers can go. So if one brother set his eruv to the north and one to the south then the vessel can’t leave the city at all because each brother prevents the other one from bringing the vessel to “his” side.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to deal with the Shabbat/Yom Tov border limits placed on things. Since the mishnah deals with carrying, the rules are only applicable to Yom Tov on Shabbat all carrying is prohibited.
+<b>One who borrows a vessel from his neighbor on the eve of Yom Tov, [it is restricted to the same limits] as the feet of the borrower. [But if he borrowed it] on Yom Tov, it is as the feet of the lender.</b>  If one borrows an object it is considered as if the object belongs to the borrower and therefore it can go on Yom Tov to any place where he/she may go. However, this is only true if he borrowed it the day before Yom Tov, such that when Yom Tov began the object was in his possession.  In other words, the border limits of the object are determined by the one who possessed the object when Yom Tov began.  If he borrowed it on Yom Tov then it can go only where the feet of the lender can go.
+<b>A woman who borrowed from her neighbor spices, water or salt for her dough, these are [restricted to the same limits] as the feet of both them. Rabbi Judah exempts in the case of water, because it is not substantial.</b>  In this case a woman borrows some ingredients from another woman to use them in making dough on Yom Tov. Some of the ingredients therefore belong to the lender and some belong to the borrower.  Since the ownership is mixed (like the dough) the dough can only go to a place where they both can go.  This again means that if one set an eruv to the south and one to the north, the dough cannot leave the city at all. Rabbi Judah says that if all she borrowed was water then the dough is not restricted by the lender since the water is not substantial enough.  Water is not recognized in the final product or its taste and therefore it doesn’t count towards where the dough can go.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first section of the mishnah teaches that while a live coal is considered as having substance, a flame does not have any substance.
+The second half of the mishnah deals with the restrictions on the carrying of water drawn from a well.
+<b>A live coal is [restricted to the same limits] as its owner, but a flame can be taken anywhere.</b>  A live coal, one that is burning, is considered to be an object of substance and therefore it is limited to going where its owner can go.  In contrast, a flame has no substance and therefore is not limited in where it can go.  What this means is that a person could take a lamp and light it from somewhat else’s lamp and then not be limited by the other person’s eruv.  The flame that he “takes” from another person has no substance so it is not like borrowing something from another person.
+<b>In respect of a live coal of sanctified property [one who makes use of it] is considered as having trespassed, but as for a flame [of sanctified property], one may not derive benefit from it, but [one who does] has not trespassed.</b>  One who makes non-holy use out of something dedicated to the Temple has “trespassed (me’ilah).”  He must make financial restitution and bring an asham, a guilt offering.  One who makes non-holy use out of a live coal has trespassed because a live coal has substance.  In contrast, one who makes non-holy use out of a flame has not trespassed.  Nevertheless, it is still forbidden to do so. The prohibition is “derabbanan” it is forbidden lest he trespass something with substance.
+<b>If one carries out a live coal into the public domain [on Shabbat] he is liable, but [if he carries out] a flame he is exempt.</b>  Carrying a live coal into the public domain on Shabbat counts as carrying, and hence he has transgressed.  However, carrying a flame does not count as carrying and hence he has not transgressed.  If you ask, how can you carry a flame?  (Ouch!)  The answer is that one could blow a flame from the private domain out into the public domain and that would count as carrying because it moved as a result of his force.
+<b>[The water from]: A private well is [restricted to the same limits] as its owner, And [the water from a well] belonging to the inhabitants of that town is [restricted to the same limits] as the people of that town; And [the water from a well] belonging to those who came up from Babylonia is [restricted to the same limits] as he who draws [the water].</b>  There are three types of wells referred to here. The first is that of a private person. The water in that well can go on Yom Tov wherever he can go. The second is that of a public well. This water belongs to everyone in the city and therefore it can only go where everyone can go.  This means that unless everyone who set up an eruv put it on the same side of the city, the water wouldn’t be able to leave the city. The third type of well is one of the public wells dug for the benefit of the people coming back from Babylonia after the exile.  These wells can be used by any traveler.  They can go anywhere that the person who fills them up can go. The difference between these wells and those shared by the people of a city is that the latter type is jointly owned by the people of the town whereas the former are not owned by anyone.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with a person whose produce is in another town and he wishes to retrieve it on Yom Tov.
+<b>If one has his produce in another town, and the inhabitants of that city made an eruv in order to bring to him some of his produce, they may not bring it to him.</b>  In the case under discussion here the inhabitants of the other city made an eruv that would allow them to get to the city of the owner of the produce.  Nevertheless, they may not bring him his produce because his produce is limited by where he can go and since he didn’t set up an eruv to get to the other city, it can’t come to him.  Again, a person’s things are limited to going where he may go.
+<b>But if he himself made an eruv, his produce is like himself.</b>  If the owner of the produce set up an eruv then he can go to the other city and bring his produce back with him.  It is irrelevant whether the people of the other city set up an eruv since they are not the owners of the produce.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first section of the last mishnah of Betzah deals with guests taking food home with them. The last part of the mishnah deals with giving water to animals.
+<b>If one invited guests to his home, they may not take away with them [any] portions unless he [the host] had assigned for them their portions on the eve of Yom Tov.</b>  In mishnaic times the portion of meat that one received at a dinner party was considered very important.  Important guests might receive bigger portions. Sometimes people wouldn’t eat their entire portion and they would be allowed to bring home the leftovers.  After all, with no refrigeration the host wouldn’t be able to do anything with the leftovers in any case. Our mishnah teaches that on Yom Tov guests can’t take their leftovers home with them unless the host gave them ownership over the portions before Yom Tov began. In this way, the portions belong to the guests when Yom Tov begins and they can then go as far as they can go.
+<b>One may not give drink and then slaughter wilderness animals, but one may give drink and slaughter household animals. The following are household animals: they that spend the night in town. Pasture animals are they that spend the night in pasture ground.</b>  Animals that pasture out in the wild are muktzeh they have not been set aside before Yom Tov for use on Yom Tov. Hence one cannot give them water or slaughter them on Yom Tov.  However, one can give water to and slaughter household animals because they are automatically “set aside” to be slaughtered. The mishnah goes on to define what household animals are and what pasture animals are. Congratulations!  We have finished Betzah. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Mishnah Betzah was all about the laws of Yom Tov.  I think at this point it would be worth it to think about how important the Jewish holidays are to the Jewish people.  The matzot and seders of Pesah, sitting in the sukkah on Sukkot, waving the lulav and receiving the Torah on Shavuot these are some of the most important parts of the Jewish year. They remind us of our shared history and hopefully our shared destiny.  Unfortunately I think that the sanctity of Yom Tov has eroded substantially in many of our communities.  I hope that learning this tractate will help inspire you to increase your own personal commitment and to help lead others to increase their commitment as well. And again, as always, congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah.  We are getting close to having finished half of the Mishnah.  May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more! Tomorrow we begin Rosh Hashanah.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Chagigah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Chagigah
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה חגיגה
+Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Chagigah
+
+Introduction
+
+Tractate Hagigah deals with the three sacrifices that according to the rabbis a person had to bring on all three festivals, Sukkot, Pesah and Shavuot.  
+The first of these sacrifices is called the “Hagigah.”  The rabbis derived the concept of the Hagigah from the word “hag” used in the context of the three festivals.  According to the rabbis, every person had to bring on the first day of the festival a Hagigah.  If they could not offer it on the first day, then they could bring it for the remaining seven days. The Hagigah is a type of thanksgiving sacrifice; some of the meat went to the owners and some of the fats were offered on the altar.
+The second type of sacrifice is a celebratory thanksgiving offering. This is meant to fulfill the commandment to celebrate on the festival (Deuteronomy 16:14).   Celebrating means eating meat (sorry if you’re a vegetarian).  People were supposed to eat these thanksgiving offerings for all seven days.    
+The third sacrifice is called a “re’eyah” which means “to be seen.”  Deuteronomy 16:16 says that all males must “be seen” at the Temple three times a year, on the three festivals.  The rabbis understood that they were not to be seen empty-handed, but rather they had to bring a sacrifice.  This sacrifice is a whole burnt offering, an olah.   
+Tractate Hagigah deals mostly with these three sacrifices.  Along the way there are some fascinating mishnayot that deal with sacrifices and purity and shed much light on certain historical aspects of the Second Temple and Mishnaic periods.  While some of these mishnayot may be a little difficult to understand, those who persist in learning them will find them quite intriguing.   
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah delineates who is obligated to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem on the three festivals.  Exodus 23:17 says, “Three times a year all your male shall appear before the Sovereign, the Lord.”  Our mishnah elaborates on this verse.
+<b>All are obligated to appear [at the Temple], except a deaf person,  an imbecile and a minor, a person of unknown sex [tumtum], a hermaphrodite, women, unfreed slaves, a lame person, a blind person, a sick person, an aged person, and one who is unable to go up on foot.</b>  I will explain each category of persons exempted from making the pilgrimage one at a time. A deaf person, an imbecile and a minor: These three people are usually lumped together because they are not considered to have “awareness/intelligence” (daat).  They are exempt from all commandments, this one included. A person of unknown sex [tumtum], a hermaphrodite, women:  Exodus 23:17 says that only males are obligated.  The mishnah therefore exempts anyone whose sex as a male is not certain.  A tumtum is a person with neither male nor female genitalia.  A hermaphrodite has both.  Since neither is a certain male, neither is obligated. Unfreed slaves:  Slaves are not obligated for any mitzvah from which a woman is exempt. A lame person, a blind person, a sick person, an aged person, and one who is unable to go up on foot:  Except for the blind person, the other people in this list will have great difficulty in walking up to the Temple Mount.  Since the word for festival is “regel” which also means “leg,” these people are exempt.  The blind person is exempt because the Torah says that the mitzvah is “to be seen” there. Since the blind person cannot see, he does not have to be seen.
+<b>Who is a minor? Whoever is unable to ride on his father’s shoulders and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, the words of Bet Shammai. But Bet Hillel say: whoever is unable to hold his father’s hand and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, as it is said: “Three regalim” (Exodus 23:14).</b>  Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai debate the age at which a minor is obligated to make the pilgrimage.  According to Bet Shammai, as long as the child can ride on his father’s shoulders he must go to the Temple.  Shammai (and his eponymous house) is generally strict when it comes to the observance of commandments by children. For instance, Shammai made a sukkah for his infant son, and he wanted the same son to fast on Yom Kippur.  For Shammai, as long as the child can physically perform the commandment, he must do so. Bet Hillel holds that the child must be able to walk on his own.  This is derived from the fact that the Torah uses the word “regel” which also means leg. The Torah’s choice of this word, as opposed to “Three pa’amim” (three times) implies that the child must be able to walk on his own.  On a perhaps deeper level, Bet Hillel holds that the mitzvah is for the person to go there on his own, through the power of his own body.  Having someone else carry one there is simply not a fulfillment of the mitzvah.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In this mishnah the two houses debate the minimum value of the pilgrimage offering and the hagigah offering.  These two offerings were explained in the introduction to the tractate.
+<b>Bet Shammai say: the pilgrimage-offering (re’eyah) must be worth [at least] two pieces of silver and the hagigah one piece (ma’ah) of silver. But Bet Hillel say: the pilgrimage-offering must be worth [at least] one ma'ah of silver and the hagigah two pieces of silver.</b> The pilgrimage offering is an olah, a wholly burnt offering, whereas the hagigah is a shelamim, a thanksgiving offering, part eaten by the priests, part by its owners and part offered on the altar.  According to Bet Shammai the sacrifice that is completely for God, the pilgrimage offering, is the more expensive offering.  If we extrapolate, we might say that when a person has a limited budget, he should spend more on God than on himself. Bet Hillel holds the opposite the hagigah offering, eaten by people, is to be the more expensive offering.  Extrapolating again, Bet Hillel seems to put humans at the center, focusing on enriching their religious experience by providing them more food.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+When people would make their pilgrimage festivals to Jerusalem, they would usually bring with them money which they had used to redeem their second tithe.  Second tithe can be eaten by its owners but only in Jerusalem. To make things easier for people the Torah allows them to redeem the produce for money, take the money to Jerusalem and use it there to buy food items. Our mishnah deals with which sacrifices one can buy from second tithe money and which have to be purchased with “hullin,” unconsecrated money.  It is in the best interests of the pilgrim to be able to use his second tithe money, money which he will have to spend in Jerusalem in any case.
+<b>Burnt-offerings during the festival [week] are to be brought from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money, and thanksgiving offerings, from [animals bought with] tithe money.</b>  This section deals with hol hamoed, the middle of the week of Sukkot and Pesah.  Burnt-offerings, the pilgrimage offerings, which are obligatory, must be brought with animals purchased with unconsecrated money. This is the same rule as for all mandatory offerings they may not be purchased with tithe money. Celebratory thanksgiving offering, brought during the middle of the festival are not obligatory as are the other festival offerings.  A person has to eat meat during the week and while it was customary to use thanksgiving offerings, it was not mandated.  Since this sacrifice wasn’t mandated, one can use tithe money to purchase it.
+<b>On the first festival day of Pesah: Bet Shammai say: [they must be brought] from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money. And Bet Hillel say: [they can be brought also] from [animals bought with] tithe money.</b>  On the first day of both Pesah and Sukkot, and on Shavuot, the thanksgiving offering, the hagigah, is obligatory.  Since it is a mandated offering, Bet Shammai holds that it must come from animals purchased with unconsecrated money.  Bet Hillel holds that one can still use tithe money because the hagigah is partially eaten by its owners. The Torah states that second tithe must be used to purchase food and the hagigah is food. According to the Talmud, second tithe cannot be used to purchase the whole animal, because some of the animal is offered on the altar.  It may only be used as part of the purchasing price.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+During the festival it was a mitzvah to celebrate by eating meat. This was done by bringing celebratory thanksgiving offerings to the Temple and eating them in Jerusalem.  Our mishnah teaches that both Israelites and priests can use animals and meat dedicated or made holy for other purposes in order to fulfill this obligation.
+<b>Israelites fulfill their obligation with vow-offerings, freewill-offerings and cattle tithe.</b>  An Israelite can fulfill his obligation to bring/eat a celebratory thanksgiving offering by bringing vow-offerings and freewill-offerings that he had set aside during the year for other purposes. During the year a person might make an offering to the Temple for all sorts of reasons (as a supplication, to show gratitude).  He may take this animal with him on his pilgrimage and it can count as his celebratory thanksgiving offering.  Cattle tithe, the tenth animal born of cows, sheep and goats, is “holy to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). This animal is brought to Jerusalem and eaten there.  An Israelite can use an animal that was set aside to be cattle tithe as his celebratory thanksgiving offering.
+<b>And priests with sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, firstlings, the breast and the shoulder,   but not with bird-offerings, and not with meal-offerings.</b>  Pilgrims would also bring with them the various sin-offerings and guilt-offerings that they had become liable for during the year. They would also bring the “firstlings”, the first-born of every kosher animal.  All of these go to the priest and he may use them to fulfill his obligation for celebratory thanksgiving offerings.  The breast and the shoulder of thanksgiving offerings go to the priest.  This meat will count for him in order to fulfill his obligation for eating meat. However, bird-offerings and meal-offerings don’t count because one can only fulfill the obligation with mammal meat sheep, goats and cows.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+As I have explained in the previous mishnayot, the pilgrimage offering is a wholly burnt offering and is not eaten, whereas the celebratory offering is a thanksgiving offering and is eaten.  Our mishnah gives four different possibilities for how much of each offering a person should bring.
+<b>He that has many people to eat [with him] and little money, brings many thanksgiving-offerings and few burnt-offerings.</b>  If a person has a lot of people he needs to feed and not a lot of money with which to buy the animals to use as sacrifices, he should spend more money on the edible thanksgiving offerings and less on the burnt offerings.
+<b>[He that has] a lot of money and few to eat [with him] brings many burnt-offerings and few thanksgiving-offerings.</b>  If he has a lot of money and wishes to spend it on sacrifices and he doesn’t have a lot of people to eat with him, he should spend more money on the burnt offerings.  If he buys too many thanksgiving offerings (or too large of an animal) the meat will have to be burned (not as a sacrifice but as the remnant of uneaten sacrifice).
+<b>[He that has] little of either, for him is it is said:  “One ma'ah of silver’, ‘two pieces of silver.”</b>  If he has few people to feed and little money, he should buy the minimum amount of each sacrifice.  Our mishnah makes reference to mishnah 2 above where Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debated the minimum amount for each sacrifice.
+<b>He that has a lot of both, of him it is said: “Every man as he is able, according to the blessing that the Lord your God has bestowed upon you” (Deuteronomy 16:17).</b>  If he is lucky enough to have brought a lot of people with him on the pilgrimage, and to have a lot of money, then he has been blessed by God. The mishnah quotes the verse which says that each brings according to his own blessing, meaning he can bring as many sacrifices as he wants.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah teaches that if one did not bring the hagigah offering on the first day of the festival, he has the rest of the festival to bring it.  This is derived from Leviticus 23:41 which says, “You shall observe it as a festival of the Lord for seven days” implying that the hagigah can be brought throughout the festival.
+<b>He who did not bring his hagigah on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, may bring it during the whole of the festival, even on the last festival day of Sukkot.</b>  Even though the last day of Sukkot is a different festival called Shmini Atzeret, nevertheless even on this day one can bring his hagigah offering and have it count as his Sukkot hagigah.
+<b>If the festival, passed and he did not bring the festival offering, he is no longer liable for it. Of such a person it is said: “A twisted thing cannot be made straight, a lack cannot be made good” (Ecclesiastes 1:15).</b>  Once the festival is over, he cannot bring the hagigah offering.  Even if he set aside an animal to be a hagigah and then it was lost during the festival and found afterwards, he cannot offer that animal as a hagigah.  In such a case the animal would be offered as a freewill offering.  The mistake of not bringing the hagigah during the correct time is a “lack that cannot be made good.”
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The end of yesterday’s mishnah brought a quote from Ecclesiastes 1:15 about a wrong that cannot be corrected.  Our mishnah continues to discuss this verse.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Who is “a twisted thing that cannot be made straight?” He who has intercourse with a forbidden relation and bears by her a mamzer.  Should you say that it applies to a thief or robber, he is able to restore [the stolen object] and make straight.</b>  Most transgressions can be “made straight,” that is to say they can be fixed. The damage is not irreparable. However, when a man has intercourse with a woman forbidden to him and they have a child, that child is a mamzer for life, there is nothing he can do to get out of this status.  He/she will forever be a mamzer, restricted in marriage. Other sins such as stealing can be repaired by returning the stolen object.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: They only call something “twisted” if it was straight at first and then became twisted. And who is this?  A disciple of the sages who forsakes the Torah.</b>  Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai reads the verse slightly differently.  The verse does not relate simply to a wrong that cannot be corrected.  Something is only considered to be twisted if it was originally straight.  A mamzer was born “twisted” and hence is not referred to in the verse.  Rather the verse refers to a Torah scholar who rejects his Torah learning.  He was straight when he was dedicated to a life of Torah and became twisted when he separated from that life. The Talmud on this mishnah contains many of the legends about the famous Elisha ben Abuyah, the great Torah sage who later rejected his learning, professing, “there is no law and no judge.”  For a very interesting read, one which illuminates the mishnaic period better than any book I know, check out Milton Steinberg’s “As A Driven Leaf.”
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah, and the first two mishnayot of the next chapter, do not deal with the hagigah. Rather they are loosely connected to the end of the previous mishnah concerning the Torah scholar who separates from the Torah.  Our mishnah deals with one issue which may have caused some rabbis to dismiss the Torah, especially the Oral Torah.  There are many halakhot in the Mishnah which seem to have little connection to the Written Torah.  Some rabbis may have rejected rabbinic learning claiming that the rabbis were just “making it up.”  This was a common anti-rabbinic claim made throughout Jewish history, most famously by the Sadducees and later by the Karaites.  Our mishnah acknowledges that some halakhot are indeed not well connected to Scripture and yet at the same time the mishnah seems to bequeath to these laws the same authority as those firmly anchored in the Written Torah.
+<b>[The laws concerning] the dissolution of vows hover in the air and have nothing to rest on.</b>  According to the rabbis, a sage has the power to dissolve a vow.  This was a subject we covered when we learned Tractate Nedarim.  However, there is no scriptural basis, no verses in the Torah, that give the rabbis (or anyone else) such power.  These halakhot “hover in the air” meaning they are not grounded in the written Torah.
+<b>The laws concerning Shabbat, hagigot, and trespassing are as mountains hanging by a hair, for they have scant scriptural basis but many halakhot.</b>  There are three categories of halakhah which have some scriptural basis, but not a lot and yet they have a lot of halakhot in the Mishnah and in other rabbinic works. The first of these is Shabbat.  There were 24 chapters in Mishnah Shabbat and another 11 in Eruvin and yet the Torah barely discusses what types of work are prohibited on Shabbat. Hagigah, the subject of our tractate, is also another case of a lot of halakhah with little scriptural basis.  The Torah only says the word “hag,” which the rabbis interpret to mean a sacrifice. This is not a lot of scriptural support for a whole tractate.  Finally, “trespassing” which means illicit use of Temple property. There is a whole tractate called Meilah dedicate to this subject, and yet it too has scant scriptural support.
+<b>[The laws concerning] civil cases and [Temple] worship, purity and impurity, and the forbidden relations have what to rest on, and they that are the essentials of the Torah.</b>  The Torah is full of verses dedicated to civil laws, the main topic of all of Seder Nezikin, Temple worship, the main topic of Seder Kodashim, purity laws, the main topic of Seder Toharot and the laws of forbidden relations, the main topic of large parts of Seder Nashim.  These are the “essentials of Torah” in that the Torah dedicates to them more verses than to anything else.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>They may not expound upon the subject of forbidden relations in the presence of three.<br>Nor the work of creation in the presence of two.<br>Nor [the work of] the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a sage and understands of his own knowledge.<br>Whoever speculates upon four things, it would have been better had he not come into the world: (1) what is above, (2) what is beneath, (3) what came before, and (4) what came after.<br>And whoever takes no thought for the honor of his creator, it would have been better had he not come into the world.</b><br>This mishnah is brought here because like yesterday’s mishnah it may refer to certain reasons why sages abandoned the world of Torah.  There are some subjects which are, according to our mishnah, dangerous to speculate upon or to discuss in front of the masses.  Pondering upon the unknowable may have contributed towards apostasy.<br>Section one:  The danger of expounding upon the verses about forbidden relations in the Torah is either that people will be confused and make irreparable mistakes (i.e. create mamzerim) or that they will be titillated by the attention paid to these verses and they will not be able to control their urges and they will come to sin. Therefore, these verses are not expounded before even a group as small as three.<br>Section two: How the world was created and whether it was created from already existing material was a much debated and sensitive issue in the ancient world.  That there might have been material which pre-existed God would have been seen by the rabbis to be heretical.  Due to the speculative nature of this subject, it was forbidden to talk about it in front of even two people.<br>Section three: The study of the chariot, Ezekiel’s heavenly vision (Ezekiel 1) is the mystical study of God, God’s physical attributes and God’s unknowable mysteries.  The sages seem to have believed that God had a physical existence, perhaps even a body in a certain sense, but that God’s body was hidden from human beings.  It was forbidden for one sage to teach this subject to another sage unless the learning sage could understand things without really being explained to them.  What this seems to mean is that one sage could begin to discuss this topic with another sage but he shouldn’t reveal to him the secrets of God unless he sees that the sage understands and can proceed on his own.  However, we interpret this, what is clear is that the sages were extremely hesitant to engage publicly in mysticism.<br>Section four: There were some things that humans couldn’t know and therefore should not try to know. They are:  1) what is above the sky; 2) what is below the earth; 3) what came before the earth was created; 4) what will come after it is destroyed.  Again, these four subjects are (or at least were) completely speculative.  A person should spend their time in this world studying subjects that are knowable, such as the interpretation of Torah and halakhah.  Metaphysical speculation was ruled out by this mishnah.  The final line of the mishnah seems to be a continuation of the previous line.  Those who try to uncover God’s secrets and reveal them to the public are not acting with respect to God’s honor.  It is almost as if they are undressing God in public.  Had God wanted these secrets to be revealed they would have been revealed.<br>I should note that there do seem to have been rabbis in this period who did engage in such speculative study and even composed works dedicated to the topic.  There are two ways to justify this mishnah with those other works.  First of all, there were different groups of rabbis, some of which focused on halakhah/midrash and others who focused on mysticism.  The second possibility, which I believe to be more likely, is that the rabbis thought that mysticism was not an appropriate focus for most people’s study.  Mysticism, which they considered dangerous, should be reserved for the elite and not spread to the masses.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Yose ben Yoezer says that [on a festival] the laying of the hands [on the head of a sacrifice] may not be performed. Yosef ben Johanan says that it may be performed.<br>Joshua ben Perahia says that it may not be performed. Nittai the Arbelite says that it may be performed.<br>Judah ben Tabai says that it may not be performed. Shimon ben Shetah says that it may be performed.<br>Shamayah says that it may be performed. Avtalyon says that it may not be performed.<br>Hillel and Menahem did not dispute. Menahem went out, Shammai entered.<br>Shammai says that it may not be performed. Hillel says that it may be performed.<br>The former [of each] pair were patriarchs and the latter were heads of the court.</b><br>Our mishnah is possibly the most unique mishnah in the entire Mishnah.  It contains a debate about whether or not a person can lay their hands on a sacrifice on Yom Tov, the first and last days of a festival.  According to Leviticus 1:4 and other parallel verses, when a person brings a sacrifice he lays his hands, or leans, on the sacrifice before it is slaughtered.  On Yom Tov it is forbidden to use an animal and leaning on an animal is considered to be use of an animal.  Therefore, the question could be asked, can one lean on the sacrificial animal on Yom Tov or must he do so the day before?<br>What is unique about our mishnah is that there are five pairs (zugot) of sages, each from a different generation, who debated this issue.  The sages here are early sages who lived during the Second Temple period, from the beginning of the Hasmonean period until close to the beginning of the millennium.  They might even be called proto-sages, or proto-rabbis.  With one exception, all of these sages are found in Avot 1:4-10, where each transmits a moral exhortation.  The final clause of the mishnah determines that of each pair the first was the patriarch and the second was the head of the court.  As far as I know, there are no other mishnayot that have this structure in which the same debate being repeated generation after generation.<br>The fact that they debate specifically this issue is significant.  We know that ancient Jews argued a lot about the laws of Yom Tov and Shabbat and that the Pharisees tended to be more lenient than the other two main sects, the Essenes and the Sadducees.  This seems to be the trend in this mishnah as well Hillel allows one to lean on the animal, whereas Shammai does not.<br>Section four:  Note that the mishnah switches order here.  In all three previous pairs, the first said that it may not be performed, whereas the second said that it should be performed.  It seems that there may have been some historical switch at this period, where the position of the patriarch changed.<br>Section five:  Little is known about Menahem from rabbinic literature, except that he seems to have separated from the fold.  Josephus, Antiquities 15:10, 5 relates a story about a certain Menahem who was an Essene.  This Menahem receives a divine revelation that Herod will become king and he relates it to him.  According to some scholars this is the same Menahem referred to in our mishnah.  In any case, it is interesting that he is replaced by Shammai.  It is as if the mishnah is letting us know that Shammai is not like Menahem. While Shammai’s opinions are usually not the accepted halakhah, he is still legitimate.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In this mishnah Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate which sacrifices may be brought on Yom Tov and whether it is permitted to lay hands on them. The second of these debates is the same as the debate in yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>Bet Shammai say: They may bring thanksgiving offerings [on Yom Tov] but they may not lay their hands on them, and [they may not bring] wholly burnt-offerings. And Bet Hillel say: They may bring thanksgiving offerings and wholly burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them.</b> The debate here is over two subjects.  1)  Can wholly burnt-offerings be brought on Yom Tov?  2) When a sacrifice is brought on Yom Tov, do they lay their hands on the sacrifice as is usually mandated with sacrifices? Bet Shammai states that wholly burnt-offerings cannot be brought on Yom Tov at all since they are not eaten. The Torah permits preparing food on Yom Tov (see Tractate Betzah) but since wholly-burnt offerings are not food, they may not be prepared on Yom Tov.  The wholly burnt offering which must be brought on account of the festival (re’eyah) should be sacrificed during the festival week. Bet Hillel allows the bringing of wholly burnt offerings because they hold that any work that is permitted when it is done in the preparation of food is also permitted when it is done for other reasons. Bet Shammai rules as did their eponymous leader in the previous mishnah, that it is forbidden to lay hands on the sacrificial animal on Yom Tov because that is considered to be making the animal work. Bet Hillel allows this, reasoning that if the sacrifice is allowed, all of the acts that accompany the sacrifice are also allowed.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Atzeret (the rabbinic term for the festival of Shavuot) is the only festival that lasts for just one day.  Since Bet Shammai holds that the wholly burnt offering brought as the pilgrimage offering cannot be offered on Yom Tov but they agree that this sacrifice must be offered at some point, the question must be asked, when should it be brought.
+<b>Atzeret ( which fell on a Friday: Bet Shammai say: the day of the slaughter [of the wholly burnt offerings] is after Shabbat. And Bet Hillel say: the day of the slaughter is not after Shabbat.</b>  Since Bet Shammai holds that the wholly burnt offering cannot be brought on Yom Tov itself, they have to posit that there is a “day of the slaughter” that comes the day afterward Atzeret.  Bet Hillel says that there is no special “day of the slaughter” because the sacrifice is brought on Atzeret itself.
+<b>They agree, however, that if it falls on Shabbat, the day of the slaughter is after Shabbat.</b>  If Atzeret falls on Shabbat, then Bet Hillel agrees that the sacrifice is offered the day after because the sacrifice of the hagigah and the pilgrimage wholly burnt offering do not override the prohibition of slaughtering an animal on Shabbat. This is because they can be sacrificed on another day.
+<b>The high priest does not [in that case] put on his [special] garments, and mourning and fasting are permitted, in order not to confirm the view of those who say that Atzeret is after Shabbat.</b>  Perhaps the bitterest dispute between the Sadducees and Pharisees was over the date of Atzeret.  The Sadducees held that the Omer began to be brought on the day after Shabbat, hence Shavuot would always fall on Sunday, seven weeks later. The Pharisees/rabbis held that the Omer began to be brought on the second day of Pesah, and hence the day of the week of Shavuot would vary from year to year depending upon the day of the week upon which the first day of Pesah fell.  We just learned that if Atzeret fell on Shabbat, they would slaughter the wholly-burnt offerings on Sunday. The problem this creates is that people will think that the halakhah is like the Sadducees.  To avoid creating this impression, the rabbis distinguished between this day of slaughter and a normal festival in several ways which would have been evident to the public. First of all the high priest would not wear his eight special garments that he normally wears while performing his worship service. Second, mourning and fasting was permitted. People who saw these changes would understand that the only reason that they were offering the sacrifices on Sunday was that they could not be offered on Shabbat. They would not think that the sages were actually postponing Shavuot to Sunday.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+From here until the end of the tractate the mishnah teaches laws of purity and impurity. The reason why these laws are here is that when Israel would come to Jerusalem and to the Temple for the festival they had to be pure in order to eat their sacrifices.  They would immerse their vessels to purify them before Yom Tov. During the festival all of the people of Israel acted like the Pharisees and were extra stringent on eating only while in a state of ritual purity.
+Our mishnah deals with the topic of washing hands versus washing one’s whole body. There are some foods which only required one’s hands to be washed while holier foods required one to immerse one’s entire body.
+<b>They wash hands for [eating] unconsecrated [food], and [second] tithe, and for terumah [heave-offering].</b>  One of the things that the Pharisees were famous for was washing their hands before they ate even regular unconsecrated food.  There is nothing wrong with eating impure food but the Pharisees wished to preserve the laws of purity on a higher level than was required.  During the festival, in Jerusalem everyone was expected to purify their hands before eating, even unconsecrated food.  Second tithe and terumah are holy and therefore they certainly require one to wash one’s hands before being touched. The handwashing referred to here is done with water poured over one’s hands with a vessel.
+<b>But for sacred food they must immerse [their hands in a mikveh].</b>  Before eating sacred food, such as the thanksgiving offering eaten by Israelites and the sin and guilt offerings eaten by the priests the hands must be immersed in a valid mikveh.  In the Talmud they debate what this section refers to. According to one opinion this clause refers only to hands which were certainly made impure.  Unless one knows that one’s hands had become impure, it would be sufficient to wash them with a vessel.  According to the other opinion, in all cases before one eats sacrificial meat one must wash hands by immersing them in the mikveh.
+<b>With regard to the [water of] purification, if one’s hands became impure, one’s [whole] body is impure.</b>  The “water of purification” refers to the water with the red heifer’s ashes in it used to purify people who had contracted a serious level of impurity.  One who comes to prepare the waters must be completely pure. If his hands had become impure then his whole body was also considered impure and he would have to immerse his whole body.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>If he immersed for unconsecrated [food], and was presumed to be fit to eat unconsecrated [food], he is prohibited from [eating second] tithe.<br>If he immersed for [second] tithe, and was presumed to be fit to eat [second] tithe, he is prohibited from [eating] terumah.<br>If he immersed for terumah, and was presumed to be fit to eat terumah, he is prohibited from [eating] holy things.<br>If he immersed for holy things, and was presumed to be fit to eat holy things he is prohibited from [touching the waters of] purification.<br>If one immersed for something possessing a stricter [degree of holiness], one is permitted [to have contact with] something possessing a lighter [degree of holiness].<br>If he immersed but without special intention, it is as though he had not immersed.</b><br>This mishnah deals with the intention that one has to have when one immerses. There are various levels of holy objects ranked below from lowest to highest:<br>1) Unconsecrated food.<br>2)  Second tithe (eaten by its owners in Jerusalem).<br>3) Terumah (separated from produce and given to priests).<br>4)  Sacrifices<br>5) The waters of purification made from the ashes of the red heifer.<br>The general rule of the mishnah is quite clear and stated explicitly at the end of the mishnah itself.  If one immerses with the intention of eating a less holy thing, say unconsecrated food, he cannot count that immersion in order to eat a more holy thing.  He would have to immerse again to eat the more holy thing.  However, if one immerses with the intention of eating a holy thing, say a sacrifice, that immersion counts for eating a less holy thing such as terumah.  Finally, if one immerses without any specific intention in mind, the immersion doesn’t count.<br>This explanation should aid in explaining the whole mishnah, so you will not see a fuller explanation below.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The vessel that a zav or zavah (a man or woman who had an unusual genital discharge) steps, sits, leans or lies upon is impure.  This vessel will now transmit impurity to those who touch it. This type of impurity is called “midras” which means “stepped upon.”  In our mishnah the rabbis state that the garments of people who have immersed for a lesser purpose possess midras-impurity for those who wish to preserve a higher degree of impurity. What this would mean is that if the person who wished to possess the higher degree of impurity touched these clothes, he would become impure.
+On a less literal level, this mishnah seems to rank those who preserve their purity, granting a higher status to those who are more cautious about the purity laws.  Also, this mishnah is parallel to yesterday’s mishnah, both ranking degrees of purity.
+<b>The garments of an am haaretz possess midras-impurity for Pharisees.</b>  An am-haaretz literally means, “one of the land” but it is used to refer to a person who does not observe the laws of purity and tithing as do the Pharisees.  As an aside, the word does not have quite as negative a connotation in the Mishnah as it does in later rabbinic literature.  In later literature one could translate the term as “ignoramus.”  In any case, since they were not cautious about purity laws, their clothes have midras-impurity for Pharisees.
+<b>The garments of Pharisees possess midras-impurity for those who eat terumah.</b>  While Pharisees were cautious about purity, they were not as pure as priests who ate terumah.  The Pharisees immersed to eat unconsecrated food and we learned in yesterday’s mishnah that one who immerses to eat unconsecrated food cannot eat terumah.  Hence the clothes of Pharisees have midras-impurity for a priest who eats terumah.
+<b>The garments of those who eat terumah possess midras-impurity for [those who eat] sacred things.</b>  Yesterday we learned that one who immerses to eat terumah is not pure enough to eat sacrifices (sacred things).  Today we learn that the clothes of the one who eats terumah have midras-impurity for the one who wishes to eat sacrifices.
+<b>The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification.</b>  One who wishes to deal with the waters of purification cannot touch even the clothes of one who immersed to eat sacrifices.
+<b>Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who ate] sacred things.</b>  Yose ben Yoezer was mentioned above at the beginning of mishnah two.  He was, according to our mishnah, the most pious of priests and he would immerse before eating unconsecrated food as it is was terumah. Nevertheless, his apron which he used to wipe his hands after eating, possessed midras-impurity for one who wished to eat sacrifices. As strict as he was in matters of purity, they still treated his clothes according to the above rules.
+<b>Yohanan ben Gudgada all his life used to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for sacred things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification.</b>  Yohanan ben Gudgada was even stricter with regard to purity and ate even unconsecrated food as if he was eating sacrifices.  This is one level stricter than the Pharisees who ate unconsecrated food as if it was terumah.  Nevertheless, since there is one level higher than the purity for sacrifices, his garments were still considered to possess midras-impurity for one who wished to deal with the waters of purification. These last two sections demonstrate that favor was not shown in matters of purity.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In the previous two mishnayot we learned that the rules regarding eating “sacred things,” namely sacrifices, are more stringent than the rules regarding eating terumah.   Our mishnah teaches several more aspects in which eating sacred things is treated more stringently.
+<b>Greater stringency applies to sacred things than to terumah, that they may immerse vessels within vessels [together] for terumah, but not for sacred things.</b>  When it comes to immersing impure vessels in order to purify them, if they are going to be used to hold terumah, one vessel may be immersed inside another vessel.  If the vessel is going to be used for sacrifices, then the vessels cannot be immersed one inside the other.
+<b>The outside and inside and handle [of a vessel are regarded as separate] for terumah, but not for sacred things.</b>  When it comes to terumah, each part of the vessel is considered as being separate.  So if an impure thing touches the handle of the vessel, only the handle is impure and the contents inside the vessel are still pure.  If something touches the outside of the vessel, only the outside is impure and not the inside.  Finally, if something impure touches the inside only the inside is impure.  When it comes to sacred things, if one part of the vessel is impure, the whole vessel is impure and will cause other things to become impure as well.
+<b>One that carries anything possessing midras-uncleanness may carry [at the same time] terumah, but not sacred things.</b>  I explained “midras-impurity” in yesterday’s mishnah.  Today’s mishnah teaches that if someone is holding an object that had become impure through midras (someone sat, stood, lied or applied pressure on it) he can hold in his other hand terumah. The vessel does not make him impure such that he makes the terumah impure.  However, he cannot hold sacred things at the same time.
+<b>The garments of those who eat terumah posses midras-uncleanness for [those who eat] sacred things.</b>  This is the exact same halakhah as that found in section three of yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>The rule [for the immersion of garments] for [those who would eat terumah is not the same as the rule for [those who would eat] sacred things: for in the case of sacred things, he must [first] untie [any knots in the unclean garment], dry it [if it is wet, then] immerse it, and afterwards retie it; but in case of terumah, it may [first] be tied and afterwards immersed.</b>  When one wants to immerse something to be used for sacred things must first untie all of the knots, dry them all off, then he may immerse it and then once it’s been immersed he may retie the knots. In contrast, if a vessel is going to be used for terumah, the knots don’t have to be taken out before it is immersed.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to provide aspects of purity/impurity in sacrifices are treated with greater stringency than terumah.
+<b>Vessels that have been finished in purity require immersion [before they are used] for sacred things, but not [before they are used] for terumah.</b>  Once the production of a vessel has been completed the vessel can now receive impurity. Even if the artisan was careful not to defile the vessel it still requires immersion before it can be used with sacred things.  In contrast, if the vessel is going to be used with terumah then it doesn’t need to be immersed unless it has been defiled.
+<b>A vessel unites all its contents [for impurity] in the case of sacred things, but not in the case of terumah.</b>  If there are a bunch of separate food items in a vessel, say some fruit or separate pieces of meat, and one becomes impure, then all of them are impure, if they are sacred things.  The vessel causes the impurity to travel from one piece to the other.  However, if they are terumah, then the vessel does not convey the impurity from one to the other.
+<b>Sacred things become invalid [by impurity] of a fourth degree, but terumah [only by impurity] of a third degree.</b>  There are different levels of impurity, the higher the number the closer the item is to the source of impurity, which is called a “father of impurity.”  A “father of impurity” that touches something give it first degree impurity, and a first degree conveys second degree impurity, and so on. Sacred things can become invalid through contact even with a third degree of impurity, meaning that these things cannot be put on the altar, because they have “fourth degree” of impurity.  There is no such thing as fifth degree of impurity. Terumah becomes disqualified only by something with a second degree of impurity.  If something of third degree impurity touches terumah it does not affect it.
+<b>In the case of terumah, if one hand of his hands became impure, the other remains clean, but in the case of sacred things, he must immerse both [hands], because the one hand defiles the other for sacred things but not for terumah.</b>  If one of one’s hands becomes impure, he cannot use the other hand to touch a sacred thing, even if one hand didn’t touch the other.  But when it comes to terumah, if one of one’s hands is impure he can use the other hand to touch terumah.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Another two stringencies for sacred things.
+<b>They may eat dry foods with impure hands when it comes to terumah, but not when it comes to sacred things.</b>  Wet food is susceptible to impurity whereas dry food is not (see Leviticus 11:34, 38).  This is true in all cases except for the case of sacred food.  The idea is that “the love of the sacred makes it susceptible to impurity.”  [This is a fascinating concept, demonstrating well that the concept of sacredness and susceptible to impurity are intimately connected.] Therefore one cannot eat sacred food with impure hands, even if the hands are dry.  Terumah is like normal food and doesn’t receive impurity unless it becomes wet.
+<b>The one who has not yet buried his dead (an and one who lacks atonement require immersion for sacred things but not for terumah.</b>  When one of a person’s seven close relatives dies, he/she is an onen on that day and the night thereafter.  An onen may not eat sacrifices.  Similarly a person who needed to bring certain sacrifices in order to complete his period of impurity (such as a leper, see Leviticus 14:10) cannot eat other sacrifices until he brings these mandated sacrifices.  The rabbis decreed that before these people can eat sacrifices they must go to the mikveh.  This immersion would aid in the transition between their former state of not being able to eat sacrifices to a state of being able to eat sacrifices.  In contrast, an onen and a formerly impure person who had not brought sacrifices can eat terumah, therefore upon the completion of the period of being an onen and after bringing the sacrifice he may continue to eat terumah without another immersion.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah begins to teach ways in which terumah is treated with greater stringency than sacrifices.  The central issue in this mishnah is how much to trust an am haaretz, an unlearned person, when he tells you that he preserved the purity of a food item.  As we shall see, if he says that he preserved its purity so that it would be used for a sacred thing (wine for a libation or oil for a minhah offering) than he is believed because the am haaretz respects the purity of sacred things. He would not allow an impure thing to be offered on the altar of the Temple. However, if he says he preserved its purity because it is terumah then the am haaretz is not believed.
+<b>Greater stringency applies to terumah [than to sacred things], for in Judah [the people of the land (amei] are trusted in regard to the purity of [sacred] wine and oil throughout the year; and at the season of the wine-presses and olive-presses even in regard to terumah.</b>  The farmers in Judah would have known that some of their produce, namely wine and oil would need to be pure so it could be used as libations and to accompany the minhah sacrifice.  They respected this and would not have allowed it to become impure.  Since sacrifices are needed all year round, they are believed all year if they say that they preserved its purity for it to be used as sacrifices.  However, they are not believed if they say that they preserved the produce because of the terumah that would have to be separated from it.   However, during the main time of the year when everyone presses their grapes and olives they are believed because everyone purifies their vessels at that time of the year, in anticipation of having to take terumah out of the wine and oil.  One could think of this as sort of the “high holiday season” of purity, at least for farmers. Although they may not be particularly meticulous in their observance during the rest of the year, they are during these two periods.
+<b>If [the season of] the wine-presses and olive-presses passed, and they brought to him a jar of wine of terumah, he [the priest] should not accept it from him, but [the am ha-aretz] may leave it for the coming [season] of the wine-press.</b>  If the time of wine and olive pressing has passed, a priest who is meticulous about his observance should not accept wine or olive oil from an am haaretz.   However, the am haaretz can leave over that wine until the next wine pressing and then the priest can accept it from him, even if the priest knows that this was not made during the current pressing.  It’s as if we are willing to believe the am haaretz because he was willing to hold onto his wine for so long.
+<b>But if he said to him, “I have set apart a quarter log [of wine] as a sacred thing,” he is believed [in regard to the purity of the whole jug].</b>  If the am haaretz says that he set apart some of the wine to be used in the sacrificial service, then he is believed to say that the whole jug is pure, even for the terumah in the jug.  Since he is believed when it comes to the sacred part of the wine, he is believed for the terumah as well.
+<b>[When it comes to] jugs of wine and jugs of oil that are meant for terumah, they are believed during the season of the wine-presses and the olive-vats and prior to [the season of] the wine-presses seventy days.</b>  The am haaretz is trusted when he says he preserved the purity of the empty wine and oil jugs both in the time of the pressing and before the pressing for seventy days.  Evidently, they would begin preparing the jugs to hold the wine and oil for seventy days before the pressing. However, for the terumah itself they are only believed to have preserved its purity during the time of the pressing.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The previous mishnah discussed when a person is trusted with regard to the purity of his things.  Today’s mishnah discusses another such rule when is a pottery maker trusted that he has preserved the purity of his pots.
+<b>From Modi’im inwards [the potters] are trusted in regard to [the purity of] earthenware vessels; from Modi'im outwards they are not trusted.</b>  Modiim is famous for being the city where the Maccabees lived.  It is about 30 kilometers northwest of Jerusalem, about a day’s travel by foot.  (It is also where I live, but that won’t really help you understand this mishnah).  The closer a pottery maker is to Jerusalem the more it will be in his best interests to preserve the purity of his pottery because it is likely that people buying his goods may want to use them in connection with the sacrificial service.  Therefore, if the pottery-maker lives from Modiim and inwards toward Jerusalem, he is believed to say that his pots are pure. We should note that the Temple would have required many clay pots because they could be used only one time.  Once a clay pot was used to cook sacrificial meat it could no longer be used because the meat that was absorbed into the pot would become remnant (leftover sacrifice) which is forbidden. Therefore the pots had to be disposed of after one use.
+<b>How so?  A potter who sells the pots entered inwards of Modi'im, then the same potter, the same pots and the same buyers are trusted [to be pure]. But if he went out [from Modi’im outwards] he is not trusted.</b>  In this section we learn that the rule that the potter is believed when he is inside of the Modiim border is an absolute rule.  The same potter, pots and buyers that are trusted to be pure when they are between Modiim and Jerusalem are no longer believed to be pure when they go out beyond Modiim.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah continues to deal with the question of when to trust a person when he says that he has not made vessels impure.
+<b>Tax-collectors who entered a house, and similarly thieves who restored [stolen] vessels are believed if they say, “We have not touched [anything].”</b>  The mishnah refers to a tax collector who has taken someone’s possessions in order to use them as collateral for a tax debt.  When he returns the object to its owner he is believed if he says that he didn’t make the object impure.  The same is true for the thief who is returning something he had stolen. It seems that these people are believed specifically because they are doing “teshuvah”, repentance, by returning the stolen/collected item. Since they are repenting, they are at the same time believed with regard to other aspects of religious law. Some commentators say that these people are believed if the item is going to be used for sacrifices, because even tax collectors and thieves respect the purity of sacrifices. But they are not believed with regard to terumah.  Other commentators say that they are believed for both.
+<b>And in Jerusalem they are believed in regard to sacred things, and during a festival also in regard to terumah.</b>  Amei Haaretz (uneducated people) are believed when they are in Jerusalem to say that their vessels are pure so that they could be used with sacrifices.  During a festival their trustworthiness is even greater because everybody, even the uneducated, would purify themselves before the festival. Therefore they are even believed with regard to terumah.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+During the festival the am haaretz, the uneducated “person of the land” is believed with regard to issues of purity far more than he is during the rest of the year.  The first part of our mishnah deals with how far this trustworthiness extends.
+The second part deals with the period after the festival has passed and with the question of how to cope with the fact that there have been people in the Temple courtyard who may have been impure.
+<b>One who opened his jar [of wine] or broke into his dough [to sell them] on account of the festival [and an am haaretz touched the wine or dough]: Rabbi Judah says: he may finish [selling them after the festival]; But the sages say: he may not finish.</b>  The mishnah is addressed to a store owner who is cautious about matters of purity. He is what is called a haver or an associate, a member of the rabbinic circle, the opposite of an am haaretz.  During the festival he opens up jugs of wine and he breaks into prepared dough to sell these products to customers for their use during the festival.  Some of the customers are amei haaretz and they touch the wine and dough. We have already stated that during the festival the am haaretz is trusted to say that he is pure. The question is, can the store owner continue to sell these items after the festival as if the amei haaretz really were pure. Rabbi Judah says that he can.  According to Rabbi Judah, since we assume that the am haaretz was pure during the festival, we can assume that the wine and dough are pure even after the festival. The other sages disagree.  During the festival they are believed not so much because we are sure that the am haaretz is pure but because the sages wished to be lenient during the festival.  We might even say that the sages wished to be lenient in order to encourage all of the people from the land to participate in the festival and its sacrifices.  However, when the festival was over the rules return to normal and we must be concerned lest the wine or dough had been made impure.
+<b>When the festival was over, they undertook the purification of the Temple court. If the festival ended on Friday, they did not undertake [the purification of the Temple court] because of the honor of the Shabbat. Rabbi Judah said: even not on Thursday, for the priests are not free.</b>  When the festival was over they had to face the fact that the people may have made the Temple’s vessels impure. The trustworthiness bequeathed to everyone during the festival was over.  They would then begin to purify the Temple’s vessels. How they did so will be described in tomorrow’s mishnah.  If the festival was over on Friday, meaning that Thursday was the last day of the festival, the priests would not have had time on Friday to purify the vessels because they were busy preparing for Shabbat.  Therefore they would wait until Sunday to purify the vessels.  According to Rabbi Judah, even if the festival was over on Wednesday, they wouldn’t begin the purification until Sunday.  On Thursday the priests were not available because they were cleaning out all of the ashes that had accumulated on the altar during the entire festival. They would not have had time on Thursday to purify the vessels.  On Friday they were busy preparing for Shabbat.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final mishnah of the chapter, tractate and seder (game, set and match) explains how they purified the Temple’s vessels.
+<b>How did they undertake the purification of the Temple court?  They immersed the vessels which were in the Temple, and they say to them: “Be cautious lest you touch the table or menorah and defile them.”</b>  All the vessels in the Temple were immersed in order to purify them lest they had become impure during the festival. However, the table upon which the showbread was placed could not be immersed because the showbread had to be on it always (Exodus 25:30).  Similarly, the menorah had to always be lit (Leviticus 24:2) and therefore it couldn’t be immersed either.  Since these could not be immersed because they were in constant use, they would tell the priests to be very careful to make sure that the impure vessels which they were immersing would not touch the table or the menorah.
+<b>All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third sets, so that if the first was defiled, they might bring a second set in its place.</b>  All the vessels in the Temple had backups in case the first set became impure.  You could think of these as sort of “understudy vessels”, just waiting for their day in the sun!
+<b>All the vessels that were in the Temple required immersion, except the altar of gold and the altar of bronze, for they are like the ground, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: because they were overlaid [with metal].</b>  There were two vessels in the Temple that did not require immersion, the two altars. The bronze altar was used for the sacrifices and the gold altar was used for the burning of the incense.  There is a debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the sages why these altars do not require immersion. According to Rabbi Eliezer because they are attached to the ground, they are treated like the ground which cannot become impure. According to the sages their metal covering prevents impurity from getting to the vessel itself. The metal covering itself cannot become impure because it is not a vessel. Congratulations!  We have finished Moed Katan and Seder Moed! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. For those of you who have been following along with Mishnah Yomit from its beginning, you have now learned half of the entire Mishnah!  We began with Seder Nezikin, continued with Seder Nashim and now we have finished Seder Moed. This is quite an impressive amount of learning.  These are the three orders of Mishnah most learned and for which there exists both Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds.  You should feel really good about this accomplishment and hopefully, you are looking at the proverbial glass as half full. However, we still have half the Mishnah to go. Mishnah Yomit never lets up. Tomorrow we begin Seder Zeraim, Tractate Berakhot.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Chagigah/English/merged.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Chagigah
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה חגיגה
+merged
+https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Chagigah
+This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
+-Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+-http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Chagigah
+
+Introduction
+
+Tractate Hagigah deals with the three sacrifices that according to the rabbis a person had to bring on all three festivals, Sukkot, Pesah and Shavuot.  
+The first of these sacrifices is called the “Hagigah.”  The rabbis derived the concept of the Hagigah from the word “hag” used in the context of the three festivals.  According to the rabbis, every person had to bring on the first day of the festival a Hagigah.  If they could not offer it on the first day, then they could bring it for the remaining seven days. The Hagigah is a type of thanksgiving sacrifice; some of the meat went to the owners and some of the fats were offered on the altar.
+The second type of sacrifice is a celebratory thanksgiving offering. This is meant to fulfill the commandment to celebrate on the festival (Deuteronomy 16:14).   Celebrating means eating meat (sorry if you’re a vegetarian).  People were supposed to eat these thanksgiving offerings for all seven days.    
+The third sacrifice is called a “re’eyah” which means “to be seen.”  Deuteronomy 16:16 says that all males must “be seen” at the Temple three times a year, on the three festivals.  The rabbis understood that they were not to be seen empty-handed, but rather they had to bring a sacrifice.  This sacrifice is a whole burnt offering, an olah.   
+Tractate Hagigah deals mostly with these three sacrifices.  Along the way there are some fascinating mishnayot that deal with sacrifices and purity and shed much light on certain historical aspects of the Second Temple and Mishnaic periods.  While some of these mishnayot may be a little difficult to understand, those who persist in learning them will find them quite intriguing.   
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah delineates who is obligated to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem on the three festivals.  Exodus 23:17 says, “Three times a year all your male shall appear before the Sovereign, the Lord.”  Our mishnah elaborates on this verse.
+<b>All are obligated to appear [at the Temple], except a deaf person,  an imbecile and a minor, a person of unknown sex [tumtum], a hermaphrodite, women, unfreed slaves, a lame person, a blind person, a sick person, an aged person, and one who is unable to go up on foot.</b>  I will explain each category of persons exempted from making the pilgrimage one at a time. A deaf person, an imbecile and a minor: These three people are usually lumped together because they are not considered to have “awareness/intelligence” (daat).  They are exempt from all commandments, this one included. A person of unknown sex [tumtum], a hermaphrodite, women:  Exodus 23:17 says that only males are obligated.  The mishnah therefore exempts anyone whose sex as a male is not certain.  A tumtum is a person with neither male nor female genitalia.  A hermaphrodite has both.  Since neither is a certain male, neither is obligated. Unfreed slaves:  Slaves are not obligated for any mitzvah from which a woman is exempt. A lame person, a blind person, a sick person, an aged person, and one who is unable to go up on foot:  Except for the blind person, the other people in this list will have great difficulty in walking up to the Temple Mount.  Since the word for festival is “regel” which also means “leg,” these people are exempt.  The blind person is exempt because the Torah says that the mitzvah is “to be seen” there. Since the blind person cannot see, he does not have to be seen.
+<b>Who is a minor? Whoever is unable to ride on his father’s shoulders and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, the words of Bet Shammai. But Bet Hillel say: whoever is unable to hold his father’s hand and go up from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, as it is said: “Three regalim” (Exodus 23:14).</b>  Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai debate the age at which a minor is obligated to make the pilgrimage.  According to Bet Shammai, as long as the child can ride on his father’s shoulders he must go to the Temple.  Shammai (and his eponymous house) is generally strict when it comes to the observance of commandments by children. For instance, Shammai made a sukkah for his infant son, and he wanted the same son to fast on Yom Kippur.  For Shammai, as long as the child can physically perform the commandment, he must do so. Bet Hillel holds that the child must be able to walk on his own.  This is derived from the fact that the Torah uses the word “regel” which also means leg. The Torah’s choice of this word, as opposed to “Three pa’amim” (three times) implies that the child must be able to walk on his own.  On a perhaps deeper level, Bet Hillel holds that the mitzvah is for the person to go there on his own, through the power of his own body.  Having someone else carry one there is simply not a fulfillment of the mitzvah.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In this mishnah the two houses debate the minimum value of the pilgrimage offering and the hagigah offering.  These two offerings were explained in the introduction to the tractate.
+<b>Bet Shammai say: the pilgrimage-offering (re’eyah) must be worth [at least] two pieces of silver and the hagigah one piece (ma’ah) of silver. But Bet Hillel say: the pilgrimage-offering must be worth [at least] one ma'ah of silver and the hagigah two pieces of silver.</b> The pilgrimage offering is an olah, a wholly burnt offering, whereas the hagigah is a shelamim, a thanksgiving offering, part eaten by the priests, part by its owners and part offered on the altar.  According to Bet Shammai the sacrifice that is completely for God, the pilgrimage offering, is the more expensive offering.  If we extrapolate, we might say that when a person has a limited budget, he should spend more on God than on himself. Bet Hillel holds the opposite the hagigah offering, eaten by people, is to be the more expensive offering.  Extrapolating again, Bet Hillel seems to put humans at the center, focusing on enriching their religious experience by providing them more food.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+When people would make their pilgrimage festivals to Jerusalem, they would usually bring with them money which they had used to redeem their second tithe.  Second tithe can be eaten by its owners but only in Jerusalem. To make things easier for people the Torah allows them to redeem the produce for money, take the money to Jerusalem and use it there to buy food items. Our mishnah deals with which sacrifices one can buy from second tithe money and which have to be purchased with “hullin,” unconsecrated money.  It is in the best interests of the pilgrim to be able to use his second tithe money, money which he will have to spend in Jerusalem in any case.
+<b>Burnt-offerings during the festival [week] are to be brought from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money, and thanksgiving offerings, from [animals bought with] tithe money.</b>  This section deals with hol hamoed, the middle of the week of Sukkot and Pesah.  Burnt-offerings, the pilgrimage offerings, which are obligatory, must be brought with animals purchased with unconsecrated money. This is the same rule as for all mandatory offerings they may not be purchased with tithe money. Celebratory thanksgiving offering, brought during the middle of the festival are not obligatory as are the other festival offerings.  A person has to eat meat during the week and while it was customary to use thanksgiving offerings, it was not mandated.  Since this sacrifice wasn’t mandated, one can use tithe money to purchase it.
+<b>On the first festival day of Pesah: Bet Shammai say: [they must be brought] from [animals bought with] unconsecrated money. And Bet Hillel say: [they can be brought also] from [animals bought with] tithe money.</b>  On the first day of both Pesah and Sukkot, and on Shavuot, the thanksgiving offering, the hagigah, is obligatory.  Since it is a mandated offering, Bet Shammai holds that it must come from animals purchased with unconsecrated money.  Bet Hillel holds that one can still use tithe money because the hagigah is partially eaten by its owners. The Torah states that second tithe must be used to purchase food and the hagigah is food. According to the Talmud, second tithe cannot be used to purchase the whole animal, because some of the animal is offered on the altar.  It may only be used as part of the purchasing price.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+During the festival it was a mitzvah to celebrate by eating meat. This was done by bringing celebratory thanksgiving offerings to the Temple and eating them in Jerusalem.  Our mishnah teaches that both Israelites and priests can use animals and meat dedicated or made holy for other purposes in order to fulfill this obligation.
+<b>Israelites fulfill their obligation with vow-offerings, freewill-offerings and cattle tithe.</b>  An Israelite can fulfill his obligation to bring/eat a celebratory thanksgiving offering by bringing vow-offerings and freewill-offerings that he had set aside during the year for other purposes. During the year a person might make an offering to the Temple for all sorts of reasons (as a supplication, to show gratitude).  He may take this animal with him on his pilgrimage and it can count as his celebratory thanksgiving offering.  Cattle tithe, the tenth animal born of cows, sheep and goats, is “holy to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32). This animal is brought to Jerusalem and eaten there.  An Israelite can use an animal that was set aside to be cattle tithe as his celebratory thanksgiving offering.
+<b>And priests with sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, firstlings, the breast and the shoulder,   but not with bird-offerings, and not with meal-offerings.</b>  Pilgrims would also bring with them the various sin-offerings and guilt-offerings that they had become liable for during the year. They would also bring the “firstlings”, the first-born of every kosher animal.  All of these go to the priest and he may use them to fulfill his obligation for celebratory thanksgiving offerings.  The breast and the shoulder of thanksgiving offerings go to the priest.  This meat will count for him in order to fulfill his obligation for eating meat. However, bird-offerings and meal-offerings don’t count because one can only fulfill the obligation with mammal meat sheep, goats and cows.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+As I have explained in the previous mishnayot, the pilgrimage offering is a wholly burnt offering and is not eaten, whereas the celebratory offering is a thanksgiving offering and is eaten.  Our mishnah gives four different possibilities for how much of each offering a person should bring.
+<b>He that has many people to eat [with him] and little money, brings many thanksgiving-offerings and few burnt-offerings.</b>  If a person has a lot of people he needs to feed and not a lot of money with which to buy the animals to use as sacrifices, he should spend more money on the edible thanksgiving offerings and less on the burnt offerings.
+<b>[He that has] a lot of money and few to eat [with him] brings many burnt-offerings and few thanksgiving-offerings.</b>  If he has a lot of money and wishes to spend it on sacrifices and he doesn’t have a lot of people to eat with him, he should spend more money on the burnt offerings.  If he buys too many thanksgiving offerings (or too large of an animal) the meat will have to be burned (not as a sacrifice but as the remnant of uneaten sacrifice).
+<b>[He that has] little of either, for him is it is said:  “One ma'ah of silver’, ‘two pieces of silver.”</b>  If he has few people to feed and little money, he should buy the minimum amount of each sacrifice.  Our mishnah makes reference to mishnah 2 above where Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debated the minimum amount for each sacrifice.
+<b>He that has a lot of both, of him it is said: “Every man as he is able, according to the blessing that the Lord your God has bestowed upon you” (Deuteronomy 16:17).</b>  If he is lucky enough to have brought a lot of people with him on the pilgrimage, and to have a lot of money, then he has been blessed by God. The mishnah quotes the verse which says that each brings according to his own blessing, meaning he can bring as many sacrifices as he wants.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah teaches that if one did not bring the hagigah offering on the first day of the festival, he has the rest of the festival to bring it.  This is derived from Leviticus 23:41 which says, “You shall observe it as a festival of the Lord for seven days” implying that the hagigah can be brought throughout the festival.
+<b>He who did not bring his hagigah on the first day of the festival of Sukkot, may bring it during the whole of the festival, even on the last festival day of Sukkot.</b>  Even though the last day of Sukkot is a different festival called Shmini Atzeret, nevertheless even on this day one can bring his hagigah offering and have it count as his Sukkot hagigah.
+<b>If the festival, passed and he did not bring the festival offering, he is no longer liable for it. Of such a person it is said: “A twisted thing cannot be made straight, a lack cannot be made good” (Ecclesiastes 1:15).</b>  Once the festival is over, he cannot bring the hagigah offering.  Even if he set aside an animal to be a hagigah and then it was lost during the festival and found afterwards, he cannot offer that animal as a hagigah.  In such a case the animal would be offered as a freewill offering.  The mistake of not bringing the hagigah during the correct time is a “lack that cannot be made good.”
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The end of yesterday’s mishnah brought a quote from Ecclesiastes 1:15 about a wrong that cannot be corrected.  Our mishnah continues to discuss this verse.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Who is “a twisted thing that cannot be made straight?” He who has intercourse with a forbidden relation and bears by her a mamzer.  Should you say that it applies to a thief or robber, he is able to restore [the stolen object] and make straight.</b>  Most transgressions can be “made straight,” that is to say they can be fixed. The damage is not irreparable. However, when a man has intercourse with a woman forbidden to him and they have a child, that child is a mamzer for life, there is nothing he can do to get out of this status.  He/she will forever be a mamzer, restricted in marriage. Other sins such as stealing can be repaired by returning the stolen object.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: They only call something “twisted” if it was straight at first and then became twisted. And who is this?  A disciple of the sages who forsakes the Torah.</b>  Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai reads the verse slightly differently.  The verse does not relate simply to a wrong that cannot be corrected.  Something is only considered to be twisted if it was originally straight.  A mamzer was born “twisted” and hence is not referred to in the verse.  Rather the verse refers to a Torah scholar who rejects his Torah learning.  He was straight when he was dedicated to a life of Torah and became twisted when he separated from that life. The Talmud on this mishnah contains many of the legends about the famous Elisha ben Abuyah, the great Torah sage who later rejected his learning, professing, “there is no law and no judge.”  For a very interesting read, one which illuminates the mishnaic period better than any book I know, check out Milton Steinberg’s “As A Driven Leaf.”
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah, and the first two mishnayot of the next chapter, do not deal with the hagigah. Rather they are loosely connected to the end of the previous mishnah concerning the Torah scholar who separates from the Torah.  Our mishnah deals with one issue which may have caused some rabbis to dismiss the Torah, especially the Oral Torah.  There are many halakhot in the Mishnah which seem to have little connection to the Written Torah.  Some rabbis may have rejected rabbinic learning claiming that the rabbis were just “making it up.”  This was a common anti-rabbinic claim made throughout Jewish history, most famously by the Sadducees and later by the Karaites.  Our mishnah acknowledges that some halakhot are indeed not well connected to Scripture and yet at the same time the mishnah seems to bequeath to these laws the same authority as those firmly anchored in the Written Torah.
+<b>[The laws concerning] the dissolution of vows hover in the air and have nothing to rest on.</b>  According to the rabbis, a sage has the power to dissolve a vow.  This was a subject we covered when we learned Tractate Nedarim.  However, there is no scriptural basis, no verses in the Torah, that give the rabbis (or anyone else) such power.  These halakhot “hover in the air” meaning they are not grounded in the written Torah.
+<b>The laws concerning Shabbat, hagigot, and trespassing are as mountains hanging by a hair, for they have scant scriptural basis but many halakhot.</b>  There are three categories of halakhah which have some scriptural basis, but not a lot and yet they have a lot of halakhot in the Mishnah and in other rabbinic works. The first of these is Shabbat.  There were 24 chapters in Mishnah Shabbat and another 11 in Eruvin and yet the Torah barely discusses what types of work are prohibited on Shabbat. Hagigah, the subject of our tractate, is also another case of a lot of halakhah with little scriptural basis.  The Torah only says the word “hag,” which the rabbis interpret to mean a sacrifice. This is not a lot of scriptural support for a whole tractate.  Finally, “trespassing” which means illicit use of Temple property. There is a whole tractate called Meilah dedicate to this subject, and yet it too has scant scriptural support.
+<b>[The laws concerning] civil cases and [Temple] worship, purity and impurity, and the forbidden relations have what to rest on, and they that are the essentials of the Torah.</b>  The Torah is full of verses dedicated to civil laws, the main topic of all of Seder Nezikin, Temple worship, the main topic of Seder Kodashim, purity laws, the main topic of Seder Toharot and the laws of forbidden relations, the main topic of large parts of Seder Nashim.  These are the “essentials of Torah” in that the Torah dedicates to them more verses than to anything else.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>They may not expound upon the subject of forbidden relations in the presence of three.<br>Nor the work of creation in the presence of two.<br>Nor [the work of] the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a sage and understands of his own knowledge.<br>Whoever speculates upon four things, it would have been better had he not come into the world: (1) what is above, (2) what is beneath, (3) what came before, and (4) what came after.<br>And whoever takes no thought for the honor of his creator, it would have been better had he not come into the world.</b><br>This mishnah is brought here because like yesterday’s mishnah it may refer to certain reasons why sages abandoned the world of Torah.  There are some subjects which are, according to our mishnah, dangerous to speculate upon or to discuss in front of the masses.  Pondering upon the unknowable may have contributed towards apostasy.<br>Section one:  The danger of expounding upon the verses about forbidden relations in the Torah is either that people will be confused and make irreparable mistakes (i.e. create mamzerim) or that they will be titillated by the attention paid to these verses and they will not be able to control their urges and they will come to sin. Therefore, these verses are not expounded before even a group as small as three.<br>Section two: How the world was created and whether it was created from already existing material was a much debated and sensitive issue in the ancient world.  That there might have been material which pre-existed God would have been seen by the rabbis to be heretical.  Due to the speculative nature of this subject, it was forbidden to talk about it in front of even two people.<br>Section three: The study of the chariot, Ezekiel’s heavenly vision (Ezekiel 1) is the mystical study of God, God’s physical attributes and God’s unknowable mysteries.  The sages seem to have believed that God had a physical existence, perhaps even a body in a certain sense, but that God’s body was hidden from human beings.  It was forbidden for one sage to teach this subject to another sage unless the learning sage could understand things without really being explained to them.  What this seems to mean is that one sage could begin to discuss this topic with another sage but he shouldn’t reveal to him the secrets of God unless he sees that the sage understands and can proceed on his own.  However, we interpret this, what is clear is that the sages were extremely hesitant to engage publicly in mysticism.<br>Section four: There were some things that humans couldn’t know and therefore should not try to know. They are:  1) what is above the sky; 2) what is below the earth; 3) what came before the earth was created; 4) what will come after it is destroyed.  Again, these four subjects are (or at least were) completely speculative.  A person should spend their time in this world studying subjects that are knowable, such as the interpretation of Torah and halakhah.  Metaphysical speculation was ruled out by this mishnah.  The final line of the mishnah seems to be a continuation of the previous line.  Those who try to uncover God’s secrets and reveal them to the public are not acting with respect to God’s honor.  It is almost as if they are undressing God in public.  Had God wanted these secrets to be revealed they would have been revealed.<br>I should note that there do seem to have been rabbis in this period who did engage in such speculative study and even composed works dedicated to the topic.  There are two ways to justify this mishnah with those other works.  First of all, there were different groups of rabbis, some of which focused on halakhah/midrash and others who focused on mysticism.  The second possibility, which I believe to be more likely, is that the rabbis thought that mysticism was not an appropriate focus for most people’s study.  Mysticism, which they considered dangerous, should be reserved for the elite and not spread to the masses.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Yose ben Yoezer says that [on a festival] the laying of the hands [on the head of a sacrifice] may not be performed. Yosef ben Johanan says that it may be performed.<br>Joshua ben Perahia says that it may not be performed. Nittai the Arbelite says that it may be performed.<br>Judah ben Tabai says that it may not be performed. Shimon ben Shetah says that it may be performed.<br>Shamayah says that it may be performed. Avtalyon says that it may not be performed.<br>Hillel and Menahem did not dispute. Menahem went out, Shammai entered.<br>Shammai says that it may not be performed. Hillel says that it may be performed.<br>The former [of each] pair were patriarchs and the latter were heads of the court.</b><br>Our mishnah is possibly the most unique mishnah in the entire Mishnah.  It contains a debate about whether or not a person can lay their hands on a sacrifice on Yom Tov, the first and last days of a festival.  According to Leviticus 1:4 and other parallel verses, when a person brings a sacrifice he lays his hands, or leans, on the sacrifice before it is slaughtered.  On Yom Tov it is forbidden to use an animal and leaning on an animal is considered to be use of an animal.  Therefore, the question could be asked, can one lean on the sacrificial animal on Yom Tov or must he do so the day before?<br>What is unique about our mishnah is that there are five pairs (zugot) of sages, each from a different generation, who debated this issue.  The sages here are early sages who lived during the Second Temple period, from the beginning of the Hasmonean period until close to the beginning of the millennium.  They might even be called proto-sages, or proto-rabbis.  With one exception, all of these sages are found in Avot 1:4-10, where each transmits a moral exhortation.  The final clause of the mishnah determines that of each pair the first was the patriarch and the second was the head of the court.  As far as I know, there are no other mishnayot that have this structure in which the same debate being repeated generation after generation.<br>The fact that they debate specifically this issue is significant.  We know that ancient Jews argued a lot about the laws of Yom Tov and Shabbat and that the Pharisees tended to be more lenient than the other two main sects, the Essenes and the Sadducees.  This seems to be the trend in this mishnah as well Hillel allows one to lean on the animal, whereas Shammai does not.<br>Section four:  Note that the mishnah switches order here.  In all three previous pairs, the first said that it may not be performed, whereas the second said that it should be performed.  It seems that there may have been some historical switch at this period, where the position of the patriarch changed.<br>Section five:  Little is known about Menahem from rabbinic literature, except that he seems to have separated from the fold.  Josephus, Antiquities 15:10, 5 relates a story about a certain Menahem who was an Essene.  This Menahem receives a divine revelation that Herod will become king and he relates it to him.  According to some scholars this is the same Menahem referred to in our mishnah.  In any case, it is interesting that he is replaced by Shammai.  It is as if the mishnah is letting us know that Shammai is not like Menahem. While Shammai’s opinions are usually not the accepted halakhah, he is still legitimate.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In this mishnah Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel debate which sacrifices may be brought on Yom Tov and whether it is permitted to lay hands on them. The second of these debates is the same as the debate in yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>Bet Shammai say: They may bring thanksgiving offerings [on Yom Tov] but they may not lay their hands on them, and [they may not bring] wholly burnt-offerings. And Bet Hillel say: They may bring thanksgiving offerings and wholly burnt-offerings and lay their hands on them.</b> The debate here is over two subjects.  1)  Can wholly burnt-offerings be brought on Yom Tov?  2) When a sacrifice is brought on Yom Tov, do they lay their hands on the sacrifice as is usually mandated with sacrifices? Bet Shammai states that wholly burnt-offerings cannot be brought on Yom Tov at all since they are not eaten. The Torah permits preparing food on Yom Tov (see Tractate Betzah) but since wholly-burnt offerings are not food, they may not be prepared on Yom Tov.  The wholly burnt offering which must be brought on account of the festival (re’eyah) should be sacrificed during the festival week. Bet Hillel allows the bringing of wholly burnt offerings because they hold that any work that is permitted when it is done in the preparation of food is also permitted when it is done for other reasons. Bet Shammai rules as did their eponymous leader in the previous mishnah, that it is forbidden to lay hands on the sacrificial animal on Yom Tov because that is considered to be making the animal work. Bet Hillel allows this, reasoning that if the sacrifice is allowed, all of the acts that accompany the sacrifice are also allowed.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Atzeret (the rabbinic term for the festival of Shavuot) is the only festival that lasts for just one day.  Since Bet Shammai holds that the wholly burnt offering brought as the pilgrimage offering cannot be offered on Yom Tov but they agree that this sacrifice must be offered at some point, the question must be asked, when should it be brought.
+<b>Atzeret ( which fell on a Friday: Bet Shammai say: the day of the slaughter [of the wholly burnt offerings] is after Shabbat. And Bet Hillel say: the day of the slaughter is not after Shabbat.</b>  Since Bet Shammai holds that the wholly burnt offering cannot be brought on Yom Tov itself, they have to posit that there is a “day of the slaughter” that comes the day afterward Atzeret.  Bet Hillel says that there is no special “day of the slaughter” because the sacrifice is brought on Atzeret itself.
+<b>They agree, however, that if it falls on Shabbat, the day of the slaughter is after Shabbat.</b>  If Atzeret falls on Shabbat, then Bet Hillel agrees that the sacrifice is offered the day after because the sacrifice of the hagigah and the pilgrimage wholly burnt offering do not override the prohibition of slaughtering an animal on Shabbat. This is because they can be sacrificed on another day.
+<b>The high priest does not [in that case] put on his [special] garments, and mourning and fasting are permitted, in order not to confirm the view of those who say that Atzeret is after Shabbat.</b>  Perhaps the bitterest dispute between the Sadducees and Pharisees was over the date of Atzeret.  The Sadducees held that the Omer began to be brought on the day after Shabbat, hence Shavuot would always fall on Sunday, seven weeks later. The Pharisees/rabbis held that the Omer began to be brought on the second day of Pesah, and hence the day of the week of Shavuot would vary from year to year depending upon the day of the week upon which the first day of Pesah fell.  We just learned that if Atzeret fell on Shabbat, they would slaughter the wholly-burnt offerings on Sunday. The problem this creates is that people will think that the halakhah is like the Sadducees.  To avoid creating this impression, the rabbis distinguished between this day of slaughter and a normal festival in several ways which would have been evident to the public. First of all the high priest would not wear his eight special garments that he normally wears while performing his worship service. Second, mourning and fasting was permitted. People who saw these changes would understand that the only reason that they were offering the sacrifices on Sunday was that they could not be offered on Shabbat. They would not think that the sages were actually postponing Shavuot to Sunday.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+From here until the end of the tractate the mishnah teaches laws of purity and impurity. The reason why these laws are here is that when Israel would come to Jerusalem and to the Temple for the festival they had to be pure in order to eat their sacrifices.  They would immerse their vessels to purify them before Yom Tov. During the festival all of the people of Israel acted like the Pharisees and were extra stringent on eating only while in a state of ritual purity.
+Our mishnah deals with the topic of washing hands versus washing one’s whole body. There are some foods which only required one’s hands to be washed while holier foods required one to immerse one’s entire body.
+<b>They wash hands for [eating] unconsecrated [food], and [second] tithe, and for terumah [heave-offering].</b>  One of the things that the Pharisees were famous for was washing their hands before they ate even regular unconsecrated food.  There is nothing wrong with eating impure food but the Pharisees wished to preserve the laws of purity on a higher level than was required.  During the festival, in Jerusalem everyone was expected to purify their hands before eating, even unconsecrated food.  Second tithe and terumah are holy and therefore they certainly require one to wash one’s hands before being touched. The handwashing referred to here is done with water poured over one’s hands with a vessel.
+<b>But for sacred food they must immerse [their hands in a mikveh].</b>  Before eating sacred food, such as the thanksgiving offering eaten by Israelites and the sin and guilt offerings eaten by the priests the hands must be immersed in a valid mikveh.  In the Talmud they debate what this section refers to. According to one opinion this clause refers only to hands which were certainly made impure.  Unless one knows that one’s hands had become impure, it would be sufficient to wash them with a vessel.  According to the other opinion, in all cases before one eats sacrificial meat one must wash hands by immersing them in the mikveh.
+<b>With regard to the [water of] purification, if one’s hands became impure, one’s [whole] body is impure.</b>  The “water of purification” refers to the water with the red heifer’s ashes in it used to purify people who had contracted a serious level of impurity.  One who comes to prepare the waters must be completely pure. If his hands had become impure then his whole body was also considered impure and he would have to immerse his whole body.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>If he immersed for unconsecrated [food], and was presumed to be fit to eat unconsecrated [food], he is prohibited from [eating second] tithe.<br>If he immersed for [second] tithe, and was presumed to be fit to eat [second] tithe, he is prohibited from [eating] terumah.<br>If he immersed for terumah, and was presumed to be fit to eat terumah, he is prohibited from [eating] holy things.<br>If he immersed for holy things, and was presumed to be fit to eat holy things he is prohibited from [touching the waters of] purification.<br>If one immersed for something possessing a stricter [degree of holiness], one is permitted [to have contact with] something possessing a lighter [degree of holiness].<br>If he immersed but without special intention, it is as though he had not immersed.</b><br>This mishnah deals with the intention that one has to have when one immerses. There are various levels of holy objects ranked below from lowest to highest:<br>1) Unconsecrated food.<br>2)  Second tithe (eaten by its owners in Jerusalem).<br>3) Terumah (separated from produce and given to priests).<br>4)  Sacrifices<br>5) The waters of purification made from the ashes of the red heifer.<br>The general rule of the mishnah is quite clear and stated explicitly at the end of the mishnah itself.  If one immerses with the intention of eating a less holy thing, say unconsecrated food, he cannot count that immersion in order to eat a more holy thing.  He would have to immerse again to eat the more holy thing.  However, if one immerses with the intention of eating a holy thing, say a sacrifice, that immersion counts for eating a less holy thing such as terumah.  Finally, if one immerses without any specific intention in mind, the immersion doesn’t count.<br>This explanation should aid in explaining the whole mishnah, so you will not see a fuller explanation below.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The vessel that a zav or zavah (a man or woman who had an unusual genital discharge) steps, sits, leans or lies upon is impure.  This vessel will now transmit impurity to those who touch it. This type of impurity is called “midras” which means “stepped upon.”  In our mishnah the rabbis state that the garments of people who have immersed for a lesser purpose possess midras-impurity for those who wish to preserve a higher degree of impurity. What this would mean is that if the person who wished to possess the higher degree of impurity touched these clothes, he would become impure.
+On a less literal level, this mishnah seems to rank those who preserve their purity, granting a higher status to those who are more cautious about the purity laws.  Also, this mishnah is parallel to yesterday’s mishnah, both ranking degrees of purity.
+<b>The garments of an am haaretz possess midras-impurity for Pharisees.</b>  An am-haaretz literally means, “one of the land” but it is used to refer to a person who does not observe the laws of purity and tithing as do the Pharisees.  As an aside, the word does not have quite as negative a connotation in the Mishnah as it does in later rabbinic literature.  In later literature one could translate the term as “ignoramus.”  In any case, since they were not cautious about purity laws, their clothes have midras-impurity for Pharisees.
+<b>The garments of Pharisees possess midras-impurity for those who eat terumah.</b>  While Pharisees were cautious about purity, they were not as pure as priests who ate terumah.  The Pharisees immersed to eat unconsecrated food and we learned in yesterday’s mishnah that one who immerses to eat unconsecrated food cannot eat terumah.  Hence the clothes of Pharisees have midras-impurity for a priest who eats terumah.
+<b>The garments of those who eat terumah possess midras-impurity for [those who eat] sacred things.</b>  Yesterday we learned that one who immerses to eat terumah is not pure enough to eat sacrifices (sacred things).  Today we learn that the clothes of the one who eats terumah have midras-impurity for the one who wishes to eat sacrifices.
+<b>The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification.</b>  One who wishes to deal with the waters of purification cannot touch even the clothes of one who immersed to eat sacrifices.
+<b>Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who ate] sacred things.</b>  Yose ben Yoezer was mentioned above at the beginning of mishnah two.  He was, according to our mishnah, the most pious of priests and he would immerse before eating unconsecrated food as it is was terumah. Nevertheless, his apron which he used to wipe his hands after eating, possessed midras-impurity for one who wished to eat sacrifices. As strict as he was in matters of purity, they still treated his clothes according to the above rules.
+<b>Yohanan ben Gudgada all his life used to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for sacred things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification.</b>  Yohanan ben Gudgada was even stricter with regard to purity and ate even unconsecrated food as if he was eating sacrifices.  This is one level stricter than the Pharisees who ate unconsecrated food as if it was terumah.  Nevertheless, since there is one level higher than the purity for sacrifices, his garments were still considered to possess midras-impurity for one who wished to deal with the waters of purification. These last two sections demonstrate that favor was not shown in matters of purity.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In the previous two mishnayot we learned that the rules regarding eating “sacred things,” namely sacrifices, are more stringent than the rules regarding eating terumah.   Our mishnah teaches several more aspects in which eating sacred things is treated more stringently.
+<b>Greater stringency applies to sacred things than to terumah, that they may immerse vessels within vessels [together] for terumah, but not for sacred things.</b>  When it comes to immersing impure vessels in order to purify them, if they are going to be used to hold terumah, one vessel may be immersed inside another vessel.  If the vessel is going to be used for sacrifices, then the vessels cannot be immersed one inside the other.
+<b>The outside and inside and handle [of a vessel are regarded as separate] for terumah, but not for sacred things.</b>  When it comes to terumah, each part of the vessel is considered as being separate.  So if an impure thing touches the handle of the vessel, only the handle is impure and the contents inside the vessel are still pure.  If something touches the outside of the vessel, only the outside is impure and not the inside.  Finally, if something impure touches the inside only the inside is impure.  When it comes to sacred things, if one part of the vessel is impure, the whole vessel is impure and will cause other things to become impure as well.
+<b>One that carries anything possessing midras-uncleanness may carry [at the same time] terumah, but not sacred things.</b>  I explained “midras-impurity” in yesterday’s mishnah.  Today’s mishnah teaches that if someone is holding an object that had become impure through midras (someone sat, stood, lied or applied pressure on it) he can hold in his other hand terumah. The vessel does not make him impure such that he makes the terumah impure.  However, he cannot hold sacred things at the same time.
+<b>The garments of those who eat terumah posses midras-uncleanness for [those who eat] sacred things.</b>  This is the exact same halakhah as that found in section three of yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>The rule [for the immersion of garments] for [those who would eat terumah is not the same as the rule for [those who would eat] sacred things: for in the case of sacred things, he must [first] untie [any knots in the unclean garment], dry it [if it is wet, then] immerse it, and afterwards retie it; but in case of terumah, it may [first] be tied and afterwards immersed.</b>  When one wants to immerse something to be used for sacred things must first untie all of the knots, dry them all off, then he may immerse it and then once it’s been immersed he may retie the knots. In contrast, if a vessel is going to be used for terumah, the knots don’t have to be taken out before it is immersed.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to provide aspects of purity/impurity in sacrifices are treated with greater stringency than terumah.
+<b>Vessels that have been finished in purity require immersion [before they are used] for sacred things, but not [before they are used] for terumah.</b>  Once the production of a vessel has been completed the vessel can now receive impurity. Even if the artisan was careful not to defile the vessel it still requires immersion before it can be used with sacred things.  In contrast, if the vessel is going to be used with terumah then it doesn’t need to be immersed unless it has been defiled.
+<b>A vessel unites all its contents [for impurity] in the case of sacred things, but not in the case of terumah.</b>  If there are a bunch of separate food items in a vessel, say some fruit or separate pieces of meat, and one becomes impure, then all of them are impure, if they are sacred things.  The vessel causes the impurity to travel from one piece to the other.  However, if they are terumah, then the vessel does not convey the impurity from one to the other.
+<b>Sacred things become invalid [by impurity] of a fourth degree, but terumah [only by impurity] of a third degree.</b>  There are different levels of impurity, the higher the number the closer the item is to the source of impurity, which is called a “father of impurity.”  A “father of impurity” that touches something give it first degree impurity, and a first degree conveys second degree impurity, and so on. Sacred things can become invalid through contact even with a third degree of impurity, meaning that these things cannot be put on the altar, because they have “fourth degree” of impurity.  There is no such thing as fifth degree of impurity. Terumah becomes disqualified only by something with a second degree of impurity.  If something of third degree impurity touches terumah it does not affect it.
+<b>In the case of terumah, if one hand of his hands became impure, the other remains clean, but in the case of sacred things, he must immerse both [hands], because the one hand defiles the other for sacred things but not for terumah.</b>  If one of one’s hands becomes impure, he cannot use the other hand to touch a sacred thing, even if one hand didn’t touch the other.  But when it comes to terumah, if one of one’s hands is impure he can use the other hand to touch terumah.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Another two stringencies for sacred things.
+<b>They may eat dry foods with impure hands when it comes to terumah, but not when it comes to sacred things.</b>  Wet food is susceptible to impurity whereas dry food is not (see Leviticus 11:34, 38).  This is true in all cases except for the case of sacred food.  The idea is that “the love of the sacred makes it susceptible to impurity.”  [This is a fascinating concept, demonstrating well that the concept of sacredness and susceptible to impurity are intimately connected.] Therefore one cannot eat sacred food with impure hands, even if the hands are dry.  Terumah is like normal food and doesn’t receive impurity unless it becomes wet.
+<b>The one who has not yet buried his dead (an and one who lacks atonement require immersion for sacred things but not for terumah.</b>  When one of a person’s seven close relatives dies, he/she is an onen on that day and the night thereafter.  An onen may not eat sacrifices.  Similarly a person who needed to bring certain sacrifices in order to complete his period of impurity (such as a leper, see Leviticus 14:10) cannot eat other sacrifices until he brings these mandated sacrifices.  The rabbis decreed that before these people can eat sacrifices they must go to the mikveh.  This immersion would aid in the transition between their former state of not being able to eat sacrifices to a state of being able to eat sacrifices.  In contrast, an onen and a formerly impure person who had not brought sacrifices can eat terumah, therefore upon the completion of the period of being an onen and after bringing the sacrifice he may continue to eat terumah without another immersion.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah begins to teach ways in which terumah is treated with greater stringency than sacrifices.  The central issue in this mishnah is how much to trust an am haaretz, an unlearned person, when he tells you that he preserved the purity of a food item.  As we shall see, if he says that he preserved its purity so that it would be used for a sacred thing (wine for a libation or oil for a minhah offering) than he is believed because the am haaretz respects the purity of sacred things. He would not allow an impure thing to be offered on the altar of the Temple. However, if he says he preserved its purity because it is terumah then the am haaretz is not believed.
+<b>Greater stringency applies to terumah [than to sacred things], for in Judah [the people of the land (amei] are trusted in regard to the purity of [sacred] wine and oil throughout the year; and at the season of the wine-presses and olive-presses even in regard to terumah.</b>  The farmers in Judah would have known that some of their produce, namely wine and oil would need to be pure so it could be used as libations and to accompany the minhah sacrifice.  They respected this and would not have allowed it to become impure.  Since sacrifices are needed all year round, they are believed all year if they say that they preserved its purity for it to be used as sacrifices.  However, they are not believed if they say that they preserved the produce because of the terumah that would have to be separated from it.   However, during the main time of the year when everyone presses their grapes and olives they are believed because everyone purifies their vessels at that time of the year, in anticipation of having to take terumah out of the wine and oil.  One could think of this as sort of the “high holiday season” of purity, at least for farmers. Although they may not be particularly meticulous in their observance during the rest of the year, they are during these two periods.
+<b>If [the season of] the wine-presses and olive-presses passed, and they brought to him a jar of wine of terumah, he [the priest] should not accept it from him, but [the am ha-aretz] may leave it for the coming [season] of the wine-press.</b>  If the time of wine and olive pressing has passed, a priest who is meticulous about his observance should not accept wine or olive oil from an am haaretz.   However, the am haaretz can leave over that wine until the next wine pressing and then the priest can accept it from him, even if the priest knows that this was not made during the current pressing.  It’s as if we are willing to believe the am haaretz because he was willing to hold onto his wine for so long.
+<b>But if he said to him, “I have set apart a quarter log [of wine] as a sacred thing,” he is believed [in regard to the purity of the whole jug].</b>  If the am haaretz says that he set apart some of the wine to be used in the sacrificial service, then he is believed to say that the whole jug is pure, even for the terumah in the jug.  Since he is believed when it comes to the sacred part of the wine, he is believed for the terumah as well.
+<b>[When it comes to] jugs of wine and jugs of oil that are meant for terumah, they are believed during the season of the wine-presses and the olive-vats and prior to [the season of] the wine-presses seventy days.</b>  The am haaretz is trusted when he says he preserved the purity of the empty wine and oil jugs both in the time of the pressing and before the pressing for seventy days.  Evidently, they would begin preparing the jugs to hold the wine and oil for seventy days before the pressing. However, for the terumah itself they are only believed to have preserved its purity during the time of the pressing.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The previous mishnah discussed when a person is trusted with regard to the purity of his things.  Today’s mishnah discusses another such rule when is a pottery maker trusted that he has preserved the purity of his pots.
+<b>From Modi’im inwards [the potters] are trusted in regard to [the purity of] earthenware vessels; from Modi'im outwards they are not trusted.</b>  Modiim is famous for being the city where the Maccabees lived.  It is about 30 kilometers northwest of Jerusalem, about a day’s travel by foot.  (It is also where I live, but that won’t really help you understand this mishnah).  The closer a pottery maker is to Jerusalem the more it will be in his best interests to preserve the purity of his pottery because it is likely that people buying his goods may want to use them in connection with the sacrificial service.  Therefore, if the pottery-maker lives from Modiim and inwards toward Jerusalem, he is believed to say that his pots are pure. We should note that the Temple would have required many clay pots because they could be used only one time.  Once a clay pot was used to cook sacrificial meat it could no longer be used because the meat that was absorbed into the pot would become remnant (leftover sacrifice) which is forbidden. Therefore the pots had to be disposed of after one use.
+<b>How so?  A potter who sells the pots entered inwards of Modi'im, then the same potter, the same pots and the same buyers are trusted [to be pure]. But if he went out [from Modi’im outwards] he is not trusted.</b>  In this section we learn that the rule that the potter is believed when he is inside of the Modiim border is an absolute rule.  The same potter, pots and buyers that are trusted to be pure when they are between Modiim and Jerusalem are no longer believed to be pure when they go out beyond Modiim.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah continues to deal with the question of when to trust a person when he says that he has not made vessels impure.
+<b>Tax-collectors who entered a house, and similarly thieves who restored [stolen] vessels are believed if they say, “We have not touched [anything].”</b>  The mishnah refers to a tax collector who has taken someone’s possessions in order to use them as collateral for a tax debt.  When he returns the object to its owner he is believed if he says that he didn’t make the object impure.  The same is true for the thief who is returning something he had stolen. It seems that these people are believed specifically because they are doing “teshuvah”, repentance, by returning the stolen/collected item. Since they are repenting, they are at the same time believed with regard to other aspects of religious law. Some commentators say that these people are believed if the item is going to be used for sacrifices, because even tax collectors and thieves respect the purity of sacrifices. But they are not believed with regard to terumah.  Other commentators say that they are believed for both.
+<b>And in Jerusalem they are believed in regard to sacred things, and during a festival also in regard to terumah.</b>  Amei Haaretz (uneducated people) are believed when they are in Jerusalem to say that their vessels are pure so that they could be used with sacrifices.  During a festival their trustworthiness is even greater because everybody, even the uneducated, would purify themselves before the festival. Therefore they are even believed with regard to terumah.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+During the festival the am haaretz, the uneducated “person of the land” is believed with regard to issues of purity far more than he is during the rest of the year.  The first part of our mishnah deals with how far this trustworthiness extends.
+The second part deals with the period after the festival has passed and with the question of how to cope with the fact that there have been people in the Temple courtyard who may have been impure.
+<b>One who opened his jar [of wine] or broke into his dough [to sell them] on account of the festival [and an am haaretz touched the wine or dough]: Rabbi Judah says: he may finish [selling them after the festival]; But the sages say: he may not finish.</b>  The mishnah is addressed to a store owner who is cautious about matters of purity. He is what is called a haver or an associate, a member of the rabbinic circle, the opposite of an am haaretz.  During the festival he opens up jugs of wine and he breaks into prepared dough to sell these products to customers for their use during the festival.  Some of the customers are amei haaretz and they touch the wine and dough. We have already stated that during the festival the am haaretz is trusted to say that he is pure. The question is, can the store owner continue to sell these items after the festival as if the amei haaretz really were pure. Rabbi Judah says that he can.  According to Rabbi Judah, since we assume that the am haaretz was pure during the festival, we can assume that the wine and dough are pure even after the festival. The other sages disagree.  During the festival they are believed not so much because we are sure that the am haaretz is pure but because the sages wished to be lenient during the festival.  We might even say that the sages wished to be lenient in order to encourage all of the people from the land to participate in the festival and its sacrifices.  However, when the festival was over the rules return to normal and we must be concerned lest the wine or dough had been made impure.
+<b>When the festival was over, they undertook the purification of the Temple court. If the festival ended on Friday, they did not undertake [the purification of the Temple court] because of the honor of the Shabbat. Rabbi Judah said: even not on Thursday, for the priests are not free.</b>  When the festival was over they had to face the fact that the people may have made the Temple’s vessels impure. The trustworthiness bequeathed to everyone during the festival was over.  They would then begin to purify the Temple’s vessels. How they did so will be described in tomorrow’s mishnah.  If the festival was over on Friday, meaning that Thursday was the last day of the festival, the priests would not have had time on Friday to purify the vessels because they were busy preparing for Shabbat.  Therefore they would wait until Sunday to purify the vessels.  According to Rabbi Judah, even if the festival was over on Wednesday, they wouldn’t begin the purification until Sunday.  On Thursday the priests were not available because they were cleaning out all of the ashes that had accumulated on the altar during the entire festival. They would not have had time on Thursday to purify the vessels.  On Friday they were busy preparing for Shabbat.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final mishnah of the chapter, tractate and seder (game, set and match) explains how they purified the Temple’s vessels.
+<b>How did they undertake the purification of the Temple court?  They immersed the vessels which were in the Temple, and they say to them: “Be cautious lest you touch the table or menorah and defile them.”</b>  All the vessels in the Temple were immersed in order to purify them lest they had become impure during the festival. However, the table upon which the showbread was placed could not be immersed because the showbread had to be on it always (Exodus 25:30).  Similarly, the menorah had to always be lit (Leviticus 24:2) and therefore it couldn’t be immersed either.  Since these could not be immersed because they were in constant use, they would tell the priests to be very careful to make sure that the impure vessels which they were immersing would not touch the table or the menorah.
+<b>All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third sets, so that if the first was defiled, they might bring a second set in its place.</b>  All the vessels in the Temple had backups in case the first set became impure.  You could think of these as sort of “understudy vessels”, just waiting for their day in the sun!
+<b>All the vessels that were in the Temple required immersion, except the altar of gold and the altar of bronze, for they are like the ground, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: because they were overlaid [with metal].</b>  There were two vessels in the Temple that did not require immersion, the two altars. The bronze altar was used for the sacrifices and the gold altar was used for the burning of the incense.  There is a debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the sages why these altars do not require immersion. According to Rabbi Eliezer because they are attached to the ground, they are treated like the ground which cannot become impure. According to the sages their metal covering prevents impurity from getting to the vessel itself. The metal covering itself cannot become impure because it is not a vessel. Congratulations!  We have finished Moed Katan and Seder Moed! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. For those of you who have been following along with Mishnah Yomit from its beginning, you have now learned half of the entire Mishnah!  We began with Seder Nezikin, continued with Seder Nashim and now we have finished Seder Moed. This is quite an impressive amount of learning.  These are the three orders of Mishnah most learned and for which there exists both Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds.  You should feel really good about this accomplishment and hopefully, you are looking at the proverbial glass as half full. However, we still have half the Mishnah to go. Mishnah Yomit never lets up. Tomorrow we begin Seder Zeraim, Tractate Berakhot.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Megillah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,277 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Megillah
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה מגילה
+Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Megillah
+
+Introduction
+
+Tractate Megillah deals mostly with the public reading of Scripture at fixed times—on holidays and on certain days of the week.  The first two chapters deal with reading Esther and the second two chapters deal with reading the Torah and Haftarah.
+The Book of Esther does not itself mandate its own reading.  However, the rabbis understood the following verse to allude to a yearly reading of Esther.  9:28 states:  “Consequently, these days are recalled and observed in every generation:  by every family, every province, and every city.  And these days of Purim shall never cease among the Jews, and the memory of them shall never perish among their descendants.”  The rabbis understood that the memory of Purim was to be preserved by the reading of Esther on Purim itself.  
+The main mitzvah of reading the Megillah is to read it during the day.  However, by Talmudic times they had already added that one should read the Megillah at night as well.  Most cities would read the Megillah on the fourteenth of Adar.  However, cities that were walled when Joshua conquered Canaan read on fifteenth of Adar and smaller cities sometimes read on an earlier date.  This is an issue which we shall explore in depth in the first three mishnayot of the tractate.  
+The public reading of the Torah is an ancient custom.  Ancient Jewish and non-Jewish descriptions of synagogues almost always describe the Torah as being read in the synagogue.  The Talmudim variously attribute this custom to Moses, to the prophets or to Ezra.  From an early period the Torah was read on Shabbat and holidays at Shacharit as well as at Minhah on Shabbat, and on Monday and Thursday at Shacharit.
+The reading of a portion from the Prophets, the Haftarah, also seems to be an ancient custom.  According to some commentators, the reading of the Haftarah was a response to a decree that Jews could not read from the Torah.  Perhaps a more cogent explanation is that Jews wanted to hear the Prophets as well as the Torah. 
+In the land of Israel, from Mishnaic times through the early medieval period, the custom was to complete the reading of the Torah once every three or perhaps three and half years.  This is stated explicitly in the Babylonian Talmud, and is clearly reflected in some midrashim and in lists of the Haftarot.  This is commonly called the “triennial cycle.”  In Babylonia they read the entire Torah once a year, completing it on Simchat Torah. I should note the ancient “triennial cycle” is very different from the “triennial cycle” as it is observed in some Conservative congregations today. Most congregations follow along with “parshat hashavua” the weekly Torah reading as determined by the annual Babylonian cycle, but read only a third of it.  This preserves the ability to follow after the weekly Torah reading but creates the problem that the Torah is not read consecutively.  In ancient Israel they certainly read the Torah consecutively.  
+Finally, we should note another key distinction between current practice and ancient practice.  In the time of the Mishnah, one who received an “aliyah” literally “going up to the Torah,” would have read the Torah and recited the blessing.  Today this usually doesn’t happen.  Usually, one person goes up to recite the blessing and another person reads on his behalf.  There are other customs that we observe differently from those prescribed in the Mishnah, and we shall note them as opportunity arises.    
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first mishnah of Megillah teaches that the Megillah might be read on different days, depending on the locality.  Tomorrow’s mishnah will explain this in greater detail.
+<b>The Megillah is read on the eleventh, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth [of Adar], never earlier and never later.</b>  This section provides all of the possible dates in Adar on which the Megillah might be read.  Tomorrow’s mishnah will explain in what situation it might be read on the eleventh, twelfth, or thirteenth.
+<b>Cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua ben Nun read on the fifteenth; villages and large towns read on the fourteenth,</b>  Esther 9:19 reads, “That is why village Jews, who live in unwalled towns, observe the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and make it a day of merrymaking and feasting, and as a holiday and an occasion for sending gifts to one another.”  If Jews in unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, it implies that Jews in walled cities celebrate on another day.  This day must be the fifteenth, since in verse 18 the Jews in Shushan rest from their fighting on the fifteenth. The mishnah determines what is a walled city by reference to Joshua, even though Joshua lived hundreds of years before the events of Purim.  The mishnah refers back to Joshua because the land of Israel was desolate in the time of Achashverosh and none of its cities were walled.  In order to honor Israel, we therefore refer back to the original conquering.
+<b>Except that villages move the reading up to the day of gathering.</b>  Small villages move the reading up to the Monday or Thursday prior to the fourteenth of Adar.  These were the market days, the days on which the court would convene and the days on which the Torah was read.  The idea was that on these days the Jews would gather in the larger cities and it would be more possible to have a large celebration than if each individual village had celebrated separately on the fourteenth.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah explains how depending on when Purim falls the Megillah might be read on the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth or fifteenth.  To explain the mishnah we need to remind ourselves that small villages would not read alone in their own village, but rather would move up, if necessary, the day of the reading so that it would fall on the same day as “the day of gathering,” the market and court day in the larger towns. As we shall see, this can lead to their reading the Megillah on the eleventh, twelfth or thirteenth.  The fourteenth and fifteenth are the days when the Megillah is normally read.
+<b>How so?<br>If the fourteenth [of Adar] falls on Monday, the villages and large towns read on that day and the walled places on the next day.</b>  The mishnah begins with the easiest situation.  Purim (the fourteenth of Adar) falls on the fourteenth, so everyone can read on that day except for those in walled cities who read on the fifteenth.
+<b>If it falls on Tuesday or on Wednesday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering, the large towns read on that day, and the walled places on the next day.</b>  If it falls on Tuesday, the people of the villages read on Monday (the 13th), the day of the gathering, and if it falls on Wednesday then they also move it up to the 12th, which is Monday.  Again, the people of the large towns read on the fourteenth and the people of the walled cities on the fifteenth.
+<b>If it falls on Thursday, the villages and large towns read on that day and the walled places on the next day.</b>  If it falls on Thursday, again, everyone can read on that day except for those in walled cities who read on the fifteenth, on Friday.
+<b>If it falls on Friday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering and the large towns and walled places read on that day.</b>  If it falls on Friday, the villagers read on the Thursday the thirteenth, those from the large towns and even those from walled cities read on Friday, because the Megillah is not read on Shabbat.  The reason that the Megillah is not read on Shabbat is that it is possible to move it up to Friday, so there is no reason to disturb Shabbat.  The Talmud also explains that if they were allowed to read on Friday, they might end up carrying the Megillah through the public domain in order to get to synagogue.
+<b>If it falls on Shabbat, the villages and large towns move the reading up to the day of gathering, and the walled places read on the next day.</b>  If it falls on Shabbat, everyone moves the reading up to Thursday.  Since it can’t be read on Shabbat and it will therefore have to be moved up in any case, they move it up for the large towns all the way to Thursday so that they end up reading it on the same day as the villagers.
+<b>If it falls on Sunday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering, the large towns read on that day, and the walled cities on the day following.</b>  Finally, if it falls on Sunday, the villagers move the reading up to Thursday, the 11th of Adar, the people from the large towns read on Sunday and those from walled towns read on Tuesday, the 15th.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to deal with the topic of the various days upon which the Megillah might be read.
+<b>What is considered a large town? One which has in it ten idle men. One that has fewer is considered a village.</b>  A large town is one that is considered wealthy enough to support ten men who do not work but rather sit in the synagogue or study house and study all day.  Put another way, a large town is one that can support a small leisurely class.  In Greece and Rome this meant philosophers and in Israel this meant rabbis.  Anything smaller is considered a village and moves the reading of the Megillah up to the day of the gathering, Monday or Thursday.
+<b>In respect of these they said that they should be moved up but not postponed.</b>  There are other holidays and semi-holidays during the year that are not observed on the day upon which they fall if they fall on Shabbat.  The reading of the Megillah is the only holiday that is moved up all the rest are postponed.  The Talmud provides a midrashic explanation for this.  Esther 9:27 states, “the Jews accepted upon themselves and their descendants and all those who might join them, that these days should not pass without observing them as it is written and in their time, year after year.”  My translation is intentionally slightly awkward so that we can note the midrash.  The words “should not pass” are understood by the rabbis to mean that one cannot observe Purim after the fourteenth/fifteenth of Adar has already passed.
+<b>But with regard to the bringing the wood for the priests, the [fast of] Tisha B’Av, the hagigah, and assembling the people they postpone [until after Shabbat] and they do not move them up.</b>  I will briefly explain these holidays here.  The bringing of the wood for the priests occurred nine times a year.   Certain families would bring wood to the Temple to be used on the altar. This was discussed in Taanit 4:5. It would not be done on Shabbat.  The hagigah is a sacrifice brought on Yom Tov, the first day of the festival.  If Yom Tov falls on Shabbat it is postponed until the next day.  The “assembling of the people” or “Hakhel” in Hebrew occurs during the sabbatical year on Sukkot, when they would gather all the people together to read the Torah.  This would not be done on Shabbat.
+<b>Although they said that they should be moved up but not postponed, it is permissible to mourn, to fast, and to distribute gifts to the poor [on these earlier days].</b>  On both the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar, one is not allowed to fast or to mourn, because these are the two days of Purim. However, even though the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth are also days on which one might read the Megillah, it is still permitted to mourn or fast on those days.  The mishnah says that it is also permitted to give gifts to the poor on those days.  Giving gifts to the poor is one of the central obligations of Purim.  Some commentators explain the mishnah to mean that one who gives gifts to the poor on one of these days has fulfilled his obligation.  However, others say that the mishnah means that one is exempt from giving gifts to the poor on these days.
+<b>Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? In a place where people gather on Mondays and Thursdays, but in places where people do not gather on Mondays and Thursdays, the Megillah is read only on its proper day.</b>  Rabbi Judah points out that the system of moving the reading up to the 11th-13th was done only when it made realistic sense at a time when Mondays and Thursdays were the days of gathering.  It seems quite certain that by Rabbi Judah’s time this system of gathering on Monday and Thursday was already defunct and hence everyone would read at the proper time.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+When Jews adjust the lunar calendar to keep it in sync with the solar calendar, they add a second month of Adar, the month during which Purim falls.  The rabbis hold that Purim should be observed during the second Adar.  Today because our calendar is fixed this is quite simple.  Ahead of time we know which year will have a second Adar.  In mishnaic times this was more difficult because the calendar had not yet been fixed.  Our mishnah addresses this problem.
+<b>If they read the Megillah during the first Adar and the year was intercalated (a month was, it is read again in the second Adar.</b>  If they read the Megillah during the first Adar and then the court decided to add a month to the year, they must read it again during the second Adar.
+<b>There is no difference between the first Adar and the second Adar except the reading of the Megillah and the giving of gifts to the poor.</b>  The only difference with regard to Purim between the first month of Adar and the second is that the Megillah is read and gifts are given to the poor during the second month and not during the first month.  However, when it comes to the prohibition of fasting and mourning, it is forbidden to fast on the fourteenth and fifteenth of both months. It is unclear from our mishnah whether the other two obligations for Purim, giving portions of food to friends and having a festive meal, are done both times or not.  It seems to me that it would make little sense for these customs to be performed during the first Adar at a time when the Megillah is not being read.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+From here until the end of the chapter there is a series of mishnayot in which each mishnah begins with the literary structure of “there is no difference between x and y except,” the literary structure that we saw in yesterday’s mishnah.  This type of structure is probably a result of the Mishnah’s being an oral text.  Halakhot phrased in this style are simply easier to remember.
+<b>There is no difference between Shabbat and Yom Tov except the preparation of food.</b>  All work prohibited on Shabbat is also prohibited on Yom Tov, except work done in the preparation of food.  For further reading on this subject look at the introduction to tractate Betzah.
+<b>There is no difference between Shabbat and Yom HaKippurim except that the deliberate violation of the one is punished by a human court and the deliberate violation of the other by karet.</b>  An intentional transgression of Shabbat carries with it the death penalty, a punishment that is carried out by a human court.  In contrast, an intentional transgression of Yom Kippur is not punished by a human court, but rather by karet, a punishment that is dished out by God.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>There is no difference between one who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from his fellow and one who is prohibited by vow from [benefiting from] his food, except in the matter of setting foot [on his property] and of vessels which are not used for [preparing] food.</b>  There are two things which are permitted to one who is under a vow not to derive food benefit from his neighbor which are not permitted to one who may not benefit from his neighbor at all:  walking on his property and the use of things not involved in the making of food.  For more information look at Nedarim 4:1.
+<b>There is no difference between vowed offerings and freewill-offerings except that he is responsible for vowed offering but not responsible for freewill-offerings.</b>  Vowed offerings are stated using the language “Behold, I will bring an animal as an offering.”  If a person sets aside an animal to be a vowed offering and the animal cannot for whatever reason be sacrificed (for instance, it gets lost or dies) he must bring a substitute.  However, if he makes a freewill-offering using the language, “I will bring this animal as a sacrifice” and the animal is lost, he need not bring another. In all other respects, there is no difference between the two types of offerings.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>There is no difference between a zav who sees [genital discharge] twice and one who sees three, except the sacrifice.</b>  A man who experiences an abnormal discharge for one or two consecutive days is impure for seven days after the discharge ends.  If he sees the discharge for a third consecutive day, he must bring a sacrifice at the end of the seven day period.  See Leviticus 15.
+<b>There is no difference between a metzora who is under observation and one declared to be a definite metzora except the disheveling of hair and tearing the clothes.</b>  A metzora is a person with some sort of skin affliction. After his skin affliction is identified he is set aside for seven days for observation by a priest.  If the skin affliction spreads, then the priest declares him to be a definite metzora.  There is no difference between the two stages except that one who has been declared to be a definite metzora has to have his hair disheveled and his clothes torn, as prescribed in Leviticus 13:45.  [I should note that some interpret the Hebrew for “disheveling the hair” to mean that he has to let his hair grow long.]  Other than these differences, the two types of metzora are equal in their impurity.
+<b>There is no difference between a metzora who has been declared clean after being under observation and one who has been declared clean after having been a definite metzorah except shaving and [sacrificing] the birds.</b>  If the priest declares a metzora who had been under observation to be pure, he does not bring a sacrifice nor does he have to shave his hair.  If the metzora had been definite then he must bring two birds as a sacrifice and shave his hair.  See Leviticus 14.  The two different types of metzora are the same in that at the end of their period of impurity they both must immerse in the mikveh and purify their clothes (see Lev. 13:6, 34).
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>There is no difference between scrolls [of the Tanakh] and tefillin and mezuzahs except that scrolls may be written in any language whereas tefillin and mezuzahs may be written only in Assyrian.</b>  Scrolls of the Tanakh may be written in any language and in any type of writing.  However, mezuzot and tefillin may be written only in Assyrian, the alphabet in which Hebrew was and is still written and they may be written only in Hebrew.
+<b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that scrolls [of the Tanakh] were permitted [by the sages] to be written only in Greek.</b>  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that while Tanakh scrolls may indeed be written in languages other than Hebrew, they may not be written in any language, just Greek. At the time of the Mishnah Greek was the international language of the intelligentsia.  It was also the language into which the Tanakh had already been translated. This translation is called the Septuagint and was widely used in the period by Jews in the Greek-speaking Diaspora.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah deals with differences between different types of high priests.
+<b>There is no difference between a priest anointed with the oil of anointment and one who [only] wears the additional garments except for the bull which is offered for the [unwitting transgression of] any of the commandments.</b>  The high priest was supposed to be anointed with special anointing oil, except that the composition of this type of oil was unknown in the Second Temple period and hence not used.  The distinction in the Second Temple period between high priests and ordinary priests was that the high priest had eight garments and the ordinary priest wore only four.  Our mishnah teaches that the difference between the high priest in the First Temple and the high priest in the Second Temple is that only the anointed priest brings a bull for an unwitting transgression, as is stated in Leviticus 4:3, “If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt…”
+<b>There is no difference between a serving [high] priest and one whose time has passed except the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah.</b>  The high priest who is currently serving in office brings the sacrificial bull on Yom HaKippurim (Leviticus 16:6) and the tenth of an ephah of flour offered every day (Leviticus 6:13).  Otherwise a high priest who has been removed or otherwise left office is treated the same as the currently serving high priest.  For more information on this, see Horayot 3:4.
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Before the Temple in Jerusalem was built it was permitted to build personal altars and offer sacrifices on them.  At this time period there were also communal altars. The personal altars are called “small altars” whereas the communal altars are called “great altars”.  The “great altar” is referred to in I Kings 3:2, “The people, however, continued to offer sacrifices at altars, because up to that time no house had been built for the name of the Lord.  The king went up to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the great altar…”
+Our mishnah outlines the differences that existed in this time period between great, communal altars and personal, small altars.
+<b>There is no difference between a great altar and a small altar except for the pesach offering.</b>  An individual cannot sacrifice the pesah at his own altar, but rather must bring it to the communal altar. The Talmud explains that not only the pesah cannot be offered at the small altar, but all mandatory sacrifices as well.  This is illustrated in the next section’s general principle.
+<b>This is the general principle: any animal which can be brought as a vow-offering or a freewill offering may be brought on a [small] altar, any animal which is not the object of a vow or a freewill-offering may not be brought on a [small] altar.</b>  Only voluntary offerings can be offered at a small altar.  Mandatory offerings, such as the tamid, the musaf, the pesah, sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, holiday-related offerings and others, must be brought to the central altar.
+
+Mishnah 11
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final mishnah of this series continues to deal with differences between places in which sacrifices can be offered.
+<b>There is no difference between Shiloh and Jerusalem except that in Shiloh sacrifices of lesser sanctity and second tithe could be eaten anywhere within sight [of the town], whereas in Jerusalem [they had to be eaten] within the walls.</b>  During the time of Samuel the ark was at Shiloh (see I Samuel 3-4).  Since the ark had a permanent home, it was prohibited to offer sacrifices at local altars, just as it was prohibited to offer sacrifices when the Temple stood in Jerusalem.  There is only one difference between Shiloh and Jerusalem, and that is with regard to where certain sacrifices and second tithe could be eaten.  When Shiloh was the center of worship, these could be eaten in any place within sight of Shiloh.  In Jerusalem they had to be eaten within the city walls.
+<b>In both places the most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains.</b>  In both Shiloh and Jerusalem most holy sacrifices, such as sin and guilt offerings, had to be eaten within the Temple/Tabernacle (Mishkan) precincts.
+<b>After the sanctification of Shiloh there is permission [for altars], but after the sanctification of Jerusalem there is no such permission.</b>  When Shiloh was destroyed, it again became permitted to offer sacrifices at other communal and personal altars but when the two Temples in Jerusalem were destroyed there was no such permission and it continued to be forbidden to offer sacrifices at other altars.  Put another way, when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed it became forbidden to offer sacrifices elsewhere and after the destruction of the Second Temple it remained forbidden until the Temple will be rebuilt.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The Mishnah now begins to talk about how the Megillah is actually read.
+<b>If one reads the Megillah out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  The Megillah must be read in order.  One cannot skip around and then go back.
+<b>If he reads it by heart, if he reads it in a translation [targum], or in any other language, he has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  The Megillah must be read from a scroll.  Despite its brevity, it, like other Torah readings, may not be read by memory. It also may not be read using a translation or in any other language, even if it is written in that language.  This section refers to a person who understands Hebrew. Such a person who hears in another language has not fulfilled his obligation.
+<b>But they may read it to those who do not understand Hebrew in a language other than Hebrew. One who doesn’t understand Hebrew who heard it in Assyrian [Hebrew], has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  In contrast, somebody who doesn’t understand Hebrew may fulfill his obligation by hearing the Megillah in a language other than Hebrew.  Nevertheless, if a person hears it in Hebrew he has fulfilled his obligation even if he doesn’t understand it.  In this aspect Hebrew is greater than the other languages other languages need to be understood while Hebrew does not. Hebrew is referred to as “Assyrian” because it is written using the Assyrian alphabet.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first part of this mishnah deals with having proper intention while reading the Megillah.  The second part deals with the physical material with which the Megillah is written.
+<b>If one reads it with breaks, or naps [in between readings], he has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that one must read the Megillah in its proper order.  Our mishnah teaches that it need not be read without breaks. One may read some of the Megillah, stop for a while, and then continue on and thereby fulfill one’s obligation. Similarly, one may read, take a nap and then continue where one has left off [no, this is not permission to sleep in shul].
+<b>If he was copying it, explaining it or correcting [a scroll of Esther], if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  When one reads the Megillah, or hears it being read, he must have in mind that he is fulfilling the religious obligation to hear the Megillah on Purim.  The mishnah describes other activities in which a person might be engaged that count as reading the Megillah only if he has the proper intent.  A person who was copying a scroll, explaining it or correcting it and did not remember that it was Purim has not fulfilled his obligation.  While doing any of these activities he must have the intention of fulfilling his obligation.  Assumedly, he must also read it out loud.
+<b>If it was written with arsenic, with red chalk, with gum or with sulfate of copper, or on paper or on scratch paper, he has not fulfilled his obligation, unless it is written in Assyrian on parchment and in ink.</b>  One cannot write a Megillah with these types of dyes or on these types of paper because it is not permanent.  In order for the Megillah to be valid for a religious occasion, it must be written in Hebrew, on parchment (made from animal skins) and with permanent ink.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first section of this mishnah deals with a person who travels from a walled city which reads on the 15th of Adar to a town which reads on the 14th or vice versa.
+The second section discusses how much of the Megillah must be read on Purim.
+<b>A resident of a town who has gone to a walled city or a resident of a walled city who has gone to a town, if he is to return to his own place he reads according to the rule of his own place, and if not reads with them.</b>  The mishnah states simply that if a person travels from one type of town to another he retains the custom of the town of his origin if his intention is not to move to his new town.  If his intention is not to return to his previous town, then he reads with the new place. In the Talmud they explain that “if he is to return to his own place” means if he is to return there that very night, and get there before the morning.  If he goes to another town but returns to his own town in the morning, then he celebrates Purim with his own town.  But if he goes to another town and is there in the morning, he must celebrate Purim and hear the Megillah on that day. By the way, as someone who lives in Modiin, which reads on the 14th, and goes to Jerusalem which reads on the 15th, I encounter this issue pretty much every year.
+<b>From where does a man read the Megillah and thereby fulfill his obligation? Rabbi Meir says: all of it. Rabbi Judah says: from “There was a Jew” (Esther 2:5). Rabbi Yose says: from “After these things” (3:1).</b>  Today we read the entire book of Esther, but whether this is necessary is debated by the sages.  Rabbi Meir says that one has to read the whole thing. Rabbi Judah says that he only has to read from 2:5, where Mordecai is first mentioned. Rabbi Yose says he only has to read from 3:1, where the actual plot by Haman (make a lot of noise when you say this) begins.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first section of the mishnah deals with who is qualified to read the Megillah. The second section deals with when it can be read.
+<b>All are qualified to read the Megillah except a deaf person, an idiot and a minor. Rabbi Judah qualifies a minor.</b>  Deaf people, idiots (this refers either to one who is mentally retarded or an insane person) and minors are generally not obligated to perform the commandments.  As we have mentioned on several occasions, in those days they had no way to communicate with the deaf and little understanding of the insane or retarded.  Hence these people were mostly cut off from participating in society.  Minors are too young to understand the meaning of the commandments and hence are not obligated.  Since these people are not obligated, they cannot perform the commandment for others. This was stated also in Rosh Hashanah 3:8, at the end of that mishnah. Rabbi Judah says that a minor is qualified.
+<b>They do not read the Megillah, nor circumcise, nor go to the mikveh, nor sprinkling [purificatory waters], and similarly a woman keeping day for day should not take a ritual bath until the sun has risen. But if any of these things is done after dawn, it is valid.</b>  The main reading of the Megillah takes place during the day.  The Mishnah teaches that during the day means after the sun has risen. This is also the time for other mitzvoth that need to take place during the day.  “Sprinkling” refers to the water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer.  “A woman keeping a day for a day” refers to a woman who was impure do to non-menstrual genital discharge.  She is impure a day for every day on which she has a discharge.  All of these things should be done after the sun has risen.  However, if someone did them after dawn, meaning when the sky begins to become light, the actions are still valid, at least ex post facto.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>The whole day is a valid time for<br>reading the Megillah;<br>reciting Hallel;<br>for the blowing of the shofar;<br>for taking up the lulav;<br>for the Musaf prayer;<br>for Musaf sacrifices;<br>for confession over the oxen;<br>for the confession over the tithe;<br>for the confession of sins on Yom HaKippurim;<br>for laying on of hands;<br>for slaughtering [the sacrifices];<br>for waving [them];<br>for bringing near [the vessel with the minhah-offering to the altar];<br>for taking a handful;<br>for placing it on the fire;<br>for pinching off [the head of a bird-offering];<br>for receiving the blood [in a vessel];<br>for sprinkling [the blood on the altar];<br>for making the sotah drink [the bitter waters];<br>for breaking the neck of the heifer;<br>and for purifying the metzora.</b><br>One can fulfill one’s obligation of hearing the Megillah at any time during the day. Our mishnah gives a very long list of numerous other rituals that one can perform at any time during the day.<br>Since this list is very long, I will not explain each item in detail, but rather mostly make reference to the relevant biblical verse(s) which deal with the issue.  I will not even comment on issues that seem abundantly clear.<br>Sections 6-7:  On Shabbat, holidays and Rosh Hodesh there are musaf sacrifices and musaf prayers. The sacrifices can be offered at any time during the day and the prayers may be recited throughout the whole day.<br>Section 8: For confession over the ox One who brings an ox as a sacrifice also confesses to the sin for which the ox is brought (Leviticus 4:3,14).<br>Section 9:  For the confession over the tithe On the fourth and seventh years of the sabbatical cycle one makes a confession that he has “removed all of the holy produce from his home” (Deuteronomy 26:13).<br>Section 10:  For the confession of sins on Yom HaKippurim The high priest recites a confession over the sacrifices (Leviticus 16:21; see also Yoma 3:8, 4:2, 6:2).<br>Section 11:  For laying on of hands one lays one’s hands on an animal sacrifice before it is slaughtered (Leviticus 1:4).<br>Section 13:  For waving [them] one waves the innards and the breast of wellbeing offerings (Leviticus 7:30).<br>Section 14-16:  these are all elements of the minhah offering.<br>Section 17:  For pinching off [the head of a bird-offering] Leviticus 1:15, 5:8.<br>Section 18:  For receiving the blood [in a vessel] in order to sprinkle it on the altar.<br>Section 20:  For breaking the neck of the heifer if a dead body is found in a field and the identity of the murderer is unknown (Deuteronomy 21:1)<br>Section 21:  And for purifying the metzora Leviticus 14.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is the complement to yesterday’s mishnah.  It teaches that mitzvoth which must be performed at night can be performed all night.
+<b>The whole night is valid for reaping the Omer and for burning fat and limbs [on the altar].</b>  There are two mitzvoth listed here that must be done at night.  The first is reaping the Omer, the barley offering which is brought from the second day of Pesah through Shavuot (Leviticus 23:10). The second is putting on the altar fat and limbs that had not been burned during the day.
+<b>This is the general principle: any matter whose commandment is during the day, is valid all day and any matter whose commandment is at night is valid all night.</b>  This general principle illustrates that which we learned in the last two mishnayot.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first three mishnayot of this chapter deal with the holiness of the synagogue and the articles found in it.  Our mishnah deals with what one may do with the proceeds of a sale of the synagogue or the things in it.
+<b>Townspeople who sold the town square, they may buy with the proceeds a synagogue. [If they sold] a synagogue, they may buy with the proceeds an ark. [If they sold] an ark they may buy covers [for scrolls]. (1) [If they sold] covers, they may buy scrolls [of the Tanakh]. ( [If they sold] scrolls they may buy a Torah.</b>  One can sell an object and buy something that is somewhat holier.  The town square has some holiness to it because it is occasionally used for gathering in prayer, such as during a public fast (see Taanit 2:1).  “Scrolls” refers to books of the Tanakh not part of the Five Books of Moses.
+<b>But if they sold a Torah they may not buy with the proceeds scrolls [of the Tanakh]. ( If [they sold] scrolls they may not buy covers. (1) If [they sold] covers they may not buy an ark. If [they sold] an ark they may not buy a synagogue. If [they sold] a synagogue they may not buy a town square.</b>  Conversely, one cannot sell an object and buy something with an object of less holiness.
+<b>The same applies to any money left over.</b>  If there is money left over from a permitted sale then they must still use that money to buy something with greater holiness. Thus if they sell covers and use the proceeds to buy scrolls and there is money left over, they must use the proceeds to buy other scrolls, or a Torah.
+<b>They may not sell [something] belonging to a community because this lowers its sanctity, the words of Rabbi Meir. They said to him: if so, it should not be allowed to sell from a larger town to a smaller one.</b>  According to Rabbi Meir there is an additional restriction when it comes to selling holy items.  The community cannot sell an item that belongs to the community to an individual.  So if the members of the synagogue own scrolls and they wish to sell them to buy a Torah, they may not sell the scrolls to an individual.  This means that according to Rabbi Meir there seems to be holiness in the community.  The item is more holy because it is owned by a community, an entity which has greater holiness than an individual.  Alternatively, an item is holier if it is used by more people. The other sages respond that it is problematic to quantify holiness based on the number of people within an entity.  If a community is holier than an individual, than a large community is holier than a small community. Since this doesn’t make sense, the sages reject Rabbi Meir’s halakhah altogether.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals specifically with selling a synagogue.
+<b>They may not sell a synagogue except with the stipulation that it may be bought back whenever they want, the words of Rabbi Meir.</b>  Rabbi Meir holds that the community can sell the synagogue but only on condition that the synagogue can be bought back any time they wish.  It sounds like Rabbi Meir intends to say that while the community may sell the synagogue because they need to buy holier items, what the community should really do is save up so that they can buy the synagogue back. Also, if they saw that the synagogue was being put to improper use, they could demand to purchase it back immediately.
+<b>But the sages say: they may sell it in perpetuity, except for four purposes for it to become one of four things:  a bathhouse, a tannery, a ritual bath, or a urinal.</b>  The rabbis are more lenient when it comes to selling the synagogue and do not require the seller to be able to buy it back whenever he should so please. The one restriction is that the sellers may not sell it knowing that it will be used for a something smelly (a tannery, a urinal) or for something where people will be naked (a bathhouse or a ritual bath).
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: they may sell it to be a courtyard, and the purchaser may do what he likes with it.</b>  Rabbi Judah points out that if the synagogue’s owners cannot by right repurchase the synagogue, then the new owners can trick the system by first buying it to be a courtyard and then doing with it whatever they like, including turning it into a urinal.  It is unclear whether Rabbi Judah says that this is permitted and there’s nothing that can be done about it, or what he is really doing is criticizing the sages’ position by pointing out that they can’t really enforce their halakhah.  As we shall see in the next mishnah, Rabbi Judah believes that a synagogue retains its sanctity even after it is destroyed.  It therefore seems less likely that Rabbi Judah would condone the synagogue becoming something like a urinal.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In this mishnah Rabbi Judah teaches that the holiness of a synagogue remains even if it has fallen into ruins.  Rabbi Judah applies the holiness of the Temple in Jerusalem to the synagogue of the post-destruction period.  Just as the holiness of the Temple and the Temple Mount remained even when Jerusalem was destroyed, so too the holiness of a synagogue remains when it physically lies in ruins.  There is a deep message in this mishnah.  The holiness of the synagogue is not dependent upon the existence of its physical structure.  Once people have treated the place as holy, it will retain that sanctity forever.
+<b>Rabbi Judah said further:  a synagogue that has fallen into ruins, they may not eulogize in it, nor twist ropes, nor to spread nets [to trap animals], nor to lay out produce on its roof [to dry], nor to use it as a short cut, as it says, “And I will desolate your holy places” (Leviticus 26:3 their holiness remains even when they are desolate.</b>  One may not use a synagogue that lays in ruins for a profane, every day purpose.  One cannot deliver eulogies in it because eulogies are not delivered in synagogues, even when they have been destroyed.  [As an aside, the custom to deliver eulogies and conduct funerals inside synagogues is a modern custom, probably borrowed from the Christians.  Jews used to deliver eulogies either at the cemetery on the path on the way there.]  One can’t use it as a place of work. The mishnah uses the example of “twisting rope” because twisting rope requires space, but it means that no work should be done there.  It should not be used to trap animals nor should its roof be used to dry out fruit.  One shouldn’t use it as a short cut.  In summary, it should only be entered for its intended purpose as a place of worship and Torah study. The mishnah uses a midrash, exegesis of a biblical verse, to prove this point.  In a section in which God rebukes Israel, He threatens that He will “desolate your holy places.”  The fact that the verse calls these places holy implies that they retain their holiness even when they have been destroyed.
+<b>If grass comes up in it, it should not be plucked, [in order to elicit] melancholy.</b>  The mishnah now changes direction and seems to acknowledge that there is some significance to the synagogue’s having been destroyed.  According to the theology reflected in this mishnah, a destroyed synagogue is sign of God’s wrath, which comes as a result of Israel’s sin.  When one sees grasses growing in a synagogue, a person will surely experience deep sadness.  It will remind him that the synagogue was destroyed and that he should repent.  It will also remind him that he should dedicate himself to rebuilding the synagogue as quickly as possible.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>If Rosh Hodesh Adar falls on Shabbat the portion of shekalim is read [on that day]. If it falls in the middle of the week, it is read on the Shabbat before, and on the next Shabbat there is a break.<br>On the second [of the special Shabbatot] they read “Zakhor;”<br>On the third the portion of the red heifer;<br>On the fourth “This month shall be for you;”<br>On the fifth the regular order is resumed.<br>They interrupt [the regular order] for anything: for Rosh Hodesh, for Hanukkah, for Purim, for fasts, for Ma’amadot, and for Yom HaKippurim.</b><br>The rest of this chapter deals with the portions of the Torah read on holidays and special Shabbatot.  In mishnaic times they did not complete the Torah once a year as they did in Babylonia and as we do today, but rather about once every three years.  Another difference between the ancient custom and that of today is that today when certain holidays fall on Shabbat we read the regular Torah portion and then we add a special reading for that day.  In mishnaic times, since they didn’t really have a regular Torah portion, they only read the special reading. Thus if Rosh Hodesh fell on Shabbat they would read only the portion for Rosh Hodesh and interrupt the regular continuous reading of the Torah.<br>Our mishnah deals with the four special Shabbatot that precede Pesah. They are:<br>1)  Shekalim to remind people that on Adar they would have to bring the half-shekel to the Temple (see tractate Shekalim). This was read before Rosh Hodesh Adar.<br>2)  Zakhor Deuteronomy 25:17-19.  This is read before Purim and connects Amalek with Haman.<br>3)  Parah Numbers 19.  We read about the red heifer to remind people that before Pesah they must be pure in order to eat the Pesah sacrifice.<br>4)  Hahodesh Exodus 12:1-20.  Read the Shabbat before Nissan to remind people that Pesah is approaching and that they must begin preparing.<br>Section one:  On Rosh Hodesh Adar which falls on Shabbat they read Shekalim, which is Exodus 30:11-16. However, if Rosh Hodesh Adar falls during the week, they would read Shekalim on the Shabbat before Rosh Hodesh. On the Shabbat following Rosh Hodesh they would go back to reading where they had last left off in the regular cycle. This week would then be a break from the four special portions enumerated in our mishnah.<br>Sections 2-5: The mishnah now enumerates the four special portions, described above in the introduction.  After Hahodesh, the order returns to its regular cycle. We should note the concept of Shabbat Hagadol, the Shabbat before Pesah, did not exist in mishnaic or talmudic times.<br>Section six: The regular reading of the Torah is interrupted for any special occasion. This includes all holidays. On fast days, meaning Mondays or Thursdays when they would fast for rain, they would not read the regular portion but rather the special readings for fasts.  Ma’amadot were described in greater length in tractate Taanit. These were gatherings by people in towns when their kohanim would go to the Temple.  The people in the town would read from the beginning of Genesis and not from the regular Torah portion.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>On Pesah we read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus (Torat (Leviticus 23:4).<br>On Shavuot, “Seven weeks” (Deuteronomy 16:9).<br>On Rosh Hashanah “On the seventh day on the first of the month” (Leviticus 23:2.<br>On Yom Hakippurim, “After the death” (Leviticus 16).<br>On the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot] they read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus, and on the other days of the Festival [of Sukkot] the [sections] on the offerings of the Festival.</b><br>This mishnah lists the portions read on the three pilgrimage holidays, Pesah, Shavuot and Sukkot and on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Hakippurim as well.<br>Most of these are straightforward and do not require explanation.<br>The one slightly confusing issue is the readings for Sukkot.  On the first day of Sukkot we read from Leviticus 23, the same reading as on Pesah.  On the remaining days we read the sacrifices listed for that day in Numbers 29:17 ff.  Sukkot differs from Pesah in that on Pesah the same musaf offerings are made every day.  On Sukkot each day has a different number of offerings. As an aside, this is one reason why we recite the full Hallel for all seven days of Sukkot but only on the first day of Pesah.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>On Hanukkah they read the section of the princes (Numbers 7).<br>On Purim, “And Amalek came” (Exodus 17:8).<br>On Rosh Hodesh, “And on the first of your months” (Numbers 28:11).<br>On Maamadot, the account of the creation (Genesis 1:1-2:3).<br>On fast days, the blessings and curses (Leviticus 26:3 ff and Deuteronomy 28). They do not interrupt while reading the curses, but rather one reads them all.<br>On Monday and Thursday and on Shabbat at minhah they read according to the regular order and this does not count as part of the reading [for the succeeding Shabbat].<br>As it says, “And Moshe declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:44) it is their mitzvah that each should be read in its appropriate time.</b><br>The final mishnah of our chapter details what sections are read on non-Toraitic holidays or events.  Since there are no passages in the Torah about these days, the sages had to find other passages whose themes they deemed appropriate.<br>The mishnah concludes with a midrash explaining why it is that we read from passages in the Torah appropriate to the holiday.<br>Section one:  Hannukah literally means “dedication” and refers to the dedication of the Temple after its restoration in the time of the Maccabees. The portion in the Torah read on Hannukah is a list of the gifts brought by the princes of each tribe at the dedication of the Mishkah, the tabernacle.<br>Section two:  On Purim we read about Amalek because Haman was, according to the rabbis, from Amalek.<br>Section four:  On Ma’amadot people would gather in the Temple or in their own cities while their local kohanim took there turn at service in the Temple.  See Taanit 4:2-3.<br>Section five:  The curses (called today the “tochekhah” or rebuke) are read on fast days as a warning to people that they must repent.  When reading the curses we don’t interrupt, making them into two or more aliyot rather they are all read by the same person. This is still the custom today, making one of the aliyot in Ki Tavo the longest aliyah of the year.<br>Section six:  Besides Shabbat morning, the Torah is also read on Mondays, Thursdays and Shabbat at minhah (the afternoon service).  These readings go according to the regular cycle but they don’t count toward the regular progression.  This means that the same portion that is read at all three occasions and then again on Shabbat. We only move forward on Shabbat.<br>Section seven:  The chapter ends with a midrash on Leviticus 23:44.  The verse states that Moshe told the holidays to the people of Israel, but this verse is superfluous Moshe taught all of the commandments to the people.  Therefore the midrash teaches that not only did Moshe teach the holidays, but he taught each one at the time that it fell.  By his example we learn that on all holidays we read the Torah portion relevant to that holiday.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Most of the last chapter of Megillah is about the public reading of the Torah.  The one main difference between how we read today and how they read in their time is that today the person who receives the aliyah and recites the blessing is usually not the same person who actually reads the Torah. This allows people who don’t know how to read from the Torah to receive aliyot.  In mishnaic and talmudic times, the person who read the Torah was the same person who received the aliyah.  There are other differences which we will discuss throughout the chapter.
+<b>He who reads the Megillah may either stand or sit.</b>  One may read the Megillah while either standing or sitting.  Today the custom is to stand but this is not mandatory.  In contrast, when reading the Torah one has to stand.
+<b>Whether one read it or two read it [together] they [those listening] have fulfilled their obligation.</b>  Two people may read the Megillah together when reading in front of the community.  However, when it comes to reading Torah only one person at a time can read.  The idea behind this is that it is harder for people to hear two people chanting together than one chanting alone.  Since hearing the Megillah is halakhically less significant than hearing the Torah, they allow to people to read simultaneously.
+<b>In places where it is the custom to say a blessing, they say the blessing, and where it is not the custom they do not say the blessing.</b>  According to the simple reading of the Mishnah, there were various customs with regard to reciting a blessing over reading the Megillah. Some did and some did not.  The Talmud however explains that this only refers to the blessing after the Megillah.  In all places they would recite the blessing before reading.  Today our custom is to recite a blessing before and after.
+<b>On Mondays and Thursdays and on Shabbat at minhah, three read from the torah, they do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets.</b>  The mishnah now begins to discuss regular Torah reading.  On Mondays, Thursdays and on Shabbat at minhah only three people receive aliyot (go up to the Torah).  This number may not be increased nor may it be decreased. There is no haftarah (portion from the Prophets section of the Bible) on these occasions.
+<b>The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it.</b>  In the time of the Mishnah the first person to read would recite the first blessing and the last person to read would recite the concluding blessing.   Those reading in between would not recite any blessing at all.  Today, each person receiving an aliyah recites a blessing before and after.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to teach how many aliyot there are on the different occasions in which the Torah is read.  Yesterday’s mishnah dealt with occasions in which there are only three, the minimum number of aliyot. Today’s mishnah lists occasions with four, five, six and seven aliyot.  It seems that the more holy a holiday is, the more aliyot there are, and the more Torah is read.
+<b>On Rosh Hodesh and on the intermediate days of festivals four read. They do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it. This is the general rule: on any day which has a musaf and is not a festival four read.</b>  Rosh Hodesh and the intermediate days of the festival both have a musaf service (and when the Temple still stood there was a musaf sacrifice).  However, they are not festivals, meaning that work is permitted on these days.  These are sort of “in-between days.”  Therefore they have four aliyot more than a normal day but less than a festival. The mishnah reiterates the rule that the first person who receives an aliyah recites the blessing before and the last person recites the blessing after.
+<b>On a festival five.</b>  On the first and last day of Pesah, on the first day of Sukkot, on Shmini Atzeret (the last day of Sukkot), on Shavuot and on Rosh Hashanah there are five aliyot.
+<b>On Yom Hakippurim six.</b>  On Yom Kippur there are six aliyot.  Note that this makes Yom Kippur unlike all other holidays.
+<b>On Shabbat seven; they may not decrease [from this number] but they may add [to it], and they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it.</b>  Shabbat differs from other occasions in several key ways.  First of all, there are more aliyot on Shabbat than at any other time of the year.  On other occasions there are a maximum of six aliyot and the mishnah states explicitly that they may not add to this number.  Indeed, the mishnah may emphasize this to make sure that people do not try to turn other holidays into Shabbat by adding more aliyot.  In contrast, on Shabbat they may add aliyot.  Finally, there is a haftarah on Shabbat. Today we read a haftarah on festivals and on Yom Kippur as well.  Finally, the same rule about the blessings still applies.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b> This mishnah teaches what rituals require a minyan of ten men in order to perform them.
+<b>They do not recite the Shema responsively,</b>  In the time of the mishnah they recited the Shema in a way that we might call responsively the leader would recite one half of the verse and the congregation would respond with the second half.  This practice changed some time during the talmudic period.  There are actually many different explanations for what they did, but this seems to be the most accepted by scholars.
+<b>And they do not pass before the ark;</b>  Passing before the ark refers to reciting the Sh’moneh Esrei or Amidah.  Without a minyan there is no public Amidah or repetition everyone just does it silently.
+<b>And the [the priests] do not lift up their hands;</b>  The priestly blessing is recited before the end of the Amidah, but only with a minyan.
+<b>And they do not read the Torah [publicly];</b>  Without a minyan there is no public reading of the Torah.
+<b>And they do not conclude with a haftarah from the prophets;</b>  Nor is there a haftarah, lest one think that although they can’t read from the Torah, they might be able to read from the prophets.
+<b>And they do not make stops [at funeral] processions;</b>  On the way to the cemetery and on the way back they would make formal stops at which they would recite eulogies.  They would do this seven times, but it was only done with a minyan.
+<b>And they do not say the blessing for mourners, or the comfort of mourners, or the blessing of bridegrooms;</b>  The blessing for mourners was recited in the public square, whereas “comforting mourners” was done on the return from the cemetery.  The blessing of the bridegrooms refers to the blessings recited under the huppah (the wedding canopy).  In mishnaic times they probably recited three blessings, but by the time of the Talmud this had been increased to seven.  None of these blessings is recited without a minyan.
+<b>And they do not mention God’s name in the invitation [to say Birkat Hamazon]; Except in the presence of ten.</b>  Before Birkat Hamazon, the blessing after the meal, there is an invitation to bless. This invitation is recited with God’s name only if there are ten present.
+<b>[For redeeming sanctified] land nine and a priest [are sufficient], and similarly with human beings.</b>  If someone wishes to dedicate a piece of land to the Temple they estimate the value of the land and then he must pay that amount.  The estimate is carried out by ten people, only one of whom must be a priest.  Similarly, if a person dedicates himself or someone else to the Temple, and he can’t afford to pay the price mandated in Leviticus 27, then they estimate how much he can afford. This estimate is again done by nine regular men and one priest.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b> This mishnah teaches various rules about reading the Torah in public.
+<b>One who reads the Torah [in public] may not read less than three verses.</b>  An aliyah may not consist of less than three verses.
+<b>And he should not read to the translator more than one verse [at a time], but [if reading from the book of a] prophet [he may read to him] three at a time. If the three verses constitute three separate paragraphs, he must read them [to the translator] one by one.</b>  In mishnaic times the spoken language was Aramaic.  Many people, perhaps most people, would have had trouble understanding the Torah in its original Hebrew. Therefore, as part of the public reading of the Torah, there was a translator who would translate verse by verse. The reader was to read one verse and then the translator would translate this verse.  However, when it came to reading the haftarah from one of the prophets, they allowed the reader to read three verses at a time. They were less exacting on the precision of the haftarah translation than they were for the translation of the Torah.  However, if each verse is its own section, then the reader must read each one on its own.  This refers to Isaiah 52:3-5 where there are three verses, each considered to be its own section.
+<b>They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. How far may he skip [in the prophet]? [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place].</b>  When reading the haftarah, he may skip from place to place so long as he doesn’t have to roll the scroll so far that the translator has completed his translation before he gets to the new verse. Today there are many haftarot where we skip from one place in the book to another, or if reading from one of the twelve minor prophets, from one prophet to another.  However, when it comes to the Torah it is forbidden to skip around.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b> This mishnah and the mishnayot following it deal with who is qualified to receive certain honors in the synagogue. I have explained this mishnah according to Albeck’s explanation.  Others explain it somewhat differently.
+<b>The one who concludes with the haftarah also leads the responsive reading of the Shema and he passes before the ark and he lifts up his hands.</b>  The person honored by reading the haftarah is worthy of also being the leader of the other crucial elements of the service.  He can lead the responsive reading of the Shema (explained in yesterday’s mishnah), he can pass before the ark (meaning recite the Amidah and thereby aid other’s in fulfilling their obligation) and if he is a priest, he can lift up his hands to bless the people with the priestly blessing.  In the following mishnayot we will see that not everyone is worthy of these honors.
+<b>If he is a child, his father or his teacher passes before the ark in his place.</b>  A child is allowed to read the haftarah, but he may not pass before the ark.  The person who recites the amidah (passes before the ark) helps others to fulfill their obligation to recite the amidah. In order to help others fulfill their obligation, the person himself must also be obligated.  A child who is not obligated cannot fulfill the congregation’s obligation.  Therefore, if a child read the haftarah either his father or teacher takes his place in passing before the ark.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah illustrates the important principle that one who is obligated to perform a given ritual may aid others in fulfilling their obligation.  It also deals with other reasons which might potentially disqualify a person from leading parts of the synagogue service.
+<b>A child may read in the Torah and translate, but he may not pass before the ark or lift up his hands.</b>  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that a child can read the haftarah.  Today we learn that a child may read from the Torah as well.  He may also serve as the translator of the Torah reading.  However, he may not pass before the ark, since he is not obligated in prayer (see yesterday’s mishnah).  He also may not lift up his hands to recite the priestly blessing if he is a priest because it was considered disgraceful for the community to have to be blessed by a minor.
+<b>A person in rags may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate, but he may not read in the Torah, pass before the ark, or lift up his hands.</b>  A person in rags, meaning one who is dressed shabbily and whose flesh can be seen through his clothes, may still lead the responsive reading of the Shema because this was done from one’s seat.  One didn’t have to get up in front of the community.  Since he would not be seen by the entire congregation, he was allowed to fulfill this role.  He was also allowed to serve as the translator, since this was not considered all that important of a function.  However, he was not allowed to read from the Torah because it would be disgraceful to read the Torah while dressed in rags.  He was not allowed to pass before the ark or lift up his hands (if he was a priest) for the same reason everyone would see him and his improper clothing.
+<b>A blind man may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate. Rabbi Judah says: one who has never seen the light from his birth may not lead the responsive reading of the Shema.</b>  One of the blessings before the Shema is “who creates light.”  According to the first opinion in the mishnah, a blind man can recite this blessing even though he can’t see the light.  He may also translate the Torah because translating does not require one to read. Rabbi Judah holds that a person blind from birth cannot recite the Shema because he can’t thank God for having ever seen the light.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>A priest whose hands are deformed should not lift up his hands [to say the priestly blessing].<br>Rabbi Judah says: also one whose hands are colored with woad or madder should not lift up his hands, because [this makes] the congregation look at him.</b><br>This mishnah teaches that priests who have something distracting on their hands, either a deformation or a discoloring should not lift up their hands because this makes the people look at them and not think about the blessing that they are receiving.  The mishnah considers it crucial that the congregation focus not on the external attributes of the priest but the contents of the blessing that they are receiving.<br>We should note that today people refrain from looking at the priests’ hands when they are reciting the blessing and their hands are also covered with a tallit.<br>Since the mishnah is straightforward I have refrained from commenting below.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>If one says, “I will not pass before the ark in colored clothes,” even in white clothes he may not pass before it.<br>[If one says], “I will not pass before it in shoes,” even barefoot he may not pass before it.<br>One who makes his tefillin [for the head] round, it is dangerous and has no religious value.<br>If he put them on his forehead or on the palm of his hand, behold this is the way of heresy.<br>If he overlaid them with gold or put [the one for the hand] on his sleeve, behold this is the manner of the outsiders.</b><br>The next two mishnayot deal with certain practices which the rabbis deemed to be heretical or at least potentially heretical.<br>Sections one or two:  In the first two sections we learn of people who refuse to pass before the ark (to lead the Amidah) either while wearing colored robes or while wearing shoes.  The rabbis suspected that one who demanded to wear white clothes or go barefoot may have had heretical beliefs.  Therefore, they said that such a person cannot pass before the ark at all, even in white clothes or barefoot. In other words, wearing white clothes and going barefoot seem to have been valid practices but one who insists upon them is suspected of heresy.<br>We should note that the groups being described here seem to be taking Temple practice and applying it to the synagogue.  In the Temple the priests’ robes were white and they went barefoot.  The mishnah may be trying to emphasize that the synagogue is not the Temple and one who insists on dressing in the synagogue as if it were the Temple is potentially a heretic.  There also may be a covert battle for leadership in this mishnah between priests and rabbis.  Rabbis may be telling priests that when in the synagogue leading the Amidah (as opposed to reciting the priestly blessing) they are functioning as regular Jews and not as priests.<br>Section three:  The boxes of tefillin are supposed to be square.  Our mishnah deals with a period of oppression when the Romans prohibited Jews from wearing tefillin.  In response someone makes his tefillin round so that the Romans will not notice that he is wearing tefillin.  According to the mishnah this attempt is doubly mistaken. The Romans will realize that he is wearing tefillin and therefore it is still dangerous.  Secondly, by making his tefillin round he is not fulfilling the mitzvah of tefillin.  There is also the idea that tefillin can protect a person from danger.  But since these tefillin are not valid they offer no protection from the Roman oppressors.<br>Section four:  The Torah says that you should place tefillin “as a sign upon your hand and as a remembrance between your eyes.”  Non-rabbinic groups of Jews (sectarians) interpreted these verses literally; tefillin are put on one’s hands and on the forehead between one’s eyes.  The rabbis did not interpret the verses literally tefillin go on top of one’s head, where the hairline ends, and on one’s arms, next to one’s heart.  A person who wears his tefillin between the eyes or on the hand is acting as a heretic.  I should note that I have seen many, many instances of people wearing their tefillin too low on their heads.  One who wears tefillin between his eyes has not fulfilled his obligation.<br>Section five:  Covering tefillin in gold or wearing them on one’s sleeves is not proper fulfillment of the mitzvah.  The mishnah deems this as the practice of “outsiders” those who have separated from the rabbinic fold.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to identify heretical behavior.  In yesterday’s mishnah we saw heretical behavior involving what a person wears, be it clothing, footwear or tefillin.  In today’s mishnah we see heretical behavior involving things a person says while leading the prayers or translating the Torah.
+<b>If one says “May the good bless you,” this is the way of heresy.</b>  The heresy here seems to be one of dualism.  Saying “May the good bless you” sounds as if there are two gods, one that governs the good and one that governs the bad.  This was a common theology at the time of the Mishnah, especially among groups dubbed “Gnostics” by modern scholars.  The rabbis were insistent that one God was responsible for both evil and good.
+<b>[If one says], “May Your mercy reach the nest of a bird,” “May Your name be mentioned for the good,” “We give thanks, we give thanks,” they silence him.</b>  There are three “heretical” saying in this mishnah.  I’ll try to explain them one at a time.  The mishnah says that for each “they silence him.”  This implies that the mishnah is describing one who “passes before the ark,” meaning one who leads the Amidah prayer.  If he tries to enter in one of these prayers they remove him as prayer leader. ““May Your mercy reach the nest of a bird:”  This line is explained in the Talmud in several different ways.  One is that he is complaining to God saying, “Your mercy is on the nest of this bird” but not on me.  God commanded shooing away the mother bird before taking the young, an act of mercy for the mother (Deuteronomy 22:6).  The person praying complains that God has not shown similar mercy to him. A different explanation is that this saying understands God’s commandments as being only about mercy, when really they are decrees which we are to obey without questioning their reasoning.  Another explanation is that he says “Your mercy reaches only to this nest” but cannot extend any further.  In such a way he limits God’s power. “May Your name be mentioned for the good:”   This implies that God’s name should not be connected with the bad or the evil.  As in the first section, this might imply some sort of dualism we thank God for the good and don’t mention the evil because its source is a different god. “We give thanks, we give thanks:” Again the problem seems to be one of dualism giving thanks twice sounds like it is being given to two different gods. However, in this section the dualism may not be of a good god and a bad god, but simply two gods.  There were ancient sects of Jews (including Christians) who while professing monotheism, gave divine roles to other characters, such as God’s word (the Logos), God’s spirit or Jesus.
+<b>One who uses euphemisms in the portion dealing with forbidden marriages, he is silenced.</b>  Leviticus 18:7 says, “you shall not uncover the nakedness of your father.”  If a person translates this as “you shall not uncover the nakedness of his father,” in an attempt to use a more innocuous third person, he is silenced.  The translation of the Torah is to be literal, and even in the section concerning forbidden relations.
+<b>If he says, [instead of] “And you shall not give any of your seed to be passed to Moloch,” (Leviticus 18:21) “You shall not give [your seed] to pass to a Gentile woman,” he silenced with a rebuke.</b>  The Torah prohibits “passing one’s child to Moloch.”  Some ancient translators understood this as a prohibition against impregnating or having sexual relations with a Gentile (Aramean) woman or perhaps against giving one’s child to a Gentile to raise. Since passing one’s child to Moloch is a capital crime, this might imply that having sexual relations with is a capital crime.  Therefore the rabbis insisted upon a literal translation of the verse.
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+<b>Introduction</b> In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that translations must be literal. Today’s mishnah, the last in tractate Megillah, teaches that some portions of the Torah are not translated at all because of the nature of their content.
+<b>The incident of Reuven is read but not translated.</b>  Reuven sleeps with Bilhah, his father’s concubine (Genesis 35:22).  This story is not translated in order not to shame Reuven.
+<b>The story of Tamar is read and translated.</b>  Tamar tricks Judah into sleeping with her (see Genesis 38). This story is read and translated because it is actually to Judah’s credit. When he discovers that he has committed a wrong (vs. 26), he doesn’t try to hide his crime, as embarrassing as it might be. Note that Judah serves as a foil for Reuven. Reuven intentionally commits a crime, so we must hide it from the public.  Judah accidentally commits a crime and then confesses, so we make public the entire story.
+<b>The first part of the incident of the golden calf  is both read and translated, but the second is read but not translated.</b>  The first part of the golden calf story is from Exodus 32:1-20. This part is translated either because Israel does receive atonement, or in order so that the congregation will learn from their mistakes.  In verse 21 Moses questions and accuses Aaron.  In order not to embarrass Aaron, this section is not translated.
+<b>The blessing of the priests, the stories of David and Amnon are not read or translated.</b>  The version of this mishnah in good manuscripts says that these sections are neither read nor translated.  The priestly blessing is not read, perhaps because it is a regular part of the prayer service. According to the version of the mishna in the Talmud, these verses are read but not translated.  The Talmud explains that they are not translated because one of the verses says, “May God show favor to you” and people might think that God shows favor in judgment and doesn’t judge justly. The story of David and Batsheva (II Samuel 11) is not read as a haftarah because it is embarrassing to David. In the story of Amnon (II Samuel 13), Amnon rapes Tamar and then wants to abandon her.  He eventually is killed by Absolom, David’s other son.  This is also quite embarrassing to David and to his house.
+<b>They do not conclude with the portion of the chariot as a haftarah. But Rabbi Judah permits this.</b>  We don’t read the description of the chariot contained in Ezekiel, chapter one, as a haftarah because ordinary people are not supposed to study this mystical chapter.  However, Rabbi Judah allows this.
+<b>R. Eliezar says: they do not conclude with “Proclaim Jerusalem’s [abominations]” (Ezekiel 1 as a haftarah.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer prohibits reading Ezekiel 16 as a haftarah because its content is simply too graphic. Read the chapter for yourself to get an idea of its disturbing content. Congratulations!  We have finished Megillah. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Megillah was full of practical halakhah that is still relevant today.  We learned about reading the Megillah and reading the Torah in the synagogue.  The information in this tractate is just the tip of the iceberg to all of the many halakhot about these two issues, so keep learning. As always, congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah.  Tomorrow we start Moed Katan.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Megillah/English/merged.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,280 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Megillah
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה מגילה
+merged
+https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Megillah
+This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
+-Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+-http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Megillah
+
+Introduction
+
+Tractate Megillah deals mostly with the public reading of Scripture at fixed times—on holidays and on certain days of the week.  The first two chapters deal with reading Esther and the second two chapters deal with reading the Torah and Haftarah.
+The Book of Esther does not itself mandate its own reading.  However, the rabbis understood the following verse to allude to a yearly reading of Esther.  9:28 states:  “Consequently, these days are recalled and observed in every generation:  by every family, every province, and every city.  And these days of Purim shall never cease among the Jews, and the memory of them shall never perish among their descendants.”  The rabbis understood that the memory of Purim was to be preserved by the reading of Esther on Purim itself.  
+The main mitzvah of reading the Megillah is to read it during the day.  However, by Talmudic times they had already added that one should read the Megillah at night as well.  Most cities would read the Megillah on the fourteenth of Adar.  However, cities that were walled when Joshua conquered Canaan read on fifteenth of Adar and smaller cities sometimes read on an earlier date.  This is an issue which we shall explore in depth in the first three mishnayot of the tractate.  
+The public reading of the Torah is an ancient custom.  Ancient Jewish and non-Jewish descriptions of synagogues almost always describe the Torah as being read in the synagogue.  The Talmudim variously attribute this custom to Moses, to the prophets or to Ezra.  From an early period the Torah was read on Shabbat and holidays at Shacharit as well as at Minhah on Shabbat, and on Monday and Thursday at Shacharit.
+The reading of a portion from the Prophets, the Haftarah, also seems to be an ancient custom.  According to some commentators, the reading of the Haftarah was a response to a decree that Jews could not read from the Torah.  Perhaps a more cogent explanation is that Jews wanted to hear the Prophets as well as the Torah. 
+In the land of Israel, from Mishnaic times through the early medieval period, the custom was to complete the reading of the Torah once every three or perhaps three and half years.  This is stated explicitly in the Babylonian Talmud, and is clearly reflected in some midrashim and in lists of the Haftarot.  This is commonly called the “triennial cycle.”  In Babylonia they read the entire Torah once a year, completing it on Simchat Torah. I should note the ancient “triennial cycle” is very different from the “triennial cycle” as it is observed in some Conservative congregations today. Most congregations follow along with “parshat hashavua” the weekly Torah reading as determined by the annual Babylonian cycle, but read only a third of it.  This preserves the ability to follow after the weekly Torah reading but creates the problem that the Torah is not read consecutively.  In ancient Israel they certainly read the Torah consecutively.  
+Finally, we should note another key distinction between current practice and ancient practice.  In the time of the Mishnah, one who received an “aliyah” literally “going up to the Torah,” would have read the Torah and recited the blessing.  Today this usually doesn’t happen.  Usually, one person goes up to recite the blessing and another person reads on his behalf.  There are other customs that we observe differently from those prescribed in the Mishnah, and we shall note them as opportunity arises.    
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first mishnah of Megillah teaches that the Megillah might be read on different days, depending on the locality.  Tomorrow’s mishnah will explain this in greater detail.
+<b>The Megillah is read on the eleventh, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth [of Adar], never earlier and never later.</b>  This section provides all of the possible dates in Adar on which the Megillah might be read.  Tomorrow’s mishnah will explain in what situation it might be read on the eleventh, twelfth, or thirteenth.
+<b>Cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua ben Nun read on the fifteenth; villages and large towns read on the fourteenth,</b>  Esther 9:19 reads, “That is why village Jews, who live in unwalled towns, observe the fourteenth day of the month of Adar and make it a day of merrymaking and feasting, and as a holiday and an occasion for sending gifts to one another.”  If Jews in unwalled towns celebrate Purim on the fourteenth, it implies that Jews in walled cities celebrate on another day.  This day must be the fifteenth, since in verse 18 the Jews in Shushan rest from their fighting on the fifteenth. The mishnah determines what is a walled city by reference to Joshua, even though Joshua lived hundreds of years before the events of Purim.  The mishnah refers back to Joshua because the land of Israel was desolate in the time of Achashverosh and none of its cities were walled.  In order to honor Israel, we therefore refer back to the original conquering.
+<b>Except that villages move the reading up to the day of gathering.</b>  Small villages move the reading up to the Monday or Thursday prior to the fourteenth of Adar.  These were the market days, the days on which the court would convene and the days on which the Torah was read.  The idea was that on these days the Jews would gather in the larger cities and it would be more possible to have a large celebration than if each individual village had celebrated separately on the fourteenth.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah explains how depending on when Purim falls the Megillah might be read on the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth or fifteenth.  To explain the mishnah we need to remind ourselves that small villages would not read alone in their own village, but rather would move up, if necessary, the day of the reading so that it would fall on the same day as “the day of gathering,” the market and court day in the larger towns. As we shall see, this can lead to their reading the Megillah on the eleventh, twelfth or thirteenth.  The fourteenth and fifteenth are the days when the Megillah is normally read.
+<b>How so?<br>If the fourteenth [of Adar] falls on Monday, the villages and large towns read on that day and the walled places on the next day.</b>  The mishnah begins with the easiest situation.  Purim (the fourteenth of Adar) falls on the fourteenth, so everyone can read on that day except for those in walled cities who read on the fifteenth.
+<b>If it falls on Tuesday or on Wednesday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering, the large towns read on that day, and the walled places on the next day.</b>  If it falls on Tuesday, the people of the villages read on Monday (the 13th), the day of the gathering, and if it falls on Wednesday then they also move it up to the 12th, which is Monday.  Again, the people of the large towns read on the fourteenth and the people of the walled cities on the fifteenth.
+<b>If it falls on Thursday, the villages and large towns read on that day and the walled places on the next day.</b>  If it falls on Thursday, again, everyone can read on that day except for those in walled cities who read on the fifteenth, on Friday.
+<b>If it falls on Friday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering and the large towns and walled places read on that day.</b>  If it falls on Friday, the villagers read on the Thursday the thirteenth, those from the large towns and even those from walled cities read on Friday, because the Megillah is not read on Shabbat.  The reason that the Megillah is not read on Shabbat is that it is possible to move it up to Friday, so there is no reason to disturb Shabbat.  The Talmud also explains that if they were allowed to read on Friday, they might end up carrying the Megillah through the public domain in order to get to synagogue.
+<b>If it falls on Shabbat, the villages and large towns move the reading up to the day of gathering, and the walled places read on the next day.</b>  If it falls on Shabbat, everyone moves the reading up to Thursday.  Since it can’t be read on Shabbat and it will therefore have to be moved up in any case, they move it up for the large towns all the way to Thursday so that they end up reading it on the same day as the villagers.
+<b>If it falls on Sunday, the villages move the reading up to the day of gathering, the large towns read on that day, and the walled cities on the day following.</b>  Finally, if it falls on Sunday, the villagers move the reading up to Thursday, the 11th of Adar, the people from the large towns read on Sunday and those from walled towns read on Tuesday, the 15th.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to deal with the topic of the various days upon which the Megillah might be read.
+<b>What is considered a large town? One which has in it ten idle men. One that has fewer is considered a village.</b>  A large town is one that is considered wealthy enough to support ten men who do not work but rather sit in the synagogue or study house and study all day.  Put another way, a large town is one that can support a small leisurely class.  In Greece and Rome this meant philosophers and in Israel this meant rabbis.  Anything smaller is considered a village and moves the reading of the Megillah up to the day of the gathering, Monday or Thursday.
+<b>In respect of these they said that they should be moved up but not postponed.</b>  There are other holidays and semi-holidays during the year that are not observed on the day upon which they fall if they fall on Shabbat.  The reading of the Megillah is the only holiday that is moved up all the rest are postponed.  The Talmud provides a midrashic explanation for this.  Esther 9:27 states, “the Jews accepted upon themselves and their descendants and all those who might join them, that these days should not pass without observing them as it is written and in their time, year after year.”  My translation is intentionally slightly awkward so that we can note the midrash.  The words “should not pass” are understood by the rabbis to mean that one cannot observe Purim after the fourteenth/fifteenth of Adar has already passed.
+<b>But with regard to the bringing the wood for the priests, the [fast of] Tisha B’Av, the hagigah, and assembling the people they postpone [until after Shabbat] and they do not move them up.</b>  I will briefly explain these holidays here.  The bringing of the wood for the priests occurred nine times a year.   Certain families would bring wood to the Temple to be used on the altar. This was discussed in Taanit 4:5. It would not be done on Shabbat.  The hagigah is a sacrifice brought on Yom Tov, the first day of the festival.  If Yom Tov falls on Shabbat it is postponed until the next day.  The “assembling of the people” or “Hakhel” in Hebrew occurs during the sabbatical year on Sukkot, when they would gather all the people together to read the Torah.  This would not be done on Shabbat.
+<b>Although they said that they should be moved up but not postponed, it is permissible to mourn, to fast, and to distribute gifts to the poor [on these earlier days].</b>  On both the fourteenth and fifteenth of Adar, one is not allowed to fast or to mourn, because these are the two days of Purim. However, even though the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth are also days on which one might read the Megillah, it is still permitted to mourn or fast on those days.  The mishnah says that it is also permitted to give gifts to the poor on those days.  Giving gifts to the poor is one of the central obligations of Purim.  Some commentators explain the mishnah to mean that one who gives gifts to the poor on one of these days has fulfilled his obligation.  However, others say that the mishnah means that one is exempt from giving gifts to the poor on these days.
+<b>Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? In a place where people gather on Mondays and Thursdays, but in places where people do not gather on Mondays and Thursdays, the Megillah is read only on its proper day.</b>  Rabbi Judah points out that the system of moving the reading up to the 11th-13th was done only when it made realistic sense at a time when Mondays and Thursdays were the days of gathering.  It seems quite certain that by Rabbi Judah’s time this system of gathering on Monday and Thursday was already defunct and hence everyone would read at the proper time.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+When Jews adjust the lunar calendar to keep it in sync with the solar calendar, they add a second month of Adar, the month during which Purim falls.  The rabbis hold that Purim should be observed during the second Adar.  Today because our calendar is fixed this is quite simple.  Ahead of time we know which year will have a second Adar.  In mishnaic times this was more difficult because the calendar had not yet been fixed.  Our mishnah addresses this problem.
+<b>If they read the Megillah during the first Adar and the year was intercalated (a month was, it is read again in the second Adar.</b>  If they read the Megillah during the first Adar and then the court decided to add a month to the year, they must read it again during the second Adar.
+<b>There is no difference between the first Adar and the second Adar except the reading of the Megillah and the giving of gifts to the poor.</b>  The only difference with regard to Purim between the first month of Adar and the second is that the Megillah is read and gifts are given to the poor during the second month and not during the first month.  However, when it comes to the prohibition of fasting and mourning, it is forbidden to fast on the fourteenth and fifteenth of both months. It is unclear from our mishnah whether the other two obligations for Purim, giving portions of food to friends and having a festive meal, are done both times or not.  It seems to me that it would make little sense for these customs to be performed during the first Adar at a time when the Megillah is not being read.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+From here until the end of the chapter there is a series of mishnayot in which each mishnah begins with the literary structure of “there is no difference between x and y except,” the literary structure that we saw in yesterday’s mishnah.  This type of structure is probably a result of the Mishnah’s being an oral text.  Halakhot phrased in this style are simply easier to remember.
+<b>There is no difference between Shabbat and Yom Tov except the preparation of food.</b>  All work prohibited on Shabbat is also prohibited on Yom Tov, except work done in the preparation of food.  For further reading on this subject look at the introduction to tractate Betzah.
+<b>There is no difference between Shabbat and Yom HaKippurim except that the deliberate violation of the one is punished by a human court and the deliberate violation of the other by karet.</b>  An intentional transgression of Shabbat carries with it the death penalty, a punishment that is carried out by a human court.  In contrast, an intentional transgression of Yom Kippur is not punished by a human court, but rather by karet, a punishment that is dished out by God.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>There is no difference between one who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from his fellow and one who is prohibited by vow from [benefiting from] his food, except in the matter of setting foot [on his property] and of vessels which are not used for [preparing] food.</b>  There are two things which are permitted to one who is under a vow not to derive food benefit from his neighbor which are not permitted to one who may not benefit from his neighbor at all:  walking on his property and the use of things not involved in the making of food.  For more information look at Nedarim 4:1.
+<b>There is no difference between vowed offerings and freewill-offerings except that he is responsible for vowed offering but not responsible for freewill-offerings.</b>  Vowed offerings are stated using the language “Behold, I will bring an animal as an offering.”  If a person sets aside an animal to be a vowed offering and the animal cannot for whatever reason be sacrificed (for instance, it gets lost or dies) he must bring a substitute.  However, if he makes a freewill-offering using the language, “I will bring this animal as a sacrifice” and the animal is lost, he need not bring another. In all other respects, there is no difference between the two types of offerings.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>There is no difference between a zav who sees [genital discharge] twice and one who sees three, except the sacrifice.</b>  A man who experiences an abnormal discharge for one or two consecutive days is impure for seven days after the discharge ends.  If he sees the discharge for a third consecutive day, he must bring a sacrifice at the end of the seven day period.  See Leviticus 15.
+<b>There is no difference between a metzora who is under observation and one declared to be a definite metzora except the disheveling of hair and tearing the clothes.</b>  A metzora is a person with some sort of skin affliction. After his skin affliction is identified he is set aside for seven days for observation by a priest.  If the skin affliction spreads, then the priest declares him to be a definite metzora.  There is no difference between the two stages except that one who has been declared to be a definite metzora has to have his hair disheveled and his clothes torn, as prescribed in Leviticus 13:45.  [I should note that some interpret the Hebrew for “disheveling the hair” to mean that he has to let his hair grow long.]  Other than these differences, the two types of metzora are equal in their impurity.
+<b>There is no difference between a metzora who has been declared clean after being under observation and one who has been declared clean after having been a definite metzorah except shaving and [sacrificing] the birds.</b>  If the priest declares a metzora who had been under observation to be pure, he does not bring a sacrifice nor does he have to shave his hair.  If the metzora had been definite then he must bring two birds as a sacrifice and shave his hair.  See Leviticus 14.  The two different types of metzora are the same in that at the end of their period of impurity they both must immerse in the mikveh and purify their clothes (see Lev. 13:6, 34).
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>There is no difference between scrolls [of the Tanakh] and tefillin and mezuzahs except that scrolls may be written in any language whereas tefillin and mezuzahs may be written only in Assyrian.</b>  Scrolls of the Tanakh may be written in any language and in any type of writing.  However, mezuzot and tefillin may be written only in Assyrian, the alphabet in which Hebrew was and is still written and they may be written only in Hebrew.
+<b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that scrolls [of the Tanakh] were permitted [by the sages] to be written only in Greek.</b>  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that while Tanakh scrolls may indeed be written in languages other than Hebrew, they may not be written in any language, just Greek. At the time of the Mishnah Greek was the international language of the intelligentsia.  It was also the language into which the Tanakh had already been translated. This translation is called the Septuagint and was widely used in the period by Jews in the Greek-speaking Diaspora.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah deals with differences between different types of high priests.
+<b>There is no difference between a priest anointed with the oil of anointment and one who [only] wears the additional garments except for the bull which is offered for the [unwitting transgression of] any of the commandments.</b>  The high priest was supposed to be anointed with special anointing oil, except that the composition of this type of oil was unknown in the Second Temple period and hence not used.  The distinction in the Second Temple period between high priests and ordinary priests was that the high priest had eight garments and the ordinary priest wore only four.  Our mishnah teaches that the difference between the high priest in the First Temple and the high priest in the Second Temple is that only the anointed priest brings a bull for an unwitting transgression, as is stated in Leviticus 4:3, “If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt…”
+<b>There is no difference between a serving [high] priest and one whose time has passed except the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah.</b>  The high priest who is currently serving in office brings the sacrificial bull on Yom HaKippurim (Leviticus 16:6) and the tenth of an ephah of flour offered every day (Leviticus 6:13).  Otherwise a high priest who has been removed or otherwise left office is treated the same as the currently serving high priest.  For more information on this, see Horayot 3:4.
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Before the Temple in Jerusalem was built it was permitted to build personal altars and offer sacrifices on them.  At this time period there were also communal altars. The personal altars are called “small altars” whereas the communal altars are called “great altars”.  The “great altar” is referred to in I Kings 3:2, “The people, however, continued to offer sacrifices at altars, because up to that time no house had been built for the name of the Lord.  The king went up to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the great altar…”
+Our mishnah outlines the differences that existed in this time period between great, communal altars and personal, small altars.
+<b>There is no difference between a great altar and a small altar except for the pesach offering.</b>  An individual cannot sacrifice the pesah at his own altar, but rather must bring it to the communal altar. The Talmud explains that not only the pesah cannot be offered at the small altar, but all mandatory sacrifices as well.  This is illustrated in the next section’s general principle.
+<b>This is the general principle: any animal which can be brought as a vow-offering or a freewill offering may be brought on a [small] altar, any animal which is not the object of a vow or a freewill-offering may not be brought on a [small] altar.</b>  Only voluntary offerings can be offered at a small altar.  Mandatory offerings, such as the tamid, the musaf, the pesah, sin-offerings, guilt-offerings, holiday-related offerings and others, must be brought to the central altar.
+
+Mishnah 11
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final mishnah of this series continues to deal with differences between places in which sacrifices can be offered.
+<b>There is no difference between Shiloh and Jerusalem except that in Shiloh sacrifices of lesser sanctity and second tithe could be eaten anywhere within sight [of the town], whereas in Jerusalem [they had to be eaten] within the walls.</b>  During the time of Samuel the ark was at Shiloh (see I Samuel 3-4).  Since the ark had a permanent home, it was prohibited to offer sacrifices at local altars, just as it was prohibited to offer sacrifices when the Temple stood in Jerusalem.  There is only one difference between Shiloh and Jerusalem, and that is with regard to where certain sacrifices and second tithe could be eaten.  When Shiloh was the center of worship, these could be eaten in any place within sight of Shiloh.  In Jerusalem they had to be eaten within the city walls.
+<b>In both places the most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains.</b>  In both Shiloh and Jerusalem most holy sacrifices, such as sin and guilt offerings, had to be eaten within the Temple/Tabernacle (Mishkan) precincts.
+<b>After the sanctification of Shiloh there is permission [for altars], but after the sanctification of Jerusalem there is no such permission.</b>  When Shiloh was destroyed, it again became permitted to offer sacrifices at other communal and personal altars but when the two Temples in Jerusalem were destroyed there was no such permission and it continued to be forbidden to offer sacrifices at other altars.  Put another way, when the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed it became forbidden to offer sacrifices elsewhere and after the destruction of the Second Temple it remained forbidden until the Temple will be rebuilt.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The Mishnah now begins to talk about how the Megillah is actually read.
+<b>If one reads the Megillah out of order, he has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  The Megillah must be read in order.  One cannot skip around and then go back.
+<b>If he reads it by heart, if he reads it in a translation [targum], or in any other language, he has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  The Megillah must be read from a scroll.  Despite its brevity, it, like other Torah readings, may not be read by memory. It also may not be read using a translation or in any other language, even if it is written in that language.  This section refers to a person who understands Hebrew. Such a person who hears in another language has not fulfilled his obligation.
+<b>But they may read it to those who do not understand Hebrew in a language other than Hebrew. One who doesn’t understand Hebrew who heard it in Assyrian [Hebrew], has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  In contrast, somebody who doesn’t understand Hebrew may fulfill his obligation by hearing the Megillah in a language other than Hebrew.  Nevertheless, if a person hears it in Hebrew he has fulfilled his obligation even if he doesn’t understand it.  In this aspect Hebrew is greater than the other languages other languages need to be understood while Hebrew does not. Hebrew is referred to as “Assyrian” because it is written using the Assyrian alphabet.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first part of this mishnah deals with having proper intention while reading the Megillah.  The second part deals with the physical material with which the Megillah is written.
+<b>If one reads it with breaks, or naps [in between readings], he has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that one must read the Megillah in its proper order.  Our mishnah teaches that it need not be read without breaks. One may read some of the Megillah, stop for a while, and then continue on and thereby fulfill one’s obligation. Similarly, one may read, take a nap and then continue where one has left off [no, this is not permission to sleep in shul].
+<b>If he was copying it, explaining it or correcting [a scroll of Esther], if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  When one reads the Megillah, or hears it being read, he must have in mind that he is fulfilling the religious obligation to hear the Megillah on Purim.  The mishnah describes other activities in which a person might be engaged that count as reading the Megillah only if he has the proper intent.  A person who was copying a scroll, explaining it or correcting it and did not remember that it was Purim has not fulfilled his obligation.  While doing any of these activities he must have the intention of fulfilling his obligation.  Assumedly, he must also read it out loud.
+<b>If it was written with arsenic, with red chalk, with gum or with sulfate of copper, or on paper or on scratch paper, he has not fulfilled his obligation, unless it is written in Assyrian on parchment and in ink.</b>  One cannot write a Megillah with these types of dyes or on these types of paper because it is not permanent.  In order for the Megillah to be valid for a religious occasion, it must be written in Hebrew, on parchment (made from animal skins) and with permanent ink.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first section of this mishnah deals with a person who travels from a walled city which reads on the 15th of Adar to a town which reads on the 14th or vice versa.
+The second section discusses how much of the Megillah must be read on Purim.
+<b>A resident of a town who has gone to a walled city or a resident of a walled city who has gone to a town, if he is to return to his own place he reads according to the rule of his own place, and if not reads with them.</b>  The mishnah states simply that if a person travels from one type of town to another he retains the custom of the town of his origin if his intention is not to move to his new town.  If his intention is not to return to his previous town, then he reads with the new place. In the Talmud they explain that “if he is to return to his own place” means if he is to return there that very night, and get there before the morning.  If he goes to another town but returns to his own town in the morning, then he celebrates Purim with his own town.  But if he goes to another town and is there in the morning, he must celebrate Purim and hear the Megillah on that day. By the way, as someone who lives in Modiin, which reads on the 14th, and goes to Jerusalem which reads on the 15th, I encounter this issue pretty much every year.
+<b>From where does a man read the Megillah and thereby fulfill his obligation? Rabbi Meir says: all of it. Rabbi Judah says: from “There was a Jew” (Esther 2:5). Rabbi Yose says: from “After these things” (3:1).</b>  Today we read the entire book of Esther, but whether this is necessary is debated by the sages.  Rabbi Meir says that one has to read the whole thing. Rabbi Judah says that he only has to read from 2:5, where Mordecai is first mentioned. Rabbi Yose says he only has to read from 3:1, where the actual plot by Haman (make a lot of noise when you say this) begins.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first section of the mishnah deals with who is qualified to read the Megillah. The second section deals with when it can be read.
+<b>All are qualified to read the Megillah except a deaf person, an idiot and a minor. Rabbi Judah qualifies a minor.</b>  Deaf people, idiots (this refers either to one who is mentally retarded or an insane person) and minors are generally not obligated to perform the commandments.  As we have mentioned on several occasions, in those days they had no way to communicate with the deaf and little understanding of the insane or retarded.  Hence these people were mostly cut off from participating in society.  Minors are too young to understand the meaning of the commandments and hence are not obligated.  Since these people are not obligated, they cannot perform the commandment for others. This was stated also in Rosh Hashanah 3:8, at the end of that mishnah. Rabbi Judah says that a minor is qualified.
+<b>They do not read the Megillah, nor circumcise, nor go to the mikveh, nor sprinkling [purificatory waters], and similarly a woman keeping day for day should not take a ritual bath until the sun has risen. But if any of these things is done after dawn, it is valid.</b>  The main reading of the Megillah takes place during the day.  The Mishnah teaches that during the day means after the sun has risen. This is also the time for other mitzvoth that need to take place during the day.  “Sprinkling” refers to the water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer.  “A woman keeping a day for a day” refers to a woman who was impure do to non-menstrual genital discharge.  She is impure a day for every day on which she has a discharge.  All of these things should be done after the sun has risen.  However, if someone did them after dawn, meaning when the sky begins to become light, the actions are still valid, at least ex post facto.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>The whole day is a valid time for<br>reading the Megillah;<br>reciting Hallel;<br>for the blowing of the shofar;<br>for taking up the lulav;<br>for the Musaf prayer;<br>for Musaf sacrifices;<br>for confession over the oxen;<br>for the confession over the tithe;<br>for the confession of sins on Yom HaKippurim;<br>for laying on of hands;<br>for slaughtering [the sacrifices];<br>for waving [them];<br>for bringing near [the vessel with the minhah-offering to the altar];<br>for taking a handful;<br>for placing it on the fire;<br>for pinching off [the head of a bird-offering];<br>for receiving the blood [in a vessel];<br>for sprinkling [the blood on the altar];<br>for making the sotah drink [the bitter waters];<br>for breaking the neck of the heifer;<br>and for purifying the metzora.</b><br>One can fulfill one’s obligation of hearing the Megillah at any time during the day. Our mishnah gives a very long list of numerous other rituals that one can perform at any time during the day.<br>Since this list is very long, I will not explain each item in detail, but rather mostly make reference to the relevant biblical verse(s) which deal with the issue.  I will not even comment on issues that seem abundantly clear.<br>Sections 6-7:  On Shabbat, holidays and Rosh Hodesh there are musaf sacrifices and musaf prayers. The sacrifices can be offered at any time during the day and the prayers may be recited throughout the whole day.<br>Section 8: For confession over the ox One who brings an ox as a sacrifice also confesses to the sin for which the ox is brought (Leviticus 4:3,14).<br>Section 9:  For the confession over the tithe On the fourth and seventh years of the sabbatical cycle one makes a confession that he has “removed all of the holy produce from his home” (Deuteronomy 26:13).<br>Section 10:  For the confession of sins on Yom HaKippurim The high priest recites a confession over the sacrifices (Leviticus 16:21; see also Yoma 3:8, 4:2, 6:2).<br>Section 11:  For laying on of hands one lays one’s hands on an animal sacrifice before it is slaughtered (Leviticus 1:4).<br>Section 13:  For waving [them] one waves the innards and the breast of wellbeing offerings (Leviticus 7:30).<br>Section 14-16:  these are all elements of the minhah offering.<br>Section 17:  For pinching off [the head of a bird-offering] Leviticus 1:15, 5:8.<br>Section 18:  For receiving the blood [in a vessel] in order to sprinkle it on the altar.<br>Section 20:  For breaking the neck of the heifer if a dead body is found in a field and the identity of the murderer is unknown (Deuteronomy 21:1)<br>Section 21:  And for purifying the metzora Leviticus 14.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is the complement to yesterday’s mishnah.  It teaches that mitzvoth which must be performed at night can be performed all night.
+<b>The whole night is valid for reaping the Omer and for burning fat and limbs [on the altar].</b>  There are two mitzvoth listed here that must be done at night.  The first is reaping the Omer, the barley offering which is brought from the second day of Pesah through Shavuot (Leviticus 23:10). The second is putting on the altar fat and limbs that had not been burned during the day.
+<b>This is the general principle: any matter whose commandment is during the day, is valid all day and any matter whose commandment is at night is valid all night.</b>  This general principle illustrates that which we learned in the last two mishnayot.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first three mishnayot of this chapter deal with the holiness of the synagogue and the articles found in it.  Our mishnah deals with what one may do with the proceeds of a sale of the synagogue or the things in it.
+<b>Townspeople who sold the town square, they may buy with the proceeds a synagogue. [If they sold] a synagogue, they may buy with the proceeds an ark. [If they sold] an ark they may buy covers [for scrolls]. (1) [If they sold] covers, they may buy scrolls [of the Tanakh]. ( [If they sold] scrolls they may buy a Torah.</b>  One can sell an object and buy something that is somewhat holier.  The town square has some holiness to it because it is occasionally used for gathering in prayer, such as during a public fast (see Taanit 2:1).  “Scrolls” refers to books of the Tanakh not part of the Five Books of Moses.
+<b>But if they sold a Torah they may not buy with the proceeds scrolls [of the Tanakh]. ( If [they sold] scrolls they may not buy covers. (1) If [they sold] covers they may not buy an ark. If [they sold] an ark they may not buy a synagogue. If [they sold] a synagogue they may not buy a town square.</b>  Conversely, one cannot sell an object and buy something with an object of less holiness.
+<b>The same applies to any money left over.</b>  If there is money left over from a permitted sale then they must still use that money to buy something with greater holiness. Thus if they sell covers and use the proceeds to buy scrolls and there is money left over, they must use the proceeds to buy other scrolls, or a Torah.
+<b>They may not sell [something] belonging to a community because this lowers its sanctity, the words of Rabbi Meir. They said to him: if so, it should not be allowed to sell from a larger town to a smaller one.</b>  According to Rabbi Meir there is an additional restriction when it comes to selling holy items.  The community cannot sell an item that belongs to the community to an individual.  So if the members of the synagogue own scrolls and they wish to sell them to buy a Torah, they may not sell the scrolls to an individual.  This means that according to Rabbi Meir there seems to be holiness in the community.  The item is more holy because it is owned by a community, an entity which has greater holiness than an individual.  Alternatively, an item is holier if it is used by more people. The other sages respond that it is problematic to quantify holiness based on the number of people within an entity.  If a community is holier than an individual, than a large community is holier than a small community. Since this doesn’t make sense, the sages reject Rabbi Meir’s halakhah altogether.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals specifically with selling a synagogue.
+<b>They may not sell a synagogue except with the stipulation that it may be bought back whenever they want, the words of Rabbi Meir.</b>  Rabbi Meir holds that the community can sell the synagogue but only on condition that the synagogue can be bought back any time they wish.  It sounds like Rabbi Meir intends to say that while the community may sell the synagogue because they need to buy holier items, what the community should really do is save up so that they can buy the synagogue back. Also, if they saw that the synagogue was being put to improper use, they could demand to purchase it back immediately.
+<b>But the sages say: they may sell it in perpetuity, except for four purposes for it to become one of four things:  a bathhouse, a tannery, a ritual bath, or a urinal.</b>  The rabbis are more lenient when it comes to selling the synagogue and do not require the seller to be able to buy it back whenever he should so please. The one restriction is that the sellers may not sell it knowing that it will be used for a something smelly (a tannery, a urinal) or for something where people will be naked (a bathhouse or a ritual bath).
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: they may sell it to be a courtyard, and the purchaser may do what he likes with it.</b>  Rabbi Judah points out that if the synagogue’s owners cannot by right repurchase the synagogue, then the new owners can trick the system by first buying it to be a courtyard and then doing with it whatever they like, including turning it into a urinal.  It is unclear whether Rabbi Judah says that this is permitted and there’s nothing that can be done about it, or what he is really doing is criticizing the sages’ position by pointing out that they can’t really enforce their halakhah.  As we shall see in the next mishnah, Rabbi Judah believes that a synagogue retains its sanctity even after it is destroyed.  It therefore seems less likely that Rabbi Judah would condone the synagogue becoming something like a urinal.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In this mishnah Rabbi Judah teaches that the holiness of a synagogue remains even if it has fallen into ruins.  Rabbi Judah applies the holiness of the Temple in Jerusalem to the synagogue of the post-destruction period.  Just as the holiness of the Temple and the Temple Mount remained even when Jerusalem was destroyed, so too the holiness of a synagogue remains when it physically lies in ruins.  There is a deep message in this mishnah.  The holiness of the synagogue is not dependent upon the existence of its physical structure.  Once people have treated the place as holy, it will retain that sanctity forever.
+<b>Rabbi Judah said further:  a synagogue that has fallen into ruins, they may not eulogize in it, nor twist ropes, nor to spread nets [to trap animals], nor to lay out produce on its roof [to dry], nor to use it as a short cut, as it says, “And I will desolate your holy places” (Leviticus 26:3 their holiness remains even when they are desolate.</b>  One may not use a synagogue that lays in ruins for a profane, every day purpose.  One cannot deliver eulogies in it because eulogies are not delivered in synagogues, even when they have been destroyed.  [As an aside, the custom to deliver eulogies and conduct funerals inside synagogues is a modern custom, probably borrowed from the Christians.  Jews used to deliver eulogies either at the cemetery on the path on the way there.]  One can’t use it as a place of work. The mishnah uses the example of “twisting rope” because twisting rope requires space, but it means that no work should be done there.  It should not be used to trap animals nor should its roof be used to dry out fruit.  One shouldn’t use it as a short cut.  In summary, it should only be entered for its intended purpose as a place of worship and Torah study. The mishnah uses a midrash, exegesis of a biblical verse, to prove this point.  In a section in which God rebukes Israel, He threatens that He will “desolate your holy places.”  The fact that the verse calls these places holy implies that they retain their holiness even when they have been destroyed.
+<b>If grass comes up in it, it should not be plucked, [in order to elicit] melancholy.</b>  The mishnah now changes direction and seems to acknowledge that there is some significance to the synagogue’s having been destroyed.  According to the theology reflected in this mishnah, a destroyed synagogue is sign of God’s wrath, which comes as a result of Israel’s sin.  When one sees grasses growing in a synagogue, a person will surely experience deep sadness.  It will remind him that the synagogue was destroyed and that he should repent.  It will also remind him that he should dedicate himself to rebuilding the synagogue as quickly as possible.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>If Rosh Hodesh Adar falls on Shabbat the portion of shekalim is read [on that day]. If it falls in the middle of the week, it is read on the Shabbat before, and on the next Shabbat there is a break.<br>On the second [of the special Shabbatot] they read “Zakhor;”<br>On the third the portion of the red heifer;<br>On the fourth “This month shall be for you;”<br>On the fifth the regular order is resumed.<br>They interrupt [the regular order] for anything: for Rosh Hodesh, for Hanukkah, for Purim, for fasts, for Ma’amadot, and for Yom HaKippurim.</b><br>The rest of this chapter deals with the portions of the Torah read on holidays and special Shabbatot.  In mishnaic times they did not complete the Torah once a year as they did in Babylonia and as we do today, but rather about once every three years.  Another difference between the ancient custom and that of today is that today when certain holidays fall on Shabbat we read the regular Torah portion and then we add a special reading for that day.  In mishnaic times, since they didn’t really have a regular Torah portion, they only read the special reading. Thus if Rosh Hodesh fell on Shabbat they would read only the portion for Rosh Hodesh and interrupt the regular continuous reading of the Torah.<br>Our mishnah deals with the four special Shabbatot that precede Pesah. They are:<br>1)  Shekalim to remind people that on Adar they would have to bring the half-shekel to the Temple (see tractate Shekalim). This was read before Rosh Hodesh Adar.<br>2)  Zakhor Deuteronomy 25:17-19.  This is read before Purim and connects Amalek with Haman.<br>3)  Parah Numbers 19.  We read about the red heifer to remind people that before Pesah they must be pure in order to eat the Pesah sacrifice.<br>4)  Hahodesh Exodus 12:1-20.  Read the Shabbat before Nissan to remind people that Pesah is approaching and that they must begin preparing.<br>Section one:  On Rosh Hodesh Adar which falls on Shabbat they read Shekalim, which is Exodus 30:11-16. However, if Rosh Hodesh Adar falls during the week, they would read Shekalim on the Shabbat before Rosh Hodesh. On the Shabbat following Rosh Hodesh they would go back to reading where they had last left off in the regular cycle. This week would then be a break from the four special portions enumerated in our mishnah.<br>Sections 2-5: The mishnah now enumerates the four special portions, described above in the introduction.  After Hahodesh, the order returns to its regular cycle. We should note the concept of Shabbat Hagadol, the Shabbat before Pesah, did not exist in mishnaic or talmudic times.<br>Section six: The regular reading of the Torah is interrupted for any special occasion. This includes all holidays. On fast days, meaning Mondays or Thursdays when they would fast for rain, they would not read the regular portion but rather the special readings for fasts.  Ma’amadot were described in greater length in tractate Taanit. These were gatherings by people in towns when their kohanim would go to the Temple.  The people in the town would read from the beginning of Genesis and not from the regular Torah portion.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>On Pesah we read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus (Torat (Leviticus 23:4).<br>On Shavuot, “Seven weeks” (Deuteronomy 16:9).<br>On Rosh Hashanah “On the seventh day on the first of the month” (Leviticus 23:2.<br>On Yom Hakippurim, “After the death” (Leviticus 16).<br>On the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot] they read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus, and on the other days of the Festival [of Sukkot] the [sections] on the offerings of the Festival.</b><br>This mishnah lists the portions read on the three pilgrimage holidays, Pesah, Shavuot and Sukkot and on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Hakippurim as well.<br>Most of these are straightforward and do not require explanation.<br>The one slightly confusing issue is the readings for Sukkot.  On the first day of Sukkot we read from Leviticus 23, the same reading as on Pesah.  On the remaining days we read the sacrifices listed for that day in Numbers 29:17 ff.  Sukkot differs from Pesah in that on Pesah the same musaf offerings are made every day.  On Sukkot each day has a different number of offerings. As an aside, this is one reason why we recite the full Hallel for all seven days of Sukkot but only on the first day of Pesah.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>On Hanukkah they read the section of the princes (Numbers 7).<br>On Purim, “And Amalek came” (Exodus 17:8).<br>On Rosh Hodesh, “And on the first of your months” (Numbers 28:11).<br>On Maamadot, the account of the creation (Genesis 1:1-2:3).<br>On fast days, the blessings and curses (Leviticus 26:3 ff and Deuteronomy 28). They do not interrupt while reading the curses, but rather one reads them all.<br>On Monday and Thursday and on Shabbat at minhah they read according to the regular order and this does not count as part of the reading [for the succeeding Shabbat].<br>As it says, “And Moshe declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:44) it is their mitzvah that each should be read in its appropriate time.</b><br>The final mishnah of our chapter details what sections are read on non-Toraitic holidays or events.  Since there are no passages in the Torah about these days, the sages had to find other passages whose themes they deemed appropriate.<br>The mishnah concludes with a midrash explaining why it is that we read from passages in the Torah appropriate to the holiday.<br>Section one:  Hannukah literally means “dedication” and refers to the dedication of the Temple after its restoration in the time of the Maccabees. The portion in the Torah read on Hannukah is a list of the gifts brought by the princes of each tribe at the dedication of the Mishkah, the tabernacle.<br>Section two:  On Purim we read about Amalek because Haman was, according to the rabbis, from Amalek.<br>Section four:  On Ma’amadot people would gather in the Temple or in their own cities while their local kohanim took there turn at service in the Temple.  See Taanit 4:2-3.<br>Section five:  The curses (called today the “tochekhah” or rebuke) are read on fast days as a warning to people that they must repent.  When reading the curses we don’t interrupt, making them into two or more aliyot rather they are all read by the same person. This is still the custom today, making one of the aliyot in Ki Tavo the longest aliyah of the year.<br>Section six:  Besides Shabbat morning, the Torah is also read on Mondays, Thursdays and Shabbat at minhah (the afternoon service).  These readings go according to the regular cycle but they don’t count toward the regular progression.  This means that the same portion that is read at all three occasions and then again on Shabbat. We only move forward on Shabbat.<br>Section seven:  The chapter ends with a midrash on Leviticus 23:44.  The verse states that Moshe told the holidays to the people of Israel, but this verse is superfluous Moshe taught all of the commandments to the people.  Therefore the midrash teaches that not only did Moshe teach the holidays, but he taught each one at the time that it fell.  By his example we learn that on all holidays we read the Torah portion relevant to that holiday.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Most of the last chapter of Megillah is about the public reading of the Torah.  The one main difference between how we read today and how they read in their time is that today the person who receives the aliyah and recites the blessing is usually not the same person who actually reads the Torah. This allows people who don’t know how to read from the Torah to receive aliyot.  In mishnaic and talmudic times, the person who read the Torah was the same person who received the aliyah.  There are other differences which we will discuss throughout the chapter.
+<b>He who reads the Megillah may either stand or sit.</b>  One may read the Megillah while either standing or sitting.  Today the custom is to stand but this is not mandatory.  In contrast, when reading the Torah one has to stand.
+<b>Whether one read it or two read it [together] they [those listening] have fulfilled their obligation.</b>  Two people may read the Megillah together when reading in front of the community.  However, when it comes to reading Torah only one person at a time can read.  The idea behind this is that it is harder for people to hear two people chanting together than one chanting alone.  Since hearing the Megillah is halakhically less significant than hearing the Torah, they allow to people to read simultaneously.
+<b>In places where it is the custom to say a blessing, they say the blessing, and where it is not the custom they do not say the blessing.</b>  According to the simple reading of the Mishnah, there were various customs with regard to reciting a blessing over reading the Megillah. Some did and some did not.  The Talmud however explains that this only refers to the blessing after the Megillah.  In all places they would recite the blessing before reading.  Today our custom is to recite a blessing before and after.
+<b>On Mondays and Thursdays and on Shabbat at minhah, three read from the torah, they do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets.</b>  The mishnah now begins to discuss regular Torah reading.  On Mondays, Thursdays and on Shabbat at minhah only three people receive aliyot (go up to the Torah).  This number may not be increased nor may it be decreased. There is no haftarah (portion from the Prophets section of the Bible) on these occasions.
+<b>The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it.</b>  In the time of the Mishnah the first person to read would recite the first blessing and the last person to read would recite the concluding blessing.   Those reading in between would not recite any blessing at all.  Today, each person receiving an aliyah recites a blessing before and after.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to teach how many aliyot there are on the different occasions in which the Torah is read.  Yesterday’s mishnah dealt with occasions in which there are only three, the minimum number of aliyot. Today’s mishnah lists occasions with four, five, six and seven aliyot.  It seems that the more holy a holiday is, the more aliyot there are, and the more Torah is read.
+<b>On Rosh Hodesh and on the intermediate days of festivals four read. They do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it. This is the general rule: on any day which has a musaf and is not a festival four read.</b>  Rosh Hodesh and the intermediate days of the festival both have a musaf service (and when the Temple still stood there was a musaf sacrifice).  However, they are not festivals, meaning that work is permitted on these days.  These are sort of “in-between days.”  Therefore they have four aliyot more than a normal day but less than a festival. The mishnah reiterates the rule that the first person who receives an aliyah recites the blessing before and the last person recites the blessing after.
+<b>On a festival five.</b>  On the first and last day of Pesah, on the first day of Sukkot, on Shmini Atzeret (the last day of Sukkot), on Shavuot and on Rosh Hashanah there are five aliyot.
+<b>On Yom Hakippurim six.</b>  On Yom Kippur there are six aliyot.  Note that this makes Yom Kippur unlike all other holidays.
+<b>On Shabbat seven; they may not decrease [from this number] but they may add [to it], and they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it.</b>  Shabbat differs from other occasions in several key ways.  First of all, there are more aliyot on Shabbat than at any other time of the year.  On other occasions there are a maximum of six aliyot and the mishnah states explicitly that they may not add to this number.  Indeed, the mishnah may emphasize this to make sure that people do not try to turn other holidays into Shabbat by adding more aliyot.  In contrast, on Shabbat they may add aliyot.  Finally, there is a haftarah on Shabbat. Today we read a haftarah on festivals and on Yom Kippur as well.  Finally, the same rule about the blessings still applies.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b> This mishnah teaches what rituals require a minyan of ten men in order to perform them.
+<b>They do not recite the Shema responsively,</b>  In the time of the mishnah they recited the Shema in a way that we might call responsively the leader would recite one half of the verse and the congregation would respond with the second half.  This practice changed some time during the talmudic period.  There are actually many different explanations for what they did, but this seems to be the most accepted by scholars.
+<b>And they do not pass before the ark;</b>  Passing before the ark refers to reciting the Sh’moneh Esrei or Amidah.  Without a minyan there is no public Amidah or repetition everyone just does it silently.
+<b>And the [the priests] do not lift up their hands;</b>  The priestly blessing is recited before the end of the Amidah, but only with a minyan.
+<b>And they do not read the Torah [publicly];</b>  Without a minyan there is no public reading of the Torah.
+<b>And they do not conclude with a haftarah from the prophets;</b>  Nor is there a haftarah, lest one think that although they can’t read from the Torah, they might be able to read from the prophets.
+<b>And they do not make stops [at funeral] processions;</b>  On the way to the cemetery and on the way back they would make formal stops at which they would recite eulogies.  They would do this seven times, but it was only done with a minyan.
+<b>And they do not say the blessing for mourners, or the comfort of mourners, or the blessing of bridegrooms;</b>  The blessing for mourners was recited in the public square, whereas “comforting mourners” was done on the return from the cemetery.  The blessing of the bridegrooms refers to the blessings recited under the huppah (the wedding canopy).  In mishnaic times they probably recited three blessings, but by the time of the Talmud this had been increased to seven.  None of these blessings is recited without a minyan.
+<b>And they do not mention God’s name in the invitation [to say Birkat Hamazon]; Except in the presence of ten.</b>  Before Birkat Hamazon, the blessing after the meal, there is an invitation to bless. This invitation is recited with God’s name only if there are ten present.
+<b>[For redeeming sanctified] land nine and a priest [are sufficient], and similarly with human beings.</b>  If someone wishes to dedicate a piece of land to the Temple they estimate the value of the land and then he must pay that amount.  The estimate is carried out by ten people, only one of whom must be a priest.  Similarly, if a person dedicates himself or someone else to the Temple, and he can’t afford to pay the price mandated in Leviticus 27, then they estimate how much he can afford. This estimate is again done by nine regular men and one priest.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b> This mishnah teaches various rules about reading the Torah in public.
+<b>One who reads the Torah [in public] may not read less than three verses.</b>  An aliyah may not consist of less than three verses.
+<b>And he should not read to the translator more than one verse [at a time], but [if reading from the book of a] prophet [he may read to him] three at a time. If the three verses constitute three separate paragraphs, he must read them [to the translator] one by one.</b>  In mishnaic times the spoken language was Aramaic.  Many people, perhaps most people, would have had trouble understanding the Torah in its original Hebrew. Therefore, as part of the public reading of the Torah, there was a translator who would translate verse by verse. The reader was to read one verse and then the translator would translate this verse.  However, when it came to reading the haftarah from one of the prophets, they allowed the reader to read three verses at a time. They were less exacting on the precision of the haftarah translation than they were for the translation of the Torah.  However, if each verse is its own section, then the reader must read each one on its own.  This refers to Isaiah 52:3-5 where there are three verses, each considered to be its own section.
+<b>They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. How far may he skip [in the prophet]? [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place].</b>  When reading the haftarah, he may skip from place to place so long as he doesn’t have to roll the scroll so far that the translator has completed his translation before he gets to the new verse. Today there are many haftarot where we skip from one place in the book to another, or if reading from one of the twelve minor prophets, from one prophet to another.  However, when it comes to the Torah it is forbidden to skip around.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b> This mishnah and the mishnayot following it deal with who is qualified to receive certain honors in the synagogue. I have explained this mishnah according to Albeck’s explanation.  Others explain it somewhat differently.
+<b>The one who concludes with the haftarah also leads the responsive reading of the Shema and he passes before the ark and he lifts up his hands.</b>  The person honored by reading the haftarah is worthy of also being the leader of the other crucial elements of the service.  He can lead the responsive reading of the Shema (explained in yesterday’s mishnah), he can pass before the ark (meaning recite the Amidah and thereby aid other’s in fulfilling their obligation) and if he is a priest, he can lift up his hands to bless the people with the priestly blessing.  In the following mishnayot we will see that not everyone is worthy of these honors.
+<b>If he is a child, his father or his teacher passes before the ark in his place.</b>  A child is allowed to read the haftarah, but he may not pass before the ark.  The person who recites the amidah (passes before the ark) helps others to fulfill their obligation to recite the amidah. In order to help others fulfill their obligation, the person himself must also be obligated.  A child who is not obligated cannot fulfill the congregation’s obligation.  Therefore, if a child read the haftarah either his father or teacher takes his place in passing before the ark.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah illustrates the important principle that one who is obligated to perform a given ritual may aid others in fulfilling their obligation.  It also deals with other reasons which might potentially disqualify a person from leading parts of the synagogue service.
+<b>A child may read in the Torah and translate, but he may not pass before the ark or lift up his hands.</b>  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that a child can read the haftarah.  Today we learn that a child may read from the Torah as well.  He may also serve as the translator of the Torah reading.  However, he may not pass before the ark, since he is not obligated in prayer (see yesterday’s mishnah).  He also may not lift up his hands to recite the priestly blessing if he is a priest because it was considered disgraceful for the community to have to be blessed by a minor.
+<b>A person in rags may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate, but he may not read in the Torah, pass before the ark, or lift up his hands.</b>  A person in rags, meaning one who is dressed shabbily and whose flesh can be seen through his clothes, may still lead the responsive reading of the Shema because this was done from one’s seat.  One didn’t have to get up in front of the community.  Since he would not be seen by the entire congregation, he was allowed to fulfill this role.  He was also allowed to serve as the translator, since this was not considered all that important of a function.  However, he was not allowed to read from the Torah because it would be disgraceful to read the Torah while dressed in rags.  He was not allowed to pass before the ark or lift up his hands (if he was a priest) for the same reason everyone would see him and his improper clothing.
+<b>A blind man may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate. Rabbi Judah says: one who has never seen the light from his birth may not lead the responsive reading of the Shema.</b>  One of the blessings before the Shema is “who creates light.”  According to the first opinion in the mishnah, a blind man can recite this blessing even though he can’t see the light.  He may also translate the Torah because translating does not require one to read. Rabbi Judah holds that a person blind from birth cannot recite the Shema because he can’t thank God for having ever seen the light.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>A priest whose hands are deformed should not lift up his hands [to say the priestly blessing].<br>Rabbi Judah says: also one whose hands are colored with woad or madder should not lift up his hands, because [this makes] the congregation look at him.</b><br>This mishnah teaches that priests who have something distracting on their hands, either a deformation or a discoloring should not lift up their hands because this makes the people look at them and not think about the blessing that they are receiving.  The mishnah considers it crucial that the congregation focus not on the external attributes of the priest but the contents of the blessing that they are receiving.<br>We should note that today people refrain from looking at the priests’ hands when they are reciting the blessing and their hands are also covered with a tallit.<br>Since the mishnah is straightforward I have refrained from commenting below.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>If one says, “I will not pass before the ark in colored clothes,” even in white clothes he may not pass before it.<br>[If one says], “I will not pass before it in shoes,” even barefoot he may not pass before it.<br>One who makes his tefillin [for the head] round, it is dangerous and has no religious value.<br>If he put them on his forehead or on the palm of his hand, behold this is the way of heresy.<br>If he overlaid them with gold or put [the one for the hand] on his sleeve, behold this is the manner of the outsiders.</b><br>The next two mishnayot deal with certain practices which the rabbis deemed to be heretical or at least potentially heretical.<br>Sections one or two:  In the first two sections we learn of people who refuse to pass before the ark (to lead the Amidah) either while wearing colored robes or while wearing shoes.  The rabbis suspected that one who demanded to wear white clothes or go barefoot may have had heretical beliefs.  Therefore, they said that such a person cannot pass before the ark at all, even in white clothes or barefoot. In other words, wearing white clothes and going barefoot seem to have been valid practices but one who insists upon them is suspected of heresy.<br>We should note that the groups being described here seem to be taking Temple practice and applying it to the synagogue.  In the Temple the priests’ robes were white and they went barefoot.  The mishnah may be trying to emphasize that the synagogue is not the Temple and one who insists on dressing in the synagogue as if it were the Temple is potentially a heretic.  There also may be a covert battle for leadership in this mishnah between priests and rabbis.  Rabbis may be telling priests that when in the synagogue leading the Amidah (as opposed to reciting the priestly blessing) they are functioning as regular Jews and not as priests.<br>Section three:  The boxes of tefillin are supposed to be square.  Our mishnah deals with a period of oppression when the Romans prohibited Jews from wearing tefillin.  In response someone makes his tefillin round so that the Romans will not notice that he is wearing tefillin.  According to the mishnah this attempt is doubly mistaken. The Romans will realize that he is wearing tefillin and therefore it is still dangerous.  Secondly, by making his tefillin round he is not fulfilling the mitzvah of tefillin.  There is also the idea that tefillin can protect a person from danger.  But since these tefillin are not valid they offer no protection from the Roman oppressors.<br>Section four:  The Torah says that you should place tefillin “as a sign upon your hand and as a remembrance between your eyes.”  Non-rabbinic groups of Jews (sectarians) interpreted these verses literally; tefillin are put on one’s hands and on the forehead between one’s eyes.  The rabbis did not interpret the verses literally tefillin go on top of one’s head, where the hairline ends, and on one’s arms, next to one’s heart.  A person who wears his tefillin between the eyes or on the hand is acting as a heretic.  I should note that I have seen many, many instances of people wearing their tefillin too low on their heads.  One who wears tefillin between his eyes has not fulfilled his obligation.<br>Section five:  Covering tefillin in gold or wearing them on one’s sleeves is not proper fulfillment of the mitzvah.  The mishnah deems this as the practice of “outsiders” those who have separated from the rabbinic fold.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to identify heretical behavior.  In yesterday’s mishnah we saw heretical behavior involving what a person wears, be it clothing, footwear or tefillin.  In today’s mishnah we see heretical behavior involving things a person says while leading the prayers or translating the Torah.
+<b>If one says “May the good bless you,” this is the way of heresy.</b>  The heresy here seems to be one of dualism.  Saying “May the good bless you” sounds as if there are two gods, one that governs the good and one that governs the bad.  This was a common theology at the time of the Mishnah, especially among groups dubbed “Gnostics” by modern scholars.  The rabbis were insistent that one God was responsible for both evil and good.
+<b>[If one says], “May Your mercy reach the nest of a bird,” “May Your name be mentioned for the good,” “We give thanks, we give thanks,” they silence him.</b>  There are three “heretical” saying in this mishnah.  I’ll try to explain them one at a time.  The mishnah says that for each “they silence him.”  This implies that the mishnah is describing one who “passes before the ark,” meaning one who leads the Amidah prayer.  If he tries to enter in one of these prayers they remove him as prayer leader. ““May Your mercy reach the nest of a bird:”  This line is explained in the Talmud in several different ways.  One is that he is complaining to God saying, “Your mercy is on the nest of this bird” but not on me.  God commanded shooing away the mother bird before taking the young, an act of mercy for the mother (Deuteronomy 22:6).  The person praying complains that God has not shown similar mercy to him. A different explanation is that this saying understands God’s commandments as being only about mercy, when really they are decrees which we are to obey without questioning their reasoning.  Another explanation is that he says “Your mercy reaches only to this nest” but cannot extend any further.  In such a way he limits God’s power. “May Your name be mentioned for the good:”   This implies that God’s name should not be connected with the bad or the evil.  As in the first section, this might imply some sort of dualism we thank God for the good and don’t mention the evil because its source is a different god. “We give thanks, we give thanks:” Again the problem seems to be one of dualism giving thanks twice sounds like it is being given to two different gods. However, in this section the dualism may not be of a good god and a bad god, but simply two gods.  There were ancient sects of Jews (including Christians) who while professing monotheism, gave divine roles to other characters, such as God’s word (the Logos), God’s spirit or Jesus.
+<b>One who uses euphemisms in the portion dealing with forbidden marriages, he is silenced.</b>  Leviticus 18:7 says, “you shall not uncover the nakedness of your father.”  If a person translates this as “you shall not uncover the nakedness of his father,” in an attempt to use a more innocuous third person, he is silenced.  The translation of the Torah is to be literal, and even in the section concerning forbidden relations.
+<b>If he says, [instead of] “And you shall not give any of your seed to be passed to Moloch,” (Leviticus 18:21) “You shall not give [your seed] to pass to a Gentile woman,” he silenced with a rebuke.</b>  The Torah prohibits “passing one’s child to Moloch.”  Some ancient translators understood this as a prohibition against impregnating or having sexual relations with a Gentile (Aramean) woman or perhaps against giving one’s child to a Gentile to raise. Since passing one’s child to Moloch is a capital crime, this might imply that having sexual relations with is a capital crime.  Therefore the rabbis insisted upon a literal translation of the verse.
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+<b>Introduction</b> In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that translations must be literal. Today’s mishnah, the last in tractate Megillah, teaches that some portions of the Torah are not translated at all because of the nature of their content.
+<b>The incident of Reuven is read but not translated.</b>  Reuven sleeps with Bilhah, his father’s concubine (Genesis 35:22).  This story is not translated in order not to shame Reuven.
+<b>The story of Tamar is read and translated.</b>  Tamar tricks Judah into sleeping with her (see Genesis 38). This story is read and translated because it is actually to Judah’s credit. When he discovers that he has committed a wrong (vs. 26), he doesn’t try to hide his crime, as embarrassing as it might be. Note that Judah serves as a foil for Reuven. Reuven intentionally commits a crime, so we must hide it from the public.  Judah accidentally commits a crime and then confesses, so we make public the entire story.
+<b>The first part of the incident of the golden calf  is both read and translated, but the second is read but not translated.</b>  The first part of the golden calf story is from Exodus 32:1-20. This part is translated either because Israel does receive atonement, or in order so that the congregation will learn from their mistakes.  In verse 21 Moses questions and accuses Aaron.  In order not to embarrass Aaron, this section is not translated.
+<b>The blessing of the priests, the stories of David and Amnon are not read or translated.</b>  The version of this mishnah in good manuscripts says that these sections are neither read nor translated.  The priestly blessing is not read, perhaps because it is a regular part of the prayer service. According to the version of the mishna in the Talmud, these verses are read but not translated.  The Talmud explains that they are not translated because one of the verses says, “May God show favor to you” and people might think that God shows favor in judgment and doesn’t judge justly. The story of David and Batsheva (II Samuel 11) is not read as a haftarah because it is embarrassing to David. In the story of Amnon (II Samuel 13), Amnon rapes Tamar and then wants to abandon her.  He eventually is killed by Absolom, David’s other son.  This is also quite embarrassing to David and to his house.
+<b>They do not conclude with the portion of the chariot as a haftarah. But Rabbi Judah permits this.</b>  We don’t read the description of the chariot contained in Ezekiel, chapter one, as a haftarah because ordinary people are not supposed to study this mystical chapter.  However, Rabbi Judah allows this.
+<b>R. Eliezar says: they do not conclude with “Proclaim Jerusalem’s [abominations]” (Ezekiel 1 as a haftarah.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer prohibits reading Ezekiel 16 as a haftarah because its content is simply too graphic. Read the chapter for yourself to get an idea of its disturbing content. Congratulations!  We have finished Megillah. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Megillah was full of practical halakhah that is still relevant today.  We learned about reading the Megillah and reading the Torah in the synagogue.  The information in this tractate is just the tip of the iceberg to all of the many halakhot about these two issues, so keep learning. As always, congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah.  Tomorrow we start Moed Katan.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Moed Katan/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,204 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Moed Katan
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה מועד קטן
+Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Moed Katan
+
+Introduction
+
+Moed Katan is about the halakhot governing the intermediate days of Pesah and Sukkot (called Hol Hamoed, which means the non-sacred days of the festival). The Torah says that one cannot do work on the first and seventh days of Pesah, on the first day of Sukkot and on Shmini Atzeret.  It doesn’t say anything about the intermediate days.  One the one hand these days are still part of the festival. Special sacrifices are offered and special prayers recited.  On the other hand the Torah does not prohibit work on these days. This leaves their laws somewhat ambiguous. They tend to be quite flexible. The same work that in one situation is prohibited may be in other situations permitted. According to the rabbis, some work is prohibited on Hol Hamoed but some work is allowed.  There are certain general principles that guided the rabbis in deciding which work was allowed and which was not.  I shall list these briefly here.  Most of our tractate gives examples that lead to these principles.
+1) If the work must be done on Hol Hamoed or a financial loss will be incurred, it is generally permitted. 2) If it is very difficult, laborious work, it will likely be prohibited. 3) One should not do work on Hol Hamoed that could have been done beforehand.
+Much of the third chapter deals with the laws of mourning. These laws are brought there on account of a mishnah which teaches that one cannot mourn on a festival and that a festival can put an end to the shivah (seven) days of mourning.  We will discuss this at much greater length when we get to the third chapter.
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first mishnah of Moed Katan deals with watering a field during the festival.  Watering a field is sometimes necessary or the crops will be lost.  Therefore, watering in these types of situations tends to be permitted.  However, watering is also quite laborious and hence some types of watering are prohibited.
+<b>They may water an irrigated field during the festival [week] or in the sabbatical year, both from a newly-emerging spring and from a spring that is not just emerged.</b>  “An irrigated field” refers to a field that cannot subsist on rainwater alone.  Therefore, the mishnah allows one to water it on the festival. During the sabbatical year it is forbidden to work the land.  However, irrigating a field is not considered to be working the field, as is plowing or planting.  Nevertheless, the rabbis did prohibit watering during the sabbatical year, but they did not prohibit watering a field that needed to be irrigated. Certainly the field may be watered through an old spring, whose water has already been directed at the field. The mishnah says that it may be watered even from a new spring, despite the extra work of directing the water to the field.
+<b>But they may not water the field with water from stored rain, and not with a swipe and bucket.</b>  Carrying water to the field from a cistern of stored rain water is a lot of work. Therefore they are not allowed to water the field in this way. They are also not allowed to water using a method called “swipe and bucket,” which was a type of sweeping pump used to get water out of deep cisterns. This was also considered too laborious.  We can see that first the mishnah allows watering these types of fields because otherwise the crops will be lost. It then limits that by saying that some labors are prohibited because one shouldn’t be doing so much work on the festival.
+<b>And they may not make small ditches around the vines.</b>  Finally, one may not make water ditches around vines. These ditches were made so that they would fill up and the water would seep into the roots.  Again, digging these ditches was considered too much work for it to be permitted on the festival.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b> This mishnah continues to discuss irrigation on the festival and sabbatical year. It then proceeds to deal with the more general topic of repairing community property.  As we shall see, this is another category that makes something more permitted during the intermediate days of the festival.
+<b>Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says:  they may not make a new water channel may not during the festival [week] or in the sabbatical year. But the sages say:  they may make a new water channel during the sabbatical year, and they may repair broken ones during the festival.</b>  Making a new water channel involves digging and it is a considerable amount of work.  Since it involves digging, it is similar to plowing and therefore Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah forbids it during the sabbatical year, a time when plowing is forbidden.  Since it involves a substantial amount of work, he holds that it is forbidden during the festival. The sages agree that it is forbidden to make a new water channel during the festival, because this involves a lot of work.  However, they allow repairing old water channels because this is less work.  Also, new water channels should have been dug before the festival, whereas having to fixing broken ones was usually not anticipated.  They also disagree with Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah concerning digging new water channels during the sabbatical year.  Whereas he held it was similar to plowing they hold that it is different enough such that it is permitted.
+<b>And they may repair impaired water works in the public domain, and clean them out.</b>  If water channels have become clogged with debris, they may be cleaned out during the festival, because this is both necessary and not a significant amount of work.
+<b>And they may repair roads, town squares and [ritual] pools, and they may do all public needs may be performed, and mark graves, and [inspectors] may go out to inspect kilayim (mixed  seeds).</b>  They are also allowed to fix the public roads and ritual baths, because these are significant public needs. In addition they were allowed to perform other public duties. In the time of the Mishnah, they would mark graves with lime so that priests, commanded to avoid becoming impure, could see where the graves were and avoid them.  This could also be done on the festival. Finally, public inspectors were allowed to go out to inspect people’s fields that kilayim, forbidden mixtures of seeds were not growing there.  This was an immediate need because once kilayim grow in one’s field, all of the crops become forbidden. The final section of the mishnah is contained word for word in Shekalim 1:1. For a fuller explanation, one that is appropriate to a slightly different context, look there.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah returns to the subject of irrigating during the festival.   As an aside, the fact that the first three mishnayot of this tractate are dedicated to this subject testifies to how crucial irrigation was in Israel, especially during Sukkot and Pesah.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: they may draw water from [one] tree to [another] tree, as long as they don’t water the whole field.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds that if a lot of water had collected around one tree, they were allowed to draw the water from that tree to another tree, because this is not a lot of work.  However, one cannot use this way of watering to water the entire field, because that would be too much work.
+<b>Seeds that have not had [any] drink before the festival, he may not water them during the festival. The sages however allow it in both cases.</b>  If he planted seeds before the festival but had not yet watered them, then he cannot water them during the festival, because they will do fine without being watered. The seeds don’t start to open until the first time they are watered.  However, if he has watered them already, then he may continue to water them during the festival, because if he does not, they will die.  This illustrates an important principle if something will be lost, it is usually permitted to do that given work on the festival. The sages allow the seeds to be watered even if they had not yet been watered before the festival. They allow this for one of two reasons: 1) they think the seeds will be lost; 2) they think that it is not a significant amount of work.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first section of the mishnah deals with trapping pests in a field and the second half deals with repairing breaches in a fence surrounding a field.  Both of these may need to be done in order to protect the crops and therefore they may be permitted.
+<b>They may trap moles and mice in a tree-field or a white field in an unusual way during the festival and in the sabbatical year. But the sages say: in the tree-field in the usual way and in the white field in an unusual way.</b>  According to the first opinion in the mishnah (this is probably Rabbi Eliezer b. Yaakov, the sage from yesterday’s mishnah), one can trap moles and mice in the normal way of trapping them, from both a field of trees and a field of produce (called a white field).  The normal way of trapping them seems to have involved digging a hole so that they would fall in.  We might have thought that this was prohibited on the sabbatical year because it looks like plowing.  On the festival it might have prohibited because it is a lot of work. The sages are stricter.  In a tree-field, where the moles and mice can do more damage, one can trap them in the usual way.  However in a white field, where the loss that they cause is more minor, they can only trap them in an unusual way.  According to the Talmud this means that they dig the hole in an unusual way so that everyone will know that the person is cognizant of the fact that it is either the Sabbatical year or the festival. This is another general principle we will see frequently in Moed Katan.  Work which is forbidden may sometimes be done with a change, even though this change may cause the work to be more laborious. This seems to me to be a way that the rabbis could allow people to prevent a financial loss, while still making sure that they knew that it was a festival.
+<b>And they may block up a breach in a wall during the festival, and in the sabbatical year they may build it in the usual way.</b>  If a wall has opened up on the festival and the crops are left exposed to wild animals, it is permitted to make a temporary wall to close it up during the festival.  It is forbidden, however, to build a more permanent wall because this is too much work.  This is with regard to the festival.  During the Sabbatical year it is permitted to build even a new wall because this is not similar to plowing.  Only plowing and activities similar to it were prohibited during the sabbatical year, not all work involved in maintaining a field.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first section of this mishnah deals with a priest inspecting leprous symptoms on a person.  Leprosy (or some other similar type of skin disease) is dealt with in Leviticus 13.
+The second part of the mishnah deals with certain acts of mourning during the festival. It is brought here because the first of those acts involves digging, which is generally forbidden on the festival because it is laborious.
+<b>Rabbi Meir says:  [Priests] may inspect leprous symptoms at the outset [during the festival] for [the priest to make] a lenient assessment, but not to make a strict one. But the sages say: neither for a lenient nor for a severe assessment.</b>  According to Rabbi Meir a priest may inspect a person to decide whether his symptoms make him impure, but only if he is going to pronounce the person pure.  The mishnah does not want anything to damper the celebration of the festival, and pronouncing him impure will only distress him.  It seems that if the priest sees that the person is impure, he is not supposed to say anything at all.  The mishnah allows this even at the outset, meaning at the initial stage of the process, when the infected person is going from a state of purity to impure.  The priest may also examine him later on when the infected person is already impure, as long as he will declare him to be pure. The sages think that once the priest goes to examine the symptoms and sees that the person has tzaraat (the skin-disease) he must declare the person impure.  He cannot remain silent.  Rabbi Meir’s halakhah is therefore untenable. The sages however agree that we should avoid a situation where a person might be declared impure on the festival. Therefore, they instruct the priest not to even examine the symptoms in the first place. Better to avoid the problem altogether than to be put in the situation where he would have to remain silent in the face of impurity. What is fascinating about this section is how the notion of impurity is treated.  It is as if impurity doesn’t even exist unless the priest declares it impure.  In other words, the priest’s declaration is what makes something impure, not its actual physicality.  Both Rabbi Meir and the sages seem completely unbothered by the fact that a person might really have this disease and yet not be declared impure.
+<b>Furthermore Rabbi Meir said: a man may gather his father’s and mother’s bones, since this is a joy for him. Rabbi Yose says: it is mourning for him.</b>  In mishnaic times they would first bury the body until the flesh had decomposed. About a year later they would gather the bones and put them into a more permanent place, called in English an “ossuary.”  In our mishnah two rabbis debate whether the gathering of bones is a joyous or a sad occasion.  According to Rabbi Meir, bringing one’s parents’ bones to their final resting place is a joyous occasion.  Therefore, it is permitted during the festival.  Rabbi Yose says that collecting the bones is part of the mourning process, since it will remind him of the painful loss of his parents. Therefore, he may not collect the bones during this week.
+<b>A man should not stir up wailing for his dead, nor hold a lamentation for him thirty days before the festival.</b>  When it comes to other mourning practices, even Rabbi Meir agrees that he may not do so during the festival.  This mishnah does not deal with a person who died during or right before the festival, a topic which shall be covered in chapter three.  Rather, the mishnah refers to a person who tells a professional eulogizer to recite a public eulogy for someone who died a long time before the festival, or to someone who himself recites a eulogy for someone close to him who died a long time before the festival. Reciting eulogies for one who died a while before the festival should not be done even within the thirty days preceding the festival because the memory of the powerful eulogy will stay with those who hear it for thirty days, dampening their ability to celebrate on the festival.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b> It was certainly permitted to bury the dead on the festival.  It would hardly be possible or desirable to wait an entire week to bury a body.  Since burials would have taken place quite frequently during a festival, this mishnah deals with the critical subject of digging graves and other various places to bury or place the body.
+<b>They may not dig burial niches and graves during the festival. But they may adapt burial niches [to the size of the dead body] during the festival.</b>  Burial niches are holes the walls of caves where they used to bury people.  “Graves” refers to the caves themselves.  These may not be dug on the festival because it is a tremendous amount of work and there are other ways to bury a dead body, such as digging a hole in the ground, which is permitted if necessary (see below).  However, if there was already a niche in the wall of the burial cave and all they needed to do was expand it to make it fit the size of the body, they may do so because it is not a significant amount of work.  Also, it would have been difficult, if not impossible to know how big to make the niches ahead of time.
+<b>And they may make a temporary grave during the festival, and a coffin, if a dead [body] is close by in the courtyard. Rabbi Judah forbids, unless there are sawn boards at hand.</b>  They may make a temporary grave, one in which they would put the body until the bones are collected.  They may also make a coffin if there is a dead body in the courtyard where the coffin is being built. If there is no dead body there then they may not make a coffin because people will not realize that it is being made for somebody who has already died.  This is another criterion with regard to permitting work on the festival we must take into consideration what people will think when they see the person working. If they realize that it was for an imminent need, and that the work cannot be pushed off, then it is more likely to be permitted. As an aside, we can see from this mishnah that some people were buried in coffins but not all.  It seems that there was quite a large range of burial practices in Israel during mishnaic times. Rabbi Judah says that it is prohibited to make the coffin if in order to do so he will also have to make planks.  In other words, despite the fact that this is an immediate need, Rabbi Judah still prohibits it because making planks is too much work to be done on the festival. Only if he had available planks could he make the coffin.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah prohibits marriage during the festival.  It seems that the central idea is that one should use the festival to celebrate the festival and not as an opportunity to celebrate something else.  The rabbis did not want people to say, “Since I can’t work on the festival anyway, I might as well use it for a wedding celebration.” Rather, both the week of the festival and the week of the wedding celebration should have their own separate times.
+<b>One may not marry a woman during the festival, whether a virgin or a widow, nor may one perform levirate marriage, because this is a joy for him. But one may remarry his divorced wife.</b>  As stated in the introduction, one may not get married during a festival. The mishnah emphasizes that this is true even if the woman is a widow, for whom a wedding celebration was not as expansive.  It is forbidden even to have levirate marriage with one’s dead brother’s widow. Even though this was probably not as celebratory occasion as a more typical marriage, it is still a joy and therefore it is prohibited. There is only one type of marriage remarrying one’s divorcee which one can have on a festival.  Since the couple has already been married, this is not as joyous of occasion and therefore it is permitted.  This clause sheds some light on the first clause.  Marriages are prohibited when they are the first time that a couple will have a chance to be married.  It is partly, at least, the anticipation of the new that makes a marriage a joyous occasion and therefore prohibited during the festival.  When the novelty is gone, the joy is diminished.  [I realize that many will disagree with this assessment, thinking that remarriage is a great joy.  While this point is debatable, the rabbis thought otherwise.]
+<b>And a woman may make the adornments [for her wedding] during the festival. Rabbi Judah says: she may not put on lime, as that is a [temporary] disfigurement to her.</b>  Although marriage is prohibited on the festival, a woman use that week to make the adornments (the perfumes and makeup) that she will need on her wedding day.  Although she is using the festival to prepare for something that she will not need during the festival, since it is not a lot of work she is allowed to do so. Rabbi Judah places one limitation on this. She cannot put lime on her body to remove hair and to make her skin look better because while the lime is on she is disfigured.  Rabbi Judah holds that she should not do anything that will make her look ugly on the festival, even if it is only temporary.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with sewing on the festival.  It introduces a principle which we have not yet seen in the previous mishnayot.  There are certain types of labor that may be done by a non-professional but not by a craftsman.  This prevents professionals from working on the festival, while still allowing ordinary people to engage in light labors.
+<b>An ordinary person may sew in the usual way, but a craftsman may sew [only using] uneven stitches.</b>  An ordinary person can sew in a normal way, assuming he has an immediate need to do so.  Sewing is not a heavy labor, and therefore it is permitted on the festival. However, a professional craftsman cannot sew in a normal way because that would allow him to engage in his profession during the festival.  This is prohibited even if he is not paid for the work. The mishnah allows him to make some sort of uneven stitches. This might allow him to fix things that need to be fixed while still preventing him from engaging in his normal profession.
+<b>And they may weave the ropes of a bed. Rabbi Yose says: they may even be tightened.</b>  In the mishnaic period beds were made with a frame around which they would loop ropes.  The tighter the ropes, the firmer the bed (this is the origin of the phrase “sleep tight”).  The mishnah allows a person to weave ropes around the frame of a bed because this is not a significant amount of work.  It is also necessary if one wants to sleep on a bed. There are two versions of Rabbi Yose’s statement.  According to the version which I have translated he even allows ropes that are already on the bed to be tightened. We might have thought that since the ropes were already there that tightening them is not really necessary and hence forbidden on the festival.  In this version, Rabbi Yose is more lenient than the previous opinion. According to the other version, Rabbi Yose only allows tightening ropes and not weaving ropes that are not already attached to the bed frame.  In this version Rabbi Yose is stricter.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with setting up various instruments needed for the preparation of food.
+<b>They may set up an oven, stove or a millstone during the festival.</b>  Setting up an oven, stove or a mill involved assembling the separate parts and connecting them with plaster.  The mishnah allows this because it is not a lot of work and it is necessary for the festival.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says:  they may not roughen millstones for the first time.</b>  For the millstones to grind well, their face was had to be roughened by putting grooves and ridges on it.  While Rabbi Judah agrees that one can set up the millstone, he doesn’t allow it to be roughened for this is strenuous work.  The roughening also could have been done before the festival.
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final mishnah of this chapter introduces two more categories relevant to the laws of the festival. While some work may be done during the festival, one should not leave work for the festival that could have been done beforehand.  Second, one should not use the festival as a time to prepare things for after the festival.
+<b>They may put up a railing around a roof or a gallery porch, in the style of an ordinary person but not in the style of a professional.</b>  It is permitted to put up a railing on a roof or a second-floor porch, but only if it is done in a non-professional manner.  For instance, putting up a rough stone fence would be permitted, but a nicely finished iron fence would not.
+<b>They may put plaster on crevices [on the roof] and flatten them down with a roller, by hand or foot, but not using professional tools.</b>  This refers to fixing a roof.  It is permitted to fill in the crevices and to flatten the plaster, but not with professional tools.  The central idea is that work that needs to be done should be done differently during the festival.
+<b>A hinge, a socket, a beam, a lock, a key which broke they may repair them during the festival, as long as he doesn’t intend to do this work during the festival.</b>  If a part of a door broke (these are all parts of a door), it may be fixed on the festival, and in the normal way. There doesn’t seem to be any “non-professional” way of fixing the door and hence all ways of fixing the door are okay.  The mishnah does, however, offer one reservation.  He may not delay fixing the door until the festival, saving his work for when he has more time.  The door should only be fixed if it actually broke on the festival, an unforeseen problem.
+<b>And all the pickled food that he may eat during the festival, he may pickle.</b>  He can pickle food on the festival, but only if he is going to actually be able to eat the food during the festival.  He may not use the festival as a time to prepare for the future.  Note how this section is the mirror image of section three. There we learned that a person may not save for the festival work that should have been done before the festival.  In this section we learn that a person may not do work on the festival for after the festival.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The beginning of chapter one introduces yet another criterion used in determining whether work is permitted on the festival. We have already learned that one should not save work to be done on the festival. Things that can be done before the festival cannot be done during the festival.  Our mishnah deals with a person who intended to do something before the festival but then was not able to.  If he doesn’t do the work during the festival, he will incur a financial loss.
+<b>If one had turned his olives, and mourning or some unforeseen circumstance befell him, or workmen misled him, he may [during the festival] put on the beam for the first time and leave it until after the festival, the words of Rabbi Judah.</b>  The mishnah refers to the preparation of olives.  They would put the olives in a large sack so that they would heat up and start to release the oil.  After time they would flip the bag with a special stick so that they would get very soft. This was done prior to pressing them with a large beam.  In our mishnah someone turned his olives over and was planning to put them under the beam before the festival.  However, he was not able to do so due to some unforeseen circumstance. The mishnah gives a couple of examples of such a circumstance. First of all, someone in his family might have died and a mourner is not allowed to work.  Alternatively, he might have had workers who reneged on an agreement to help press his olives.  In any case, Rabbi Judah allows him to begin pressing the olives so that they will not rot, but he does not allow him to complete this process.
+<b>Rabbi Yose says: he may pour off [the oil] and complete the process and seal [the jars] in his usual way.</b>  Rabbi Yose is more lenient.  He allows him to take the oil that comes out of the first pressing and even do the second and third pressing.  He may put the oil in jars and close them up as well.  Rabbi Yose reasons that once he has been allowed to do some of the work, he should be allowed to complete it.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is similar to yesterday’s mishnah but deals with the production of wine instead of olive oil.
+<b>Similarly, if one had his wine [already] in a cistern and mourning or some unforeseen circumstance befell him, or workmen misled him, he may draw off [the wine], complete the process and seal [the jars] in his usual way, the words of Rabbi Yose.</b>  In this case, someone has already pressed his grapes and the juices have run off into the cistern, and for some reason he was not able to jar the wine before the festival.  According to Rabbi Yose, since the process was started and it was not his fault that he could not complete it, he may complete the process during the festival.  He may remove the wine from the cistern, finish squeezing all of the juice out of the grapes and put the wine into jars.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: he [may only] cover [the cistern] with boards to prevent it from turning into vinegar.</b>  Consistent with his opinion in yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Judah does not allow him to complete the process. Rather, all he may do is cover the wine in the cistern so that it does not spoil.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+There are certain labors that are permitted on the festival because if they are not done immediately, the product will be ruined.  However, this is only permitted if he did not purposely set his schedule so that the work would end up needing to be done during the festival.
+<b>A man may bring his produce indoors for fear of thieves and withdraw his flax from a soaking pool to prevent it spoiling, as long as he doesn’t intend to do this work during the festival.</b>  If one has left produce outside but fears that it might be stolen by thieves, he may bring it indoors on the festival.  He may also take his flax out of a soaking pool (used to soften the flax so that it can be made into linen) lest it become too soft and spoil.  However, he may not start a certain labor before the festival knowing that he will have to continue to do the work during the festival.  The only time these labors may be performed is if some unforeseen circumstance prevented him from being able to perform them before the festival.
+<b>And all those who deliberately intended to do their work on the festival, they must leave it to spoil.</b>  This is a summary of the basic rule governing all of the previous sections.  If one has intentionally left over work for the festival, he must let it spoil.  A different explanation is that this refers to a court which penalizes a person who left his work for the festival by taking it away from him.  According to this interpretation we would need to translate the last clause as “they cause him to lose [his property]”, which is a viable translation.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with two subjects: 1) buying large items on the festival; 2) using the festival as time to move one’s belongings.
+<b>They may not purchase houses, slaves or cattle unless it is for the needs of the festival, or the need of the seller who does not have enough to eat.</b>  It is forbidden to make large purchases on the festival, because the festival should not be used as a time to engage in activities needed for after the festival.  There are, however, two circumstances, that allow one to make a large purchase on the festival.  First of all, if the sale is necessary to the buyer for the needs of the festival.  For instance, if one’s house burned down right before the festival, he may buy a new one during the festival.  The second circumstance is if the seller needs the cash immediately to buy food for the holiday.  The general prohibition of buying and selling large items on the festival is waved if the seller needs money immediately in order to buy food in order to celebrate the festival itself.
+<b>They may not move [belongings] from one house to another house, but he may move [his belongings] within his courtyard.</b>  Moving from one house to another is obviously a difficult and laborious endeavor. Since it involves so much work, one may not do so on the festival.  However, he is allowed to move his stuff out to the adjacent courtyard because this is not nearly as strenuous.  The Talmud explains that he can move from one house to another house within the same courtyard.
+<b>They may not bring back vessels from the house of the craftsman, but if one is anxious about them, he may remove them to another courtyard.</b>  If one has left his vessels (clothes, utensils, cloth etc.) at a craftsman for repair, he cannot bring them home on the festival. According to the Talmud, this refers to vessels which are not needed on the festival.  However, if he fears that someone might steal them from the craftsman’s workshop, he may move them to a better-guarded workshop.  While this may be just as much work as moving them to his own home, he is not allowed to bring them home lest someone plan ahead of time to use the festival as a opportunity to bring his things home from the craftsman.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final mishnah of this chapter deals with people whose work might be necessary during the festival. The general rule is that while they may engage in their work, they should do so in as private a manner as possible.
+<b>They may cover [drying] figs with straw. Rabbi Judah says: they may even be pile [the figs] up [in heaps].</b>  Drying figs were covered with straw so that they wouldn’t get dirty.  The mishnah permits one to cover them with straw on the festival, because if they are left uncovered, they might get ruined. Rabbi Judah says that one may even heap them up together in order to preserve them better.
+<b>Sellers of produce, clothing and [other] vessels may sell privately for the requirements of the festival.</b>  The people referred to in this section are selling items that the public might need for the festival.  The mishnah says that they may do so, but that they should try to sell in as private a manner as possible.  The rabbis wanted to allow people to buy items necessary for the festival, but they also wanted to prevent the week from turning into “business as usual.”
+<b>Trappers [of fish and birds], groats-makers and grist-millers may engage in their work privately for the requirements of the festival. Rabbi Yose says: they were strict upon themselves.</b>  Similarly, people who engage in food production may work, but only in a private manner.  “Groats-makers” pounded grain to make it into cereal whereas “grist-millers” grind it to break it up into small kernels.  Since people need these foods during the festival, and they can’t be done much ahead of time (they had little means to preserve food), they may continue to work during the festival, as long as they try to be as private about it as possible. Rabbi Yose adds a fascinating note.  He says that people in these professions were strict upon themselves and didn’t engage in this work at all.  In other words, the previous clause’s intention was not to tell these workers that they had to do their work in private, but rather to emphasize to them that they were allowed to work.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Generally speaking one may not cut one’s hair/shave during the festival. This is not because cutting hair was a lot of work. Rather it was to encourage people to get a hair cut and shave before the festival, so that they would be properly groomed when the festival began. In other words, if you don’t prepare before the festival, you’re going to look disheveled the whole time.
+Our mishnah lists the exceptions to this rule those people who may get a haircut during the festival because they could not do so during the week before.
+When the mishnah speaks of cutting one’s hair, it also includes shaving (they would shave with scissors). There is no halakhic difference between the two.  I have translated the verb that the mishnah uses as shaving.
+<b>And these may shave during the festival: one coming back from a trip abroad, or one coming out from a place of captivity, or coming out of prison, or one excommunicated whom the sages have released.</b>  The people in this section could not cut their hair the week before the festival for various practical reasons.  1) They came back from a trip abroad, from a place where shaving was not possible.  2)  They came out of captivity, and while captives they couldn’t shave.  3)  They came out of prison no cutting hair in prison.  4) They were excommunicated.  A person excommunicated by the Jewish community may not shave or cut his hair until he is released from his excommunication.  If any of these people did not have enough time to cut his hair before the festival, he may do so during the festival. On the other hand, if he had time to prepare for the festival and neglected to do so, then he is penalized for his lack of preparation.
+<b>And similarly one who asked a sage [to be released from a vow] and was released, and a nazirite or a leper on emerging from his state of impurity to his state of purification.</b>  The people in this section could not shave for religious reasons.  1)  The person had taken a vow not to cut his hair.  Only a sage can release someone from a vow.   If the person could not find a sage who would release his vow before the festival and then found one during the festival, he is allowed to shave during the festival. When a nazirite completes his term of naziriteship and when a leper becomes pure from his leprosy they both undergo a ritual which includes cutting one’s hair and shaving.  If the term of naziriteship is over during the festival or a leper’s period of impurity is completed during the festival they may shave and cut their hair then.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+For the same reason that it is prohibited to shave/cut hair during the festival, it is also prohibited to wash one’s clothes the prohibition during the festival encourages people to wash their clothes before the festival.  As was the case with yesterday’s mishnah, today’s mishnah lists the exceptions, those people who may wash their clothes because they could not have done so before the festival began.
+<b>These may launder [their clothes] during the festival:  one coming back from a trip abroad, or one coming out from a place of captivity, or coming out of prison, or one excommunicated whom the sages have released.</b>  This is the same list that appeared in section one of yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>And similarly one who asked a sage [to be released from a vow] and was released.</b>  This is the same as the beginning of the second section of yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>Hand-towels, barber’s towels and bath-towels [may be laundered].</b>  Towels which are used on a daily basis and will quickly become dirty may be laundered.  “Barber’s towels” is somewhat of a strange category, considering the fact that most people should not be getting a haircut on the festival.  Either this refers to towels used in cutting the hair of those few people who can get a haircut or alternatively the word for “barber” really means “books” the words are spelled the same but pronounced differently in Hebrew (sapar=barber; sefer=book).  The mishnah would then refer to coverings of books, i.e Torah scrolls, which become dirty due to frequent usage. However, it seems strange to me that book coverings need to be washed with such urgency.
+<b>Zavim and zavot, menstruants, and women who have given birth, and anyone going from a state of purity to impurity, are permitted [to launder their clothes].</b>  This section refers to various people who have some sort of genital emission and therefore need to wash their clothes frequently. Zavim and zavot have some sort of unusual genital emission which would dirty their clothes.  They are allowed to wash their clothes because it would not be seemly to force them to go around in public with stained clothing. People who become pure on the festival need to wash their clothes (Leviticus 11:25, 28; 14: 5, 47; Numbers 19:19). They are allowed to do so during the festival since they could not control the timing of their becoming pure.
+<b>But everyone else is prohibited.</b>  The mishnah ends by emphasizing that other people may not launder their clothes on the festival.  During the time of the mishnah laundering was heavy labor and was not done with great frequency.  Hence, the festival should not be used as an opportunity to launder clothes.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>They may write the following documents during the festival:<br>Betrothal of women [documents], divorce documents and receipts, wills of a dying person, bequests and prosbols; evaluation certificates and orders for support, documents of halitzah and of repudiation [of marriage] and arbitration records; decrees of the court and correspondence.</b><br>Writing was not nearly as common of a skill in the time of the mishnah as it is now.  Indeed, most people could probably not write, and if they could, they could write only simple things.  Since writing was not common it was considered a professional skill.  Hence it was generally forbidden on the festival. Our mishnah lists exceptions.  These were allowed because they were of immediate necessity.  I will explain each type of document.<br>Betrothal of women [documents]:  This refers to all sorts of documents connected to marriage, either arranging the betrothal and its economic elements (tannaim) or a document used to effect betrothal itself.  In such a document the man would write, “Behold you (or your daughter) are betrothed to me.”  Note that kiddushin (betrothal) can take place during the festival, but marriage may not.  Therefore, ketubot, marriage documents, are not included in this list.<br>Divorce documents: Gittin.  This is the document that a husband writes to his wife.  Divorce is permitted on the festival.<br>And receipts: The creditor writes to the lender stating that he has received the money. This may also refer to a case of divorce, where a woman writes a receipt to her husband upon receiving the marriage settlement (her ketubah money).<br>The will of a dying person:  Wills, which must be written and executed while the person is alive, are obviously not something that can be put off, especially when they are written by a dying person, the case to which our mishnah refers.<br>Bequests:  A document transferring a present from one person to another.<br>Prozbuls:  These documents allow a person’s loans to carry through the Sabbatical year.  If they are not written, then the loan is annulled in the sabbatical year.<br>Evaluation certificates:   Documents which evaluate a debtor’s possessions so that the appropriate amount may be collected by the creditor.<br>And orders for support:  These documents allow a widow to sell her dead husband’s property in order to provide for herself.<br>Documents of halitzah:  Halitzah is the refusal of levirate marriage.  A woman might need this document to prove that she had been released and was free to marry another man.<br>And of repudiation [of marriage]:  A minor girl whose father has died may be married off by her mother or brother.  When she reaches majority age she may repudiate the marriage and have it annulled.  She would need this document to prove that she had repudiated the marriage and was allowed to marry another man without having been divorced.<br>And arbitration records: Certain court cases would begin by the litigants choosing judges.  These records would prove which judges had been chosen.<br>Decrees of the court:  Documents recording their decision.<br>And correspondence: According to the Yerushalmi’s interpretation of this clause, it refers to simple letters of correspondence.  In those days sending mail would have been quite difficult.  It was not always easy to find someone going to the place where one wanted to send a letter.  If such a person was found on the festival one was allowed to write a letter because the opportunity would be lost later.  A different (and later interpretation) is that this clause refers to letters written to the government.  Only such letters are permitted on the festival because they are of a greater need than simple letters of friendship.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Most of this mishnah continues to deal with writing on the festival.
+<b>They may not write loan documents during the festival; but if he [the creditor] does not trust him or he does not have food to eat, he may write.</b>  Loan documents may not be written during the festival, because one can lend money without a document, using witnesses to secure the loan.  The mishnah immediately lists two major exceptions.  If the creditor does not trust the borrower enough to lend him money without a document, then they may write a document.  The rabbis considered it important enough for the borrower to be able to secure the loan that they allowed the document to be written during the festival.  The second exception is interpreted in two different ways. The Jerusalem Talmud interprets it to refer to the borrower if the borrower needs a loan so that he can afford to eat, the document can be written.  The problem with this interpretation is that if the lender trusts the borrower, then he doesn’t need a document, and if he doesn’t trust him, then the mishnah has already stated that he may write the document. Due to these difficulties, the Babylonian Talmud interprets the clause to refer to the scribe.  If he needs his wages in order to eat during the festival, they may have him write the document.
+<b>They may not write [Torah] scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot during the festival, nor may they correct [even] a single letter, even in the [ancient] Temple-scroll.</b>  We might have thought that since Torah scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot are sacred objects, a scribe could write them during the festival. The mishnah rules otherwise even holy objects cannot be written on the festival.  One cannot even fix one letter in a scroll, even in the “ancient Temple scroll,” the scroll which was kept in the Temple from which other scrolls were copied.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: a man may write tefillin and mezuzot for himself.</b>  Rabbi Judah allows one to write a personal set of tefillin or a mezuzah for personal use, but he agrees with the previous opinion that a scribe may not write these documents in order to sell them.  The problem, according to Rabbi Judah, is not inherent in the writing itself. The problem with writing is when it becomes a “craft” done by a professional.
+<b>And one may spin on his thigh the blue-wool for his fringe.</b>  The mishnah allows one to spin tzitzit (fringes on the corner of one’s garment) but only for personal usage, while the garment is resting on one’s thigh.  He may not put the threads onto a spinning wheel to spin the tzitzit, the way this is normally done.  Again, in order to distinguish something from the way it is done normally, the rabbis demanded it be done differently on the festival.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+From here until the end, Moed Katan deals with mourning practices. There is no separate tractate in the Mishnah concerning mourning so the few halakhot that the Mishnah does contain are placed here. There are probably several reasons for this. First of all, as we shall see below, the Mishnah deals with the question of mourning which occurs right before a festival.  On a deeper level, the week of mourning (the shivah) and the week of the festival seem to be flipsides of the same coin.  Both are seven days long, one of celebration and one of sadness. It is forbidden to do work during the festival because one is supposed to be celebrating.  During shivah it is forbidden to do work because one is supposed to be mourning. Similarly, marriages are prohibited during the festival and during the shivah.  There are other halakhot which are shared by both holidays.
+The two periods of mourning mentioned in our mishnah are shivah, seven days, and shloshim, thirty days.  The first period is more intense and its restrictions are more numerous than the latter. The mishnah deals with the question of a person whose period of mourning is interrupted by a festival.
+<b>One who buries his dead three days before a festival, the decrees of shiva are annulled from him;</b>  If one of a person’s close relatives dies at least three days before the start of a festival, the festival annuls the shivah (the seven day period of mourning). When the festival is over he will not need to complete the shivah. Today, the halakhah is that if the person’s relative dies and is buried right right before the festival, even an hour before the festival, the shivah is cancelled.  However, the mishnah and earlier halakhah held that at least three days of the shivah had to be observed. If three days were not observed than the shivah continues after the festival.  These three days seem to be the essential period of mourning, more critical than the rest of the shivah.
+<b>[One he buries his dead] eight days before a festival, the decrees of the shloshim [thirty days] are annulled from him.</b>  If he buries a close relative eight days before the festival, he has begun to observe “shloshim,” the second stage of mourning when the festival begins and the festival annuls the remainder of shloshim. This would mean that after the festival there is no more mourning at all (except in the case of a dead parent).
+<b>Because they [the sages] said that Shabbat counts but does not interrupt, while festivals interrupt and do not count.</b>  This section explains the rationale of the previous two sections.  Shabbat counts as part of the shivah and shloshim and does not interrupt either of them.  The festivals, in contrast, do not count. This means that if someone dies on the festival, the mourners do not begin mourning until after the festival, when they will have a full period of shivah and shloshim.  However, the festival does interrupt, such that if someone begins mourning three days before the festival the festival will annul shivah; eight days will annul shloshim.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The festivals which most clearly put an end to shivah and shloshim are Pesah and Sukkot since they are both seven or if you include Shmini Atzeret (the last day of Sukkot), eight days long.  In contrast, Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur last only one day.  Further complicating the matter, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are holidays, but not actually festivals. “Festival” in Hebrew (regel) refers only to the three pilgrimage holidays Pesah, Shavuot and Sukkot, when one was supposed to visit the Temple.  Due to these complications, our mishnah contains a debate over where these one day holidays are treated like Shabbat or like Pesah and Sukkot.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: From the time the Temple was destroyed, Atzeret ( is like Shabbat.</b>  Atzeret is the word used in the Mishnah to refer to Shavuot. When the Temple still stood, Atzeret was similar to the other festivals.  One who did not bring the appropriate sacrifice on Atzeret itself could bring it for the following six days.  Hence, in a sense Atzeret was a seven day holiday, even though it was only fully observed for one day.  When the Temple still stood, it would interrupt mourning.  Once the Temple was destroyed and sacrifices could no longer be brought, Atzeret ceased being a seven day holiday and hence is treated like Shabbat when it comes to mourning.
+<b>Rabban Gamaliel says: Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are like festivals.</b>  According to Rabban Gamaliel Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are like festivals.  Assumedly, his reasoning is that anything that is not Shabbat counts as a festival.  He would therefore disagree with Rabbi Eliezer. Today the halakhah follows Rabban Gamaliel.  Only Shabbat does not interrupt mourning.
+<b>The sages say: [the rule is] not according to the words of this one nor that one, rather Atzeret is like the festivals and Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are like Shabbat.</b>  The other sages disagree with both Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer.  The category of festivals includes all pilgrimage holidays, and even Atzeret after the destruction of the Temple.  Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are not “festivals” and hence they function like Shabbat. The sages’ opinion seems to be a literal interpretation of the last clause of yesterday’s mishnah which stated that festivals interrupt. The sages interpret this to mean only festivals and not other holidays.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>They do not rend [their clothes] or bare [their shoulders], or provide a meal [for the mourners] except for the relatives of the dead.<br>And they do not provide a meal except on an upright couch.<br>They do not bring [food] to the house of mourning on an [ornamental] tray, platter, or flat basket, but in plain baskets.<br>And they do not say the mourners’ blessing during the festival.<br>But they may stand in a row and comfort [the mourners] and [the mourners] may formally dismiss the community. Section one: When one heard that a close relative had died, one would rend whatever clothes they were wearing. Baring the shoulder was also a sign of mourning. The mourner was provided by the community with the first meal after the funeral. On Hol Hamoed only a close relative would perform these practices. Others would not. I should note that today only close relatives do these actions in any case. The circle of mourners was bigger in the Talmudic period. Section two: It was customary to overturn the bed during mourning and then sit on the bed as a sign of mourning. But one does not overturn the bed during Hol Hamoed. This practice fell into disuse sometime after the Talmudic period. Section three: This halakhah is true in all cases. When bringing food to the mourner, they should bring it in plain baskets. A source in the Talmud relates that originally people would use fancy silver and gold vessels, but poor people would be embarrassed that they could not afford such fancy funerals and mourning homes. As a response the rabbis decreed that everyone must bring in a simple vessel. The mourning home is not a place where one should be showing off one’s wealth. Section four: The mourners’ blessing was stated on return from burial. They would stand in a line and comfort the mourner with this blessing. It may have also been recited at other points as well. But it is a public sign of mourning and should not be done on Hol Hamoed. Section five: While the blessing is not recited on Hol Hamoed, burial is. Along with the burial, they may have the formal line of comforters that would accompany the mourners on their way home. The same goes true for the official words that the mourner seems to have said to the comforters, to  allow them to go home without accompanying the mourner all the way home.</b><br>Today’s Mishnah discusses mourning practices not observed during Hol Hamoed. It is interesting to note that this Mishnah is one of the main sources of the laws of mourning. It seems, at least to me, that the Mishnah did not feel it was necessary to teach people how to mourn. People just knew what to do. The only reason they are mentioned is to let people know when not to observe these practices.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to deal with mourning practices during the festival.
+<b>They do not place the bier on the thruway [during the festival] so as not to encourage eulogizing.</b>  Normally, the bier, a stretcher with the body on it, would be placed on the thruway, the central road that passes through the town, so that people would have the opportunity to offer up public eulogies.  Since eulogies are forbidden on the festival, the bier is not placed on the thruway.
+<b>And the bier of women is never [set down on the thruway] for the sake of propriety.</b>  The body of the dead person was covered only with a shroud while it was on the bier.  It could become exposed. Due to the rabbis’ concerns of modesty, they did not wish the woman’s bier to be placed on the thruway even on non-festival occasions.
+<b>Women may raise a wail during the festival, but not clap [their hands in grief]. Rabbi Ishmael says: those that are close to the bier clap [their hands in grief].</b>  Women played a significant role at funerals.  A common role attributed to them is that of professional wailers (people who cry out loud, not those who hunt big animals in the sea).  The mishnah allows them to wail during the festival, but they may not clap their hands. This seems to have been a common funerary practice.  Others explain that this doesn’t refer to clapping one’s hands or slapping one’s hands on thigh but beating one’s breast. Rabbi Ishmael is more lenient and allows the women closest to the bier to also clap their hands.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>On Rosh Hodesh, on Hannukah and on Purim they may wail and clap [their hands in grief].<br>Neither on the former nor on the latter occasions may they offer a lamentation.<br>After the dead has been buried they neither wail nor clap [their hands in grief].<br>What is meant by wailing?  When all wail in unison.<br>What is meant by a lament?  When one speaks and all respond after her, as it is said: “And teach your daughters wailing and one another [each] lamentation” (Jeremiah 9:19).<br>But as to the future, it says: “He will destroy death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away the tears from all faces” (Isaiah 25:9).</b><br>The last mishnah in Moed Katan continues to discuss womens’ mourning practices during the festival.  It concludes with a note of hope for the future, for a messianic age when God will conquer death.<br>Section one:  Rosh Hodesh, Hannukah and Purim are semi-holidays. There are special prayers and Torah readings for all three of them, but work is not prohibited.  Two of them (Hannukah and Purim) are not mentioned in the Torah and hence, their importance is less than that of the other holidays. Due to their diminished status, the women may even clap their hands in grief at a funeral. This was prohibited during the festival.<br>Section two:  Lamenting (explained below) is forbidden on all holidays, both those mentioned in section one of this mishnah and the festivals discussed in yesterday’s mishnah.<br>Section three:  The women are permitted to wail or clap only as long as the dead body has not been buried.  Once the body is buried, both practices become forbidden.<br>Section four:  The mishnah now defines, at least partially, wailing and lamenting. Wailing is done by all of the women simultaneously.  Lamenting is done responsively, one woman speaking and the others answering after her.  This is hinted at in Jeremiah who says that one woman teaches another lamentation, interpreted to mean that one woman recites the lamentation and the others repeat after her.<br>Section five: All of this talk about death can be depressing and scary.  Indeed, it was often considered forbidden for young men to learn the third chapter of Moed Katan because all of this talk about death could bring on bad luck (the evil eye).  To alleviate this distress, the tractate ends on a positive note. The current stage of humanity, where we must face the distressing possibility of mourning in the middle of the joy of a festival, will be alleviated in the messianic period, when God will conquer death.<br>Congratulations!  We have finished Megillah.<br>[You probably already know what I’m going to say but I’ll say it anyway].<br>It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.<br>Most of Moed Katan was about the laws of the festival.  These laws are fascinating (at least to me) because they are grayer, more ambiguous, than the prohibitions in effect on Shabbat and Yom Tov.  Some activities are generally prohibited but are allowed under extenuating circumstances, unlike Shabbat where any given labor is basically always prohibited.  When I think of the laws of the Moed (the festival), I think of a sort of mathematical equation which we would need to perform before determining whether a labor is permitted or forbidden. There are several factors that might lead to something being permitted/forbidden. For instance, will not doing the work cause a significant financial loss?  Could the work have been done before the festival? Is it strenuous?  Did the person plan on working on the festival?  Is it being done in the normal fashion?  Only when we know the answers to these questions can we decide whether the work is permitted.<br>Today, many of these laws are neglected.  In our busy modern economies it is hard enough to take off of work for Yom Tov (the first and last days of the festival), let alone for the rest of the festival.  Many of these halakhot are basically no longer observed because any cessation of work causes a “grave financial loss.” While this may be to a certain extent true, I think we should keep in mind that the rabbis wanted to preserve the character of the festival by turning it into a celebratory vacation. Rejoicing is one of the main obligations on the festival and its much easier to party when you’re not working.<br>As always, congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah.  One more tractate to go and we’ll have finished Moed, and half of the Mishnah!  Hard to believe.  Tomorrow we start Hagigah.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Moed Katan/English/merged.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,207 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Moed Katan
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה מועד קטן
+merged
+https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Moed_Katan
+This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
+-Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+-http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Moed Katan
+
+Introduction
+
+Moed Katan is about the halakhot governing the intermediate days of Pesah and Sukkot (called Hol Hamoed, which means the non-sacred days of the festival). The Torah says that one cannot do work on the first and seventh days of Pesah, on the first day of Sukkot and on Shmini Atzeret.  It doesn’t say anything about the intermediate days.  One the one hand these days are still part of the festival. Special sacrifices are offered and special prayers recited.  On the other hand the Torah does not prohibit work on these days. This leaves their laws somewhat ambiguous. They tend to be quite flexible. The same work that in one situation is prohibited may be in other situations permitted. According to the rabbis, some work is prohibited on Hol Hamoed but some work is allowed.  There are certain general principles that guided the rabbis in deciding which work was allowed and which was not.  I shall list these briefly here.  Most of our tractate gives examples that lead to these principles.
+1) If the work must be done on Hol Hamoed or a financial loss will be incurred, it is generally permitted. 2) If it is very difficult, laborious work, it will likely be prohibited. 3) One should not do work on Hol Hamoed that could have been done beforehand.
+Much of the third chapter deals with the laws of mourning. These laws are brought there on account of a mishnah which teaches that one cannot mourn on a festival and that a festival can put an end to the shivah (seven) days of mourning.  We will discuss this at much greater length when we get to the third chapter.
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first mishnah of Moed Katan deals with watering a field during the festival.  Watering a field is sometimes necessary or the crops will be lost.  Therefore, watering in these types of situations tends to be permitted.  However, watering is also quite laborious and hence some types of watering are prohibited.
+<b>They may water an irrigated field during the festival [week] or in the sabbatical year, both from a newly-emerging spring and from a spring that is not just emerged.</b>  “An irrigated field” refers to a field that cannot subsist on rainwater alone.  Therefore, the mishnah allows one to water it on the festival. During the sabbatical year it is forbidden to work the land.  However, irrigating a field is not considered to be working the field, as is plowing or planting.  Nevertheless, the rabbis did prohibit watering during the sabbatical year, but they did not prohibit watering a field that needed to be irrigated. Certainly the field may be watered through an old spring, whose water has already been directed at the field. The mishnah says that it may be watered even from a new spring, despite the extra work of directing the water to the field.
+<b>But they may not water the field with water from stored rain, and not with a swipe and bucket.</b>  Carrying water to the field from a cistern of stored rain water is a lot of work. Therefore they are not allowed to water the field in this way. They are also not allowed to water using a method called “swipe and bucket,” which was a type of sweeping pump used to get water out of deep cisterns. This was also considered too laborious.  We can see that first the mishnah allows watering these types of fields because otherwise the crops will be lost. It then limits that by saying that some labors are prohibited because one shouldn’t be doing so much work on the festival.
+<b>And they may not make small ditches around the vines.</b>  Finally, one may not make water ditches around vines. These ditches were made so that they would fill up and the water would seep into the roots.  Again, digging these ditches was considered too much work for it to be permitted on the festival.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b> This mishnah continues to discuss irrigation on the festival and sabbatical year. It then proceeds to deal with the more general topic of repairing community property.  As we shall see, this is another category that makes something more permitted during the intermediate days of the festival.
+<b>Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says:  they may not make a new water channel may not during the festival [week] or in the sabbatical year. But the sages say:  they may make a new water channel during the sabbatical year, and they may repair broken ones during the festival.</b>  Making a new water channel involves digging and it is a considerable amount of work.  Since it involves digging, it is similar to plowing and therefore Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah forbids it during the sabbatical year, a time when plowing is forbidden.  Since it involves a substantial amount of work, he holds that it is forbidden during the festival. The sages agree that it is forbidden to make a new water channel during the festival, because this involves a lot of work.  However, they allow repairing old water channels because this is less work.  Also, new water channels should have been dug before the festival, whereas having to fixing broken ones was usually not anticipated.  They also disagree with Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah concerning digging new water channels during the sabbatical year.  Whereas he held it was similar to plowing they hold that it is different enough such that it is permitted.
+<b>And they may repair impaired water works in the public domain, and clean them out.</b>  If water channels have become clogged with debris, they may be cleaned out during the festival, because this is both necessary and not a significant amount of work.
+<b>And they may repair roads, town squares and [ritual] pools, and they may do all public needs may be performed, and mark graves, and [inspectors] may go out to inspect kilayim (mixed  seeds).</b>  They are also allowed to fix the public roads and ritual baths, because these are significant public needs. In addition they were allowed to perform other public duties. In the time of the Mishnah, they would mark graves with lime so that priests, commanded to avoid becoming impure, could see where the graves were and avoid them.  This could also be done on the festival. Finally, public inspectors were allowed to go out to inspect people’s fields that kilayim, forbidden mixtures of seeds were not growing there.  This was an immediate need because once kilayim grow in one’s field, all of the crops become forbidden. The final section of the mishnah is contained word for word in Shekalim 1:1. For a fuller explanation, one that is appropriate to a slightly different context, look there.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah returns to the subject of irrigating during the festival.   As an aside, the fact that the first three mishnayot of this tractate are dedicated to this subject testifies to how crucial irrigation was in Israel, especially during Sukkot and Pesah.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: they may draw water from [one] tree to [another] tree, as long as they don’t water the whole field.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov holds that if a lot of water had collected around one tree, they were allowed to draw the water from that tree to another tree, because this is not a lot of work.  However, one cannot use this way of watering to water the entire field, because that would be too much work.
+<b>Seeds that have not had [any] drink before the festival, he may not water them during the festival. The sages however allow it in both cases.</b>  If he planted seeds before the festival but had not yet watered them, then he cannot water them during the festival, because they will do fine without being watered. The seeds don’t start to open until the first time they are watered.  However, if he has watered them already, then he may continue to water them during the festival, because if he does not, they will die.  This illustrates an important principle if something will be lost, it is usually permitted to do that given work on the festival. The sages allow the seeds to be watered even if they had not yet been watered before the festival. They allow this for one of two reasons: 1) they think the seeds will be lost; 2) they think that it is not a significant amount of work.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first section of the mishnah deals with trapping pests in a field and the second half deals with repairing breaches in a fence surrounding a field.  Both of these may need to be done in order to protect the crops and therefore they may be permitted.
+<b>They may trap moles and mice in a tree-field or a white field in an unusual way during the festival and in the sabbatical year. But the sages say: in the tree-field in the usual way and in the white field in an unusual way.</b>  According to the first opinion in the mishnah (this is probably Rabbi Eliezer b. Yaakov, the sage from yesterday’s mishnah), one can trap moles and mice in the normal way of trapping them, from both a field of trees and a field of produce (called a white field).  The normal way of trapping them seems to have involved digging a hole so that they would fall in.  We might have thought that this was prohibited on the sabbatical year because it looks like plowing.  On the festival it might have prohibited because it is a lot of work. The sages are stricter.  In a tree-field, where the moles and mice can do more damage, one can trap them in the usual way.  However in a white field, where the loss that they cause is more minor, they can only trap them in an unusual way.  According to the Talmud this means that they dig the hole in an unusual way so that everyone will know that the person is cognizant of the fact that it is either the Sabbatical year or the festival. This is another general principle we will see frequently in Moed Katan.  Work which is forbidden may sometimes be done with a change, even though this change may cause the work to be more laborious. This seems to me to be a way that the rabbis could allow people to prevent a financial loss, while still making sure that they knew that it was a festival.
+<b>And they may block up a breach in a wall during the festival, and in the sabbatical year they may build it in the usual way.</b>  If a wall has opened up on the festival and the crops are left exposed to wild animals, it is permitted to make a temporary wall to close it up during the festival.  It is forbidden, however, to build a more permanent wall because this is too much work.  This is with regard to the festival.  During the Sabbatical year it is permitted to build even a new wall because this is not similar to plowing.  Only plowing and activities similar to it were prohibited during the sabbatical year, not all work involved in maintaining a field.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The first section of this mishnah deals with a priest inspecting leprous symptoms on a person.  Leprosy (or some other similar type of skin disease) is dealt with in Leviticus 13.
+The second part of the mishnah deals with certain acts of mourning during the festival. It is brought here because the first of those acts involves digging, which is generally forbidden on the festival because it is laborious.
+<b>Rabbi Meir says:  [Priests] may inspect leprous symptoms at the outset [during the festival] for [the priest to make] a lenient assessment, but not to make a strict one. But the sages say: neither for a lenient nor for a severe assessment.</b>  According to Rabbi Meir a priest may inspect a person to decide whether his symptoms make him impure, but only if he is going to pronounce the person pure.  The mishnah does not want anything to damper the celebration of the festival, and pronouncing him impure will only distress him.  It seems that if the priest sees that the person is impure, he is not supposed to say anything at all.  The mishnah allows this even at the outset, meaning at the initial stage of the process, when the infected person is going from a state of purity to impure.  The priest may also examine him later on when the infected person is already impure, as long as he will declare him to be pure. The sages think that once the priest goes to examine the symptoms and sees that the person has tzaraat (the skin-disease) he must declare the person impure.  He cannot remain silent.  Rabbi Meir’s halakhah is therefore untenable. The sages however agree that we should avoid a situation where a person might be declared impure on the festival. Therefore, they instruct the priest not to even examine the symptoms in the first place. Better to avoid the problem altogether than to be put in the situation where he would have to remain silent in the face of impurity. What is fascinating about this section is how the notion of impurity is treated.  It is as if impurity doesn’t even exist unless the priest declares it impure.  In other words, the priest’s declaration is what makes something impure, not its actual physicality.  Both Rabbi Meir and the sages seem completely unbothered by the fact that a person might really have this disease and yet not be declared impure.
+<b>Furthermore Rabbi Meir said: a man may gather his father’s and mother’s bones, since this is a joy for him. Rabbi Yose says: it is mourning for him.</b>  In mishnaic times they would first bury the body until the flesh had decomposed. About a year later they would gather the bones and put them into a more permanent place, called in English an “ossuary.”  In our mishnah two rabbis debate whether the gathering of bones is a joyous or a sad occasion.  According to Rabbi Meir, bringing one’s parents’ bones to their final resting place is a joyous occasion.  Therefore, it is permitted during the festival.  Rabbi Yose says that collecting the bones is part of the mourning process, since it will remind him of the painful loss of his parents. Therefore, he may not collect the bones during this week.
+<b>A man should not stir up wailing for his dead, nor hold a lamentation for him thirty days before the festival.</b>  When it comes to other mourning practices, even Rabbi Meir agrees that he may not do so during the festival.  This mishnah does not deal with a person who died during or right before the festival, a topic which shall be covered in chapter three.  Rather, the mishnah refers to a person who tells a professional eulogizer to recite a public eulogy for someone who died a long time before the festival, or to someone who himself recites a eulogy for someone close to him who died a long time before the festival. Reciting eulogies for one who died a while before the festival should not be done even within the thirty days preceding the festival because the memory of the powerful eulogy will stay with those who hear it for thirty days, dampening their ability to celebrate on the festival.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b> It was certainly permitted to bury the dead on the festival.  It would hardly be possible or desirable to wait an entire week to bury a body.  Since burials would have taken place quite frequently during a festival, this mishnah deals with the critical subject of digging graves and other various places to bury or place the body.
+<b>They may not dig burial niches and graves during the festival. But they may adapt burial niches [to the size of the dead body] during the festival.</b>  Burial niches are holes the walls of caves where they used to bury people.  “Graves” refers to the caves themselves.  These may not be dug on the festival because it is a tremendous amount of work and there are other ways to bury a dead body, such as digging a hole in the ground, which is permitted if necessary (see below).  However, if there was already a niche in the wall of the burial cave and all they needed to do was expand it to make it fit the size of the body, they may do so because it is not a significant amount of work.  Also, it would have been difficult, if not impossible to know how big to make the niches ahead of time.
+<b>And they may make a temporary grave during the festival, and a coffin, if a dead [body] is close by in the courtyard. Rabbi Judah forbids, unless there are sawn boards at hand.</b>  They may make a temporary grave, one in which they would put the body until the bones are collected.  They may also make a coffin if there is a dead body in the courtyard where the coffin is being built. If there is no dead body there then they may not make a coffin because people will not realize that it is being made for somebody who has already died.  This is another criterion with regard to permitting work on the festival we must take into consideration what people will think when they see the person working. If they realize that it was for an imminent need, and that the work cannot be pushed off, then it is more likely to be permitted. As an aside, we can see from this mishnah that some people were buried in coffins but not all.  It seems that there was quite a large range of burial practices in Israel during mishnaic times. Rabbi Judah says that it is prohibited to make the coffin if in order to do so he will also have to make planks.  In other words, despite the fact that this is an immediate need, Rabbi Judah still prohibits it because making planks is too much work to be done on the festival. Only if he had available planks could he make the coffin.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah prohibits marriage during the festival.  It seems that the central idea is that one should use the festival to celebrate the festival and not as an opportunity to celebrate something else.  The rabbis did not want people to say, “Since I can’t work on the festival anyway, I might as well use it for a wedding celebration.” Rather, both the week of the festival and the week of the wedding celebration should have their own separate times.
+<b>One may not marry a woman during the festival, whether a virgin or a widow, nor may one perform levirate marriage, because this is a joy for him. But one may remarry his divorced wife.</b>  As stated in the introduction, one may not get married during a festival. The mishnah emphasizes that this is true even if the woman is a widow, for whom a wedding celebration was not as expansive.  It is forbidden even to have levirate marriage with one’s dead brother’s widow. Even though this was probably not as celebratory occasion as a more typical marriage, it is still a joy and therefore it is prohibited. There is only one type of marriage remarrying one’s divorcee which one can have on a festival.  Since the couple has already been married, this is not as joyous of occasion and therefore it is permitted.  This clause sheds some light on the first clause.  Marriages are prohibited when they are the first time that a couple will have a chance to be married.  It is partly, at least, the anticipation of the new that makes a marriage a joyous occasion and therefore prohibited during the festival.  When the novelty is gone, the joy is diminished.  [I realize that many will disagree with this assessment, thinking that remarriage is a great joy.  While this point is debatable, the rabbis thought otherwise.]
+<b>And a woman may make the adornments [for her wedding] during the festival. Rabbi Judah says: she may not put on lime, as that is a [temporary] disfigurement to her.</b>  Although marriage is prohibited on the festival, a woman use that week to make the adornments (the perfumes and makeup) that she will need on her wedding day.  Although she is using the festival to prepare for something that she will not need during the festival, since it is not a lot of work she is allowed to do so. Rabbi Judah places one limitation on this. She cannot put lime on her body to remove hair and to make her skin look better because while the lime is on she is disfigured.  Rabbi Judah holds that she should not do anything that will make her look ugly on the festival, even if it is only temporary.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with sewing on the festival.  It introduces a principle which we have not yet seen in the previous mishnayot.  There are certain types of labor that may be done by a non-professional but not by a craftsman.  This prevents professionals from working on the festival, while still allowing ordinary people to engage in light labors.
+<b>An ordinary person may sew in the usual way, but a craftsman may sew [only using] uneven stitches.</b>  An ordinary person can sew in a normal way, assuming he has an immediate need to do so.  Sewing is not a heavy labor, and therefore it is permitted on the festival. However, a professional craftsman cannot sew in a normal way because that would allow him to engage in his profession during the festival.  This is prohibited even if he is not paid for the work. The mishnah allows him to make some sort of uneven stitches. This might allow him to fix things that need to be fixed while still preventing him from engaging in his normal profession.
+<b>And they may weave the ropes of a bed. Rabbi Yose says: they may even be tightened.</b>  In the mishnaic period beds were made with a frame around which they would loop ropes.  The tighter the ropes, the firmer the bed (this is the origin of the phrase “sleep tight”).  The mishnah allows a person to weave ropes around the frame of a bed because this is not a significant amount of work.  It is also necessary if one wants to sleep on a bed. There are two versions of Rabbi Yose’s statement.  According to the version which I have translated he even allows ropes that are already on the bed to be tightened. We might have thought that since the ropes were already there that tightening them is not really necessary and hence forbidden on the festival.  In this version, Rabbi Yose is more lenient than the previous opinion. According to the other version, Rabbi Yose only allows tightening ropes and not weaving ropes that are not already attached to the bed frame.  In this version Rabbi Yose is stricter.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with setting up various instruments needed for the preparation of food.
+<b>They may set up an oven, stove or a millstone during the festival.</b>  Setting up an oven, stove or a mill involved assembling the separate parts and connecting them with plaster.  The mishnah allows this because it is not a lot of work and it is necessary for the festival.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says:  they may not roughen millstones for the first time.</b>  For the millstones to grind well, their face was had to be roughened by putting grooves and ridges on it.  While Rabbi Judah agrees that one can set up the millstone, he doesn’t allow it to be roughened for this is strenuous work.  The roughening also could have been done before the festival.
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final mishnah of this chapter introduces two more categories relevant to the laws of the festival. While some work may be done during the festival, one should not leave work for the festival that could have been done beforehand.  Second, one should not use the festival as a time to prepare things for after the festival.
+<b>They may put up a railing around a roof or a gallery porch, in the style of an ordinary person but not in the style of a professional.</b>  It is permitted to put up a railing on a roof or a second-floor porch, but only if it is done in a non-professional manner.  For instance, putting up a rough stone fence would be permitted, but a nicely finished iron fence would not.
+<b>They may put plaster on crevices [on the roof] and flatten them down with a roller, by hand or foot, but not using professional tools.</b>  This refers to fixing a roof.  It is permitted to fill in the crevices and to flatten the plaster, but not with professional tools.  The central idea is that work that needs to be done should be done differently during the festival.
+<b>A hinge, a socket, a beam, a lock, a key which broke they may repair them during the festival, as long as he doesn’t intend to do this work during the festival.</b>  If a part of a door broke (these are all parts of a door), it may be fixed on the festival, and in the normal way. There doesn’t seem to be any “non-professional” way of fixing the door and hence all ways of fixing the door are okay.  The mishnah does, however, offer one reservation.  He may not delay fixing the door until the festival, saving his work for when he has more time.  The door should only be fixed if it actually broke on the festival, an unforeseen problem.
+<b>And all the pickled food that he may eat during the festival, he may pickle.</b>  He can pickle food on the festival, but only if he is going to actually be able to eat the food during the festival.  He may not use the festival as a time to prepare for the future.  Note how this section is the mirror image of section three. There we learned that a person may not save for the festival work that should have been done before the festival.  In this section we learn that a person may not do work on the festival for after the festival.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The beginning of chapter one introduces yet another criterion used in determining whether work is permitted on the festival. We have already learned that one should not save work to be done on the festival. Things that can be done before the festival cannot be done during the festival.  Our mishnah deals with a person who intended to do something before the festival but then was not able to.  If he doesn’t do the work during the festival, he will incur a financial loss.
+<b>If one had turned his olives, and mourning or some unforeseen circumstance befell him, or workmen misled him, he may [during the festival] put on the beam for the first time and leave it until after the festival, the words of Rabbi Judah.</b>  The mishnah refers to the preparation of olives.  They would put the olives in a large sack so that they would heat up and start to release the oil.  After time they would flip the bag with a special stick so that they would get very soft. This was done prior to pressing them with a large beam.  In our mishnah someone turned his olives over and was planning to put them under the beam before the festival.  However, he was not able to do so due to some unforeseen circumstance. The mishnah gives a couple of examples of such a circumstance. First of all, someone in his family might have died and a mourner is not allowed to work.  Alternatively, he might have had workers who reneged on an agreement to help press his olives.  In any case, Rabbi Judah allows him to begin pressing the olives so that they will not rot, but he does not allow him to complete this process.
+<b>Rabbi Yose says: he may pour off [the oil] and complete the process and seal [the jars] in his usual way.</b>  Rabbi Yose is more lenient.  He allows him to take the oil that comes out of the first pressing and even do the second and third pressing.  He may put the oil in jars and close them up as well.  Rabbi Yose reasons that once he has been allowed to do some of the work, he should be allowed to complete it.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is similar to yesterday’s mishnah but deals with the production of wine instead of olive oil.
+<b>Similarly, if one had his wine [already] in a cistern and mourning or some unforeseen circumstance befell him, or workmen misled him, he may draw off [the wine], complete the process and seal [the jars] in his usual way, the words of Rabbi Yose.</b>  In this case, someone has already pressed his grapes and the juices have run off into the cistern, and for some reason he was not able to jar the wine before the festival.  According to Rabbi Yose, since the process was started and it was not his fault that he could not complete it, he may complete the process during the festival.  He may remove the wine from the cistern, finish squeezing all of the juice out of the grapes and put the wine into jars.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: he [may only] cover [the cistern] with boards to prevent it from turning into vinegar.</b>  Consistent with his opinion in yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Judah does not allow him to complete the process. Rather, all he may do is cover the wine in the cistern so that it does not spoil.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+There are certain labors that are permitted on the festival because if they are not done immediately, the product will be ruined.  However, this is only permitted if he did not purposely set his schedule so that the work would end up needing to be done during the festival.
+<b>A man may bring his produce indoors for fear of thieves and withdraw his flax from a soaking pool to prevent it spoiling, as long as he doesn’t intend to do this work during the festival.</b>  If one has left produce outside but fears that it might be stolen by thieves, he may bring it indoors on the festival.  He may also take his flax out of a soaking pool (used to soften the flax so that it can be made into linen) lest it become too soft and spoil.  However, he may not start a certain labor before the festival knowing that he will have to continue to do the work during the festival.  The only time these labors may be performed is if some unforeseen circumstance prevented him from being able to perform them before the festival.
+<b>And all those who deliberately intended to do their work on the festival, they must leave it to spoil.</b>  This is a summary of the basic rule governing all of the previous sections.  If one has intentionally left over work for the festival, he must let it spoil.  A different explanation is that this refers to a court which penalizes a person who left his work for the festival by taking it away from him.  According to this interpretation we would need to translate the last clause as “they cause him to lose [his property]”, which is a viable translation.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with two subjects: 1) buying large items on the festival; 2) using the festival as time to move one’s belongings.
+<b>They may not purchase houses, slaves or cattle unless it is for the needs of the festival, or the need of the seller who does not have enough to eat.</b>  It is forbidden to make large purchases on the festival, because the festival should not be used as a time to engage in activities needed for after the festival.  There are, however, two circumstances, that allow one to make a large purchase on the festival.  First of all, if the sale is necessary to the buyer for the needs of the festival.  For instance, if one’s house burned down right before the festival, he may buy a new one during the festival.  The second circumstance is if the seller needs the cash immediately to buy food for the holiday.  The general prohibition of buying and selling large items on the festival is waved if the seller needs money immediately in order to buy food in order to celebrate the festival itself.
+<b>They may not move [belongings] from one house to another house, but he may move [his belongings] within his courtyard.</b>  Moving from one house to another is obviously a difficult and laborious endeavor. Since it involves so much work, one may not do so on the festival.  However, he is allowed to move his stuff out to the adjacent courtyard because this is not nearly as strenuous.  The Talmud explains that he can move from one house to another house within the same courtyard.
+<b>They may not bring back vessels from the house of the craftsman, but if one is anxious about them, he may remove them to another courtyard.</b>  If one has left his vessels (clothes, utensils, cloth etc.) at a craftsman for repair, he cannot bring them home on the festival. According to the Talmud, this refers to vessels which are not needed on the festival.  However, if he fears that someone might steal them from the craftsman’s workshop, he may move them to a better-guarded workshop.  While this may be just as much work as moving them to his own home, he is not allowed to bring them home lest someone plan ahead of time to use the festival as a opportunity to bring his things home from the craftsman.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final mishnah of this chapter deals with people whose work might be necessary during the festival. The general rule is that while they may engage in their work, they should do so in as private a manner as possible.
+<b>They may cover [drying] figs with straw. Rabbi Judah says: they may even be pile [the figs] up [in heaps].</b>  Drying figs were covered with straw so that they wouldn’t get dirty.  The mishnah permits one to cover them with straw on the festival, because if they are left uncovered, they might get ruined. Rabbi Judah says that one may even heap them up together in order to preserve them better.
+<b>Sellers of produce, clothing and [other] vessels may sell privately for the requirements of the festival.</b>  The people referred to in this section are selling items that the public might need for the festival.  The mishnah says that they may do so, but that they should try to sell in as private a manner as possible.  The rabbis wanted to allow people to buy items necessary for the festival, but they also wanted to prevent the week from turning into “business as usual.”
+<b>Trappers [of fish and birds], groats-makers and grist-millers may engage in their work privately for the requirements of the festival. Rabbi Yose says: they were strict upon themselves.</b>  Similarly, people who engage in food production may work, but only in a private manner.  “Groats-makers” pounded grain to make it into cereal whereas “grist-millers” grind it to break it up into small kernels.  Since people need these foods during the festival, and they can’t be done much ahead of time (they had little means to preserve food), they may continue to work during the festival, as long as they try to be as private about it as possible. Rabbi Yose adds a fascinating note.  He says that people in these professions were strict upon themselves and didn’t engage in this work at all.  In other words, the previous clause’s intention was not to tell these workers that they had to do their work in private, but rather to emphasize to them that they were allowed to work.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Generally speaking one may not cut one’s hair/shave during the festival. This is not because cutting hair was a lot of work. Rather it was to encourage people to get a hair cut and shave before the festival, so that they would be properly groomed when the festival began. In other words, if you don’t prepare before the festival, you’re going to look disheveled the whole time.
+Our mishnah lists the exceptions to this rule those people who may get a haircut during the festival because they could not do so during the week before.
+When the mishnah speaks of cutting one’s hair, it also includes shaving (they would shave with scissors). There is no halakhic difference between the two.  I have translated the verb that the mishnah uses as shaving.
+<b>And these may shave during the festival: one coming back from a trip abroad, or one coming out from a place of captivity, or coming out of prison, or one excommunicated whom the sages have released.</b>  The people in this section could not cut their hair the week before the festival for various practical reasons.  1) They came back from a trip abroad, from a place where shaving was not possible.  2)  They came out of captivity, and while captives they couldn’t shave.  3)  They came out of prison no cutting hair in prison.  4) They were excommunicated.  A person excommunicated by the Jewish community may not shave or cut his hair until he is released from his excommunication.  If any of these people did not have enough time to cut his hair before the festival, he may do so during the festival. On the other hand, if he had time to prepare for the festival and neglected to do so, then he is penalized for his lack of preparation.
+<b>And similarly one who asked a sage [to be released from a vow] and was released, and a nazirite or a leper on emerging from his state of impurity to his state of purification.</b>  The people in this section could not shave for religious reasons.  1)  The person had taken a vow not to cut his hair.  Only a sage can release someone from a vow.   If the person could not find a sage who would release his vow before the festival and then found one during the festival, he is allowed to shave during the festival. When a nazirite completes his term of naziriteship and when a leper becomes pure from his leprosy they both undergo a ritual which includes cutting one’s hair and shaving.  If the term of naziriteship is over during the festival or a leper’s period of impurity is completed during the festival they may shave and cut their hair then.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+For the same reason that it is prohibited to shave/cut hair during the festival, it is also prohibited to wash one’s clothes the prohibition during the festival encourages people to wash their clothes before the festival.  As was the case with yesterday’s mishnah, today’s mishnah lists the exceptions, those people who may wash their clothes because they could not have done so before the festival began.
+<b>These may launder [their clothes] during the festival:  one coming back from a trip abroad, or one coming out from a place of captivity, or coming out of prison, or one excommunicated whom the sages have released.</b>  This is the same list that appeared in section one of yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>And similarly one who asked a sage [to be released from a vow] and was released.</b>  This is the same as the beginning of the second section of yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>Hand-towels, barber’s towels and bath-towels [may be laundered].</b>  Towels which are used on a daily basis and will quickly become dirty may be laundered.  “Barber’s towels” is somewhat of a strange category, considering the fact that most people should not be getting a haircut on the festival.  Either this refers to towels used in cutting the hair of those few people who can get a haircut or alternatively the word for “barber” really means “books” the words are spelled the same but pronounced differently in Hebrew (sapar=barber; sefer=book).  The mishnah would then refer to coverings of books, i.e Torah scrolls, which become dirty due to frequent usage. However, it seems strange to me that book coverings need to be washed with such urgency.
+<b>Zavim and zavot, menstruants, and women who have given birth, and anyone going from a state of purity to impurity, are permitted [to launder their clothes].</b>  This section refers to various people who have some sort of genital emission and therefore need to wash their clothes frequently. Zavim and zavot have some sort of unusual genital emission which would dirty their clothes.  They are allowed to wash their clothes because it would not be seemly to force them to go around in public with stained clothing. People who become pure on the festival need to wash their clothes (Leviticus 11:25, 28; 14: 5, 47; Numbers 19:19). They are allowed to do so during the festival since they could not control the timing of their becoming pure.
+<b>But everyone else is prohibited.</b>  The mishnah ends by emphasizing that other people may not launder their clothes on the festival.  During the time of the mishnah laundering was heavy labor and was not done with great frequency.  Hence, the festival should not be used as an opportunity to launder clothes.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>They may write the following documents during the festival:<br>Betrothal of women [documents], divorce documents and receipts, wills of a dying person, bequests and prosbols; evaluation certificates and orders for support, documents of halitzah and of repudiation [of marriage] and arbitration records; decrees of the court and correspondence.</b><br>Writing was not nearly as common of a skill in the time of the mishnah as it is now.  Indeed, most people could probably not write, and if they could, they could write only simple things.  Since writing was not common it was considered a professional skill.  Hence it was generally forbidden on the festival. Our mishnah lists exceptions.  These were allowed because they were of immediate necessity.  I will explain each type of document.<br>Betrothal of women [documents]:  This refers to all sorts of documents connected to marriage, either arranging the betrothal and its economic elements (tannaim) or a document used to effect betrothal itself.  In such a document the man would write, “Behold you (or your daughter) are betrothed to me.”  Note that kiddushin (betrothal) can take place during the festival, but marriage may not.  Therefore, ketubot, marriage documents, are not included in this list.<br>Divorce documents: Gittin.  This is the document that a husband writes to his wife.  Divorce is permitted on the festival.<br>And receipts: The creditor writes to the lender stating that he has received the money. This may also refer to a case of divorce, where a woman writes a receipt to her husband upon receiving the marriage settlement (her ketubah money).<br>The will of a dying person:  Wills, which must be written and executed while the person is alive, are obviously not something that can be put off, especially when they are written by a dying person, the case to which our mishnah refers.<br>Bequests:  A document transferring a present from one person to another.<br>Prozbuls:  These documents allow a person’s loans to carry through the Sabbatical year.  If they are not written, then the loan is annulled in the sabbatical year.<br>Evaluation certificates:   Documents which evaluate a debtor’s possessions so that the appropriate amount may be collected by the creditor.<br>And orders for support:  These documents allow a widow to sell her dead husband’s property in order to provide for herself.<br>Documents of halitzah:  Halitzah is the refusal of levirate marriage.  A woman might need this document to prove that she had been released and was free to marry another man.<br>And of repudiation [of marriage]:  A minor girl whose father has died may be married off by her mother or brother.  When she reaches majority age she may repudiate the marriage and have it annulled.  She would need this document to prove that she had repudiated the marriage and was allowed to marry another man without having been divorced.<br>And arbitration records: Certain court cases would begin by the litigants choosing judges.  These records would prove which judges had been chosen.<br>Decrees of the court:  Documents recording their decision.<br>And correspondence: According to the Yerushalmi’s interpretation of this clause, it refers to simple letters of correspondence.  In those days sending mail would have been quite difficult.  It was not always easy to find someone going to the place where one wanted to send a letter.  If such a person was found on the festival one was allowed to write a letter because the opportunity would be lost later.  A different (and later interpretation) is that this clause refers to letters written to the government.  Only such letters are permitted on the festival because they are of a greater need than simple letters of friendship.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Most of this mishnah continues to deal with writing on the festival.
+<b>They may not write loan documents during the festival; but if he [the creditor] does not trust him or he does not have food to eat, he may write.</b>  Loan documents may not be written during the festival, because one can lend money without a document, using witnesses to secure the loan.  The mishnah immediately lists two major exceptions.  If the creditor does not trust the borrower enough to lend him money without a document, then they may write a document.  The rabbis considered it important enough for the borrower to be able to secure the loan that they allowed the document to be written during the festival.  The second exception is interpreted in two different ways. The Jerusalem Talmud interprets it to refer to the borrower if the borrower needs a loan so that he can afford to eat, the document can be written.  The problem with this interpretation is that if the lender trusts the borrower, then he doesn’t need a document, and if he doesn’t trust him, then the mishnah has already stated that he may write the document. Due to these difficulties, the Babylonian Talmud interprets the clause to refer to the scribe.  If he needs his wages in order to eat during the festival, they may have him write the document.
+<b>They may not write [Torah] scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot during the festival, nor may they correct [even] a single letter, even in the [ancient] Temple-scroll.</b>  We might have thought that since Torah scrolls, tefillin and mezuzot are sacred objects, a scribe could write them during the festival. The mishnah rules otherwise even holy objects cannot be written on the festival.  One cannot even fix one letter in a scroll, even in the “ancient Temple scroll,” the scroll which was kept in the Temple from which other scrolls were copied.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: a man may write tefillin and mezuzot for himself.</b>  Rabbi Judah allows one to write a personal set of tefillin or a mezuzah for personal use, but he agrees with the previous opinion that a scribe may not write these documents in order to sell them.  The problem, according to Rabbi Judah, is not inherent in the writing itself. The problem with writing is when it becomes a “craft” done by a professional.
+<b>And one may spin on his thigh the blue-wool for his fringe.</b>  The mishnah allows one to spin tzitzit (fringes on the corner of one’s garment) but only for personal usage, while the garment is resting on one’s thigh.  He may not put the threads onto a spinning wheel to spin the tzitzit, the way this is normally done.  Again, in order to distinguish something from the way it is done normally, the rabbis demanded it be done differently on the festival.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+From here until the end, Moed Katan deals with mourning practices. There is no separate tractate in the Mishnah concerning mourning so the few halakhot that the Mishnah does contain are placed here. There are probably several reasons for this. First of all, as we shall see below, the Mishnah deals with the question of mourning which occurs right before a festival.  On a deeper level, the week of mourning (the shivah) and the week of the festival seem to be flipsides of the same coin.  Both are seven days long, one of celebration and one of sadness. It is forbidden to do work during the festival because one is supposed to be celebrating.  During shivah it is forbidden to do work because one is supposed to be mourning. Similarly, marriages are prohibited during the festival and during the shivah.  There are other halakhot which are shared by both holidays.
+The two periods of mourning mentioned in our mishnah are shivah, seven days, and shloshim, thirty days.  The first period is more intense and its restrictions are more numerous than the latter. The mishnah deals with the question of a person whose period of mourning is interrupted by a festival.
+<b>One who buries his dead three days before a festival, the decrees of shiva are annulled from him;</b>  If one of a person’s close relatives dies at least three days before the start of a festival, the festival annuls the shivah (the seven day period of mourning). When the festival is over he will not need to complete the shivah. Today, the halakhah is that if the person’s relative dies and is buried right right before the festival, even an hour before the festival, the shivah is cancelled.  However, the mishnah and earlier halakhah held that at least three days of the shivah had to be observed. If three days were not observed than the shivah continues after the festival.  These three days seem to be the essential period of mourning, more critical than the rest of the shivah.
+<b>[One he buries his dead] eight days before a festival, the decrees of the shloshim [thirty days] are annulled from him.</b>  If he buries a close relative eight days before the festival, he has begun to observe “shloshim,” the second stage of mourning when the festival begins and the festival annuls the remainder of shloshim. This would mean that after the festival there is no more mourning at all (except in the case of a dead parent).
+<b>Because they [the sages] said that Shabbat counts but does not interrupt, while festivals interrupt and do not count.</b>  This section explains the rationale of the previous two sections.  Shabbat counts as part of the shivah and shloshim and does not interrupt either of them.  The festivals, in contrast, do not count. This means that if someone dies on the festival, the mourners do not begin mourning until after the festival, when they will have a full period of shivah and shloshim.  However, the festival does interrupt, such that if someone begins mourning three days before the festival the festival will annul shivah; eight days will annul shloshim.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The festivals which most clearly put an end to shivah and shloshim are Pesah and Sukkot since they are both seven or if you include Shmini Atzeret (the last day of Sukkot), eight days long.  In contrast, Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur last only one day.  Further complicating the matter, Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are holidays, but not actually festivals. “Festival” in Hebrew (regel) refers only to the three pilgrimage holidays Pesah, Shavuot and Sukkot, when one was supposed to visit the Temple.  Due to these complications, our mishnah contains a debate over where these one day holidays are treated like Shabbat or like Pesah and Sukkot.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: From the time the Temple was destroyed, Atzeret ( is like Shabbat.</b>  Atzeret is the word used in the Mishnah to refer to Shavuot. When the Temple still stood, Atzeret was similar to the other festivals.  One who did not bring the appropriate sacrifice on Atzeret itself could bring it for the following six days.  Hence, in a sense Atzeret was a seven day holiday, even though it was only fully observed for one day.  When the Temple still stood, it would interrupt mourning.  Once the Temple was destroyed and sacrifices could no longer be brought, Atzeret ceased being a seven day holiday and hence is treated like Shabbat when it comes to mourning.
+<b>Rabban Gamaliel says: Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are like festivals.</b>  According to Rabban Gamaliel Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are like festivals.  Assumedly, his reasoning is that anything that is not Shabbat counts as a festival.  He would therefore disagree with Rabbi Eliezer. Today the halakhah follows Rabban Gamaliel.  Only Shabbat does not interrupt mourning.
+<b>The sages say: [the rule is] not according to the words of this one nor that one, rather Atzeret is like the festivals and Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are like Shabbat.</b>  The other sages disagree with both Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer.  The category of festivals includes all pilgrimage holidays, and even Atzeret after the destruction of the Temple.  Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are not “festivals” and hence they function like Shabbat. The sages’ opinion seems to be a literal interpretation of the last clause of yesterday’s mishnah which stated that festivals interrupt. The sages interpret this to mean only festivals and not other holidays.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>They do not rend [their clothes] or bare [their shoulders], or provide a meal [for the mourners] except for the relatives of the dead.<br>And they do not provide a meal except on an upright couch.<br>They do not bring [food] to the house of mourning on an [ornamental] tray, platter, or flat basket, but in plain baskets.<br>And they do not say the mourners’ blessing during the festival.<br>But they may stand in a row and comfort [the mourners] and [the mourners] may formally dismiss the community. Section one: When one heard that a close relative had died, one would rend whatever clothes they were wearing. Baring the shoulder was also a sign of mourning. The mourner was provided by the community with the first meal after the funeral. On Hol Hamoed only a close relative would perform these practices. Others would not. I should note that today only close relatives do these actions in any case. The circle of mourners was bigger in the Talmudic period. Section two: It was customary to overturn the bed during mourning and then sit on the bed as a sign of mourning. But one does not overturn the bed during Hol Hamoed. This practice fell into disuse sometime after the Talmudic period. Section three: This halakhah is true in all cases. When bringing food to the mourner, they should bring it in plain baskets. A source in the Talmud relates that originally people would use fancy silver and gold vessels, but poor people would be embarrassed that they could not afford such fancy funerals and mourning homes. As a response the rabbis decreed that everyone must bring in a simple vessel. The mourning home is not a place where one should be showing off one’s wealth. Section four: The mourners’ blessing was stated on return from burial. They would stand in a line and comfort the mourner with this blessing. It may have also been recited at other points as well. But it is a public sign of mourning and should not be done on Hol Hamoed. Section five: While the blessing is not recited on Hol Hamoed, burial is. Along with the burial, they may have the formal line of comforters that would accompany the mourners on their way home. The same goes true for the official words that the mourner seems to have said to the comforters, to  allow them to go home without accompanying the mourner all the way home.</b><br>Today’s Mishnah discusses mourning practices not observed during Hol Hamoed. It is interesting to note that this Mishnah is one of the main sources of the laws of mourning. It seems, at least to me, that the Mishnah did not feel it was necessary to teach people how to mourn. People just knew what to do. The only reason they are mentioned is to let people know when not to observe these practices.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to deal with mourning practices during the festival.
+<b>They do not place the bier on the thruway [during the festival] so as not to encourage eulogizing.</b>  Normally, the bier, a stretcher with the body on it, would be placed on the thruway, the central road that passes through the town, so that people would have the opportunity to offer up public eulogies.  Since eulogies are forbidden on the festival, the bier is not placed on the thruway.
+<b>And the bier of women is never [set down on the thruway] for the sake of propriety.</b>  The body of the dead person was covered only with a shroud while it was on the bier.  It could become exposed. Due to the rabbis’ concerns of modesty, they did not wish the woman’s bier to be placed on the thruway even on non-festival occasions.
+<b>Women may raise a wail during the festival, but not clap [their hands in grief]. Rabbi Ishmael says: those that are close to the bier clap [their hands in grief].</b>  Women played a significant role at funerals.  A common role attributed to them is that of professional wailers (people who cry out loud, not those who hunt big animals in the sea).  The mishnah allows them to wail during the festival, but they may not clap their hands. This seems to have been a common funerary practice.  Others explain that this doesn’t refer to clapping one’s hands or slapping one’s hands on thigh but beating one’s breast. Rabbi Ishmael is more lenient and allows the women closest to the bier to also clap their hands.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>On Rosh Hodesh, on Hannukah and on Purim they may wail and clap [their hands in grief].<br>Neither on the former nor on the latter occasions may they offer a lamentation.<br>After the dead has been buried they neither wail nor clap [their hands in grief].<br>What is meant by wailing?  When all wail in unison.<br>What is meant by a lament?  When one speaks and all respond after her, as it is said: “And teach your daughters wailing and one another [each] lamentation” (Jeremiah 9:19).<br>But as to the future, it says: “He will destroy death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away the tears from all faces” (Isaiah 25:9).</b><br>The last mishnah in Moed Katan continues to discuss womens’ mourning practices during the festival.  It concludes with a note of hope for the future, for a messianic age when God will conquer death.<br>Section one:  Rosh Hodesh, Hannukah and Purim are semi-holidays. There are special prayers and Torah readings for all three of them, but work is not prohibited.  Two of them (Hannukah and Purim) are not mentioned in the Torah and hence, their importance is less than that of the other holidays. Due to their diminished status, the women may even clap their hands in grief at a funeral. This was prohibited during the festival.<br>Section two:  Lamenting (explained below) is forbidden on all holidays, both those mentioned in section one of this mishnah and the festivals discussed in yesterday’s mishnah.<br>Section three:  The women are permitted to wail or clap only as long as the dead body has not been buried.  Once the body is buried, both practices become forbidden.<br>Section four:  The mishnah now defines, at least partially, wailing and lamenting. Wailing is done by all of the women simultaneously.  Lamenting is done responsively, one woman speaking and the others answering after her.  This is hinted at in Jeremiah who says that one woman teaches another lamentation, interpreted to mean that one woman recites the lamentation and the others repeat after her.<br>Section five: All of this talk about death can be depressing and scary.  Indeed, it was often considered forbidden for young men to learn the third chapter of Moed Katan because all of this talk about death could bring on bad luck (the evil eye).  To alleviate this distress, the tractate ends on a positive note. The current stage of humanity, where we must face the distressing possibility of mourning in the middle of the joy of a festival, will be alleviated in the messianic period, when God will conquer death.<br>Congratulations!  We have finished Megillah.<br>[You probably already know what I’m going to say but I’ll say it anyway].<br>It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives.<br>Most of Moed Katan was about the laws of the festival.  These laws are fascinating (at least to me) because they are grayer, more ambiguous, than the prohibitions in effect on Shabbat and Yom Tov.  Some activities are generally prohibited but are allowed under extenuating circumstances, unlike Shabbat where any given labor is basically always prohibited.  When I think of the laws of the Moed (the festival), I think of a sort of mathematical equation which we would need to perform before determining whether a labor is permitted or forbidden. There are several factors that might lead to something being permitted/forbidden. For instance, will not doing the work cause a significant financial loss?  Could the work have been done before the festival? Is it strenuous?  Did the person plan on working on the festival?  Is it being done in the normal fashion?  Only when we know the answers to these questions can we decide whether the work is permitted.<br>Today, many of these laws are neglected.  In our busy modern economies it is hard enough to take off of work for Yom Tov (the first and last days of the festival), let alone for the rest of the festival.  Many of these halakhot are basically no longer observed because any cessation of work causes a “grave financial loss.” While this may be to a certain extent true, I think we should keep in mind that the rabbis wanted to preserve the character of the festival by turning it into a celebratory vacation. Rejoicing is one of the main obligations on the festival and its much easier to party when you’re not working.<br>As always, congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah.  One more tractate to go and we’ll have finished Moed, and half of the Mishnah!  Hard to believe.  Tomorrow we start Hagigah.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,302 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה ראש השנה
+Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah
+
+Introduction
+
+There are two main topics covered in tractate Rosh Hashanah. The first is the sanctification of the new month and the new year.  By “sanctification” I refer to the court’s decision which day shall be the first of the new month or new year—this decision gives the day sanctity.  The second topic is the shofar and the liturgy on Rosh Hashanah.  
+Today the Jewish lunar calendar is set—the day on which each month will begin is predetermined as are the lengths of each month. In mishnaic times the length of each month was not set. Rather each month they would determine when the new month would begin based on the testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon.  If the witnesses came to testify on the thirtieth day of the previous month, then that day would become Rosh Hodesh (the first of the month) of the next month and it would turn out that the old month had only twenty-nine days. If witnesses did not come, or they came but their testimony was not accepted in time, then the previous month would have thirty days and the new month would begin on the thirty-first day.  Usually, the calendar would alternate between twenty-nine day months and thirty day months because a lunar month is about 29 ½ days long.  
+The sanctification of the new month was done by an authorized court and it was done with quite a bit of ceremonial flourish, as we shall see.  We will also see some hotly contested disputes within the chapter concerning accepting testimony to sanctify the month. We need to realize that in the Second Temple period the calendar was one of the most divisive issues between sects of Jews. Some Jews used a solar calendar (notably the Dead Sea sect), whereas the Pharisees and subsequently the rabbis used a lunar calendar. This meant that different sect’s holidays fell at different times and it meant that people would have disagreed when holiday sacrifices should be offered at the Temple. 
+According to the Torah, Nisan, the month in which Pesah falls, is the first month of the year and not Tishrei, which is called by the Torah “the seventh month.”  The first day of the seventh month is referred to in Leviticus 23:23-25, “Speak to the children of Israel saying:  In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe complete rest, a sacred occasion commemorated with loud blasts.  You shall not work and you shall bring an offering by fire to the Lord.”  Numbers 29:1-6 further describes the day’s sacrifices, calling it “a day of blasts.”  In the Torah, this day is not called the first of the new year.
+Only in rabbinic tradition is this day called “Rosh Hashanah”, although as we will see in the first mishnah, there are also other days that are considered the beginnings of a new year.  We should also note that the concept that Rosh Hashanah is “the Day of Judgment” appears first in rabbinic literature.  This theme was probably derived from the atonement aspect of Yom Kippur. If Yom Kippur is the “Day of Atonement” then there must be a judgment which needs to be avoided.  In the Bible itself, Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah are unconnected holidays. 
+According to the Torah Rosh Hashanah is only one day.  However, because of the problem of not knowing ahead of time what day Rosh Hashanah falls on, in other words, not knowing whether the previous month (Elul) was twenty-nine days or thirty days, led to Rosh Hashanah always being observed for two days. This is also true for Rosh Hodesh when the previous month was a thirty day month—it too is observed for two days.  The difference is that Rosh Hashanah is observed on the first two days of Tishrei, whereas a two-day Rosh Hodesh is observed on the last day of the previous month and the first day of the new month.  This is at least partly because Elul now has only 29 days.  
+A major portion of the last two chapters is dedicated to the laws of the shofar and to the special prayers on Rosh Hashanah.  These are still the two aspects of Rosh Hashanah most prominent in our lives.  We shall discuss them in far greater depth when we learn those chapters. 
+Good luck in learning Rosh Hashanah. It is an extremely interesting tractate—I’m sure you will enjoy it.     
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This famous mishnah gives four new years and explains the halakhic significance of each of each of them.
+<b>There are four new years:<br>The first of Nisan is the new year for kings and for festivals.</b>  The order of the new years in this mishnah reflects the order of the months in the Torah.  In the Torah, Nisan, the month in which Pesah falls, is considered to be the first month of the year, so it is listed here first. The first of Nisan is new year for the kings, which means that we count the years in which a king has ruled from the first of Nisan.  The reason why this is important is that in those times they would date their documents by the years in which the king had ruled.  In order for a document to be valid, therefore, one needed to know if which year of the king’s rule this was.  “For festivals” means that Pesah is considered to be the first festival of the year.   The reason that this is important is that it impacts someone who makes a vow to bring something to the Temple. Rabbi Shimon holds that he has three festivals to bring the vow-offering, and that the count of those three festivals begins on Pesah. So if he makes a vow after Pesah, he doesn’t begin counting the three festival time-limit until the following Pesah.
+<b>The first of Elul is the new year for the tithe of beasts. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say:  the first of Tishri.</b>  The first of Elul is the Rosh Hashanah for tithing animals. When tithing animals, one groups them by year.  The first of Elul is the beginning of the next year, so any animals born on or after this date count toward the next year’s tithe and not towards those animals that need to be tithed from the previous year.  Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon disagree concerning tithes. They hold that just as tithes for vegetables are fixed on the first of Tishri (see below), so too are tithes for animals.
+<b>The first of Tishri is the new year for years, for shmitta and jubilee years, for planting and for [tithe of] vegetables.</b>  The first of Tishri, what we today call Rosh Hashanah, is the new year for “years.”  This means that when we count what year it is, we count from the first of Tishri.  This is how we still count the years today.  Many other commentators take this to mean that counts based on the rule of non-Jewish kings are based on Tishri being the start of the new year.  The shmitta (Sabbatical) and Jubilee years begin on the first of Tishri meaning from this date all of the prohibitions and regulations concerning the Sabbatical and Jubilee years begin to take effect.  This is also the new year for “planting” trees, meaning that we count the number of years a tree has grown starting on the first of Tishri. This is important in order to know when it stops being “orlah” fruit which is prohibited during the trees first three years. Finally, the first of Tishri is the Rosh Hashanah for the tithes of vegetables.  Vegetables that were picked before Tishri are not tithed with vegetables picked afterwards.
+<b>The first of Shevat is the new year for trees, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says:  on the fifteenth of that month.</b>  The two houses debate the date of the new year for trees: Bet Shammai holds that it is on the first of Shevat, and Bet Hillel holds that it is on the fifteenth (Tu B’shvat).  The importance of this new year is that fruit which has begun to sprout on the tree before this date is not tithed with fruit that spouts afterwards.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah lists four points of the year in which the world is judged as to the outcome of certain essential aspects of life.  As we shall see, three of them are connected to agricultural holidays and events, whereas the fourth, the judgment on Rosh Hashanah, is more of a moral/religious judgment.
+<b>At four set times the world is judged:<br>On Pesah in respect to the produce.</b>  In the land of Israel, the grain harvest begins around Pesah time. Indeed, this is why the Omer offering, which is brought from the first barley harvested, begins to be offered on the second day of Pesah.  The mishnah teaches that on Pesah the world is judged as to how successful the produce harvest will be.
+<b>On Shavuot in respect to the fruit of the tree.</b>  On Shavuot the harvest of the fruits of the tree begins.  Specifically, this seems to be when grapes begin to ripen. Hence, according to the rabbis this is when the world is judged as to the harvest of fruits which come from the tree.
+<b>On Rosh Hashanah all the people of the world pass before Him like a division of soldier [a numerus], as it says, “He who fashions the hearts of them all, who discerns all their doings” (Psalms 33:15).</b>  This is the central section in this mishnah, the reason why this mishnah is here in Rosh Hashanah. This is the source where we learn for the first time that on Rosh Hashanah the world is judged.  The image that the mishnah creates is that all the people of the world, perhaps even non-Jews, come in front of God one at a time and God inspects them.  He is like their general and they are his soldiers, standing at attention and being judged by Him.  The word “numerus” was interpreted by Saul Lieberman, the premier Talmudic scholar of the past century, as referring to an army division.  The version in the mishnah was understood by later talmudic scholars who did not know Greek, as “kivne meron”, understood to refer to the sheep on the Meron mountain.  This led to the well-known image of people passing in front of God like sheep passing in front of a shepherd.  The point of the prooftext is that God who is the creator of the human heart, also looks at what a person does and judges each one according to his deeds.
+<b>And on Sukkot they are judged in respect of rain.</b>  In the land of Israel, the rainy season begins on Sukkot.  Hence, on Sukkot the people of the world are judged as to how much rain will come. To this day, on Sukkot Jews begin to pray for rain and add into the Amidah an acknowledgement that God causes the wind to blow and the rain to come down.  Rain and prayers for rain is a topic to which we will return when we learn tracate Taanit.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>There are six months [at the beginning of which] messengers go out.<br>On Nisan because of Pesah;<br>On Av because of the fast.<br>On Elul because of Rosh Hashanah.<br>On Tishri because of the setting of the festivals.<br>On Kislev because of Hanukah.<br>And on Adar because of Purim.<br>When the Temple stood, they used also to go out to report Iyar because of Pesah Katan (Pesah.</b><br>In order to know what date holidays would fall on, people would need to know on what day the previous month had begun.  This would be simple for those living in and near Jerusalem because they could immediately find out whether the court had decreed the thirtieth day of the previous month to be Rosh Hodesh.  Our mishnah teaches that they used to send out messengers from Jerusalem so that people who lived further away could also find out when Rosh Hodesh had been decreed.  However, they did not send these messengers out every month of the year, only on months which contained holidays.<br>Most of this mishnah is self-explanatory. Note that messengers do not need to go out for Shavuot because once one knows when Pesah falls, the date of Shavuot is known automatically.<br>Section two:  “The fast” refers to Tisha B’av, the Ninth of Av.<br>Section three:  Messengers would go out on Elul so that people would be able to celebrate Rosh Hashanah on the thirtieth day of Elul, lest that day turns out to be the first of Tishri.  They would celebrate Rosh Hashanah on the next day as well, lest Elul has thirty days.<br>Section four: On Tishri the messengers would go out so that people would know when Yom Kippur and Sukkot fall.<br>Section seven:  Pesah Sheni was the second chance for people to offer the pesah sacrifice if they did not offer it the first time (see Numbers 9:10-11 and Mishnah Pesahim 9:1).  After the destruction of the Temple this holiday lost any practical relevance.  We should note that by noting that when the Temple stood messengers went out for Pesah Sheni the mishnah also teaches that for all of the rest of the holidays the messengers still go out.  After the destruction of the Temple only Pesah Sheni has lost its relevance.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+As we stated in the introduction, in mishnaic times they set the calendar each month based on the testimony of witnesses who would come to the central court and testified that they had seen the new moon.  Our mishnah teaches that on two months in order to testify that they had seen the new moon the witnesses may even profane Shabbat.  We shall explain what is special about these two months below.  What is critical is that the rabbis perceived it to be so critical that these witnesses come on time that they even allowed Shabbat to be profaned.  Shabbat might need to be profaned if, for instance, the witnesses had to travel beyond the Shabbat border limit (2000 cubits outside of the city) in order to get to Jerusalem to testify.
+<b>On account of two months they profane Shabbat: on account of Nissan and Tishri, for on those months messengers go forth to Syria and in them the dates of the festivals are fixed.</b>  There are two months on which witnesses may come to testify even if they need to profane Shabbat Nissan and Tishri.  This is because on those days the dates of the holidays, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Pesah and Shavuot were set. Once we know when the first day of Nissan is we know when Pesah is, and we know when Shavuot will be as well.  Similarly, once we know when the first of Tishri falls, we know when Yom Kippur and Sukkot fall.  The messengers would go forth to Syria, meaning to the Diaspora, and let them know when the festivals would fall.  Therefore, it was critical that they find out what day Rosh Hodesh was as soon as possible.
+<b>When the Temple stood they used to profane Shabbat for all the months, in order that the sacrifice might be offered on the right day.</b>  In the Temple there was a special sacrifice offered on Rosh Hodesh.  Hence, it was essential that the witnesses testify on time every month so that the sacrifice would be offered on the correct day.  Hence, they could profane Shabbat in order to get to Jerusalem to testify concerning any of the months. .
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah contains a qualification of yesterday’s mishnah, regarding when the witnesses may profane Shabbat in order to travel to Jerusalem to testifythat they had seen the new moon.
+<b>Whether [the new moon] was seen clearly or was not seen clearly, they profane Shabbat on account of it. Rabbi Yose says:  if it was been seen clearly they do not profane Shabbat on account of it.</b> According to the first opinion in the mishnah, witnesses can profane Shabbat in order to come to Jerusalem and testify regardless of whether the new moon was seen clearly or not.  Rabbi Yose holds that if the new moon was seen clearly in a place somewhat far away from Jerusalem, then it was probably seen clearly in Jerusalem as well.  In such a case witnesses would have seen it in Jerusalem and since they live close, they would not have to profane Shabbat in order to testify. Therefore those outside of Jerusalem should assume that those closer had testified and that they don’t need to come and profane Shabbat. The other sages disagree, reasoning that if you tell witnesses not to profane Shabbat when the new moon is seen clearly, they might end up not profaning Shabbat when the moon is not seen clearly, i.e. when they should profane Shabbat. Anything that might lead to witnesses not coming when their testimony is needed is discouraged.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah illustrates a concept which we mentioned at the end of yesterday’s mishnah-- anything that might lead to witnesses not coming when their testimony is needed is discouraged.
+<b>It happened that more than forty pairs of witnesses were on their way [to Jerusalem] and Rabbi Akiva detained them in Lod. Rabban Gamaliel sent to him saying: if you prevent the multitude [from coming to provide testimony] it will turn out that you cause them to stumble in the future.</b> The mishnah describes Rabbi Akiva in Lod holding back witnesses who were about to make their way to Jerusalem to testify that they had seen the new moon.  Rabbi Akiva detains the because he reasons that there is no need for so many witnesses to testify; after all, two would seem to be sufficient.  Commentators add that this transpired on Shabbat.  Rabbi Akiva did not think it was necessary for forty pairs of witnesses to profane Shabbat, when only two were needed, so he held the unneeded pairs back. Rabban Gamaliel rebuked Rabbi Akiva for his actions.  Witnesses who were told not to go to Jerusalem to testify would not go next time they see the new moon, and perhaps that time they would actually be needed.  This is what he means when he says, “cause them to stumble.”
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with a father and a son jointly testifying that they had seen the new moon.  In normal cases the testimony of relatives may not be joined in order to add up to the required two witnesses.  However, some sages, as we shall see below, hold that in the case of testifying regarding the new moon the joint testimony of relatives is acceptable.
+<b>If a father and a son have seen the new moon, they should both go [to Jerusalem], not that they can join together as witnesses but so that if one of them is disqualified the other may join with another witness.</b>  According to the first opinion in this mishnah, a father and son’s testimony is not joined together.  However, they should nevertheless travel together to Jerusalem, for should one of them be disqualified, the other one will be able to testify along with another person.  In tomorrow’s mishnah we will learn what might disqualify a person from testifying.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon says that a father and son and all relatives are eligible to testify to the appearance of the new moon.</b>  Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that relatives may indeed testify that they saw the new moon.  According to Rabbi Shimon the testimony for the new moon works differently from testimony in other legal matters where relatives’ testimony is not joined together.
+<b>Rabbi Yose said: it happened once that Tobias the doctor saw the new moon in Jerusalem along with his son and his freed slave. The priests accepted his evidence and that of his son and disqualified his slave. But when they appeared before the court they accepted his evidence and that of his slave and disqualified his son.</b>  Through the story in this section we learn that there was a debate between the priests and the “court” of sages concerning two issues regarding testimony as to the new moon: the ability of relatives to jointly testify and the ability of a freed slave.  The priests accepted the evidence of the relatives, probably because each of these people is himself fit to testify.  The sages, which the mishnah calls here “the court,” accepted that of the freed slave, because they generally hold that freed slaves were allowed to testify. There is some interesting history which we may glean from this mishnah.  First of all, the mishnah portrays two courts in Jerusalem, one that was made up of priests and one made up of others who evidently were not priests. The non-priest court is portrayed as being more authoritative.  Second, it is noteworthy that the priests reject that of the freed slave while the other court accepts it.  This may connect in general with the high value the priests placed on lineage.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is basically taken word for word from Sanhedrin 3:3.  It is brought here again because the previous mishnah mentioned the possibility that a person would be disqualified from testifying.
+<b>And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]: A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce, and slaves.</b>  There are five categories of people who are disqualified from acting as witnesses or judges:  1) The first is a dice player, in other words a gambler.  Such a person cannot testify since he is known to be a liar, especially with regards to monetary matters.  Another reason is that he doesn’t participate constructively in building society. 2)  A usurer.  He is also probably considered to not be trustworthy in monetary matters. 3)  A pigeon racer.  Racing pigeons was a form of gambling. 4)  Those who sell produce grown during the Seventh Year. According to Lev. 25:5-7 produce grown in the fields during the Seventh Year may be eaten by its owners, but it may not be sold.  One who therefore sells Seventh Year produce is engaging in forbidden business practices which according to our mishnah make him not trustworthy to testify or act as a judge. 5)  A slave referring to a slave who has not been freed.
+<b>This is the general rule:  any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they too are not qualified.</b>  The rules of acceptance of testimony from slaves are the same as those for a woman.  Any case where they did allow the testimony of a woman, such as testimony concerning the death of another woman’s husband (see Mishnah Yevamot 15:4), they also allowed the testimony of a slave
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah lists several different ways in which a person might come to profane Shabbat on his way to testify that he saw the new moon. The mishnah is adamant a person on his way to Jerusalem may profane the Shabbat in any way that he needs to in order to ensure that he makes it to Jerusalem in order to testify.
+<b>If one who has seen the new moon and is not able to walk [to Jerusalem] on foot, he may be brought on a donkey or even in a litter [on Shabbat].</b>  Here we learn that a person may transgress two prohibitions in order to make it to Jerusalem to testify:  he may ride on a donkey and others may carry him on a litter, which is a violation of carrying.
+<b>If they [the witnesses] are likely to be attacked, they may take sticks [to defend themselves].</b>  They may also carry sticks in order to defend themselves against bandits or highway robbers.
+<b>If the distance is great [to Jerusalem], they may take provisions with them, since for as much as a night and a day’s journey they were allowed to profane Shabbat and go out to testify concerning the new moon, as it says:  “These are the appointed times of the Lord … which you shall proclaim at their appointed time” (Leviticus 23:4).</b>  They can also carry food with them on their way to Jerusalem.  The witnesses were allowed to travel for up to an entire night and one day in order to get to Jerusalem, meaning if they saw the new moon in the evening when Shabbat began, and they were far enough away that they would have to walk the entire night and all day and then just get there when Shabbat was over, they were still allowed to go.  Of course, if they lived farther away than they couldn’t come because they wouldn’t make it in time anyway. The rabbis’ adamancy that one must go to Jerusalem to testify and that one can break Shabbat in order to do so is justified by a midrash.  The Torah says that the appointed times, the festivals, must be proclaimed at their appointed time.  This is understood by the rabbis to mean that it is essential that the court declare the new moon on time so that the festivals would fall at the correct time. If doing so requires one to profane Shabbat, so be it.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+As I have written on several occasions, the setting of the calendar was a point of great conflict between ancient Jewish sects, namely the Pharisees, Essenes, Sadducees and Dead Sea sect (which may overlap with the Essenes or Sadducees, or perhaps even both).  This mishnah alludes to this strife when it relates that the minim, a generic rabbinic term for sectarians, tried to disrupt the process by sending false witnesses. It sounds like they wanted to trick the Pharisees into declare the new month on the wrong date.  Even though the sectarians in this mishnah probably used a solar calendar, they still wanted to disrupt the Pharisaic/rabbinic calendar.  It’s as if they wanted to say even according to your own system, you’re celebrating on the wrong day.
+<b>If they don’t know him [the one who came to testify], they send another with him to testify concerning [his reliability].</b>  This section expresses the current halakhah (the halakhah that was valid at the time of the mishnah).  When someone was sent to testify concerning the new moon, if this person was not known to the central court that accepted the testimony, then they would send with him a person who was known to the court to vouch for the witness’s reliability. Basically, he would tell the court that the witness was a “kosher yid” and not a sectarian.
+<b>Originally testimony concerning the new moon was accepted from anyone. When the minim disrupted this, it was decreed that testimony should be received only from persons known [to the court].</b>  This explains the background to the need for a second person to testify as to the reliability of the witness.  Before the sectarians “ruined” it, everyone was trusted to testify. We should note that this mishnah is probably more “historiographical” than “historical.”  That is to say, the mishnah teaches us how to view history, more than it teaches us what actually happened. The mishnah presents a pre-minim history in which everyone could trust one another; it was a moment of unity between all Jews. The minim came and disrupted this unity and now we have to suspect one another.  Obviously a person hearing this mishnah will know how undesirable the minim really are.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Above in 1:3 we learned that the court used to send messengers out to let the people in the Diaspora know that the new month had been decreed.  In our mishnah we learn that this custom was the result of another attempt by a non-Pharisaic/rabbinic group of Jews to disrupt the calendar.
+<b>Originally they used to light torches [to signal that the new month had been decreed]. When the Samaritans disrupted this, they decreed that messengers should go out.</b> In tomorrow’s mishnah we shall learn how they used to light torches, or beacons, in order to let everyone in the Diaspora know that a new month had been decreed.  Here we learn that they stopped doing this because the Samaritans disrupted the process by lighting torches on the night of the thirtieth even though the court had not decreed a new month.  Again we see that one of the sects attempts to have other Jews, Jews who follow a rabbinic calendar, celebrate their holidays on the wrong day.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>How did they light the torches? They used to bring long poles of cedar and reeds and olive wood and flax fluff and they tied them all together with a string. And someone used to go up to the top of a mountain and light them with fire and wave them back and forth and up and down until he saw the next one doing the same thing on the top of the second mountain; and so on the top of the third mountain.</b><br>This mishnah teaches how the torches were made and how the signals were passed from the top of one mountain to another.  The mishnah is simple to understand and so no commentary appears below.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>At what places did they light the torches? From the Mount of Olives [in Jerusalem] to Sartaba, and from Sartaba to Gripina, and from Gripina to Havran, and from Havran to Bet Biltin. From Bet Biltin they did not move, but rather waved [the torch] back and forth and up and down until he saw the whole of the diaspora before him lit up like one bonfire.</b><br>This mishnah continues to discuss the torches used to let the Jews in the Diaspora know that the new month had been declared in Jerusalem.  The mishnah traces a progression from the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem all the way to Babylonia. At Bet Biltin the chain of torches would end for there the one waving the torch in Bet Biltin would be able to see all of the Diaspora lighting their torches in response. The Talmud relates that “Diaspora” here refers to Babylonia.<br>Since the mishnah is self-explanatory, I will again refrain from commenting.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah deals with the witnesses who have come to Jerusalem to testify that they saw the new moon.
+<b>There was a large courtyard in Jerusalem, and it was called Bet Yazek. There all the witnesses used to assemble and the court would examine them there. They would make large feasts for them there so that they would have an incentive to come.</b>  When the witnesses came to Jerusalem they were directed to a courtyard called Bet Yazek.  The court would examine them there, as we shall see in tomorrow’s mishnah.  Interestingly, they would make a big feast for them there in order to encourage people to come to testify.  We again see how important the testimony concerning the new moon was for the rabbis.
+<b>Originally they used not to leave the place the whole day, but Rabban Gamaliel decreed that they could go two thousand cubits from it in any direction. And these were not the only ones [who could go two thousand cubits in any direction], but also a midwife who has come to deliver a child, or one who comes to rescue from a fire or from bandits or from a river in flood or from a building that has fallen in   all these are like residents of the town, and may go two thousand cubits [on Shabbat] in any direction.</b>  This section deals with the laws of Shabbat border limits, a subject which we learned in greater depth in Eruvin (see especially 4:1-3, for laws which deal with the topic addressed here.)  A person is not allowed to go more than 2000 cubits outside of the city in which he began Shabbat.  If he does so, he is stuck in his place and can’t walk more than another four cubits.  In the case in our mishnah, witnesses came to Jerusalem to testify on Shabbat. This was permitted and indeed encouraged, as we saw in 1:4-5.  Our mishnah teaches that originally such a person could not leave the courtyard because a person who leaves his Shabbat border cannot move more than four cubits in any direction.  The courtyard which was enclosed was considered to be all within four cubits. However, this would discourage people from coming to Jerusalem to testify because they would know that they would be stuck there the whole day. In order to encourage people to come to testify, Rabban Gamaliel the elder, a sage who lived while the Temple still stood, decreed that they could move about like the rest of the people of the town.  This means that they could move around all of Jerusalem and even go outside of the city 2000 cubits in any direction. The mishnah goes on to say that the same ruling applies to anyone who left his Shabbat border for a permitted reason.  So a midwife who leaves her Shabbat border limit to go and deliver a child may now go all around the city she came into and may go 2000 cubits in all direction.  The same is true for anyone who leaves his Shabbat border limit in order to save property. Since we want to encourage people to do so, they are allowed this concession.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+As we mentioned in yesterday’s mishnah, once the witnesses arrived in Jerusalem they were brought to Bet Yazek where the court would examine them.  Our mishnah teaches how they were examined.
+<b>How do they test the witnesses?<br>The pair which arrives first, they test them first.</b>  The first pair to get there would be the first pair that would be examined first come, first serve.
+<b>They bring in the older of them and they say to him, “Tell us, how did you see the moon   in front of the sun or behind the sun?  To the north of it or to the south? How high was it, and in which direction was it inclined?  And how broad was it?” If he says [he saw it] in front of the sun, his evidence is rejected.</b>  As is usual in all court cases, they interrogate the witnesses one at a time.  The examination would consist of several questions which would ascertain that the witnesses had actually seen the new moon.  At the time of the new month (the molad, in Hebrew) the moon is found at sundown in the west near the sun.  From that time on it goes further east away from the sun, until at the fifteenth of the month it is in the east opposite the sun.  Right before the new moon it is west of the sun and it sets before the sun such that it looks as if it is “in front of the sun.”  After the new month (the molad) it sets after the sun and is further from the horizon and it looks as if it is “after the sun.”  Therefore, if he says that he saw it “in front of the sun,” he has not seen the new moon and his testimony is rejected. One who stands looking west at sunset, where he might see the new moon at the right time of the month has the north to his right and the south to his left.  Therefore, when they ask north and south, what they mean is was the moon to the right or left of the sun.
+<b>After that they would bring in the second and test him. If their accounts were the same, their evidence was accepted.</b>  If the witnesses said the same thing, then there testimony is accepted.
+<b>And the other pairs were only questioned briefly, not because they were required at all, but so that they should not go out disappointed, so that they would be regular in coming [to testify].</b>  Once two witnesses have testified, there is no need for more testimony from other witnesses.  Nevertheless, the court didn’t want to just turn the rest of the pairs of witnesses away because if they did so they might not come back in the future reasoning that there was no need for their testimony. Therefore, they asked the witnesses a few questions in order to make them feel that their long trip to Jerusalem had not been in vain.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah describes the ceremonial declaration made by the court when they sanctified the new month.  We should note that we have seen several occasions in which ritual was used by the rabbis in order to engage in polemics against a rival Jewish group such as the Sadducees.  For example the ritual of the water libation was emphasized, as was the ritual in which they harvested the new barley, the omer, on the day after the first day of Pesah. Our mishnah may also describe a ritual used for at least slightly polemical purposes.
+<b>The head of the court says, “Sanctified,” and all the people answer after him, “Sanctified, sanctified.”</b>  The ritual consists of the head of the court announcing that the new moon had been sanctified and the rest of the people responding, “Sanctified, sanctified.”
+<b>Whether the new moon is seen at its proper time or not at its proper time they sanctify it. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that if it is not seen as its proper time they do not sanctify it for heaven has already sanctified it.</b>  According to the first opinion, this ritual is performed whether or not the court sanctifies the new moon on the thirtieth day of the previous month (the proper time), turning the previous month into a twenty-nine day month, or whether the previous month lasted a full thirty days and the new moon was not declared until the thirty-first day (not its proper time). Remember, a month can have only 29 or 30 days. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that the ceremony was performed only if the month was sanctified at its proper time, meaning on the thirtieth day.  If the new moon was not seen on this day, then it is as if heaven had sanctified the month by allowing it to last the full thirty days. Since heaven sanctified it, the court does not perform the ritual declaration. We should note that beneath the surface of this mishnah we again can detect the conflict between the court determining the new month by making a ritual declaration and the calendar being set by the cycles of nature that is heaven sanctifying the new month.  As we have seen, this was a major debate among Second Temple Jews, and echoes of the debate seem to still be found in post-Temple rabbinic literature.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Rabban Gamaliel had diagrams of the moon on a tablet [hung] on the wall of his upper chamber, and he used to show them to the unlearned and say, “Did it look like this or this?”<br>It happened that two witnesses came and said, “We saw it in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.” Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said:  they are lying witnesses. When they came to Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel accepted them.<br>On another occasion two witnesses came and said, “We saw it at its proper time, but on the night which should have been the new moon it was not seen,” and Rabban Gamaliel accepted their evidence. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: they are lying witnesses. How can they testify that a woman has given birth when on the next day her belly is between her teeth (? Rabbi Joshua to him: I see your argument.</b><br>This mishnah and the next one contain one of the most famous stories in rabbinic literature.  In it Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua clash over accepting what seems to surely be false testimony as to the new moon.<br>Section one: This section sets up the character of Rabban Gamaliel, who will play the lead role in the story.  Rabban Gamaliel was the head of the court in Yavneh and he was the rabbi who would ultimately decide whether the witnesses’ testimony would be accepted and the new month sanctified.  In order to facilitate this, he would have pictures of the moon in its different phases hung up in his upper chamber, where he would interrogate them.<br>Section two:  The story now begins.  Two witnesses come in front of some rabbi (it’s not clear whom they come in front of) and tell him that they saw the new moon in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.  This is impossible and hence Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas calls them lying witnesses.  The witnesses proceed on to Yavneh and come in front of Rabban Gamaliel, who sanctifies the month based on their testimony.  We as readers of the mishnah are properly shocked wasn’t Rabban Gamaliel the very rabbi who was especially fervent in checking the witnesses?<br>The same thing seems to happen a second time.  Again witnesses offer impossible testimony, which Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas promptly rejects, this time using a graphic analogy.  In Hebrew there is a pun which is lost in translation. The word for pregnant and the word for a thirty day month are the same.<br>In the final line of the mishnah, a new character is added, Rabbi Joshua.  Rabbi Joshua agrees with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, setting the stage for his eventual clash with Rabban Gamaliel in tomorrow’s mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is the continuation of yesterday’s story of Rabban Gamaliel, Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas and the sanctification of the new moon based on erroneous testimony.  At the end of yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Joshua agrees with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas that the witnesses’ testimony was false and therefore Rabban Gamaliel should not have accepted it.
+<b>Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim.</b>  The action begins with Rabban Gamaliel’s response to Rabbi Joshua. Rabban Gamaliel sends one of his messengers (henchmen) to him and demands that he come to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which he believes to be Yom Kippur, the day after Rabban Gamaliel would have celebrated Yom Kippur.  This is a harsh decree, one delivered by the politically potent Rabban Gamaliel, to the wise yet weak Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Joshua would be forced to desecrate the holiest day of the year by carrying his stick and money in the public domain and by going beyond the Shabbat border limit.  Indeed, if Rabbi Joshua believes that that day is Yom Kippur, he would have to ignore Rabban Gamaliel’s demands rather than transgress such a serious prohibition.
+<b>Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are [proclaimed] at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these.</b>  Rabbi Akiva hears about the goings on and comes to Rabbi Joshua to offer him advice.  His advice is based on a midrash. The verse seems to imply, at least according to its midrashic reading, that the holidays are holy whether or not the court decrees them to fall at their “proper” time or at the wrong time.  In other words, Yom Kippur is when the court determines it to be, and not when it really should fall according to some predetermined “heavenly” time.  If the court makes a mistake and sanctifies the new month of Tishri on the wrong day, then ten days later is still Yom Kippur.  Rabbi Akiva is basically telling Rabbi Joshua that even if Rabban Gamaliel is wrong with regard to the new month, the day upon which he declares Yom Kippur to fall is still Yom Kippur.
+<b>He [Rabbi Joshua] then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9).  Why were the names of the elders not mentioned?  To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses.</b>  Rabbi Joshua now goes to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, the same sage who said in yesterday’s mishnah that the witnesses were lying.  This is a fascinating move.  He is basically going to Rabbi Dosa and asking him, “What should I do?  I agreed with you, and see what a predicament it has gotten me into.”  Rabbi Dosa, like Rabbi Akiva, provides him with a midrash which supports him going to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which he thinks is Yom Kippur.  Rabbi Dosa’s midrash teaches that the court that stands at every generation is equal in authority to that of Moses and his court.  This is the ultimate statement of rabbinic authority.  One shouldn’t think that the current rabbinic courts are inherently of a lesser status. Although the sages that live today may not be as close to the source, God and the Torah, as was Moses, their authority is nevertheless not diminished.
+<b>He [Rabbi Joshua] took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student   my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision.</b>  Peace is finally made and rabbinic unity is restored.  Rabbi Joshua is either convinced by Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, or he realizes that he has no choice but to go to Rabban Gamaliel.  Rabban Gamaliel greets him with open arms, praising him for both his wisdom and importantly, also for his acceptance of his decree.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Although this is the first mishnah of a new chapter, it is really the last mishnah to deal with the sanctification of the new month.  It contains a few final rules governing how the court decides that the new month should be declared.
+<b>If the court and all of Israel saw it, if the witnesses were examined and there was no time left to say “Sanctified” before it grew dark, then the month is impregnated (it has thirty.</b>  In this case, it was abundantly clear that the new month had arrived, but the court was not able to convene and sanctify it before it grew dark and the thirtieth day of the previous month was over.  The mishnah rules that since the court did not have time to declare the new month sanctified, it is not sanctified and Rosh Hodesh will have to wait for the next day.  We should note that again we see here the ideology that the court, that is humans, are what create the reality of the new month, and not the astronomical phenomenon itself.
+<b>If the court alone saw it, two of them should stand up and testify before them, and then they can say, “Sanctified, sanctified.”</b>  If the members of the court themselves were the only ones who saw the new moon, then those who saw the new moon should testify in front of the others (at least three others) that the new moon had been sanctified, and then the court may declare, “Sanctified, sanctified.”
+<b>If three people saw it, and they [themselves] are the court, two [of them] should stand up and they should seat some of their colleagues with the one [remaining judge], and they [the two] should testify before them and they can then say, “Sanctified, sanctified.” For an individual is not trusted [to sanctify the new month] by himself.</b>  Here, only three people see the new moon, and they themselves are the court that is supposed to declare that it is sanctified. Since the same people that function as witnesses cannot function as judges, two of them must find two other people to take their place as judges and then they may testify that they saw the new moon.  The mishnah concludes by noting that one person cannot serve as the sole decision maker with regard to the declaration of the new month.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b> This mishnah opens the second half of tractate Rosh Hashanah, which deals mostly with the laws of the shofar and the shofar blasts, as well as the special mussaf prayers for Rosh Hashanah.  In this mishnah rabbis debate what animals’ horns may be used for the shofar
+<b>All shofars may be used except for that of a cow, because it is a keren.</b>  According to the first opinion, all shofars can be used on Rosh Hashanah expect for the horn of a cow, because the horn of a cow is not called a shofar but rather a keren, which is a Hebrew word for horn.  The reason that we require a horn called a shofar is that Leviticus 25:9 uses the word shofar in connection with Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year, and the rabbis say that this shofar is the paradigm for the shofar of Rosh Hashanah. The types of shofar that can be used are specifically that of a ram (an ayil in Hebrew), which is usually bent, and that of an ibex (a yael in Hebrew), which is straight.
+<b>Rabbi Yose said: Are not all shofars called keren as it says, “When they make a long blast with the ram’s keren [horn]?” (Joshua 6:5).</b>  Rabbi Yose points out that the horn of a ram is also called a keren, as proven from the quote from Joshua.  And if a ram’s horn can be used even though it is called a keren, why can’t the horn of a cow be used? The other rabbis don’t respond to Rabbi Yose in the mishnah.  The Talmud, however does provide their reponse.  The rabbis respond to Rabbi Yose that all horns of animals are called both keren and shofar, whereas that of a cow is called only keren. This means that in order for a horn to be used it has to be called a shofar but not necessarily exclusively.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah discusses the shofar used on Rosh Hashanah.
+<b>The shofar used on Rosh Hashanah was that of an ibex, straight, and its mouth was overlaid with gold.</b>  According to the mishnah, the shofar used on Rosh Hashanah should be from the horn of an ibex.  The Talmud explains that the straightness or simplicity of the shofar is symbolic of the straightness of a person’s prayers.  In the Talmud Rabbi Judah disagrees with this mishnah and says that one should use the bent horn of a ram, symbolic of how a person bends down in humility before God.  The Rambam points out that the horn of the ram also reminds us on Rosh Hashanah of the sacrifice of Isaac, when Isaac was eventually replaced by a ram. The mouthpiece of the shofar was overlaid with gold.  According to the Talmud, this relates to the shofar that was blown in the Temple.  Covering the mouthpiece of the shofar is no longer allowed.
+<b>There were two trumpets, one on each side of it. The shofar gave a long blast and the trumpets a short one, since the commandment of the day was with the shofar.</b>  The idea that there were trumpets accompanying the shofar is expressed also in Psalms 98:6, “With trumpets and the sound of a shofar you shall make blasts before God the King.”  Again, the Talmud relates that this was done only in the Talmud.  Priority was given to the sounds of the shofar over those made by the trumpets.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with the shofar and trumpet blasts that are sounded on public fast days.  These were fast days that were declared when Israel experienced distress, mostly the distress of not having enough rain.  Tractate Taanit, the next tractate which we shall learn, is dedicated to this subject.
+<b>On [public] fast days they used shofars of rams, curved, the mouths of which were covered with silver, and there were two trumpets in between them.</b>  The basic function of this mishnah is to distinguish the Rosh Hashanah ritual, described in yesterday’s mishnah, with the public fast day ritual described here.  This distinction was probably created and then emphasized in the Mishnah in order to preserve the integrity of both occasions.  On public fast days the shofar was made from a ram’s horn, which was curved and instead of its mouth being covered with gold, it was covered with silver.  On Rosh Hashanah the trumpets were on the outside, whereas on public fast days they were in between the shofars.
+<b>A short blast was made with the shofars and a long one with the trumpets, because the mitzvah of the day is with trumpets.</b>  This section again offers a distinction between the Rosh Hashanah practice and the public fast practice.  On Rosh Hashanah the mitzvah is with the shofar so its blasts are longer.  On the public fast day the mitzvah is with the trumpets, so their blasts are longer.  This is derived from Numbers 10:9 according to which the Israelites should blast trumpets when going out to war. From here the rabbis derive that in all cases of public distress, they should sound blasts with trumpets.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Leviticus 25:8-16 deals with the Jubilee year, the fiftieth year after seven cycles of seven years.  Verse 9 states, “Then you shall sound the horn loud; in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month the Day of Atonement you shall have the horn sounded throughout your land.”  Our mishnah deals with the rituals of this day which begins the Jubilee year.
+<b>The Jubilee is the same as Rosh Hashanah when it comes to blowing [the shofar] and blessings.</b>  According to the first opinion, the laws of blowing the shofar and the recitation of blessings are the same for the Jubilee year as they are for Rosh Hashanah of every year.  The blessings referred to here are the special blessings recited as part of the Mussaf Amidah. We will learn more about these blessings in chapter four.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: on Rosh Hashanah they blow with [a shofar of] rams and on Jubilees with [a shofar] of ibex.</b>  Rabbi Judah says that different animals’ horns are used for the two shofars.  The one for Rosh Hashanah is that of a ram, whereas on the Jubilee they use the horn of an ibex. We should note that Rabbi Judah disagrees with the opinion in mishnah three above, according to which on Rosh Hashanah we use the horn of an ibex.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with the physical wholeness of the shofar.  It teaches what flaws in the shofar render it invalid.
+<b>A shofar which has split and then he stuck it together is not valid.</b>  According to the Talmud, this refers to a shofar which has split lengthwise.  One cannot use it by gluing it back together.  This is either because the shofar won’t sound good, or because air will inevitably escape not only from the end but from the sides as well.
+<b>If he stuck together fragments of shofars, it is not valid.</b>  In this case, someone tries to glue together pieces of a broken shofar to make one whole one. This doesn’t work for the same reasons it doesn’t work to glue together one shofar.
+<b>If there was a hole in a shofar and he closed it up, if it interferes with the blowing it is not valid, but if it does not it is valid.</b>  In this case the shofar was not cracked, as was the shofar in yesterday’s mishnah, but just had a hole in it.  If after he patches it up the shofar sounds okay, then it may be used.  If not, it may not be used.  Others explain that the words “if it interferes with the blowing” refer to before the hole is closed.  If the hole prevents the sound before it is patched up, he may not use the shofar even after it has been patched up.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah teaches two halakhot:  1) one must hear the sound of the shofar and not an echo of the sound of the shofar; 2) when hearing the shofar one must have intention to hear it for the sake of the fulfillment of the commandment.  The mishnah illustrates cases where one may have heard a shofar blast and nevertheless not fulfilled his obligation
+<b>One who blows into a pit or a cistern or a jug, if he heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he hears the echo [also], he has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Here someone blows a shofar into an echo-producing chamber, such as a pit, a cistern or a jug. The mishnah rules that in order to fulfill his obligation he must be sure that he heard the sound of the shofar and not the echo of the sound of the shofar. There is a geonic commentary on this mishnah, according to which the mishnah refers to a time of persecution when the Romans outlawed the public observance of commandments. They hid their shofar blasts to avoid the authorities.
+<b>And also one who was passing behind a synagogue or if his house was next to the synagogue and he heard the sound of the shofar or of the megillah [being read], if he directed his heart (had, then he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. Even though this one heard and this one heard, this one directed his heart and this one did not.</b>  This section teaches that when hearing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, or Megillat Esther on Purim, one must have the intention of hearing them in order to fulfill the commandment.  A person might be walking behind a synagogue and hear them blow the shofar and then think to himself, “Great, I’ve just fulfilled my commandment” (and no need to go to shul today!). The mishnah rules that the act of hearing the shofar is not sufficient.  One must have the intention to hear in the fulfillment of a commandment.  The final section of the mishnah notes how strongly this commandment is connected to intention both the one who walked behind the synagogue and the one who actually went to the synagogue heard the same exact thing, yet one has fulfilled his obligation and one has not.   Tomorrow’s mishnah will contain the central rabbinic statement as to the role that intention plays in halakhah.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that for one to fulfill one’s obligation of hearing the shofar, one must have the proper intention.  The first section of today’s mishnah provides an essential statement with regard to ritual and intention.  While ritual plays an extremely important role in Judaism, it is nevertheless considered only an external sign of internal intention and conviction.  The Mishnah brings up several cases in the Torah where Moses seems to perform a magical ritual that aids Israel. The rabbis understand the magic to be a means to evoke intention and reflection upon God, and not to be a ritual that works regardless of the inner emotions and thoughts of the people of Israel.
+The second section of the mishnah teaches that those who cannot legally have intention, meaning the law considers them unable to have such thoughts concerning the fulfillment of commandments, cannot aid others in fulfilling their obligation to hear the shofar.
+<b>“And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand Israel prevailed” etc. (Exodus 17:1.  Did the hands of Moses wage war or break [Israel’s ability] to wage war? Rather this teaches that as long as Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven they prevailed, and if not they fell.</b>  The stories and the lessons of this mishnah are taught quite straightforwardly. Moses’s raising of his hands does not itself cause Israel to conquer Amalek and when his lowering of his hands does not itself cause the Israelites to lose.  Their success and failure in war is a function of their belief in God and their subjecting themselves to God.  We might note that Moses’s hands are held up high, causing Israel to look up at them. This is intended to cause Israel to think about God, who dwells in Heaven.  It might be no accident that the rabbis choose this example and the next to illustrate their attitude towards ritual and intention.
+<b>Similarly, “Make for yourself a fiery serpent and mount it on a pole.  And if anyone who is bitten shall look at it, he shall live” (Numbers 21:8).  Did the serpent kill or did the serpent keep alive? Rather, when Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven, they were healed, and if not their [flesh] would melt away.</b>  The copper serpent (in Hebrew “seraph”, a word whose meaning is somewhat uncertain) is not a magical charm healing Israel from the wounds of the serpents sent by God to attack them as a punishment for their constant complaining.  Rather the serpent is symbolic again of God it causes Israel to look up and to direct their hearts to God.  Only by having the right intention can Israel be healed.
+<b>A deaf-mute, a lunatic and a minor cannot cause others to fulfill their religious obligation. This is the general principle: one who is not himself obligated in the matter cannot perform it on behalf of others.</b>  According to rabbinic law, deaf-mutes, lunatics and minors are not in full control of their mental faculties, and hence cannot have proper “intention.”  This causes them to be exempt from the performance of commandments that require intention, such as the hearing of the shofar.  Since they themselves are not obligated to blow the shofar, they cannot blow the shofar in order for others to hear and thereby fulfill their obligation. This is true in all cases a person who is not obligated to perform a commandment cannot himself perform that commandment on behalf of others.  One must be personally obligated in order to fulfill the more communal role of fulfilling a mitzvah for other people.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with blowing the shofar on Shabbat.  It is somewhat unclear why blowing the shofar on Shabbat should be prohibited at all.  After all, as we shall see, some places did blow the shofar on Shabbat. It seems to me that there may have been a desire among the sages to prevent the celebration of Rosh Hashanah from overshadowing that of Shabbat.  In the Talmud they provide a midrashic reason why one shouldn’t blow the shofar on Shabbat.
+<b>If Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbat, they would blow the shofar in the Temple but not in the country.</b>  There are two different explanations for “Temple” and “country.” Some commentators explain “Temple” to refer to all of Jerusalem and “country” to refer to anywhere outside of Jerusalem. According to this interpretation, they allowed the shofar to be blown in Jerusalem because there they would know whether the new moon had been sanctified.  In other words, they would know for certain whether it was Rosh Hashanah.  Outside of Jerusalem they couldn’t be sure, so they wouldn’t blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah.  Assumedly, at this period there were already two days of Rosh Hashanah so that they could blow the second day. The other explanation is that “Temple” refers to the Temple itself, and “country” refers to all places outside of the Temple. They allowed the shofar to be blown in the Temple because rabbinically prohibited activities are allowed on Shabbat in the Temple.  However, this interpretation does not fit particularly well with the mishnah which we shall learn tomorrow.
+<b>After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai decreed that it should be blown [on Shabbat] in every place where there was a court.</b>  This begins a series of decrees made by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leaders of the rabbis after the destruction of the Second Temple. The other decrees will appear in the following mishnayot. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the shofar should be blown on Shabbat in all places where a rabbinic court, according to some a Sanhedrin, sat.  This in essence bequeathed the authority of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem on all subsequent courts, no matter where they sat.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer said: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai decreed for Yavneh only. They said to him: both Yavneh and any place where there is a court.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the broad application of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s decree (takkanah) and limits it only to the court in Yavneh.  Rabbi Eliezer may be claiming that it is only Rabban Yohanan’s personal authority that allowed him to make such a decree.  Other courts, which will not be able to count Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai as one of them, will not have such authority. The other rabbis reject Rabbi Eliezer’s statement.  The decree bestowed authority on all subsequent courts and not just on the one in Yavneh. We might say that the authority is vested in the office and not in the individual rabbi, charismatic and learned as he may be.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>There was another way in which Jerusalem was greater than Yavneh, that in every city which could see [Jerusalem] and hear and was near and could get to Jerusalem, they used to blow [on Shabbat], whereas in Yavneh they used to blow in the court only.</b> In Yavneh they blew the shofar on Shabbat only in the place where the court sat.  However, in Jerusalem they would blow the shofar on Shabbat not only in Jerusalem but in all of the surrounding areas as well.  This distinction between Jerusalem and Yavneh may have been an attempt to preserve the uniqueness of the authority of Jerusalem and its court. While Yavneh may have received some of the authority of Jerusalem, it was still not as great. The beginning of the mishnah implies that there was another way in which Jerusalem was greater than Yavneh, besides that listed in the Mishnah.  The Talmud asks what this was, and answers that in Jerusalem they would blow the shofar on Shabbat both in front of the court and not in front of the court.  In Yavneh the shofar was blown on Shabbat only in front of the court.  This may be a way of saying that while the court in Yavneh was authoritative, the city did not have inherent sacredness, as did Jerusalem.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In the previous mishnah we learned of a decree that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai made after the destruction of the Temple.  The next two mishnayot contain other such decrees.
+If this mishnah seems familiar it is because we just learned it in Sukkah 3:12.  The below commentary is the same as that found there.
+Leviticus 23:40 reads, “On the first day you shall take...and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.”  The beginning of the verse states “on the first day” and the end of the verse says, “seven days.”  From here the rabbis derived that the mitzvah of taking the lulav is for a different amount of time in different places. They read the second half of the verse as applying to the Temple, “before the Lord your God.”  Hence, the lulav was taken up for seven days in the Temple.  Outside of the Temple, or according to other commentaries, outside of Jerusalem, the lulav was taken for only one day.
+<b>In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only.</b>  When the Temple still stood the lulav was taken in the Temple (or in Jerusalem) for seven days and outside of the Temple for only one day, as explained in the introduction.
+<b>When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple,</b>  However, when the Temple was destroyed, there was a problem.  If people only observed the commandment for one day, they would soon forget that originally the commandment was observed for seven days, at least in some places.  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leading rabbinic figures after the destruction of the Temple, decreed therefore that the lulav should be taken up for seven days, in memory of the Temple.
+<b>[He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce].</b>  Having related one of the decrees that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai made after the destruction of the Temple, the mishnah now relates another, similar decree.  We need to note a little bit of background to understand this.  On the second day of Pesah, when the Temple still stood, the Omer offering of barley was harvested and brought to the Temple and waved by a priest.  After this day, it was permitted to eat from the new grain harvest (see Leviticus 23:9-14).  Since people outside of Jerusalem would not know precisely when the Omer had been offered, they would wait at least half of the day before they would eat from the new harvest.  When the Temple was destroyed and they could no longer offer the Omer, the rabbis derived from the Torah that the new produce could be eaten as soon as the second day of Pesah began.  In other words, without an Omer sacrifice the day itself allowed the new harvest.  Again, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai perceived a problem.  If people would eat from the new harvest immediately on the 16th of Nissan, when the Temple is rebuilt they would forget that they need to wait until the Omer is offered.  Therefore he decreed that the new produce could not be eaten for the entire day. It is interesting to note that the rabbis who lived close to the destruction of the Temple believed that it would speedily be rebuilt.  Just as they began working on the rebuilding of the First Temple only 70 years after its destruction, rabbis who lived in the first and early second century probably assumed that their Temple would also be rebuilt in a short time.  However, after the Bar Kokhba revolt was crushed, it probably began to dawn on many that the realistic chances of the Temple being speedily rebuilt were not good.  The hopes of course never died, but this type of legislative activity making decrees lest the Temple be rebuilt quickly, were more characteristic of the pre Bar Kokhba period.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+There are two more decrees mentioned in this mishnah, both which have to do with the testimony concerning the new month.
+<b>Originally they used to accept testimony with regard to the new moon during the whole day.</b>  Originally, it didn’t matter when during the day the witnesses came to testify that they had seen the new moon there testimony was always accepted.
+<b>On one occasion the witnesses were late in arriving, and the Levites went wrong in the daily hymn.</b>  The problem with accepting witnesses all day is that when witnesses successfully testify they turn the current day into Rosh Hodesh, or in the case of Tishri, Rosh Hashanah. If they come late in the day, it may be difficult to correctly observe the special Rosh Hodesh rituals because time is simply running.  The mishnah relates that this happened one time.  The witnesses came late in the day and the Levites in the Temple sang the wrong Psalm.  The Levites would sing a Psalm while the Tamid (Daily) sacrifice was being offered.  There was a different song depending on whether it was a regular day or whether it was Rosh Hodesh. In the morning they sang the regular Psalm for that day, and then because the witnesses hadn’t yet come they sang the same Psalm for the afternoon Tamid. When the witnesses came, it turned out that they never sang the correct Psalm.
+<b>They therefore decreed that testimony should be accepted only until the afternoon [sacrifice].</b>  They therefore decreed that the testimony of the witnesses would only be accepted until minhah time, which was the time when they would offer the tamid sacrifice (see Pesahim 5:1).
+<b>If witnesses came after the afternoon sacrifice that day should be kept as holy and also the next day.</b>  This section refers to Rosh Hashanah, which is not only Rosh Hodesh but also a sacred holiday.  On Rosh Hashanah they would observe the thirtieth day of the previous month as a holiday meaning they wouldn’t work.  If witnesses came before minhah, then that day would count as Rosh Hashanah, and the next day would not be Rosh Hashanah.  If they came later than minhah, then that day would not have counted as Rosh Hashanah (even though they already refrained from work) and the following day will be observed as Rosh Hashanah.  This is the origins of the custom to observe Rosh Hashanah for two days.
+<b>After the destruction of the temple Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that testimony with regard to the new moon should be received during the whole day.</b>  After the destruction of the Temple there was no more need to worry about the Levites singing the wrong song.  Therefore, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai restored the rule to its original state, and allowed the acceptance of testimony for the entire day.
+<b>Rabbi Joshua ben Korha said: this further did Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decree, that not matter where the head of the court might be, the witnesses should have to go only to the place of the assembly.</b>  According to Rabbi Joshua ben Korcha there was yet another decree made by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai.  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that when the witnesses came to testify all they had to do was come to the place of assembly, which is where the court sat.  They did not have to chase after the head of the court if he was in another place.  This decree seems to be another way of saying that the authority of the court is determinative and not the individual authority of its leader.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The Amidah prayer said at Mussaf on Rosh Hashanah is the longest and most unique Amidah of the year.  It contains the three blessings which begin every Amidah “patriarchs”, which concludes ‘magen Avraham’; “powers”, which concludes ‘mehayeh hametim’; and “the sanctification of the day”, which concludes ‘hael hakadosh’, or ‘hamelekh hakadosh’ between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.
+The Amidah ends with the same three prayers with which it always ends, “blessing of the Temple service (begins with R’tzeh) and “thanksgiving” (begins with modim) and the blessing of the priests (sim shalom it is called the blessing of the priests because it begins with the priestly blessing).
+There are three middle blessings, but the rabbis in our mishnah disagree about what these are.  There are actually four topics which are mentioned in these three blessings. The first is the sanctification of the day, a blessing said on every festival. The other three are unique to Rosh Hashanah. They are “kingship (Malkhuyot)”, “Remembrance (Zikhronot)” and “Shofarot.”  Each of the sections contains the recitation of relevant biblical verses, along with a liturgical composition and a concluding blessing.
+In our mishnah the rabbis argue about the composition of these three middle blessings.  We should emphasize that they agree concerning the content, and they agree that there are three and not four blessings. They also all agree that we blow the shofar three times during the Amidah.  They also agree that “kingship” is not a separate blessing.  In the points of agreement are far greater than the points of disagreement.  They disagree only concerning which blessing “kingship” is combined with, and when precisely we blow the shofar.
+You might want to look at a Rosh Hashanah Mahzor while studying this mishnah.
+<b>The order of blessings [in the Musaf Amidah of Rosh Hashanah]:<br>He says “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verses with them and does not blow [the shofar]. The sanctification of the day and blows [the shofar], the remembrance-verses and blows [the shofar], and the shofar-verses and blows [the shofar].  Then he says the blessing of the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priests, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.</b>  According to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri the special kingship verses are combined with the “sanctification of the day” blessing but the shofar is not blown during this blessing.  He then recites the sanctification of the day blessing (kedushat hayom) and finally the other two special Rosh Hashanah blessings remembrance and shofarot.  He blows the shofar during all three of these blessings.  He then completes the Amidah in the normal fashion.
+<b>Rabbi Akiva said to him: if he does not blow the shofar for the kingship-verses, why should he say them?</b>  The kingship-verses are one of the three sections of the Amidah that are unique to Rosh Hashanah.  According to Rabbi Akiva, it wouldn’t make sense to recite these verses without blowing the shofar.
+<b>Rather he says:  “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verse with the sanctification of the day and blows the shofar, then he says the remembrance-verses and blows, and the shofar-verses and blows. Then he says the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priest.</b>  Therefore, Rabbi Akiva suggests a different order.  First he should recite the normal three blessings which begin each Amidah, without any deviation. Then he includes “kingship” with the sanctification of the day blessing, and blows the shofar as well. Then he recites the other special Rosh Hashanah blessings remembrance and shofarot. He then completes the Amidah in the normal fashion. Our Rosh Hashanah Mussaf Amidah today follows that of Rabbi Akiva.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+As the core of the three special Mussaf Amidah blessings, “malkhuyot (kingships)”, “zikhronot (remembrances)” and “shofarot” we recite verses from the Torah that use the roots of these three verses.  Our mishnah contains several debates concerning the quantity and order of these verses.
+<b>They do not recite less than ten kingship [verses], ten remembrance [verses], and ten shofar [verses].</b>  According to the first opinion, each section must include ten verses.  This is the current practice.  We recite three verses from the Torah, three from the Prophets and three from the Writings and then we conclude with a final verse from the Torah.
+<b>Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: if he said three from each set he has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that as long as one has recited three verses, assumedly one from each of the three sections of the Tanakh, he has fulfilled his duty.
+<b>They do not mention kingship, remembrance and shofar verses of punishment.</b>  The words for “king”, “remember” and “shofar” sometimes appear in connection with punishment. These verses should not be used as part of the liturgy, for what seems like obvious reasons.
+<b>He begins with [verses] from the Torah and concludes with [verses] from the prophets.</b>  According to the first opinion, he begins by reciting verses from the Torah and ends with verses from the Prophets.  In between the two, he recites verses from the Writings.
+<b>Rabbi Yose says: if he concludes with [a verse] from the Torah he has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Rabbi Yose seems to say that while he should conclude with a verse from the Prophets, as was stated in the previous opinion, nevertheless if he concludes with a verse from the Torah he has discharged his obligation. However, the Talmud understands Rabbi Yose as saying that it is actually preferable to end with a verse from the Torah. Due to this understanding of his words, the accepted halakhah is that we conclude with a verse from the Torah.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+On days upon which Mussaf is recited (festivals and Rosh Hodesh) there are two people who function as the “shaliah tzibbur”, prayer leader the first does Shacharit and the second does Mussaf.  Our mishnah determines which of these people blows the shofar and which of them recites the Hallel.
+<b>The one who passes before the ark on the festival of Rosh Hashanah: the second one blows the shofar.</b>  On Rosh Hashanah, the shaliah tzibbur for Mussaf is the one who blows the shofar.  It is interesting that the mishnah needs to dictate this.  It seems that at some early point in the development of Jewish liturgy, the Shacharit Amidah for Rosh Hashanah also included liturgy in which it would have been appropriate to blow the shofar.  In our current liturgy, there is no place in the Shacharit Amidah to do so, and hence it is quite obvious that the shaliah tzibbur for Mussaf blows the shofar.
+<b>On days when Hallel is said, the first one recites the Hallel.</b>  On days on which Hallel is recited, the Shaliah Tzibbur for Shacharit is the one that recites the Hallel.  Today we practice this by having Hallel fall in between Shacharit and Mussaf.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah contains a few more rules concerning the shofar.
+<b>[For the sake of] the shofar of Rosh Hashanah one is not allowed to go past the [Shabbat] border, nor remove a pile of rocks, nor climb a tree, nor ride on an animal, nor swim on the water.</b>  In this section there is a list of activities that are rabbinically (derabanan) prohibited on Shabbat. That is to say, they are prohibitions that are less significant than those prohibited by the Torah.  Nevertheless, the mishnah states that one does not transgress these prohibitions in order to be able to blow the shofar.  For instance, if one needs to go past the Shabbat border limit (2000 cubits outside of the city) to get a shofar or to hear one blown, one should not do so.  If the shofar is under a pile of rocks, one may not clear them away in order to get to them.  One may not climb a tree if the shofar was in a tree (this is beginning to sound like a famous Dr. Seuss book I would not hear it under rocks, I would not hear it in a tree). Nor may one ride an animal or swim in water to get to the shofar.  The important issue here is the principle one does not transgress any commandments in order to hear the shofar.
+<b>One may not cut it, neither with an instrument forbidden because of shevut, nor with an instrument forbidden by a negative commandment.</b>  Should one need to cut the shofar in order to make it usable for blowing, one may not do so, neither with a type of knife prohibited derabanan on account of shevut (mandated resting) nor with a type of knife prohibited deoraita from the Torah.  A knife that is typically used to cut something like a shofar would be prohibited from the Torah, while one not typically used for such purposes would be prohibited derabanan, a lesser prohibition.
+<b>But if he wants to pour wine or water into it he may do so.</b>  One may pour wine or water into the shofar in order to improve its sound. This is not considered to be a violation of the Shabbat and Yom Tov prohibition of “making a vessel.”
+<b>They need not prevent children from blowing the shofar [on Rosh Hashanah]; on the contrary, they may help them until they learn how to blow.</b>  Children are not obligated to hear or blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah. Since they are not obligated, we might have thought that they should not blow the shofar at all because the shofar is a form of work on Rosh Hashanah. The mishnah dispels this notion and states that not only do we not stop children from blowing the shofar, but we encourage them to practice and we teach them until they know how to blow.  The Talmud adds that even on Shabbat we can help them practice.
+<b>One who is just practicing has not fulfilled his obligation, and the one hears [the blast made] by another when practicing has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Since the previous section discussed practicing, this mishnah concludes by teaching that practicing does not count as blowing the shofar in order to fulfill one’s obligation.  A person who on Rosh Hashanah blows the shofar as practice has not fulfilled his obligation because he did not have the proper intention.  Similarly, one who hears the shofar from a person practicing has not fulfilled his obligation, because one must hear the shofar being blown by someone who intends to fulfill his and others’ obligation.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final mishnah of Rosh Hashanah deals with the order of the shofar blasts.  In the commentary on this mishnah I will note some of the ways in which the halakhah has developed over the centuries.
+<b>The order of the blasts:  three sets of three each.</b>  There are nine core blasts of the shofar during the Mussaf  Amidah three during each section, malkhuyot, zikhronot and shofarot.  Each set consists of one tekiah, one teruah, followed by another tekiah.  A set therefore consists of a teruah, preceded by and followed by a tekiah.
+<b>The length of a teki’ah is equal to three teru'ahs, and the length of a teru'ah is equal to three yevavot.</b>  A tekiah is a longer blast than a teruah and a teruah is a longer blast that a yevavah, which is a short staccato blast. In the Talmud there is a doubt about whether a teruah consists of a few medium length notes or a greater number of staccato notes.  Today we call the few medium length notes “shevarim” and we call the shorter notes “teruah.”  Since it is unclear which we should do, we do both (Jews love to compromise).  We also do one set that is “shevarim-teruah” because a teruah may include both the shevarim and the teruah.  This doubt concerning the doubt about how the blasts are to be done is the main way in which the original nine blasts have been expanded.  The service also includes sets of shofar blasts that are not done throughout Mussaf.
+<b>If one prolonged the first teki'ah so that it went directly into the second, it counts only as one.</b>  At the end of one set of blasts is a tekiah. There is also a tekiah at the beginning of another set. If the shofar blower starts a tekiah at the end of one set and continues to blow long enough that it could have counted for the tekiah at the beginning of the next set, then it only counts as one tekiah.  Each shofar blast must be integral and a doubly long blast counts only as one.
+<b>One who has blessed [recited the Amidah] and then a shofar is given to him, he sounds a teki'ah teru'ah teki'ah three times.</b>  As we stated above, the shofar blasts are integrated into the Amidah. However, the obligation to blow the shofar is independent of the obligation to recite the Mussaf prayer.  Therefore, if one does not have a shofar while reciting the Amidah, and then gets one later on, he should blow the shofar even though he has already recited the Amidah.
+<b>Just as the shaliah tzibbur is obligated, so every single individual is obligated. Rabban Gamaliel says:  the shaliah tzibbur (communal prayer causes the whole congregation to fulfill their obligation.</b>  The final section contains an extremely important debate concerning the function of the shaliach tzibbur, literally translated as “the agent of the community.”  According to the first opinion, every person is individually obligated to recite the entire Amidah.  The Talmud comments that according to this opinion, the function of the shaliach tzibbur is to fulfill the obligation for a person who doesn’t know how to recite the Amidah.  One who knows how to recite the Amidah cannot have his obligation fulfilled on his behalf by the shaliah tzibbur. According to Rabban Gamaliel the shaliach tzibbur’s recitation of the Amidah fulfills the obligation of the entire community. The question then must be asked why should the other members of the community even bother reciting the Amidah?  The answer given is that while the rest of the community recites the Amidah, the shaliah tzibbur has time to prepare to recite the Amidah. Congratulations!  We have finished Rosh Hashanah. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Mishnah Rosh Hashanah had two main sections, one about the sanctification of the new month, Rosh Hodesh, and the other about Rosh Hashanah itself.  The Jewish calendar and its connection to the moon should remain an important way in which we connect ourselves to the cycles of nature, to the waxing and the waning of the new moon.  In modern times, women have reclaimed Rosh Hodesh as a woman’s holiday.  I hope that learning this mishnah has aided in these celebrations and as a reminder to everyone that Rosh Hodesh is not just the recitation of Hallel but is a monthly renewal of our calendar. Rosh Hashanah remains one of the central holidays in the Jewish calendar.  I hope that by learning the Mishnah we can help return to the holidays roots which are a reminder of God’s kingship and God’s salvation. And again, as always, congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah.  We are getting close to having finished half of the Mishnah.  May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more! Tomorrow we begin Taanit.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah/English/merged.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,305 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה ראש השנה
+merged
+https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Rosh_Hashanah
+This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
+-Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+-http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah
+
+Introduction
+
+There are two main topics covered in tractate Rosh Hashanah. The first is the sanctification of the new month and the new year.  By “sanctification” I refer to the court’s decision which day shall be the first of the new month or new year—this decision gives the day sanctity.  The second topic is the shofar and the liturgy on Rosh Hashanah.  
+Today the Jewish lunar calendar is set—the day on which each month will begin is predetermined as are the lengths of each month. In mishnaic times the length of each month was not set. Rather each month they would determine when the new month would begin based on the testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon.  If the witnesses came to testify on the thirtieth day of the previous month, then that day would become Rosh Hodesh (the first of the month) of the next month and it would turn out that the old month had only twenty-nine days. If witnesses did not come, or they came but their testimony was not accepted in time, then the previous month would have thirty days and the new month would begin on the thirty-first day.  Usually, the calendar would alternate between twenty-nine day months and thirty day months because a lunar month is about 29 ½ days long.  
+The sanctification of the new month was done by an authorized court and it was done with quite a bit of ceremonial flourish, as we shall see.  We will also see some hotly contested disputes within the chapter concerning accepting testimony to sanctify the month. We need to realize that in the Second Temple period the calendar was one of the most divisive issues between sects of Jews. Some Jews used a solar calendar (notably the Dead Sea sect), whereas the Pharisees and subsequently the rabbis used a lunar calendar. This meant that different sect’s holidays fell at different times and it meant that people would have disagreed when holiday sacrifices should be offered at the Temple. 
+According to the Torah, Nisan, the month in which Pesah falls, is the first month of the year and not Tishrei, which is called by the Torah “the seventh month.”  The first day of the seventh month is referred to in Leviticus 23:23-25, “Speak to the children of Israel saying:  In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe complete rest, a sacred occasion commemorated with loud blasts.  You shall not work and you shall bring an offering by fire to the Lord.”  Numbers 29:1-6 further describes the day’s sacrifices, calling it “a day of blasts.”  In the Torah, this day is not called the first of the new year.
+Only in rabbinic tradition is this day called “Rosh Hashanah”, although as we will see in the first mishnah, there are also other days that are considered the beginnings of a new year.  We should also note that the concept that Rosh Hashanah is “the Day of Judgment” appears first in rabbinic literature.  This theme was probably derived from the atonement aspect of Yom Kippur. If Yom Kippur is the “Day of Atonement” then there must be a judgment which needs to be avoided.  In the Bible itself, Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah are unconnected holidays. 
+According to the Torah Rosh Hashanah is only one day.  However, because of the problem of not knowing ahead of time what day Rosh Hashanah falls on, in other words, not knowing whether the previous month (Elul) was twenty-nine days or thirty days, led to Rosh Hashanah always being observed for two days. This is also true for Rosh Hodesh when the previous month was a thirty day month—it too is observed for two days.  The difference is that Rosh Hashanah is observed on the first two days of Tishrei, whereas a two-day Rosh Hodesh is observed on the last day of the previous month and the first day of the new month.  This is at least partly because Elul now has only 29 days.  
+A major portion of the last two chapters is dedicated to the laws of the shofar and to the special prayers on Rosh Hashanah.  These are still the two aspects of Rosh Hashanah most prominent in our lives.  We shall discuss them in far greater depth when we learn those chapters. 
+Good luck in learning Rosh Hashanah. It is an extremely interesting tractate—I’m sure you will enjoy it.     
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This famous mishnah gives four new years and explains the halakhic significance of each of each of them.
+<b>There are four new years:<br>The first of Nisan is the new year for kings and for festivals.</b>  The order of the new years in this mishnah reflects the order of the months in the Torah.  In the Torah, Nisan, the month in which Pesah falls, is considered to be the first month of the year, so it is listed here first. The first of Nisan is new year for the kings, which means that we count the years in which a king has ruled from the first of Nisan.  The reason why this is important is that in those times they would date their documents by the years in which the king had ruled.  In order for a document to be valid, therefore, one needed to know if which year of the king’s rule this was.  “For festivals” means that Pesah is considered to be the first festival of the year.   The reason that this is important is that it impacts someone who makes a vow to bring something to the Temple. Rabbi Shimon holds that he has three festivals to bring the vow-offering, and that the count of those three festivals begins on Pesah. So if he makes a vow after Pesah, he doesn’t begin counting the three festival time-limit until the following Pesah.
+<b>The first of Elul is the new year for the tithe of beasts. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say:  the first of Tishri.</b>  The first of Elul is the Rosh Hashanah for tithing animals. When tithing animals, one groups them by year.  The first of Elul is the beginning of the next year, so any animals born on or after this date count toward the next year’s tithe and not towards those animals that need to be tithed from the previous year.  Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon disagree concerning tithes. They hold that just as tithes for vegetables are fixed on the first of Tishri (see below), so too are tithes for animals.
+<b>The first of Tishri is the new year for years, for shmitta and jubilee years, for planting and for [tithe of] vegetables.</b>  The first of Tishri, what we today call Rosh Hashanah, is the new year for “years.”  This means that when we count what year it is, we count from the first of Tishri.  This is how we still count the years today.  Many other commentators take this to mean that counts based on the rule of non-Jewish kings are based on Tishri being the start of the new year.  The shmitta (Sabbatical) and Jubilee years begin on the first of Tishri meaning from this date all of the prohibitions and regulations concerning the Sabbatical and Jubilee years begin to take effect.  This is also the new year for “planting” trees, meaning that we count the number of years a tree has grown starting on the first of Tishri. This is important in order to know when it stops being “orlah” fruit which is prohibited during the trees first three years. Finally, the first of Tishri is the Rosh Hashanah for the tithes of vegetables.  Vegetables that were picked before Tishri are not tithed with vegetables picked afterwards.
+<b>The first of Shevat is the new year for trees, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says:  on the fifteenth of that month.</b>  The two houses debate the date of the new year for trees: Bet Shammai holds that it is on the first of Shevat, and Bet Hillel holds that it is on the fifteenth (Tu B’shvat).  The importance of this new year is that fruit which has begun to sprout on the tree before this date is not tithed with fruit that spouts afterwards.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah lists four points of the year in which the world is judged as to the outcome of certain essential aspects of life.  As we shall see, three of them are connected to agricultural holidays and events, whereas the fourth, the judgment on Rosh Hashanah, is more of a moral/religious judgment.
+<b>At four set times the world is judged:<br>On Pesah in respect to the produce.</b>  In the land of Israel, the grain harvest begins around Pesah time. Indeed, this is why the Omer offering, which is brought from the first barley harvested, begins to be offered on the second day of Pesah.  The mishnah teaches that on Pesah the world is judged as to how successful the produce harvest will be.
+<b>On Shavuot in respect to the fruit of the tree.</b>  On Shavuot the harvest of the fruits of the tree begins.  Specifically, this seems to be when grapes begin to ripen. Hence, according to the rabbis this is when the world is judged as to the harvest of fruits which come from the tree.
+<b>On Rosh Hashanah all the people of the world pass before Him like a division of soldier [a numerus], as it says, “He who fashions the hearts of them all, who discerns all their doings” (Psalms 33:15).</b>  This is the central section in this mishnah, the reason why this mishnah is here in Rosh Hashanah. This is the source where we learn for the first time that on Rosh Hashanah the world is judged.  The image that the mishnah creates is that all the people of the world, perhaps even non-Jews, come in front of God one at a time and God inspects them.  He is like their general and they are his soldiers, standing at attention and being judged by Him.  The word “numerus” was interpreted by Saul Lieberman, the premier Talmudic scholar of the past century, as referring to an army division.  The version in the mishnah was understood by later talmudic scholars who did not know Greek, as “kivne meron”, understood to refer to the sheep on the Meron mountain.  This led to the well-known image of people passing in front of God like sheep passing in front of a shepherd.  The point of the prooftext is that God who is the creator of the human heart, also looks at what a person does and judges each one according to his deeds.
+<b>And on Sukkot they are judged in respect of rain.</b>  In the land of Israel, the rainy season begins on Sukkot.  Hence, on Sukkot the people of the world are judged as to how much rain will come. To this day, on Sukkot Jews begin to pray for rain and add into the Amidah an acknowledgement that God causes the wind to blow and the rain to come down.  Rain and prayers for rain is a topic to which we will return when we learn tracate Taanit.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>There are six months [at the beginning of which] messengers go out.<br>On Nisan because of Pesah;<br>On Av because of the fast.<br>On Elul because of Rosh Hashanah.<br>On Tishri because of the setting of the festivals.<br>On Kislev because of Hanukah.<br>And on Adar because of Purim.<br>When the Temple stood, they used also to go out to report Iyar because of Pesah Katan (Pesah.</b><br>In order to know what date holidays would fall on, people would need to know on what day the previous month had begun.  This would be simple for those living in and near Jerusalem because they could immediately find out whether the court had decreed the thirtieth day of the previous month to be Rosh Hodesh.  Our mishnah teaches that they used to send out messengers from Jerusalem so that people who lived further away could also find out when Rosh Hodesh had been decreed.  However, they did not send these messengers out every month of the year, only on months which contained holidays.<br>Most of this mishnah is self-explanatory. Note that messengers do not need to go out for Shavuot because once one knows when Pesah falls, the date of Shavuot is known automatically.<br>Section two:  “The fast” refers to Tisha B’av, the Ninth of Av.<br>Section three:  Messengers would go out on Elul so that people would be able to celebrate Rosh Hashanah on the thirtieth day of Elul, lest that day turns out to be the first of Tishri.  They would celebrate Rosh Hashanah on the next day as well, lest Elul has thirty days.<br>Section four: On Tishri the messengers would go out so that people would know when Yom Kippur and Sukkot fall.<br>Section seven:  Pesah Sheni was the second chance for people to offer the pesah sacrifice if they did not offer it the first time (see Numbers 9:10-11 and Mishnah Pesahim 9:1).  After the destruction of the Temple this holiday lost any practical relevance.  We should note that by noting that when the Temple stood messengers went out for Pesah Sheni the mishnah also teaches that for all of the rest of the holidays the messengers still go out.  After the destruction of the Temple only Pesah Sheni has lost its relevance.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+As we stated in the introduction, in mishnaic times they set the calendar each month based on the testimony of witnesses who would come to the central court and testified that they had seen the new moon.  Our mishnah teaches that on two months in order to testify that they had seen the new moon the witnesses may even profane Shabbat.  We shall explain what is special about these two months below.  What is critical is that the rabbis perceived it to be so critical that these witnesses come on time that they even allowed Shabbat to be profaned.  Shabbat might need to be profaned if, for instance, the witnesses had to travel beyond the Shabbat border limit (2000 cubits outside of the city) in order to get to Jerusalem to testify.
+<b>On account of two months they profane Shabbat: on account of Nissan and Tishri, for on those months messengers go forth to Syria and in them the dates of the festivals are fixed.</b>  There are two months on which witnesses may come to testify even if they need to profane Shabbat Nissan and Tishri.  This is because on those days the dates of the holidays, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Pesah and Shavuot were set. Once we know when the first day of Nissan is we know when Pesah is, and we know when Shavuot will be as well.  Similarly, once we know when the first of Tishri falls, we know when Yom Kippur and Sukkot fall.  The messengers would go forth to Syria, meaning to the Diaspora, and let them know when the festivals would fall.  Therefore, it was critical that they find out what day Rosh Hodesh was as soon as possible.
+<b>When the Temple stood they used to profane Shabbat for all the months, in order that the sacrifice might be offered on the right day.</b>  In the Temple there was a special sacrifice offered on Rosh Hodesh.  Hence, it was essential that the witnesses testify on time every month so that the sacrifice would be offered on the correct day.  Hence, they could profane Shabbat in order to get to Jerusalem to testify concerning any of the months. .
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah contains a qualification of yesterday’s mishnah, regarding when the witnesses may profane Shabbat in order to travel to Jerusalem to testifythat they had seen the new moon.
+<b>Whether [the new moon] was seen clearly or was not seen clearly, they profane Shabbat on account of it. Rabbi Yose says:  if it was been seen clearly they do not profane Shabbat on account of it.</b> According to the first opinion in the mishnah, witnesses can profane Shabbat in order to come to Jerusalem and testify regardless of whether the new moon was seen clearly or not.  Rabbi Yose holds that if the new moon was seen clearly in a place somewhat far away from Jerusalem, then it was probably seen clearly in Jerusalem as well.  In such a case witnesses would have seen it in Jerusalem and since they live close, they would not have to profane Shabbat in order to testify. Therefore those outside of Jerusalem should assume that those closer had testified and that they don’t need to come and profane Shabbat. The other sages disagree, reasoning that if you tell witnesses not to profane Shabbat when the new moon is seen clearly, they might end up not profaning Shabbat when the moon is not seen clearly, i.e. when they should profane Shabbat. Anything that might lead to witnesses not coming when their testimony is needed is discouraged.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah illustrates a concept which we mentioned at the end of yesterday’s mishnah-- anything that might lead to witnesses not coming when their testimony is needed is discouraged.
+<b>It happened that more than forty pairs of witnesses were on their way [to Jerusalem] and Rabbi Akiva detained them in Lod. Rabban Gamaliel sent to him saying: if you prevent the multitude [from coming to provide testimony] it will turn out that you cause them to stumble in the future.</b> The mishnah describes Rabbi Akiva in Lod holding back witnesses who were about to make their way to Jerusalem to testify that they had seen the new moon.  Rabbi Akiva detains the because he reasons that there is no need for so many witnesses to testify; after all, two would seem to be sufficient.  Commentators add that this transpired on Shabbat.  Rabbi Akiva did not think it was necessary for forty pairs of witnesses to profane Shabbat, when only two were needed, so he held the unneeded pairs back. Rabban Gamaliel rebuked Rabbi Akiva for his actions.  Witnesses who were told not to go to Jerusalem to testify would not go next time they see the new moon, and perhaps that time they would actually be needed.  This is what he means when he says, “cause them to stumble.”
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with a father and a son jointly testifying that they had seen the new moon.  In normal cases the testimony of relatives may not be joined in order to add up to the required two witnesses.  However, some sages, as we shall see below, hold that in the case of testifying regarding the new moon the joint testimony of relatives is acceptable.
+<b>If a father and a son have seen the new moon, they should both go [to Jerusalem], not that they can join together as witnesses but so that if one of them is disqualified the other may join with another witness.</b>  According to the first opinion in this mishnah, a father and son’s testimony is not joined together.  However, they should nevertheless travel together to Jerusalem, for should one of them be disqualified, the other one will be able to testify along with another person.  In tomorrow’s mishnah we will learn what might disqualify a person from testifying.
+<b>Rabbi Shimon says that a father and son and all relatives are eligible to testify to the appearance of the new moon.</b>  Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that relatives may indeed testify that they saw the new moon.  According to Rabbi Shimon the testimony for the new moon works differently from testimony in other legal matters where relatives’ testimony is not joined together.
+<b>Rabbi Yose said: it happened once that Tobias the doctor saw the new moon in Jerusalem along with his son and his freed slave. The priests accepted his evidence and that of his son and disqualified his slave. But when they appeared before the court they accepted his evidence and that of his slave and disqualified his son.</b>  Through the story in this section we learn that there was a debate between the priests and the “court” of sages concerning two issues regarding testimony as to the new moon: the ability of relatives to jointly testify and the ability of a freed slave.  The priests accepted the evidence of the relatives, probably because each of these people is himself fit to testify.  The sages, which the mishnah calls here “the court,” accepted that of the freed slave, because they generally hold that freed slaves were allowed to testify. There is some interesting history which we may glean from this mishnah.  First of all, the mishnah portrays two courts in Jerusalem, one that was made up of priests and one made up of others who evidently were not priests. The non-priest court is portrayed as being more authoritative.  Second, it is noteworthy that the priests reject that of the freed slave while the other court accepts it.  This may connect in general with the high value the priests placed on lineage.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is basically taken word for word from Sanhedrin 3:3.  It is brought here again because the previous mishnah mentioned the possibility that a person would be disqualified from testifying.
+<b>And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]: A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce, and slaves.</b>  There are five categories of people who are disqualified from acting as witnesses or judges:  1) The first is a dice player, in other words a gambler.  Such a person cannot testify since he is known to be a liar, especially with regards to monetary matters.  Another reason is that he doesn’t participate constructively in building society. 2)  A usurer.  He is also probably considered to not be trustworthy in monetary matters. 3)  A pigeon racer.  Racing pigeons was a form of gambling. 4)  Those who sell produce grown during the Seventh Year. According to Lev. 25:5-7 produce grown in the fields during the Seventh Year may be eaten by its owners, but it may not be sold.  One who therefore sells Seventh Year produce is engaging in forbidden business practices which according to our mishnah make him not trustworthy to testify or act as a judge. 5)  A slave referring to a slave who has not been freed.
+<b>This is the general rule:  any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they too are not qualified.</b>  The rules of acceptance of testimony from slaves are the same as those for a woman.  Any case where they did allow the testimony of a woman, such as testimony concerning the death of another woman’s husband (see Mishnah Yevamot 15:4), they also allowed the testimony of a slave
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah lists several different ways in which a person might come to profane Shabbat on his way to testify that he saw the new moon. The mishnah is adamant a person on his way to Jerusalem may profane the Shabbat in any way that he needs to in order to ensure that he makes it to Jerusalem in order to testify.
+<b>If one who has seen the new moon and is not able to walk [to Jerusalem] on foot, he may be brought on a donkey or even in a litter [on Shabbat].</b>  Here we learn that a person may transgress two prohibitions in order to make it to Jerusalem to testify:  he may ride on a donkey and others may carry him on a litter, which is a violation of carrying.
+<b>If they [the witnesses] are likely to be attacked, they may take sticks [to defend themselves].</b>  They may also carry sticks in order to defend themselves against bandits or highway robbers.
+<b>If the distance is great [to Jerusalem], they may take provisions with them, since for as much as a night and a day’s journey they were allowed to profane Shabbat and go out to testify concerning the new moon, as it says:  “These are the appointed times of the Lord … which you shall proclaim at their appointed time” (Leviticus 23:4).</b>  They can also carry food with them on their way to Jerusalem.  The witnesses were allowed to travel for up to an entire night and one day in order to get to Jerusalem, meaning if they saw the new moon in the evening when Shabbat began, and they were far enough away that they would have to walk the entire night and all day and then just get there when Shabbat was over, they were still allowed to go.  Of course, if they lived farther away than they couldn’t come because they wouldn’t make it in time anyway. The rabbis’ adamancy that one must go to Jerusalem to testify and that one can break Shabbat in order to do so is justified by a midrash.  The Torah says that the appointed times, the festivals, must be proclaimed at their appointed time.  This is understood by the rabbis to mean that it is essential that the court declare the new moon on time so that the festivals would fall at the correct time. If doing so requires one to profane Shabbat, so be it.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+As I have written on several occasions, the setting of the calendar was a point of great conflict between ancient Jewish sects, namely the Pharisees, Essenes, Sadducees and Dead Sea sect (which may overlap with the Essenes or Sadducees, or perhaps even both).  This mishnah alludes to this strife when it relates that the minim, a generic rabbinic term for sectarians, tried to disrupt the process by sending false witnesses. It sounds like they wanted to trick the Pharisees into declare the new month on the wrong date.  Even though the sectarians in this mishnah probably used a solar calendar, they still wanted to disrupt the Pharisaic/rabbinic calendar.  It’s as if they wanted to say even according to your own system, you’re celebrating on the wrong day.
+<b>If they don’t know him [the one who came to testify], they send another with him to testify concerning [his reliability].</b>  This section expresses the current halakhah (the halakhah that was valid at the time of the mishnah).  When someone was sent to testify concerning the new moon, if this person was not known to the central court that accepted the testimony, then they would send with him a person who was known to the court to vouch for the witness’s reliability. Basically, he would tell the court that the witness was a “kosher yid” and not a sectarian.
+<b>Originally testimony concerning the new moon was accepted from anyone. When the minim disrupted this, it was decreed that testimony should be received only from persons known [to the court].</b>  This explains the background to the need for a second person to testify as to the reliability of the witness.  Before the sectarians “ruined” it, everyone was trusted to testify. We should note that this mishnah is probably more “historiographical” than “historical.”  That is to say, the mishnah teaches us how to view history, more than it teaches us what actually happened. The mishnah presents a pre-minim history in which everyone could trust one another; it was a moment of unity between all Jews. The minim came and disrupted this unity and now we have to suspect one another.  Obviously a person hearing this mishnah will know how undesirable the minim really are.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Above in 1:3 we learned that the court used to send messengers out to let the people in the Diaspora know that the new month had been decreed.  In our mishnah we learn that this custom was the result of another attempt by a non-Pharisaic/rabbinic group of Jews to disrupt the calendar.
+<b>Originally they used to light torches [to signal that the new month had been decreed]. When the Samaritans disrupted this, they decreed that messengers should go out.</b> In tomorrow’s mishnah we shall learn how they used to light torches, or beacons, in order to let everyone in the Diaspora know that a new month had been decreed.  Here we learn that they stopped doing this because the Samaritans disrupted the process by lighting torches on the night of the thirtieth even though the court had not decreed a new month.  Again we see that one of the sects attempts to have other Jews, Jews who follow a rabbinic calendar, celebrate their holidays on the wrong day.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>How did they light the torches? They used to bring long poles of cedar and reeds and olive wood and flax fluff and they tied them all together with a string. And someone used to go up to the top of a mountain and light them with fire and wave them back and forth and up and down until he saw the next one doing the same thing on the top of the second mountain; and so on the top of the third mountain.</b><br>This mishnah teaches how the torches were made and how the signals were passed from the top of one mountain to another.  The mishnah is simple to understand and so no commentary appears below.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>At what places did they light the torches? From the Mount of Olives [in Jerusalem] to Sartaba, and from Sartaba to Gripina, and from Gripina to Havran, and from Havran to Bet Biltin. From Bet Biltin they did not move, but rather waved [the torch] back and forth and up and down until he saw the whole of the diaspora before him lit up like one bonfire.</b><br>This mishnah continues to discuss the torches used to let the Jews in the Diaspora know that the new month had been declared in Jerusalem.  The mishnah traces a progression from the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem all the way to Babylonia. At Bet Biltin the chain of torches would end for there the one waving the torch in Bet Biltin would be able to see all of the Diaspora lighting their torches in response. The Talmud relates that “Diaspora” here refers to Babylonia.<br>Since the mishnah is self-explanatory, I will again refrain from commenting.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah deals with the witnesses who have come to Jerusalem to testify that they saw the new moon.
+<b>There was a large courtyard in Jerusalem, and it was called Bet Yazek. There all the witnesses used to assemble and the court would examine them there. They would make large feasts for them there so that they would have an incentive to come.</b>  When the witnesses came to Jerusalem they were directed to a courtyard called Bet Yazek.  The court would examine them there, as we shall see in tomorrow’s mishnah.  Interestingly, they would make a big feast for them there in order to encourage people to come to testify.  We again see how important the testimony concerning the new moon was for the rabbis.
+<b>Originally they used not to leave the place the whole day, but Rabban Gamaliel decreed that they could go two thousand cubits from it in any direction. And these were not the only ones [who could go two thousand cubits in any direction], but also a midwife who has come to deliver a child, or one who comes to rescue from a fire or from bandits or from a river in flood or from a building that has fallen in   all these are like residents of the town, and may go two thousand cubits [on Shabbat] in any direction.</b>  This section deals with the laws of Shabbat border limits, a subject which we learned in greater depth in Eruvin (see especially 4:1-3, for laws which deal with the topic addressed here.)  A person is not allowed to go more than 2000 cubits outside of the city in which he began Shabbat.  If he does so, he is stuck in his place and can’t walk more than another four cubits.  In the case in our mishnah, witnesses came to Jerusalem to testify on Shabbat. This was permitted and indeed encouraged, as we saw in 1:4-5.  Our mishnah teaches that originally such a person could not leave the courtyard because a person who leaves his Shabbat border cannot move more than four cubits in any direction.  The courtyard which was enclosed was considered to be all within four cubits. However, this would discourage people from coming to Jerusalem to testify because they would know that they would be stuck there the whole day. In order to encourage people to come to testify, Rabban Gamaliel the elder, a sage who lived while the Temple still stood, decreed that they could move about like the rest of the people of the town.  This means that they could move around all of Jerusalem and even go outside of the city 2000 cubits in any direction. The mishnah goes on to say that the same ruling applies to anyone who left his Shabbat border for a permitted reason.  So a midwife who leaves her Shabbat border limit to go and deliver a child may now go all around the city she came into and may go 2000 cubits in all direction.  The same is true for anyone who leaves his Shabbat border limit in order to save property. Since we want to encourage people to do so, they are allowed this concession.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+As we mentioned in yesterday’s mishnah, once the witnesses arrived in Jerusalem they were brought to Bet Yazek where the court would examine them.  Our mishnah teaches how they were examined.
+<b>How do they test the witnesses?<br>The pair which arrives first, they test them first.</b>  The first pair to get there would be the first pair that would be examined first come, first serve.
+<b>They bring in the older of them and they say to him, “Tell us, how did you see the moon   in front of the sun or behind the sun?  To the north of it or to the south? How high was it, and in which direction was it inclined?  And how broad was it?” If he says [he saw it] in front of the sun, his evidence is rejected.</b>  As is usual in all court cases, they interrogate the witnesses one at a time.  The examination would consist of several questions which would ascertain that the witnesses had actually seen the new moon.  At the time of the new month (the molad, in Hebrew) the moon is found at sundown in the west near the sun.  From that time on it goes further east away from the sun, until at the fifteenth of the month it is in the east opposite the sun.  Right before the new moon it is west of the sun and it sets before the sun such that it looks as if it is “in front of the sun.”  After the new month (the molad) it sets after the sun and is further from the horizon and it looks as if it is “after the sun.”  Therefore, if he says that he saw it “in front of the sun,” he has not seen the new moon and his testimony is rejected. One who stands looking west at sunset, where he might see the new moon at the right time of the month has the north to his right and the south to his left.  Therefore, when they ask north and south, what they mean is was the moon to the right or left of the sun.
+<b>After that they would bring in the second and test him. If their accounts were the same, their evidence was accepted.</b>  If the witnesses said the same thing, then there testimony is accepted.
+<b>And the other pairs were only questioned briefly, not because they were required at all, but so that they should not go out disappointed, so that they would be regular in coming [to testify].</b>  Once two witnesses have testified, there is no need for more testimony from other witnesses.  Nevertheless, the court didn’t want to just turn the rest of the pairs of witnesses away because if they did so they might not come back in the future reasoning that there was no need for their testimony. Therefore, they asked the witnesses a few questions in order to make them feel that their long trip to Jerusalem had not been in vain.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah describes the ceremonial declaration made by the court when they sanctified the new month.  We should note that we have seen several occasions in which ritual was used by the rabbis in order to engage in polemics against a rival Jewish group such as the Sadducees.  For example the ritual of the water libation was emphasized, as was the ritual in which they harvested the new barley, the omer, on the day after the first day of Pesah. Our mishnah may also describe a ritual used for at least slightly polemical purposes.
+<b>The head of the court says, “Sanctified,” and all the people answer after him, “Sanctified, sanctified.”</b>  The ritual consists of the head of the court announcing that the new moon had been sanctified and the rest of the people responding, “Sanctified, sanctified.”
+<b>Whether the new moon is seen at its proper time or not at its proper time they sanctify it. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that if it is not seen as its proper time they do not sanctify it for heaven has already sanctified it.</b>  According to the first opinion, this ritual is performed whether or not the court sanctifies the new moon on the thirtieth day of the previous month (the proper time), turning the previous month into a twenty-nine day month, or whether the previous month lasted a full thirty days and the new moon was not declared until the thirty-first day (not its proper time). Remember, a month can have only 29 or 30 days. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that the ceremony was performed only if the month was sanctified at its proper time, meaning on the thirtieth day.  If the new moon was not seen on this day, then it is as if heaven had sanctified the month by allowing it to last the full thirty days. Since heaven sanctified it, the court does not perform the ritual declaration. We should note that beneath the surface of this mishnah we again can detect the conflict between the court determining the new month by making a ritual declaration and the calendar being set by the cycles of nature that is heaven sanctifying the new month.  As we have seen, this was a major debate among Second Temple Jews, and echoes of the debate seem to still be found in post-Temple rabbinic literature.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Rabban Gamaliel had diagrams of the moon on a tablet [hung] on the wall of his upper chamber, and he used to show them to the unlearned and say, “Did it look like this or this?”<br>It happened that two witnesses came and said, “We saw it in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.” Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said:  they are lying witnesses. When they came to Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel accepted them.<br>On another occasion two witnesses came and said, “We saw it at its proper time, but on the night which should have been the new moon it was not seen,” and Rabban Gamaliel accepted their evidence. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: they are lying witnesses. How can they testify that a woman has given birth when on the next day her belly is between her teeth (? Rabbi Joshua to him: I see your argument.</b><br>This mishnah and the next one contain one of the most famous stories in rabbinic literature.  In it Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua clash over accepting what seems to surely be false testimony as to the new moon.<br>Section one: This section sets up the character of Rabban Gamaliel, who will play the lead role in the story.  Rabban Gamaliel was the head of the court in Yavneh and he was the rabbi who would ultimately decide whether the witnesses’ testimony would be accepted and the new month sanctified.  In order to facilitate this, he would have pictures of the moon in its different phases hung up in his upper chamber, where he would interrogate them.<br>Section two:  The story now begins.  Two witnesses come in front of some rabbi (it’s not clear whom they come in front of) and tell him that they saw the new moon in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.  This is impossible and hence Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas calls them lying witnesses.  The witnesses proceed on to Yavneh and come in front of Rabban Gamaliel, who sanctifies the month based on their testimony.  We as readers of the mishnah are properly shocked wasn’t Rabban Gamaliel the very rabbi who was especially fervent in checking the witnesses?<br>The same thing seems to happen a second time.  Again witnesses offer impossible testimony, which Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas promptly rejects, this time using a graphic analogy.  In Hebrew there is a pun which is lost in translation. The word for pregnant and the word for a thirty day month are the same.<br>In the final line of the mishnah, a new character is added, Rabbi Joshua.  Rabbi Joshua agrees with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, setting the stage for his eventual clash with Rabban Gamaliel in tomorrow’s mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is the continuation of yesterday’s story of Rabban Gamaliel, Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas and the sanctification of the new moon based on erroneous testimony.  At the end of yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Joshua agrees with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas that the witnesses’ testimony was false and therefore Rabban Gamaliel should not have accepted it.
+<b>Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim.</b>  The action begins with Rabban Gamaliel’s response to Rabbi Joshua. Rabban Gamaliel sends one of his messengers (henchmen) to him and demands that he come to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which he believes to be Yom Kippur, the day after Rabban Gamaliel would have celebrated Yom Kippur.  This is a harsh decree, one delivered by the politically potent Rabban Gamaliel, to the wise yet weak Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Joshua would be forced to desecrate the holiest day of the year by carrying his stick and money in the public domain and by going beyond the Shabbat border limit.  Indeed, if Rabbi Joshua believes that that day is Yom Kippur, he would have to ignore Rabban Gamaliel’s demands rather than transgress such a serious prohibition.
+<b>Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are [proclaimed] at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these.</b>  Rabbi Akiva hears about the goings on and comes to Rabbi Joshua to offer him advice.  His advice is based on a midrash. The verse seems to imply, at least according to its midrashic reading, that the holidays are holy whether or not the court decrees them to fall at their “proper” time or at the wrong time.  In other words, Yom Kippur is when the court determines it to be, and not when it really should fall according to some predetermined “heavenly” time.  If the court makes a mistake and sanctifies the new month of Tishri on the wrong day, then ten days later is still Yom Kippur.  Rabbi Akiva is basically telling Rabbi Joshua that even if Rabban Gamaliel is wrong with regard to the new month, the day upon which he declares Yom Kippur to fall is still Yom Kippur.
+<b>He [Rabbi Joshua] then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9).  Why were the names of the elders not mentioned?  To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses.</b>  Rabbi Joshua now goes to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, the same sage who said in yesterday’s mishnah that the witnesses were lying.  This is a fascinating move.  He is basically going to Rabbi Dosa and asking him, “What should I do?  I agreed with you, and see what a predicament it has gotten me into.”  Rabbi Dosa, like Rabbi Akiva, provides him with a midrash which supports him going to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which he thinks is Yom Kippur.  Rabbi Dosa’s midrash teaches that the court that stands at every generation is equal in authority to that of Moses and his court.  This is the ultimate statement of rabbinic authority.  One shouldn’t think that the current rabbinic courts are inherently of a lesser status. Although the sages that live today may not be as close to the source, God and the Torah, as was Moses, their authority is nevertheless not diminished.
+<b>He [Rabbi Joshua] took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student   my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision.</b>  Peace is finally made and rabbinic unity is restored.  Rabbi Joshua is either convinced by Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, or he realizes that he has no choice but to go to Rabban Gamaliel.  Rabban Gamaliel greets him with open arms, praising him for both his wisdom and importantly, also for his acceptance of his decree.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Although this is the first mishnah of a new chapter, it is really the last mishnah to deal with the sanctification of the new month.  It contains a few final rules governing how the court decides that the new month should be declared.
+<b>If the court and all of Israel saw it, if the witnesses were examined and there was no time left to say “Sanctified” before it grew dark, then the month is impregnated (it has thirty.</b>  In this case, it was abundantly clear that the new month had arrived, but the court was not able to convene and sanctify it before it grew dark and the thirtieth day of the previous month was over.  The mishnah rules that since the court did not have time to declare the new month sanctified, it is not sanctified and Rosh Hodesh will have to wait for the next day.  We should note that again we see here the ideology that the court, that is humans, are what create the reality of the new month, and not the astronomical phenomenon itself.
+<b>If the court alone saw it, two of them should stand up and testify before them, and then they can say, “Sanctified, sanctified.”</b>  If the members of the court themselves were the only ones who saw the new moon, then those who saw the new moon should testify in front of the others (at least three others) that the new moon had been sanctified, and then the court may declare, “Sanctified, sanctified.”
+<b>If three people saw it, and they [themselves] are the court, two [of them] should stand up and they should seat some of their colleagues with the one [remaining judge], and they [the two] should testify before them and they can then say, “Sanctified, sanctified.” For an individual is not trusted [to sanctify the new month] by himself.</b>  Here, only three people see the new moon, and they themselves are the court that is supposed to declare that it is sanctified. Since the same people that function as witnesses cannot function as judges, two of them must find two other people to take their place as judges and then they may testify that they saw the new moon.  The mishnah concludes by noting that one person cannot serve as the sole decision maker with regard to the declaration of the new month.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b> This mishnah opens the second half of tractate Rosh Hashanah, which deals mostly with the laws of the shofar and the shofar blasts, as well as the special mussaf prayers for Rosh Hashanah.  In this mishnah rabbis debate what animals’ horns may be used for the shofar
+<b>All shofars may be used except for that of a cow, because it is a keren.</b>  According to the first opinion, all shofars can be used on Rosh Hashanah expect for the horn of a cow, because the horn of a cow is not called a shofar but rather a keren, which is a Hebrew word for horn.  The reason that we require a horn called a shofar is that Leviticus 25:9 uses the word shofar in connection with Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year, and the rabbis say that this shofar is the paradigm for the shofar of Rosh Hashanah. The types of shofar that can be used are specifically that of a ram (an ayil in Hebrew), which is usually bent, and that of an ibex (a yael in Hebrew), which is straight.
+<b>Rabbi Yose said: Are not all shofars called keren as it says, “When they make a long blast with the ram’s keren [horn]?” (Joshua 6:5).</b>  Rabbi Yose points out that the horn of a ram is also called a keren, as proven from the quote from Joshua.  And if a ram’s horn can be used even though it is called a keren, why can’t the horn of a cow be used? The other rabbis don’t respond to Rabbi Yose in the mishnah.  The Talmud, however does provide their reponse.  The rabbis respond to Rabbi Yose that all horns of animals are called both keren and shofar, whereas that of a cow is called only keren. This means that in order for a horn to be used it has to be called a shofar but not necessarily exclusively.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah discusses the shofar used on Rosh Hashanah.
+<b>The shofar used on Rosh Hashanah was that of an ibex, straight, and its mouth was overlaid with gold.</b>  According to the mishnah, the shofar used on Rosh Hashanah should be from the horn of an ibex.  The Talmud explains that the straightness or simplicity of the shofar is symbolic of the straightness of a person’s prayers.  In the Talmud Rabbi Judah disagrees with this mishnah and says that one should use the bent horn of a ram, symbolic of how a person bends down in humility before God.  The Rambam points out that the horn of the ram also reminds us on Rosh Hashanah of the sacrifice of Isaac, when Isaac was eventually replaced by a ram. The mouthpiece of the shofar was overlaid with gold.  According to the Talmud, this relates to the shofar that was blown in the Temple.  Covering the mouthpiece of the shofar is no longer allowed.
+<b>There were two trumpets, one on each side of it. The shofar gave a long blast and the trumpets a short one, since the commandment of the day was with the shofar.</b>  The idea that there were trumpets accompanying the shofar is expressed also in Psalms 98:6, “With trumpets and the sound of a shofar you shall make blasts before God the King.”  Again, the Talmud relates that this was done only in the Talmud.  Priority was given to the sounds of the shofar over those made by the trumpets.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with the shofar and trumpet blasts that are sounded on public fast days.  These were fast days that were declared when Israel experienced distress, mostly the distress of not having enough rain.  Tractate Taanit, the next tractate which we shall learn, is dedicated to this subject.
+<b>On [public] fast days they used shofars of rams, curved, the mouths of which were covered with silver, and there were two trumpets in between them.</b>  The basic function of this mishnah is to distinguish the Rosh Hashanah ritual, described in yesterday’s mishnah, with the public fast day ritual described here.  This distinction was probably created and then emphasized in the Mishnah in order to preserve the integrity of both occasions.  On public fast days the shofar was made from a ram’s horn, which was curved and instead of its mouth being covered with gold, it was covered with silver.  On Rosh Hashanah the trumpets were on the outside, whereas on public fast days they were in between the shofars.
+<b>A short blast was made with the shofars and a long one with the trumpets, because the mitzvah of the day is with trumpets.</b>  This section again offers a distinction between the Rosh Hashanah practice and the public fast practice.  On Rosh Hashanah the mitzvah is with the shofar so its blasts are longer.  On the public fast day the mitzvah is with the trumpets, so their blasts are longer.  This is derived from Numbers 10:9 according to which the Israelites should blast trumpets when going out to war. From here the rabbis derive that in all cases of public distress, they should sound blasts with trumpets.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Leviticus 25:8-16 deals with the Jubilee year, the fiftieth year after seven cycles of seven years.  Verse 9 states, “Then you shall sound the horn loud; in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month the Day of Atonement you shall have the horn sounded throughout your land.”  Our mishnah deals with the rituals of this day which begins the Jubilee year.
+<b>The Jubilee is the same as Rosh Hashanah when it comes to blowing [the shofar] and blessings.</b>  According to the first opinion, the laws of blowing the shofar and the recitation of blessings are the same for the Jubilee year as they are for Rosh Hashanah of every year.  The blessings referred to here are the special blessings recited as part of the Mussaf Amidah. We will learn more about these blessings in chapter four.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: on Rosh Hashanah they blow with [a shofar of] rams and on Jubilees with [a shofar] of ibex.</b>  Rabbi Judah says that different animals’ horns are used for the two shofars.  The one for Rosh Hashanah is that of a ram, whereas on the Jubilee they use the horn of an ibex. We should note that Rabbi Judah disagrees with the opinion in mishnah three above, according to which on Rosh Hashanah we use the horn of an ibex.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with the physical wholeness of the shofar.  It teaches what flaws in the shofar render it invalid.
+<b>A shofar which has split and then he stuck it together is not valid.</b>  According to the Talmud, this refers to a shofar which has split lengthwise.  One cannot use it by gluing it back together.  This is either because the shofar won’t sound good, or because air will inevitably escape not only from the end but from the sides as well.
+<b>If he stuck together fragments of shofars, it is not valid.</b>  In this case, someone tries to glue together pieces of a broken shofar to make one whole one. This doesn’t work for the same reasons it doesn’t work to glue together one shofar.
+<b>If there was a hole in a shofar and he closed it up, if it interferes with the blowing it is not valid, but if it does not it is valid.</b>  In this case the shofar was not cracked, as was the shofar in yesterday’s mishnah, but just had a hole in it.  If after he patches it up the shofar sounds okay, then it may be used.  If not, it may not be used.  Others explain that the words “if it interferes with the blowing” refer to before the hole is closed.  If the hole prevents the sound before it is patched up, he may not use the shofar even after it has been patched up.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah teaches two halakhot:  1) one must hear the sound of the shofar and not an echo of the sound of the shofar; 2) when hearing the shofar one must have intention to hear it for the sake of the fulfillment of the commandment.  The mishnah illustrates cases where one may have heard a shofar blast and nevertheless not fulfilled his obligation
+<b>One who blows into a pit or a cistern or a jug, if he heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he hears the echo [also], he has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Here someone blows a shofar into an echo-producing chamber, such as a pit, a cistern or a jug. The mishnah rules that in order to fulfill his obligation he must be sure that he heard the sound of the shofar and not the echo of the sound of the shofar. There is a geonic commentary on this mishnah, according to which the mishnah refers to a time of persecution when the Romans outlawed the public observance of commandments. They hid their shofar blasts to avoid the authorities.
+<b>And also one who was passing behind a synagogue or if his house was next to the synagogue and he heard the sound of the shofar or of the megillah [being read], if he directed his heart (had, then he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. Even though this one heard and this one heard, this one directed his heart and this one did not.</b>  This section teaches that when hearing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, or Megillat Esther on Purim, one must have the intention of hearing them in order to fulfill the commandment.  A person might be walking behind a synagogue and hear them blow the shofar and then think to himself, “Great, I’ve just fulfilled my commandment” (and no need to go to shul today!). The mishnah rules that the act of hearing the shofar is not sufficient.  One must have the intention to hear in the fulfillment of a commandment.  The final section of the mishnah notes how strongly this commandment is connected to intention both the one who walked behind the synagogue and the one who actually went to the synagogue heard the same exact thing, yet one has fulfilled his obligation and one has not.   Tomorrow’s mishnah will contain the central rabbinic statement as to the role that intention plays in halakhah.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that for one to fulfill one’s obligation of hearing the shofar, one must have the proper intention.  The first section of today’s mishnah provides an essential statement with regard to ritual and intention.  While ritual plays an extremely important role in Judaism, it is nevertheless considered only an external sign of internal intention and conviction.  The Mishnah brings up several cases in the Torah where Moses seems to perform a magical ritual that aids Israel. The rabbis understand the magic to be a means to evoke intention and reflection upon God, and not to be a ritual that works regardless of the inner emotions and thoughts of the people of Israel.
+The second section of the mishnah teaches that those who cannot legally have intention, meaning the law considers them unable to have such thoughts concerning the fulfillment of commandments, cannot aid others in fulfilling their obligation to hear the shofar.
+<b>“And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand Israel prevailed” etc. (Exodus 17:1.  Did the hands of Moses wage war or break [Israel’s ability] to wage war? Rather this teaches that as long as Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven they prevailed, and if not they fell.</b>  The stories and the lessons of this mishnah are taught quite straightforwardly. Moses’s raising of his hands does not itself cause Israel to conquer Amalek and when his lowering of his hands does not itself cause the Israelites to lose.  Their success and failure in war is a function of their belief in God and their subjecting themselves to God.  We might note that Moses’s hands are held up high, causing Israel to look up at them. This is intended to cause Israel to think about God, who dwells in Heaven.  It might be no accident that the rabbis choose this example and the next to illustrate their attitude towards ritual and intention.
+<b>Similarly, “Make for yourself a fiery serpent and mount it on a pole.  And if anyone who is bitten shall look at it, he shall live” (Numbers 21:8).  Did the serpent kill or did the serpent keep alive? Rather, when Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven, they were healed, and if not their [flesh] would melt away.</b>  The copper serpent (in Hebrew “seraph”, a word whose meaning is somewhat uncertain) is not a magical charm healing Israel from the wounds of the serpents sent by God to attack them as a punishment for their constant complaining.  Rather the serpent is symbolic again of God it causes Israel to look up and to direct their hearts to God.  Only by having the right intention can Israel be healed.
+<b>A deaf-mute, a lunatic and a minor cannot cause others to fulfill their religious obligation. This is the general principle: one who is not himself obligated in the matter cannot perform it on behalf of others.</b>  According to rabbinic law, deaf-mutes, lunatics and minors are not in full control of their mental faculties, and hence cannot have proper “intention.”  This causes them to be exempt from the performance of commandments that require intention, such as the hearing of the shofar.  Since they themselves are not obligated to blow the shofar, they cannot blow the shofar in order for others to hear and thereby fulfill their obligation. This is true in all cases a person who is not obligated to perform a commandment cannot himself perform that commandment on behalf of others.  One must be personally obligated in order to fulfill the more communal role of fulfilling a mitzvah for other people.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with blowing the shofar on Shabbat.  It is somewhat unclear why blowing the shofar on Shabbat should be prohibited at all.  After all, as we shall see, some places did blow the shofar on Shabbat. It seems to me that there may have been a desire among the sages to prevent the celebration of Rosh Hashanah from overshadowing that of Shabbat.  In the Talmud they provide a midrashic reason why one shouldn’t blow the shofar on Shabbat.
+<b>If Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbat, they would blow the shofar in the Temple but not in the country.</b>  There are two different explanations for “Temple” and “country.” Some commentators explain “Temple” to refer to all of Jerusalem and “country” to refer to anywhere outside of Jerusalem. According to this interpretation, they allowed the shofar to be blown in Jerusalem because there they would know whether the new moon had been sanctified.  In other words, they would know for certain whether it was Rosh Hashanah.  Outside of Jerusalem they couldn’t be sure, so they wouldn’t blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah.  Assumedly, at this period there were already two days of Rosh Hashanah so that they could blow the second day. The other explanation is that “Temple” refers to the Temple itself, and “country” refers to all places outside of the Temple. They allowed the shofar to be blown in the Temple because rabbinically prohibited activities are allowed on Shabbat in the Temple.  However, this interpretation does not fit particularly well with the mishnah which we shall learn tomorrow.
+<b>After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai decreed that it should be blown [on Shabbat] in every place where there was a court.</b>  This begins a series of decrees made by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leaders of the rabbis after the destruction of the Second Temple. The other decrees will appear in the following mishnayot. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the shofar should be blown on Shabbat in all places where a rabbinic court, according to some a Sanhedrin, sat.  This in essence bequeathed the authority of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem on all subsequent courts, no matter where they sat.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer said: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai decreed for Yavneh only. They said to him: both Yavneh and any place where there is a court.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the broad application of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s decree (takkanah) and limits it only to the court in Yavneh.  Rabbi Eliezer may be claiming that it is only Rabban Yohanan’s personal authority that allowed him to make such a decree.  Other courts, which will not be able to count Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai as one of them, will not have such authority. The other rabbis reject Rabbi Eliezer’s statement.  The decree bestowed authority on all subsequent courts and not just on the one in Yavneh. We might say that the authority is vested in the office and not in the individual rabbi, charismatic and learned as he may be.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>There was another way in which Jerusalem was greater than Yavneh, that in every city which could see [Jerusalem] and hear and was near and could get to Jerusalem, they used to blow [on Shabbat], whereas in Yavneh they used to blow in the court only.</b> In Yavneh they blew the shofar on Shabbat only in the place where the court sat.  However, in Jerusalem they would blow the shofar on Shabbat not only in Jerusalem but in all of the surrounding areas as well.  This distinction between Jerusalem and Yavneh may have been an attempt to preserve the uniqueness of the authority of Jerusalem and its court. While Yavneh may have received some of the authority of Jerusalem, it was still not as great. The beginning of the mishnah implies that there was another way in which Jerusalem was greater than Yavneh, besides that listed in the Mishnah.  The Talmud asks what this was, and answers that in Jerusalem they would blow the shofar on Shabbat both in front of the court and not in front of the court.  In Yavneh the shofar was blown on Shabbat only in front of the court.  This may be a way of saying that while the court in Yavneh was authoritative, the city did not have inherent sacredness, as did Jerusalem.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In the previous mishnah we learned of a decree that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai made after the destruction of the Temple.  The next two mishnayot contain other such decrees.
+If this mishnah seems familiar it is because we just learned it in Sukkah 3:12.  The below commentary is the same as that found there.
+Leviticus 23:40 reads, “On the first day you shall take...and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.”  The beginning of the verse states “on the first day” and the end of the verse says, “seven days.”  From here the rabbis derived that the mitzvah of taking the lulav is for a different amount of time in different places. They read the second half of the verse as applying to the Temple, “before the Lord your God.”  Hence, the lulav was taken up for seven days in the Temple.  Outside of the Temple, or according to other commentaries, outside of Jerusalem, the lulav was taken for only one day.
+<b>In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only.</b>  When the Temple still stood the lulav was taken in the Temple (or in Jerusalem) for seven days and outside of the Temple for only one day, as explained in the introduction.
+<b>When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple,</b>  However, when the Temple was destroyed, there was a problem.  If people only observed the commandment for one day, they would soon forget that originally the commandment was observed for seven days, at least in some places.  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leading rabbinic figures after the destruction of the Temple, decreed therefore that the lulav should be taken up for seven days, in memory of the Temple.
+<b>[He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce].</b>  Having related one of the decrees that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai made after the destruction of the Temple, the mishnah now relates another, similar decree.  We need to note a little bit of background to understand this.  On the second day of Pesah, when the Temple still stood, the Omer offering of barley was harvested and brought to the Temple and waved by a priest.  After this day, it was permitted to eat from the new grain harvest (see Leviticus 23:9-14).  Since people outside of Jerusalem would not know precisely when the Omer had been offered, they would wait at least half of the day before they would eat from the new harvest.  When the Temple was destroyed and they could no longer offer the Omer, the rabbis derived from the Torah that the new produce could be eaten as soon as the second day of Pesah began.  In other words, without an Omer sacrifice the day itself allowed the new harvest.  Again, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai perceived a problem.  If people would eat from the new harvest immediately on the 16th of Nissan, when the Temple is rebuilt they would forget that they need to wait until the Omer is offered.  Therefore he decreed that the new produce could not be eaten for the entire day. It is interesting to note that the rabbis who lived close to the destruction of the Temple believed that it would speedily be rebuilt.  Just as they began working on the rebuilding of the First Temple only 70 years after its destruction, rabbis who lived in the first and early second century probably assumed that their Temple would also be rebuilt in a short time.  However, after the Bar Kokhba revolt was crushed, it probably began to dawn on many that the realistic chances of the Temple being speedily rebuilt were not good.  The hopes of course never died, but this type of legislative activity making decrees lest the Temple be rebuilt quickly, were more characteristic of the pre Bar Kokhba period.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+There are two more decrees mentioned in this mishnah, both which have to do with the testimony concerning the new month.
+<b>Originally they used to accept testimony with regard to the new moon during the whole day.</b>  Originally, it didn’t matter when during the day the witnesses came to testify that they had seen the new moon there testimony was always accepted.
+<b>On one occasion the witnesses were late in arriving, and the Levites went wrong in the daily hymn.</b>  The problem with accepting witnesses all day is that when witnesses successfully testify they turn the current day into Rosh Hodesh, or in the case of Tishri, Rosh Hashanah. If they come late in the day, it may be difficult to correctly observe the special Rosh Hodesh rituals because time is simply running.  The mishnah relates that this happened one time.  The witnesses came late in the day and the Levites in the Temple sang the wrong Psalm.  The Levites would sing a Psalm while the Tamid (Daily) sacrifice was being offered.  There was a different song depending on whether it was a regular day or whether it was Rosh Hodesh. In the morning they sang the regular Psalm for that day, and then because the witnesses hadn’t yet come they sang the same Psalm for the afternoon Tamid. When the witnesses came, it turned out that they never sang the correct Psalm.
+<b>They therefore decreed that testimony should be accepted only until the afternoon [sacrifice].</b>  They therefore decreed that the testimony of the witnesses would only be accepted until minhah time, which was the time when they would offer the tamid sacrifice (see Pesahim 5:1).
+<b>If witnesses came after the afternoon sacrifice that day should be kept as holy and also the next day.</b>  This section refers to Rosh Hashanah, which is not only Rosh Hodesh but also a sacred holiday.  On Rosh Hashanah they would observe the thirtieth day of the previous month as a holiday meaning they wouldn’t work.  If witnesses came before minhah, then that day would count as Rosh Hashanah, and the next day would not be Rosh Hashanah.  If they came later than minhah, then that day would not have counted as Rosh Hashanah (even though they already refrained from work) and the following day will be observed as Rosh Hashanah.  This is the origins of the custom to observe Rosh Hashanah for two days.
+<b>After the destruction of the temple Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that testimony with regard to the new moon should be received during the whole day.</b>  After the destruction of the Temple there was no more need to worry about the Levites singing the wrong song.  Therefore, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai restored the rule to its original state, and allowed the acceptance of testimony for the entire day.
+<b>Rabbi Joshua ben Korha said: this further did Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decree, that not matter where the head of the court might be, the witnesses should have to go only to the place of the assembly.</b>  According to Rabbi Joshua ben Korcha there was yet another decree made by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai.  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that when the witnesses came to testify all they had to do was come to the place of assembly, which is where the court sat.  They did not have to chase after the head of the court if he was in another place.  This decree seems to be another way of saying that the authority of the court is determinative and not the individual authority of its leader.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The Amidah prayer said at Mussaf on Rosh Hashanah is the longest and most unique Amidah of the year.  It contains the three blessings which begin every Amidah “patriarchs”, which concludes ‘magen Avraham’; “powers”, which concludes ‘mehayeh hametim’; and “the sanctification of the day”, which concludes ‘hael hakadosh’, or ‘hamelekh hakadosh’ between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.
+The Amidah ends with the same three prayers with which it always ends, “blessing of the Temple service (begins with R’tzeh) and “thanksgiving” (begins with modim) and the blessing of the priests (sim shalom it is called the blessing of the priests because it begins with the priestly blessing).
+There are three middle blessings, but the rabbis in our mishnah disagree about what these are.  There are actually four topics which are mentioned in these three blessings. The first is the sanctification of the day, a blessing said on every festival. The other three are unique to Rosh Hashanah. They are “kingship (Malkhuyot)”, “Remembrance (Zikhronot)” and “Shofarot.”  Each of the sections contains the recitation of relevant biblical verses, along with a liturgical composition and a concluding blessing.
+In our mishnah the rabbis argue about the composition of these three middle blessings.  We should emphasize that they agree concerning the content, and they agree that there are three and not four blessings. They also all agree that we blow the shofar three times during the Amidah.  They also agree that “kingship” is not a separate blessing.  In the points of agreement are far greater than the points of disagreement.  They disagree only concerning which blessing “kingship” is combined with, and when precisely we blow the shofar.
+You might want to look at a Rosh Hashanah Mahzor while studying this mishnah.
+<b>The order of blessings [in the Musaf Amidah of Rosh Hashanah]:<br>He says “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verses with them and does not blow [the shofar]. The sanctification of the day and blows [the shofar], the remembrance-verses and blows [the shofar], and the shofar-verses and blows [the shofar].  Then he says the blessing of the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priests, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.</b>  According to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri the special kingship verses are combined with the “sanctification of the day” blessing but the shofar is not blown during this blessing.  He then recites the sanctification of the day blessing (kedushat hayom) and finally the other two special Rosh Hashanah blessings remembrance and shofarot.  He blows the shofar during all three of these blessings.  He then completes the Amidah in the normal fashion.
+<b>Rabbi Akiva said to him: if he does not blow the shofar for the kingship-verses, why should he say them?</b>  The kingship-verses are one of the three sections of the Amidah that are unique to Rosh Hashanah.  According to Rabbi Akiva, it wouldn’t make sense to recite these verses without blowing the shofar.
+<b>Rather he says:  “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verse with the sanctification of the day and blows the shofar, then he says the remembrance-verses and blows, and the shofar-verses and blows. Then he says the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priest.</b>  Therefore, Rabbi Akiva suggests a different order.  First he should recite the normal three blessings which begin each Amidah, without any deviation. Then he includes “kingship” with the sanctification of the day blessing, and blows the shofar as well. Then he recites the other special Rosh Hashanah blessings remembrance and shofarot. He then completes the Amidah in the normal fashion. Our Rosh Hashanah Mussaf Amidah today follows that of Rabbi Akiva.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+As the core of the three special Mussaf Amidah blessings, “malkhuyot (kingships)”, “zikhronot (remembrances)” and “shofarot” we recite verses from the Torah that use the roots of these three verses.  Our mishnah contains several debates concerning the quantity and order of these verses.
+<b>They do not recite less than ten kingship [verses], ten remembrance [verses], and ten shofar [verses].</b>  According to the first opinion, each section must include ten verses.  This is the current practice.  We recite three verses from the Torah, three from the Prophets and three from the Writings and then we conclude with a final verse from the Torah.
+<b>Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: if he said three from each set he has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that as long as one has recited three verses, assumedly one from each of the three sections of the Tanakh, he has fulfilled his duty.
+<b>They do not mention kingship, remembrance and shofar verses of punishment.</b>  The words for “king”, “remember” and “shofar” sometimes appear in connection with punishment. These verses should not be used as part of the liturgy, for what seems like obvious reasons.
+<b>He begins with [verses] from the Torah and concludes with [verses] from the prophets.</b>  According to the first opinion, he begins by reciting verses from the Torah and ends with verses from the Prophets.  In between the two, he recites verses from the Writings.
+<b>Rabbi Yose says: if he concludes with [a verse] from the Torah he has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Rabbi Yose seems to say that while he should conclude with a verse from the Prophets, as was stated in the previous opinion, nevertheless if he concludes with a verse from the Torah he has discharged his obligation. However, the Talmud understands Rabbi Yose as saying that it is actually preferable to end with a verse from the Torah. Due to this understanding of his words, the accepted halakhah is that we conclude with a verse from the Torah.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+On days upon which Mussaf is recited (festivals and Rosh Hodesh) there are two people who function as the “shaliah tzibbur”, prayer leader the first does Shacharit and the second does Mussaf.  Our mishnah determines which of these people blows the shofar and which of them recites the Hallel.
+<b>The one who passes before the ark on the festival of Rosh Hashanah: the second one blows the shofar.</b>  On Rosh Hashanah, the shaliah tzibbur for Mussaf is the one who blows the shofar.  It is interesting that the mishnah needs to dictate this.  It seems that at some early point in the development of Jewish liturgy, the Shacharit Amidah for Rosh Hashanah also included liturgy in which it would have been appropriate to blow the shofar.  In our current liturgy, there is no place in the Shacharit Amidah to do so, and hence it is quite obvious that the shaliah tzibbur for Mussaf blows the shofar.
+<b>On days when Hallel is said, the first one recites the Hallel.</b>  On days on which Hallel is recited, the Shaliah Tzibbur for Shacharit is the one that recites the Hallel.  Today we practice this by having Hallel fall in between Shacharit and Mussaf.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah contains a few more rules concerning the shofar.
+<b>[For the sake of] the shofar of Rosh Hashanah one is not allowed to go past the [Shabbat] border, nor remove a pile of rocks, nor climb a tree, nor ride on an animal, nor swim on the water.</b>  In this section there is a list of activities that are rabbinically (derabanan) prohibited on Shabbat. That is to say, they are prohibitions that are less significant than those prohibited by the Torah.  Nevertheless, the mishnah states that one does not transgress these prohibitions in order to be able to blow the shofar.  For instance, if one needs to go past the Shabbat border limit (2000 cubits outside of the city) to get a shofar or to hear one blown, one should not do so.  If the shofar is under a pile of rocks, one may not clear them away in order to get to them.  One may not climb a tree if the shofar was in a tree (this is beginning to sound like a famous Dr. Seuss book I would not hear it under rocks, I would not hear it in a tree). Nor may one ride an animal or swim in water to get to the shofar.  The important issue here is the principle one does not transgress any commandments in order to hear the shofar.
+<b>One may not cut it, neither with an instrument forbidden because of shevut, nor with an instrument forbidden by a negative commandment.</b>  Should one need to cut the shofar in order to make it usable for blowing, one may not do so, neither with a type of knife prohibited derabanan on account of shevut (mandated resting) nor with a type of knife prohibited deoraita from the Torah.  A knife that is typically used to cut something like a shofar would be prohibited from the Torah, while one not typically used for such purposes would be prohibited derabanan, a lesser prohibition.
+<b>But if he wants to pour wine or water into it he may do so.</b>  One may pour wine or water into the shofar in order to improve its sound. This is not considered to be a violation of the Shabbat and Yom Tov prohibition of “making a vessel.”
+<b>They need not prevent children from blowing the shofar [on Rosh Hashanah]; on the contrary, they may help them until they learn how to blow.</b>  Children are not obligated to hear or blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah. Since they are not obligated, we might have thought that they should not blow the shofar at all because the shofar is a form of work on Rosh Hashanah. The mishnah dispels this notion and states that not only do we not stop children from blowing the shofar, but we encourage them to practice and we teach them until they know how to blow.  The Talmud adds that even on Shabbat we can help them practice.
+<b>One who is just practicing has not fulfilled his obligation, and the one hears [the blast made] by another when practicing has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Since the previous section discussed practicing, this mishnah concludes by teaching that practicing does not count as blowing the shofar in order to fulfill one’s obligation.  A person who on Rosh Hashanah blows the shofar as practice has not fulfilled his obligation because he did not have the proper intention.  Similarly, one who hears the shofar from a person practicing has not fulfilled his obligation, because one must hear the shofar being blown by someone who intends to fulfill his and others’ obligation.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The final mishnah of Rosh Hashanah deals with the order of the shofar blasts.  In the commentary on this mishnah I will note some of the ways in which the halakhah has developed over the centuries.
+<b>The order of the blasts:  three sets of three each.</b>  There are nine core blasts of the shofar during the Mussaf  Amidah three during each section, malkhuyot, zikhronot and shofarot.  Each set consists of one tekiah, one teruah, followed by another tekiah.  A set therefore consists of a teruah, preceded by and followed by a tekiah.
+<b>The length of a teki’ah is equal to three teru'ahs, and the length of a teru'ah is equal to three yevavot.</b>  A tekiah is a longer blast than a teruah and a teruah is a longer blast that a yevavah, which is a short staccato blast. In the Talmud there is a doubt about whether a teruah consists of a few medium length notes or a greater number of staccato notes.  Today we call the few medium length notes “shevarim” and we call the shorter notes “teruah.”  Since it is unclear which we should do, we do both (Jews love to compromise).  We also do one set that is “shevarim-teruah” because a teruah may include both the shevarim and the teruah.  This doubt concerning the doubt about how the blasts are to be done is the main way in which the original nine blasts have been expanded.  The service also includes sets of shofar blasts that are not done throughout Mussaf.
+<b>If one prolonged the first teki'ah so that it went directly into the second, it counts only as one.</b>  At the end of one set of blasts is a tekiah. There is also a tekiah at the beginning of another set. If the shofar blower starts a tekiah at the end of one set and continues to blow long enough that it could have counted for the tekiah at the beginning of the next set, then it only counts as one tekiah.  Each shofar blast must be integral and a doubly long blast counts only as one.
+<b>One who has blessed [recited the Amidah] and then a shofar is given to him, he sounds a teki'ah teru'ah teki'ah three times.</b>  As we stated above, the shofar blasts are integrated into the Amidah. However, the obligation to blow the shofar is independent of the obligation to recite the Mussaf prayer.  Therefore, if one does not have a shofar while reciting the Amidah, and then gets one later on, he should blow the shofar even though he has already recited the Amidah.
+<b>Just as the shaliah tzibbur is obligated, so every single individual is obligated. Rabban Gamaliel says:  the shaliah tzibbur (communal prayer causes the whole congregation to fulfill their obligation.</b>  The final section contains an extremely important debate concerning the function of the shaliach tzibbur, literally translated as “the agent of the community.”  According to the first opinion, every person is individually obligated to recite the entire Amidah.  The Talmud comments that according to this opinion, the function of the shaliach tzibbur is to fulfill the obligation for a person who doesn’t know how to recite the Amidah.  One who knows how to recite the Amidah cannot have his obligation fulfilled on his behalf by the shaliah tzibbur. According to Rabban Gamaliel the shaliach tzibbur’s recitation of the Amidah fulfills the obligation of the entire community. The question then must be asked why should the other members of the community even bother reciting the Amidah?  The answer given is that while the rest of the community recites the Amidah, the shaliah tzibbur has time to prepare to recite the Amidah. Congratulations!  We have finished Rosh Hashanah. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Mishnah Rosh Hashanah had two main sections, one about the sanctification of the new month, Rosh Hodesh, and the other about Rosh Hashanah itself.  The Jewish calendar and its connection to the moon should remain an important way in which we connect ourselves to the cycles of nature, to the waxing and the waning of the new moon.  In modern times, women have reclaimed Rosh Hodesh as a woman’s holiday.  I hope that learning this mishnah has aided in these celebrations and as a reminder to everyone that Rosh Hodesh is not just the recitation of Hallel but is a monthly renewal of our calendar. Rosh Hashanah remains one of the central holidays in the Jewish calendar.  I hope that by learning the Mishnah we can help return to the holidays roots which are a reminder of God’s kingship and God’s salvation. And again, as always, congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah.  We are getting close to having finished half of the Mishnah.  May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more! Tomorrow we begin Taanit.

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Taanit/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,281 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Taanit
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה תענית
+Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Taanit
+
+Introduction
+
+Tractate Taanit is about the practice of fasting and offering special prayers in times of trouble, especially during a drought.  The Bible is full of examples of the Israelites fasting, praying and engaging in other forms of supplication in order to entreat God to respond to their needs.  The most famous of these cases is probably Esther who calls for a three-day fast to ensure her success and safety when entering in to speak to the king.  See also Joel 1:14; Jeremiah 14:11-12; Jonah 3:5-8; Nehemiah 9:1; Daniel 9:3 and others.  
+Numbers 10:9 was used by the rabbis as toraitic proof for this concept.  The verse states, “And when you come into battle in your land against the foe who assails you, you shall let out a long blast with the trumpets and be remembered before the Lord your God and be rescued from your enemies.”  According to the rabbis the specific example of blowing trumpets in times of war is a paradigm for all times of trouble.  There is a positive commandment in the Torah to cry out to God in all times of trouble, to blow shofars and to fast as well.  The days of fast described in our mishnah were accompanied by special prayers, by trumpet and shofar blasts and sometimes by work-stoppages.  
+As we study the tractate we shall constantly note how important rain was in the land of Israel in mishnaic times.  Rain is still critical to the well-being of those who live in this arid region, although modern technology has to a certain measure alleviated short-term crises.  In ancient times, a season with no or little rain would have been an utter disaster. Crops would have failed, livestock would have died or been in danger of dying, and people would not have had enough water to drink.  By the sheer amount of material that the rabbis devote to this subject, we can see just how important this was for their lives.
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+During the rainy season during the second part of the Amidah, in the paragraph about God’s power, we add in the words “He causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall.” In our mishnah Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua debate when we begin to say this phrase.
+<b>From when do they mention the powers of [bringing] rain? Rabbi Eliezer says: from the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot]. Rabbi Joshua says: on the last day of the Festival [of Sukkot].</b>  This is the question that is debated in this mishnah when do we begin to mention that God has the power to bring rain?  Both sages agree that we begin during Sukkot they argue over whether we begin mentioning rain on the first or on the last day of Sukkot.
+<b>Rabbi Joshua said to him: Since rain on the Festival is nothing but a sign of [God’s] curse why should he mention it?</b>  Rain on Sukkot is considered to be a rebuke by God (see Sukkah 2:9) because it prevents one from being able to dwell (eat and sleep) in the Sukkah. Therefore, Rabbi Joshua argues, it does not make sense to mention God’s rain-giving powers at this time.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer said to him: I also did not say to request [rain] but to make mention, “He causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall” in its due season.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer agrees that rain on Sukkot is a curse.  However, he responds that he was not suggesting that we ask for rain at the beginning of Sukkot, but rather that we just mention that God has the power to bring rain in its due season.  We ask for rain in the ninth blessing of the Amidah when we say, “And provide dew and rain (ten tal umatar).”
+<b>He replied to him: if so one should at all times make mention of it.</b>  Rabbi Joshua responds that if all we are doing in this prayer is mentioning rain, why not mention it all throughout the year.  The fact that Rabbi Eliezer agrees that we only mention it during the rainy season means that he too agrees that it is connected with actual rain.  If so, then he should also agree that we shouldn’t mention it until the time when we hope that the rainy season will actually begin, that is at the end of Sukkot when we are done sitting in the sukkah. The halakhah is according to Rabbi Joshua.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The previous mishnah discussed the concept of “mentioning rain.”  This mishnah adds in a discussion of the subject of “asking for rain.” This refers to the addition of the words “and give dew and rain (veten tal umatar)” in the ninth blessing of the Amidah, which is called “The Blessing of the Years.”
+<b>They don’t pray for rain except close to the rainy season.</b>  In Israel there is a clearly defined rainy season, which lasts roughly from Sukkot to Pesah. It does not rain in the summer in Israel.  The mishnah teaches that we request rain only in the season in which it is normal for it to rain.  There are probably two reasons for this.  First of all, rain in the wrong season can destroy crops, so one shouldn’t ask for something if it will cause damage.  Secondly, we ask God for nature to perform in a predictable and stable fashion, for it to run its course. We do not ask God for miracles, nor do we rely on them or expect them.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: One who goes down before the ark on the last day of Sukkot the last one mentions [rain], the first does not; on the first day of Pesah, the first mentions, the last does not.</b>  This section returns to discuss the “mentioning of rain” that comes during the second blessing of the Amidah.  In yesterday’s mishnah Rabbi Joshua said that we begin to mention rain on the last day of Sukkot.  Rabbi Judah in our mishnah agrees and merely points out that there are two prayer leaders on a festival, one for Shacharit and one for Mussaf.  On the last day of Sukkot the prayer leader, one who “goes down before the ark” for Mussaf begins to mention rain. The prayer leader for Shacharit does not.  The opposite is true at the other end of the spectrum.  On the first day of Pesah, the prayer leader for Shacharit still mentions the rain, but the prayer leader for Mussaf does not.  In other words, at both times the change is made during Mussaf.  This means that there is almost no point in the festival during which rain is mentioned rather dew is basically mentioned all of the time.  This is because dew, which falls during the summer months, is a blessing during the festival because it doesn’t disrupt people’s travel. While rain is good for the land, we all still love a bright sun shiny day!
+<b>Up until when do they request rain? Rabbi Judah says:  Until Pesah is over. Rabbi Meir says:  Until Nissan is over, as it says, “Now He makes the rain fall in the first month, early rain and late rain” (Joel 2:23).</b>  In this section two sages disagree with regard to how long in the season we ask for rain.  Rabbi Judah says that we ask until Pesah is over.  We should note that Rabbi Judah’s opinion in this section seems to disagree with what he said before, that we stop mentioning rain on the first day of Pesah.  The Talmud resolves this problem by saying that there are two different versions of Rabbi Judah’s opinion within this mishnah. Rabbi Meir says that we ask for rain until the entire month of Nissan is over. He uses the verse from Joel as a prooftext that rain is a blessing in the entire first month, the month of Nissan.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah teaches when we begin to ask for rain in the ninth blessing of the Amidah.  We should note that at the very beginning of the rainy season we begin to mention rain but we do not yet ask for it.  Later, when the rainy season should really begin in full force, we begin to ask for rain.  In our prayers we slowly build up to really petitioning God for rain.
+<b>On the third of Marheshvan they [begin to] ask for rain.</b>  The third of Marheshvan (today called Heshvan), the second month of the year, is when we begin to ask for rain. This is when the rainy season is supposed to begin.
+<b>Rabban Gamaliel says: on the seventh, fifteen days after the Festival [of Sukkot] so that the last of the Jews reaches the river Euphrates.</b>  Rabban Gamaliel delays asking for rain until the seventh of Marheshvan, which gives pilgrims who were making their way back from Israel time to reach the river Euphrates in Babylonia.  It would not be appropriate to begin to ask for rain while Jews were still returning from performing the important mitzvah of making a pilgrimage to the land of Israel and to the Temple in Jerusalem.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah proceeds chronologically from the last mishnah.  There we learned that on either the third or seventh of Marheshvan they add into the Amidah a request for rain.  If that prayer has not been answered by the seventeenth of Marheshvan, then a series of progressively more stringent fasts begins.
+<b>If the seventeenth of Marheshvan came and no rain fell, individuals begin to fast three fasts.</b>  The first set of fasts is not observed by the entire community, but rather only by individuals, probably rabbis and other public figures.
+<b>They eat and drink after it gets dark and they are permitted to do work, to bathe, to anoint themselves with oil, to wear shoes, and to have marital relations.</b>  The lightness of the fasts is expressed in the fact that the night before the fast they can eat the fast only begins in the morning. Furthermore, the only prohibition that they take upon themselves is eating and drinking.  All of the other prohibitions that sometimes apply on fast days do not apply here. The idea of progressively making the fasts more stringent is an interesting idea.  We relate to God as we would to another human being.  If we really want something, but it is something that we are going to need frequently, we don’t pull out all of the stops immediately.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues with the next series of fasts.
+<b>If Rosh Hodesh Kislev came and no rain fell the court ordains upon the community three fasts; they may eat and drink while it is still dark and it is permissible to do work, to bathe, to anoint oneself with oil, to wear shoes, and to have marital relations.</b> The only difference between these fasts and the previous three is that these are observed by the entire community.  Other than that, everything is still the same.  They eat and drink the night before, and only eating and drinking is prohibited.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues with the series of increasingly more stringent fasts.
+<b>If these passed and there was no answer, the court decrees three more fasts on the community.</b>  If after the first three communal fasts there is still no rain, then the court decrees another set of three fasts on the community.
+<b>They may eat and drink [only] while it is still day; they may not work, bathe, anoint themselves with oil, wear shoes, or have marital, relations.  And the bathhouses are closed.</b>  These fasts are stricter because they begin the night before.  The mishnah refers to the day before the fast and rules that one can eat only while it is still day. On these fasts all of the major prohibitions apply. These are the same prohibitions that apply on Yom Kippur. The bathhouses are closed because there is no need for them to be open.  Also, this is a very public sign of mourning.
+<b>If these passed and there was no answer the court decrees upon the community a further seven, making a total of thirteen.</b>  If these three fasts are not effective, then another seven are decreed, bringing the total number of communal fasts to thirteen.
+<b>These are greater than the first, for on these they blast the shofar and they lock the shops.</b>  All of the prohibitions from the previous three fasts still apply and new practices are added.  They blow the shofar as a sign of distress (on this practice see the introduction to the tractate).  They also close the shops as a further sign of communal mourning and distress.
+<b>On Mondays the shutters [of the shops] are opened a little when it gets dark, but on Thursdays they are permitted [the whole day] because of the Shabbat.</b>  The problem with closing the stores is that people need to buy supplies for the next day.  Therefore they allow the stores to open their shutters a little bit towards the end of the day on Monday.  On Thursday the stores are allowed to be opened all day because people need to buy food for Shabbat.  We can see a value statement being made here.  As important as it is to pray for rain and as dire as the situation of drought may be, people must remember and be able to honor the Shabbat.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In the final mishnah of this chapter we learn what the community would do if all of their fasts had not worked and God still had not sent rain.
+<b>If these passed and there was [still] no answer then they restrict engaging in business, and in building, planting, betrothal and marriage, and in greeting one another, as if they were people undesirable to God.</b>  By this point, it seems that the fasts just aren’t going to be effective.  They therefore go into a state of semi-mourning. They cut back on the normal creative activities of life, perhaps as a symbol that all around them there is death.  By this point, the crops have probably died, many animals have probably died and people’s health and wellbeing is in great danger.  Indeed, it seems that God has rejected the entire community; it is as if He put them into a state of excommunication. The community is in despair and until things are set aright, they make few plans for the future.
+<b>The individuals go back to fasting anew until the end of Nisan.</b>  The community no longer takes upon itself more fasts.  Only those individual leaders, those who began fasting at the outset, go back to fasting.  These are people whose merit was supposed to help bring rain in the first place.  In essence, the failure to achieve rain is partially seen as being their fault.
+<b>If Nisan passes and then rain falls this is a sign of a curse, as it is written, “It is the season of the wheat harvest.  [I will pray to the Lord and He will send thunder and rain; then you will take thought and realize what a wicked thing you did in the sight of the Lord when you asked for a king” (I Samuel 12:17).</b>  If Nisan, the last rainy month passes, and then it rains, this too is perceived as a curse.  Rain in Nisan in the land of Israel will further damage the crops.  It is if God is being particularly cruel, not giving rain at the proper time and then giving it at the improper time.  The prooftext demonstrates quite clearly that rain at the improper time is a way of God rebuking the people of Israel.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b> In the previous chapter we learned about the series of fast days declared in order to petition God for rain.  In this chapter we learn the rituals that were observed on those days.
+<b>What is the order [of service] for fast days?<br>They take the ark out to the open space of the city.</b>  They bring the ark with the Torah or Torahs outside to the open space where they will have a very public ceremony.  This is part of their attempt to achieve as broad of a spectrum of involvement as possible.
+<b>And they put ashes on the ark and on the head of the Nasi and on the head of the head of the court (av bet din).</b>  The leaders of the community ceremonially put ashes on the heads of the two main leaders of the community and on the ark as well.  It seems that by putting ashes on the ark, it is as if they were putting ashes on God’s head as well.  Perhaps they might even be trying to show that God is sharing in Israel’s distress.  Theologically, this creates somewhat of a paradox we are praying to God for rain, rain that God is withholding, and yet at the same time we believe and we demonstrate that God is sharing in our distress.  The image is one of a parent, punishing a child and yet at the same time feeling the child’s pain.
+<b>And everyone [else] puts ashes on his own head.</b>  Everyone else puts ashes on their own heads.  The ritual application of the ashes is performed only for the two leaders and for the ark.
+<b>The elder among them says in front of them words of admonition, “Brothers, it does not say of the people of Nineveh, ‘And God saw their sackcloth and their fasting,’ but, ‘And God saw their deeds, for they turned from their evil way. (Jonah 3:10)’ And in the prophets it says, ‘And rend your heart and not your garments” (Joel 2:13).</b>  The elder among the people now reminds them that the external motions are meant to invoke inner teshuvah, repentance.  When God sees that Nineveh has repented, He says that He has seen their deeds and not that He has seen their external signs.  Similarly, Joel tells the people that they should rend their hearts, meaning tear their hearts so that they repent, and not merely their external garments.  Note that the mishnah emphasizes this message at the very point at which they are describing the intricate ritual of the Taanit.  It is as if they wish to warn us of the danger of slipping into “ritualism” a fixation on the external at the expense of the more important internal.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah continues to set the scene for the prayers recited on the special fast days.
+<b>[When] they stand up to pray they bring down before the ark an old man conversant [with the prayers], one who has children and whose house is empty [of food], so that his heart is complete prayer.</b>  This section describes the shaliah tzibbur, the prayer leader. It is critical for the success of the community’s prayers for them to choose a qualified shaliah tzibbur.  Their prayers will be mediated through him so as a community this is a consequential choice. The person chosen is not one who sings the best, but one whose prayers will be the most heart felt and who knows the liturgy.  The person has to be old, one who has gone through many of life’s experience and is therefore wiser.  The person has to have children.  A man who has children will pray even harder during a drought because he knows that without rain he will not be able to provide food for them.  As hard as it is for a person to suffer, it is even harder for one to watch his/her children suffer.  Finally, his house must be empty, for if his house were full, his prayers would be less personal.  In short, they would find an old poor person who has children.
+<b>He recites before them twenty-four benedictions, the eighteen recited daily, to which he adds six.</b>  This section begins to describe the contents of the prayers themselves.  The Amidah for fast days is made up of the 18 benedictions that are recited every week day, plus another six special blessings, which shall be enumerated in the following mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>These are they [the six additional benedictions:</b> There are six additional benedictions listed in our mishnah.  Our mishnah provides the scriptural verses that are recited as part of these benedictions.  In the following mishnah we will learn the additional liturgy attached to each benedictions, liturgy based on verses but composed by the rabbis.
+<b>Zikhronot, “If there is famine in the land, if there is pestilence” (I Kings 8:37). Shofarot, “The word of the Lord which came to Jeremiah concerning the droughts” (Jeremiah 14).</b>  The first two benedictions are the same as two of the three benedictions recited on Rosh Hashanah zikhronot, remembrances and shofarot.  These are appropriate for fast days because we are asking God to remember us and deliver us rain and we blow the shofar.  Malkhuyot, kingship, the other special benediction for Rosh Hashanah would not be appropriate for a fast day.
+<b>“In my distress I called to the Lord and He answered me” (Psalm 120). “I turn my eyes to the mountains” (Psalm 121). “Out of the depths I call you, O Lord” (Psalm 130). “A prayer of lowly man when he is faint” (Psalm 102).</b> The other four benedictions consist of Psalms.  While the mishnah only mentions the first verse, the meaning is that the entire Psalm is recited.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: he need not recite the zikhronot and shofarot, but instead he should recite [the following]:</b> Rabbi Judah disagrees with the recitation of the zikhronot and shofarot and instead offers two other appropriate biblical verses.
+<b>And he ends each [of the additional six] sections with its appropriate concluding benediction.</b> Each section is ended with an appropriate concluding benediction.  These are explicated in tomorrow’s mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah provides liturgical conclusions to the six additional benedictions for the Taanit Amidah.  Each conclusion here correlates with one of the seven benedictions in the previous mishnah.
+The basic structure of this liturgy is quite simple.  After having read a Psalm or other biblical passage, the benediction concludes by reminding God of another incident in which He answered Israel’s prayers.  It then ends with a concluding benediction.
+There are actually seven benedictions in our mishnah, but only six are additional. The first “who redeems Israel” is the seventh benediction in every weekday Amidah.  The following six are additional.
+<b>For the first he says:  He who answered Abraham on Mt. Moriah, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who redeems Israel.</b>  This first benediction is part of the weekday Amidah.  It refers to the binding of Isaac.
+<b>For the second he says:  He who answered our fathers at the Sea of Reeds, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who remembers all forgotten things.</b>  This is the additional benediction called “zikhronot”, remembrances, in the previous mishnah. It refers to the splitting of the Sea of Reeds.
+<b>For the third he says: He who answered Joshua in Gilgal, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who hears a blast.</b>  This is the additional benediction called “shofarot”.  The reference is to Joshua 6-7, when he blew shofarot to destroy the walls of Jericho.  In Joshua 5:10 we learn that the Israelites were encamped in Gilgal.
+<b>For the fourth he says:  He who answered Shmuel in Mitzpah, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who listens to cries.</b>  This is a reference to I Samuel 7:5-9 where Shmuel leads the people to a decisive victory over the Philistines.
+<b>For the fifth he says: He who answered Elijah on Mt. Carmel, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who hears prayer.</b>  This refers to I Kings 18:26-39 where Elijah challenges the false prophets and God sends a fire from heaven to demonstrate that He is the true and only God. Since this episode takes place on Mt. Carmel, it is appropriate for Psalm 121 which begins, “I lift my eyes up to the hills” (Psalms 121).  This Psalm is the heart of this benediction, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>For the sixth he says:  He who answered Jonah in the belly of the fish, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who answers in time of trouble.</b>  A reference to Jonah in the belly of the whale is appropriate to Psalm 130 used in this fifth benediction, since it begins, “Out of the depths I called to You Lord”.
+<b>For the seventh he says:  He who answered David and Shlomo his son in Jerusalem, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord Who has mercy upon the land.</b>  God rescued David in a time of famine (II Samuel 21: 1-14).  Shlomo prays to God for rain (I Kings 8:35) and to stop a famine (ibid, 37) and God answers him (ibid 9:3). The liturgist mentions David and Shlomo at the end because they were answered in the very type of occasion in which this liturgy was being recited famine or drought.  Had the benedictions gone in simple chronological order, David and Shlomo should have been before Elijah and Jonah. The concluding formula, “Who has mercy on the land” is appropriate because Psalm 102 which is part of the benediction includes the verse, “You will surely arise and have mercy on Zion” (v. 14).
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah relates a story in which some people used slightly different liturgy than was dictated in yesterday’s mishnah, and the rabbis objected to this liturgy.
+<b>It happened in the days of Rabbi Halafta and Rabbi Hanina ben Tradyon that a man passed before the ark [as shaliah tzibbur] and completed the entire benediction and they did not respond, “amen.” [The hazzan called out]:  Sound a tekiah, priests, sound a tekiah. [The shaliah tzibbur continued]:  He who answered Abraham on Mt. Moriah, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Then [the hazzan called out]:  Sound a teru'ah, sons of Aaron, sound a teru'ah. [The shaliah tzibbur continued]:  He who answered our fathers at the Sea of Reeds, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day.</b>  There seem to be several differences between the customs mentioned here and those in the previous mishnah. First of all the people did not answer “Amen.” According to the Talmud they answered “Blessed is the name of His Kingship forever and ever” instead (this is the line we say after the first line of the Shema).  Another difference, according to some commentators, is that they blew the shofar after every benediction, instead of blowing once at the end of the entire Amidah.
+<b>And when the matter came up before the sages, they said:  they only practiced in this way at the eastern gates on the Temple Mount.</b>  When the sages heard the report about these practices, they objected.  Note that they didn’t say that this practice was completely illegitimate, just that now that the Temple has been destroyed, our practice has changed slightly.  To me this seems very typical of rabbinic activity they preserve many earlier practices, but modify them slightly to denote the radical change in the world that occurred during the destruction of the Second Temple.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The priests were divided into twenty-four guards called “mishmarot.”  Each guard served in the Temple for one week.  Each guard was divided into subsections by the father’s house, and on each day a different father’s house would serve in the Temple.  Our mishnah deals with how these guards and father’s houses would act on fast days decreed because of rain.
+<b>On the first three fasts the men of the guard fast but do not complete their fast, and the men of the father’s house do not fast at all. On the second three fasts the men of the guard fast and complete their fast and the men of the father’s house fast but do not complete their fast. On the last seven both fast and complete their fast, the words of Rabbi Joshua.</b>  The fasts are divided into three sets, each set of fasts more serious than the previous one (see above 1:5).  The general principle in the mishnah is clear.  The “men of the guard” fast less than normal people. Thus during the first three fasts, while other people complete their fast, meaning they fast until the end of the day, the men of the guard end their fast early.  The reason is that since they are serving in the Temple, the day is somewhat of a personal holiday for them.  However, according to Rabbi Joshua, by the second set of fasts they are already acting like all other people. The “men of the father’s house” are those who are actually serving in the Temple on that day. Since they are actually working, it is an even greater day of celebration for them. To denote this, they don’t fast at all during the first three fasts, they semi-fast during the second set and only begin to fully fast during the last seven fasts.
+<b>The sages say: on the first three fasts neither fast at all. On the second three, the men of the guard fast but do not complete their fast, and the men of the father’s house do not fast at all. On the last seven, the men of the guard fast and complete their fast and the men of the father’s house fast but do not complete their fast.</b>  The sages agree with the general principles of Rabbi Joshua, they are just more lenient than he is at every stage.  For instance, on the first three fasts, even the men of the guard don’t fast at all.  And even on the last seven, the men of the father’s house don’t fully fast.  Assumedly, the other sages hold that serving in the Temple is a greater celebration than Rabbi Joshua thinks.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In the previous mishnah we learned that the men of the guard have to fast more on a Taanit then the “men of the father’s house.”  Today’s mishnah teaches another distinction between the two groups, one that has nothing to do with fast days.
+<b>The men of the guard are permitted to drink wine in the evenings but not during the day, but the men of the father’s house may not [drink wine] either on the day or on the preceding evening.</b>  A kohen may not be drunk while serving in the Temple.  Our mishnah discusses when during his week of service in the Temple a priest may drink. The men not serving in the Temple on a given day may drink at night.  Since there is little work to be done in the Temple at night, they are allowed to drink.  However, during the day they may not drink. This is because these kohanim may be asked to replace or supplement those members of the father’s house who are serving on that day. Since they might end up serving in the Temple, they may not drink. The men of the father’s house, who are actually serving in the Temple may not drink either at night or in the day.  Even though there is not much work to be done at night, there may be some work so they may not drink.
+<b>Both the men of the guard and the men of the ma'amad may not cut their hair nor wash their clothes, but on Thursday they may [do so] in honor of Shabbat.</b>  Corresponding to the twenty-four divisions of priests, there were twenty-four divisions of Israelites who would offer up special prayers while their corresponding division of priests were serving in the Temple.  These groups are called ma’amadim or a ma’amad.  The purpose of this set-up is to allow all of Israel to take part in the sacrificial service.  This week is special holiday-like time for each group.  In order to encourage the men of the ma’amad to cut their hair and wash their clothes before their week, they are not allowed to do so during this week.  As an aside, we should note that this is similar to the laws concerning the intermediate days of the festival (we shall learn these when we learn Tractate Moed Katan).  However, they may cut their hair and wash their clothes on Thursday in preparation for the coming of Shabbat.  Again we see what an important place Shabbat played in their lives.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In mishnaic times there existed a scroll called “Megillat Taanit”, which literally translates as “Scroll of Fasts.”  Despite its name, the scroll does not contain a list of fasts but rather a list of days on which it is forbidden to eulogize at funerals and/or fast.  Most of these days were commemorations of various military victories that occurred throughout the Second Temple period, from the Hasmonean period in the mid-second century B.C.E. through the Roman period in the subsequent centuries.  By Talmudic times these days were mostly forgotten and neglected. The only two that were still observed were Hannukah and Purim.
+<b>[With regard to every day] about which it is written in the Scroll of Fasts (Megillat “One may not eulogize” on the preceding day it is prohibited but on the following day it is permitted. Rabbi Yose says: it is forbidden [to mourn] both on the preceding day and on the following day.</b>  Concerning some of the days listed in Megillat Taanit, it says that one may not eulogize because eulogies are a sign of mourning.  For these days it is prohibited to eulogize also on the previous day, but not on the subsequent day. Rabbi Yose holds that for these days one may not offer a eulogy on the preceding or on the following day.
+<b>[On days about which it is written], “One may not fast” on the preceding day and on the following day it is permitted. Rabbi Yose says: on the preceding day it is forbidden but on the following day it is permitted.</b>  Days concerning which it is written “One may not fast” are somewhat lesser than days concerning which it is written “One may not eulogize.”  Therefore, for these days one may fast on both the preceding and following days. Rabbi Yose is again slightly stricter and allows fasting only on the following day but not on the preceding day.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah discusses on what day the series of fasts can begin.
+<b>They do not decree upon the community a fast to begin on a Thursday in order not to cause a rise in the market prices.</b>  There are several explanations as to why the market prices will rise if a series of fasts is decreed on Thursday.  One explanation is that if the store owners see people buying big meals on a Thursday, a meal for the end of the fast and large meals for Shabbat, they will think that a famine has struck and they will raise the prices. This is not a problem on Monday which is not next to Shabbat and so people are buying less food. Another explanation is that fasting so close to Shabbat will cause the storeowners to think that there will be a great panic and they will raise the prices. Yet another explanation is that since the villagers bring the food to sell in the market on Thursday, and they will not know that there is a fast ahead of time, they will not bring enough food for the Shabbat and the break-fast meal and the great demand will cause a rise in the prices. What I find interesting is that in times of crisis the rabbis were cautious not to impose additional financial hardships by decreeing fasts.
+<b>Rather the first three fasts are held [in this order], Monday, Thursday, and Monday; the second three, Thursday, Monday, and Thursday. Rabbi Yose says: just as the first three [fasts] should not begin on a Thursday so too neither the second [three] nor the last [seven].</b>  According to the first opinion, while the first three fasts do not begin on Thursday, the second set does.  Since the second set is not the beginning of the entire series but rather just a continuation of it, they need not fear that starting on Thursday will cause prices to rise. Rabbi Yose holds that none of the series of fasts begins on Thursday.
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with fast days that come into conflict with other various holidays.
+<b>They do not ordain upon the community a fast on Rosh Hodesh, on Hanukkah, or on Purim, but if they had already begun [a series of fasts and one of these days intervened] they do not interrupt [their fasts], the words of Rabban Gamaliel.</b>  According to Rabban Gamaliel, the court may not decree that a series of fast days begins on any of these holidays.  However, if a series of fast days had begun and then one of these holidays landed on a Monday or Thursday on which people were supposed to fast, they do indeed fast.
+<b>Rabbi Meir said: even though Rabban Gamaliel said that the [fasts] should not be interrupted he agrees that they should not complete their fasts.</b>  Rabbi Meir says that when Rabban Gamaliel said that Rosh Hodesh, Hannukah and Purim do not interrupt if the series of fasts had already begun, he nevertheless agrees that on these days they should not complete their fasts until the evening.  In this way people will signify in at least some way that the day still has some celebratory character to it.
+<b>And the same applies to the Ninth of Av should it fall on Friday.</b>  In the days in which the monthly calendar was not predetermined, the Ninth of Av (Tisha B’av) could fall on Friday.  Today this cannot happen.  If this happens they do not complete the fast, due to the honor accorded to Shabbat, so that they shouldn’t begin Shabbat with ravenous hunger.  Another reason seems to be that there is a mitzvah to add on to Shabbat at both the beginning and at the end.  If one fasts during this period he is diminishing the joy of a time of day when he should already be celebrating.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah teaches that sometimes we skip the order of fasts that was taught in the previous two chapters and we proceed straight to the last set of fasts, when we blow the shofar and fast for the entire day.
+<b>The order of public fasts mentioned above is enacted because of [lack of] the first rain, but if the crops have undergone [an unusual] change they sound a blast immediately.</b>  If it doesn’t rain during the first season in which rain should come, then we begin the series of fasts that was described in the previous two chapters.  However, if the crops start to look as if they are going bad, then the situation is obviously more serious.  In such a case we skip the first two sets of fasts and go right to the third set, the set where we blast the shofar.  The change of the crops appearance is far more serious and therefore it calls for an immediate sounding of the alarm.
+<b>Similarly, if the rain has stopped for forty days between one rainfall and the next, they sound a blast immediately, because it is a plague of drought.</b>  Another case in which we skip immediately to blowing the shofar and fasting for the entire day is a situation in which it began to rain but then stopped raining for forty days.  Such a situation foreshadows drought and therefore it is especially dangerous.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to discuss situations in which they would immediately skip to the latter stages of fasting.
+<b>If [rain] falls for crops but not for the trees, for the trees but not for crops, for both of these but not for cisterns, ditches and caves they sound a blast immediately.</b> Light rain is good for the crops because crops don’t need the rain to penetrate deep into the land.  However, it is not good for the trees.  Heavy rain is good for the trees but not good for the crops.  Finally, it requires very heavy rain to fill up the cisterns, ditches and caves so that people will have drinking water.  According to the mishnah if it rains but there is not sufficient or appropriate rain for every one of these categories, they skip the first stage and go immediately to the stage of more serious fasting, as we described in yesterday’s mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah teaches that if the drought was local, then the fasts are only performed locally as well.
+<b>And so too a city, upon which no rain has fallen  as it is written, “And I caused it to rain upon one city, and I caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece was rained upon…” (Amos 4:7) that city fasts and they sound a blast, but those [in the places] around it fast but do not sound the alarm. Rabbi Akiva says: they sound the alarm but do not fast.</b> The quote from Amos shows that droughts can be localized and that God can send a drought upon one city, but not upon another.  In such a case that city fasts and performs the entire ritual.  The surrounding cities partially join in the fast as a show of support.  However they do not fully join in, because it is, after all, raining in their city.  It seems that partial fasting/sounding the shofar is to show both their empathy for their fellow Israelites and yet at the same time show their gratitude to God for causing it to rain on their town.  The sages and Rabbi Akiva debate concerning which part of the fasting ritual is observed by those in the neighboring town. The sages say that they fast but do not blow the shofar whereas Rabbi Akiva holds the opposite.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to discussed localized fasts, the topic begun in yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>And so too a city which has a plague or [its buildings] collapse that city fasts and they sound a blast, but those [in the places] around it fast but do not sound the alarm. Rabbi Akiva says: they sound the alarm but do not fast.</b>  This section is basically the same as yesterday’s mishnah, it just mentions plagues and building collapse as opposed to rain. Just as Rabbi Akiva and the sages debated what the surrounding cities do in the case of drought, so too they debate these cases.
+<b>What constitutes a plague? If in a city that can supply five hundred foot-soldiers and three deaths occurred on three consecutive days, behold this constitutes a plague, less than this is not a plague.</b>  This section differentiates between a plague and isolated instances of death.  For something to be a plague a certain percentage of the people of a town must die within a certain amount of time.  The mishnah’s answers its question by stating that if the town is large enough to send out 500 foot-soldiers, meaning 500 men who are at an age capable of fighting in the army, and three people die of disease in three days, then they can declare an official plague and observe a fast.  If less people die then it is not a plague and they need not fast. We should note that it is not clear if the law would be different if the city could produce 1,000 soldiers, or 10,000 soldiers.  Would more people have to die in the same time period in order for it to be a plague?  Can a plague be declared in a town with fewer people?  These questions are not directly addressed by the mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In the previous mishnayot we learned of situations in which the people of the town effected by the plague fast and sound the shofar and the people in the neighboring towns do not fully participate.  In our mishnah we learn for certain plagues, not only the people of the town directly effected participate, but also the people of all the surrounding towns as well.
+<b>For these they sound a blast in all places:  for the drying up of crops (shidafon), for plant disease, for locusts, and for the hasil (a type of locust), for wild beasts and for the sword they sound a blast for these are plagues likely to spread.</b> All of these plagues are likely to spread; therefore, even though they may have directly effected only one part of the region, everyone must fast and sound the shofar.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah gives two concrete cases in which sages decreed fasts.
+<b>It once happened that elders went down from Jerusalem to their own cities and ordered a fast because there was seen in Ashkelon a shidafon which affected as much grain as would fill an oven [with loaves].</b>  A shidafon is a drying up of the crops, an event referred to in the previous mishnah.  This story teaches that the amount of shidafon-effected crops necessary to justify decreeing a fast is enough grain to bake sufficient loaves to fill an oven.  While I do not know exactly how much grain this is, it does not seem to be a particularly large amount.
+<b>They also decreed a fast because wolves devoured two children on the other side of the Jordan. Rabbi Yose says: not because they devoured [the children] but [merely] because they were seen.</b>  This is another case addressed by yesterday’s mishnah a plague of wild beasts.  There is a debate about whether the wolves were merely seen or whether they actually devoured two children.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Generally, one does not fast or sound a shofar blast in alarm on Shabbat.  However, sometimes disaster is so imminent that they sound a blast even on Shabbat.
+We should note that there is a debate concerning whether they fast on Shabbat.
+<b>For these matters they sound a blast even on Shabbat: if a city is besieged by Gentile [troops] or a river, or if a ship is foundering on the sea.</b>  The impending disasters referred to here are so immediate that they would blow the shofar even on Shabbat.  However, on all other occasions they would wait until after Shabbat to begin blowing the shofar and fasting.
+<b>Rabbi Yose says: [they sound a blast] for help but not for an outcry (for the sake of.</b>  Rabbi Yose says that they blow the shofar so that people will come and help but that they don’t blow the shofar on Shabbat as part of a prayer ritual.  Accordingly, the special prayers are not added on Shabbat.
+<b>Shimon the Yemenite says: also for a plague, but the sages did not agree with him.</b>  Rabbi Yose says that a plague should also belong on this list.  However, the other sages do not agree with him.  According to their opinion, a plague is less of an imminent danger and hence they mention it above in mishnah four.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah contains the famous story of Honi the circle drawer, who demanded that God bring rain and his prayers were effective.
+<b>For every trouble that should not come upon the community they sound a blast except on account of too much rain. It happened that they said to Honi the circle drawer: “Pray for rain to fall.” He replied: “Go and bring in the pesah ovens so that they do not dissolve.” He prayed and no rain fell. What did he do? He drew a circle and stood within it and exclaimed before Him:  “Master of the universe, Your children have turned their faces to me because I am like one who was born in Your house.  I swear by Your great name that I will not move from here until You have mercy upon Your children.” Rain then began to drip, and he exclaimed:  “I did not request this but rain [which can fill] cisterns, ditches and caves. The rain then began to come down with great force, and he exclaimed:  “I did not request this but pleasing rain of blessing and abudance.” Rain then fell in the normal way until the Jews in Jerusalem had to go up Temple Mount because of the rain. They came and said to him: “In the same way that you prayed for [the rain] to fall pray [now] for the rain to stop.” He replied:  “Go and see if the stone of people claiming lost objects has washed away.” Rabbi Shimon ben Shetah sent to him: “Were you not Honi I would have excommunicated you, but what can I do to you, for you are spoiled before God and he does your will like a son that is spoiled before his father and his father does his request.  Concerning you it is written, “Let your father and your mother rejoice, and let she that bore you rejoice” (Proverbs 23:25).</b> “That should not come upon the community” is a euphemism. The mishnah is actually referring to troubles that do come upon the community. An overabundance of rain is not a blessing and can actually destroy the crops and endanger people’s lives.  However, since rain is usually a blessing and is so scarce in the land of Israel, one doesn’t pray for rain to stop.  It’s as if we don’t want to risk God’s anger by asking him to stop the rain, after having already asked for it to begin to rain. The story itself probably needs little explaining. The people turn to Honi the circle maker, so named because in order to bring rain he would draw a circle around himself and not move until rain came.  Assumedly, Honi was famous as a rainmaker, a well-known profession in pre-modern societies dependant upon rainfall.  Honi responds with exaggerated confidence, telling them that he will bring so much rain that even the ovens used to roast the pesah offerings, the strongest ovens that they usually had, would begin to melt.  Honi proceeds to draw his circle and demand that God bring rain. God answers his call, but then Honi refines his request and demands proper rain, rain which is not too weak and not too strong (but just right!).  Eventually, the necessary type of rain does begin to fall and continues to fall until the people must abandon the lower places in Jerusalem and flee to the Temple Mount for safety.  Heeding the halakhah with which this mishnah began, Honi refuses to pray for rain to stop until a famous stone has dissolved, which is an exaggerated way of saying that he will not pray for the rain to stop, even though it is endangering their lives.  This is a key point in the mishnah. Even though Honi is a miracle worker, someone who seems to be outside the normal circle of rabbis, he still obeys the halakhah and there is a limit to what even he will ask for. Rabbi Shimon ben Shetah’s rebuke to Honi is probably even more telling as to the point of this mishnah than Honi’s prayer itself.  Indeed, in my opinion the rebuke is the reason that the mishnah is here in the first place. In the beginning of this mishnah we learned that people should not act with chutzpah when asking for rain.  Honi, who God treats like a son, is somewhat of an exception.  He can have that chutzpah in front of God, because God spoils Honi like a son.  We often let our children get away with things that we won’t allow others to get away with.  Others who would act like Honi will probably not have their requests answered and may indeed be rebuked for their presumptuous behavior. One might go so far as to say that the message of this mishnah is one of simultaneous nearness and distance.  Certain human beings do have the possibility of drawing close enough to God that God will heed their every request.  Humanity as a whole can achieve true closeness to God. However, such a relationship cannot be expected or presumed. As individuals we should not look at ourselves as being on the level of Honi.  For most of us, we must respect the fact that there is a vast distance separating us from God and that if we were to make a demand, it might very well be ignored.  Indeed, the entire tractate has been consistently cognizant with the fact that prayers are often simply not answered.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah discusses what happens if they begin to fast and then it rains on the fast day.
+<b>If while they are fasting rain falls: If before sunrise they do not complete the fast, If after sunrise, they do complete the fast.</b>  The fast actually begins at sunrise.  Therefore if it rains before sunrise then the rain has begun before the fast and there is no reason to fast.  However, if it rains after sunrise they must continue and complete the fast.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: if before noon they do not complete the fast, if after noon they do complete it.</b>  Noon is when most people eat their mid-day meal, the main meal of the day.  One who does not eat until noon is not really fasting, even though he may not have eaten.  Therefore, according to Rabbi Eliezer, if it rains before noon it is as if they have not yet begun the fast and they do not have to complete it.  If it rains after noon they must complete the fast.
+<b>It happened that the rabbis decreed a fast in Lod and rain fell before noon. Rabbi Tarfon said to them: go, eat and drink and make a holiday. They went and ate and drank and observed the day as a holiday and at evening time they came and recited the Hallel Hagadol.</b>  In this section we have a story that illustrates Rabbi Eliezer’s halakhah and goes even further.  Not only did they end their fast, but they went out and celebrated the arrival of the rain.  In the evening they recited Hallel Hagadol, which is Psalm 136, which contains the line “He provides food for all living creatures”, a line especially significant on the day when it begins to rain.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+During regular weekday prayers, the priests offer a priestly benediction as part of the Amidah.  This consists of their lifting up their hands and reciting Numbers 6:24-26.  The priestly benediction is normally done only during Shacharit, the morning service and not at Minhah.  On Shabbatot and holidays that have a Mussaf service, it is also done during Mussaf.  It is not normally done during Minhah because it is feared that the kohen may have drunk some wine during the day and it is forbidden to recite the priestly blessing while drunk. Such a concern does not exist on fast days, when the priests would not be drinking wine.
+The mishnah also teaches that on fast days another service is added, Neilah, which means “closing [of the gates].”  This service is added as a special additional supplication.
+<b>On three occasions during the year, on fast days, on ma’amadot,  and on Yom Kippur the priests lift up their hands to bless [the people] four times during the day--at Shaharit, at Mussaf, at Minhah and at Neilah.</b> Ma’amadot is an institution that was mentioned in passing above in 2:7 and will be explained in greater detail in tomorrow’s mishnah. On these three types of days the priests offer the priestly blessing every time there is a prayer service.  According to the Babylonian Talmud, the mishnah is not entirely accurate since there is no Mussaf service on fast days or on ma’amadot.  What the mishnah means to say is that every time there is a prayer service, the priests lift up their hands four times on Yom Kippur and three times on the other occasions. However, other sources seem to hold that there is a Mussaf service on fast days and on ma’amadot.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah explains what the “ma’madot” were and their origins.
+<b>What are the ma’amadot?  Since it is said, “Command the children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My food” (Numbers 28:2).  Now how can a man’s offering be offered and he is not present?  [Therefore] the former prophets instituted twenty-four mishmarot (guards).  For each mishmar there was a ma’amad [at the Temple] in Jerusalem consisting of priests, Levites and Israelites. When the time came for the mishmar to go up [to Jerusalem] the priests and Levites went up to Jerusalem and the Israelites of that mishmar assembled in their cities and read the story of creation.</b> Numbers 28:2 states, “Command the Children of Israel saying:  Of my near-offering, my food, as my fire-offerings, my soothing savor, you are to be in charge, bringing it near to me at its appointed time” (this translation is from Everett Fox, who translates very literally.)  This verse is said in reference to the tamid offering.  The verse seems to imply that each Israelite is to offer the tamid and yet it is obviously impossible for all of Israel to be personally responsible for one offering.  The ma’amadot are a means through which all of Israel is able participate in the tamid, the one offering that is offered twice every day. The ma’amadot correspond to the mishmarot, the twenty-four groups of priests each of which serves one week in the Temple.  It is not entirely clear what made up the maamad.  According to one interpretation the maamad a group of priests and Levites who were not serving in the Temple together with some Israelites who would go to Jerusalem. According to another interpretation the priests and Levites were part of the mishmar and the Israelites were part of the maamad. When time came for the mishmar to go to Jerusalem, the priests and Levites would go to Jerusalem and the Israelites from that mishmar, those who were not part of the maamad, would gather together in their cities and begin to read the story of the creation of the world, as we shall learn tomorrow. We should note just how foundational this institution may have been in rabbinic thought. The sacrificial service is the most elitist element in Judaism in order to participate one must be a kohen; even Levites can only partially participate.  Since one can only be born a kohen, there is no way for most of Israel to participate in this most central aspect of Judaism. By instituting the “ma’amadot” the rabbis seem to have found a way to make Judaism far more egalitarian.  While it is still true that Israelites are limited as to what they can do, they are allowed to take part in this type of worship of God and it seems that their participation is not considered less significant than that of the kohanim themselves.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>The men of the maamad fasted on four days of that week, from Monday to Thursday; they did not fast on Friday out of respect for Shabbat or on Sunday in order not to switch from the rest and delight [of Shabbat] to weariness and fasting and [thereby] die.<br>On Sunday [they read], “In the beginning,” and, “Let there be a firmament;”<br>On Monday, “Let there be a firmament,” and, “Let the waters be gathered together;”<br>On Tuesday, “Let the waters be gathered together,” and, “Let there be lights;”<br>On Wednesday, “Let there be lights,” and, “Let the waters swarm;”<br>On Thursday, “Let the waters swarm,” and, “Let the earth bring forth;”<br>On Friday, “Let the earth bring forth,” and, “And the heavens [and the earth] were completed.”<br>For a long section two people read and for a short section one person.  [This is how they would read] at Shacharit and Mussaf.<br>And at minhah they assemble and read the section by heart, as they recite the Shema.<br>On Friday at minhah they did not assemble out of respect for Shabbat.</b><br>This mishnah mostly discusses what portions of the Torah were read during the maamad.<br>Section one:  The men of the maamad fasted most of the week every day from Monday through Thursday.  They only fasted from the morning until the night.  Fasting on Friday was not considered to be respectful to Shabbat because they that would cause them enter Shabbat with a ravenous appetite. They didn’t fast on Sunday because it was considered dangerous to eat a lot on Shabbat and then fast on Sunday.<br>Sections two-seven: Every day of the week they would read two portions concerning the creation.  This allowed them to read about all seven days within six days.<br>Section eight:  A long section, one with more than three verses is read by two people, but a portion of only three verses is read by one person.  Every day there were three aliyot to the Torah. If the first section was more than three verses, let’s say it was five verses, the first person would read the entire section and then the second person would read the third through the sixth verse.  This way there would always be three aliyot and never an aliyah of less three verses.<br>Section nine:  At minhah (the afternoon service) they would assemble but they would read by heart without using a Torah scroll.<br>Section ten:  On Friday at minhah they wouldn’t gather together because people were getting ready for Shabbat.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah teaches that on certain days they wouldn’t do the special maamad prayers at certain services.
+<b>On any day when there is Hallel there was no maamad at Shaharit; [On the day when] there is a Musaf-offering, there was no [maamad] at Ne'ilah. [On the day of] the wood-offering, there was no [maamad] at Minhah, the words of Rabbi Akiva.</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva, on days when there is Hallel but no Musaf, such as Hannukah, they wouldn’t do the maamad at Shacharit, but they would do it at Minhah and Neilah.  On days when there is a Musaf offering, they wouldn’t do the maamad at Neilah. This is understood to mean that even at Neilah they wouldn’t do the service, all the more so at Shacharit, Musaf and Minhah. Most commentators explain that this mishnah refers to those people of the maamad who were in Jerusalem. They were so busy on these days that they didn’t have time to take care of their duties and recite all of the maamad prayers.  The previous mishnah, according to which maamad prayers were recited on days which have Musaf, refers to those people of the maamad who were outside of Jerusalem. The wood-offering refers to the bringing of wood to the Temple by certain families who would volunteer to do so.  On this day they would offer a special sacrifice and they would make it into a holiday.  According to Rabbi Akiva on these special days there was no maamad at Minhah but there was at Neilah.  The next mishnah will discuss this at greater length.
+<b>Ben Azzai said to him: Thus did Rabbi Joshua learn: [On the day when] there is a Musaf-offering, there was no [maamad] at Minhah; [On the day of] the wood-offering, there was no [maamad] at Ne’ilah. Rabbi Akiva retracted and learned like Ben Azzai.</b>  Ben Azzai tells Rabbi Akiva that Rabbi Joshua disagrees with him concerning two of the three halakhot which he stated.  On days with Musaf, there is no maamad at Minhah but there is at Neilah.  However, on days when there was a wood-offering, there was no maamad even at Neilah. Upon hearing Rabbi Joshua’s tradition, Rabbi Akiva retracted his statement.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>The times of the wood of the priests and the people was nine:<br>On the first of Nisan the family Arah of Yehudah.<br>On the twentieth of Tammuz the family of David of Yehudah.<br>On the fifth of Av the family of Parosh of Yehudah.<br>On the seventh of the same month, the family of Yonadav of Rechav.<br>On the tenth of the same month, the family of Snaah of Benjamin.<br>On the fifteenth of the same month, the family of Zattu of Yehudah, and with them were the priests and Levites and all those who were not certain of their tribe and the family of Gonve Eli and the family of Kotze Ketizot.<br>On the twentieth of the same month the family of Pahat Moav of Yehudah.<br>On the twentieth of Elul the family of Adin of Yehudah.<br>On the first of Tevet the family of Parosh of Yehudah [offered] a second time.<br>On the first of Tevet there was no maamad for there was Hallel, Musaf and the wood-festival.</b><br>This mishnah teaches that there were nine fixed dates during the year upon which certain families would bring wood to the altar.  The mishnah seems to relate and expand upon what is stated in Nehemiah 10:35 by those who returned to the land of Israel after the first exile, “We have cast lots [among] the priests, the Levites and the people, to bring the wood-offering to the House of our God by clans annually at set times in order to provide fuel for the altar of the Lord our God, as is written in the Teaching.”  The name for these donations, “The wood of the priests and the people” comes from the beginning of this verse.  The Talmud teaches that even if there was already enough wood in the Temple, the wood donated by these families took priority, and would be used first.<br>We might also note that the very idea of celebrating and commemorating the bringing of wood to the Temple attests to how valuable and scarce wood was at those times in the land of Israel.  It remains to this day a relatively scarce commodity.<br>Section one:  This family is mentioned in Ezra 2:5 and Nehemiah 7:10.<br>Section three:  Mentioned in Ezra 2:3, Nehemiah 7:5.<br>Section four:  The “Rechavites” seem to have been some sort of separatist sect that existed during the First Temple period and continued to exist as a family in the Second Temple period. Jeremiah 35 is mostly about this sect. For more information you can look up the article on them in the Encyclopedia Judaica.<br>Section five:  Mentioned in Ezra 2:35; Nehemiah 7:38.<br>Section six:  Zattu is mentioned in Ezra 2:8 and Nehemiah 7:13.  On this day other priests and Levites brought wood as well as anyone who didn’t know what tribe they were from.  There were also two other families who donated wood on that day.<br>Section seven:  Mentioned in Ezra 2:6; Nehemiah 7:11.<br>Section eight: Ezra 2:15; Nehemiah 7:20.<br>Section nine:  This is the same family that already gave on the fifth of Av.<br>Section ten:  The first of Tevet is both Rosh Hodesh and Hannukah. Because of Hallel (recited because of Hannukah) there was no maamad during Shacharit, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.  The Mussaf and wood-offerings meant that there would be no other maamad either.  This seems to be the only day during the year that could have both a wood-offering, mussaf and a full Hallel.  Note that during those days Hallel was not recited on Rosh Hodesh.  Today half a Hallel is recited.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah lists events that occurred and are therefore commemorated on two fast days the seventeenth of Tammuz and the ninth of Av.  There are two connections between this mishnah and the rest of the tractate.  First of all, this is tractate Taanit, so it is a natural place for the mishnah to discuss fast days. Secondly, the previous mishnah dealt with the importance of specific dates.
+<b>There were five events that happened to our ancestors on the seventeenth of Tammuz and five on the ninth of Av.<br>On the seventeenth of Tammuz: The tablets were shattered; The tamid ( offering was cancelled; The [walls] of the city were breached; And Apostomos burned the Torah, and placed an idol in the Temple.</b>  There were five events that occurred on the seventeenth of Tammuz, which is considered a “minor” fast day, because the fast begins only at sunrise and the only prohibition is eating and drinking. 1)  Moshe broke the first set of tablets.  2)  On the seventeenth of Tammuz, shortly before the Second Temple was destroyed, they ran out of sheep to sacrifice and hence they had to cancel the tamid, the daily offering. 3) The Romans breached the walls of the city of Jerusalem.  4)  Apostomos, an unidentified Greek or Roman burned a Torah scroll and 5) placed an idol in the Temple.  The placing of an idol in the Temple by foreign rulers happened on several occasions throughout both the First and teh Second Temple period and hence it is impossible to identify with precision who Apostomos was.  Indeed, according to the Yerushalmi it was not Apostomos who put the idol in the Templ but rather Menashe, the king of Israel see II Kings 21:7.
+<b>On the ninth of Av It was decreed that our ancestors should not enter the land, The Temple was destroyed the first And the second time, Betar was captured, And the city was plowed up.</b>  There were five events that occurred on the ninth of Av, which besides Yom Kippur is the only major fast in the Jewish calendar.  1)  After the people of Israel believed the bad report of the ten spies over that of Joshua and Caleb, God decreed that no one over the age of twenty would make it into the land of Canaan (see Numbers 14:29).  2 +3)  Both Temples were destroyed, the first by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E. and the second by the Romans in 70 C.E.  The first Temple was set aflame on the ninth and burnt on the Tenth see Jeremiah 52:12-13.  4) Betar, an important Jewish stronghold during the Bar-Kochba revolt fell to the Romans.  5)  After the Bar Kochba rebellion was defeated, the Romans plowed over the city, destroying any remaining buildings and quashing any hopes that the Temple would be rebuilt.
+<b>When Av enters, they limit their rejoicing.</b>  Av is the counterpart to Adar. When the month of Adar begins we increase our celebration, in anticipation of Purim, a holiday of salvation.  When the month of Av enters, we decrease celebrations, on account of Tisha B’av, the greatest day of mourning on the Jewish calendar.  In tomorrow’s mishnah we will learn of some mourning practices customary during the first nine days of Av.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah talks about the week which leads up to Tisha B’av and the day before.
+<b>During the week in which the ninth of Av falls it is forbidden to cut the hair and to wash clothes but on Thursday it is permitted in honor of Shabbat.</b>  Starting in the week in which Tisha B’av falls one begins to mourn by not cutting hair (this includes shaving) or washing clothes.  However, if Tisha B’av falls on Friday then it is permitted to cut one’s hair and wash one’s clothes on Thursday in preparation for Shabbat. In today’s calendar Tisha B’av can never fall on Friday or on Shabbat. We should also note that in Ashkenazi tradition these prohibitions begin with the seventeenth of Tammuz, three weeks before Tisha B’av.
+<b>On the eve of the ninth of Av one should not eat a meal of two cooked dishes, nor should he eat meat or drink wine. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: one should make change [his diet.]</b>  The meal before Tisha B’av is supposed to be a simple meal, one that does not consist of two cooked dishes, nor meat or wine.  This sharply contrasts with Yom Kippur, before which one is mandated to have a large meal in celebration of the coming holiday. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel is more flexible with regard to this meal.  He just mandates that one change his normal eating habits.  If one normally has two cooked dishes, one should have only one.  If one normally eats a lot of meat, one should just have a little.
+<b>Rabbi Judah obligated turning over the bed, but the sages did not agree with him.</b>  Turning over the bed is a sign of mourning.  In the time of the mishnah it was the custom of mourners to turn over their beds as a sign of the overturning of their worlds which occurred when they lost a relative.  Rabbi Judah says that on Tisha B’av everyone should turn over their beds as a sign of the collective mourning of the people.  However, the other sages disagree with him.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Tractate Taanit, a sad tractate which deals with drought and other distressful events and the fasts that Jews take upon themselves to ask for forgiveness from their sins, ends with a mishnah about the two happiest days in the Jewish calendar, the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur.
+<b>Section one:  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: There were no days of joy in Israel greater than the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur. Section two:  On these days the daughters of Jerusalem would go out in borrowed white garments in order not to shame any one who had none. All these garments required immersion.  The daughters of Jerusalem come out and dance in the vineyards. What would they say?  Young man, lift up your eyes and see what you choose for yourself. Do not set your eyes on beauty but set your eyes on the family. “Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman that fears the Lord, she shall be praised” (Proverbs 31:30).  And it further says, “Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her works praise her in the gates” (ibid, 31:31). Section three:  Similarly it says, “O maidens of Zion, go forth and gaze upon King Solomon wearing the crown that his mother gave him on his wedding day, on the day of the gladness of his heart” (Song of Songs 3:11).  “On his wedding day”:  this refers to Matan Torah (the Giving of the Torah). “And on the day of the gladness of his heart”: this refers to the building of the Temple; may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, Amen.</b>  There are several reasons why the fifteenth of Av became a day of celebration. First of all, as we learned in mishnah five above, this is the date when most families would have made their wood donation.  The Talmud provides several other reasons.  One of these is that on this day people from different tribes were allowed to intermarry.  Another explanation is that on this day the Israelites in the desert who were to die before they entered into the land of Israel stopped dying.  Anyone who made it through this day in the fortieth year in the desert knew that he was going to make it to the land of Canaan. Yom Kippur is a day of celebration for on it Jews receive atonement for their sins.  Yom Kippur, in sharp contrast with Tisha B’av, is not a day of mourning, but rather a day of celebration. Furthermore, according to tradition, the second set of the Tablets were given to Israel on Yom Kippur, which is in essence collective forgiveness for the sin of the golden calf.
+These two days were like an ancient Sadie Hawkins day (if you don’t know what this is, you can google it to find out), except instead of the girls chasing the boys, the girls would go out to the field and let the boys come and chase them.  The girls would go out to the field in white clothes and dance and let the boys choose for themselves brides.  These clothes were borrowed so that girls who could not afford a nice white garment would not be embarrassed.  The garments would be immersed before they were worn so that they would be pure.  The whole ceremony seems to be geared towards encouraging the boys to choose their girls not based on their looks or wealth but based on their families and piety.  In mishnaic times, and indeed in many traditional cultures, “yihus” being from a good family was probably the most important consideration in arranging marriages.
+Taanit ends with a midrash which which was originally not part of the mishnah as it is missing in manuscripts.  It was probably added to the end of Taanit as a prayer for the restoration of the Temple, and to end a depressing tractate on an upbeat note of hope and consolation.  It connects to the previous section because of its reference to girls going out.  Furthermore, the day under discussion in this midrash is understood to be Yom Kippur, the day on which the second set of Tablets was given.  Yom Kippur commemorates the past, and gives us hope for the future as well, for a time in which the Temple will be rebuilt. Congratulations!  We have finished Taanit. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Taanit is perhaps one of the most “theological” of tractates for it is all about how God responds to our misdeeds and how we respond to God’s rebuking.  One can look at the fasts as a way for Jews to remind themselves that they constantly need to be checking their own behavior, to looking at how we relate to each other and to the rest of the world and that our actions have an effect on our world. While it is probably hard for us to share an overly simplistic theology we do bad things, God punishes us directly and immediately, we pray and fast and things get better the deeper message of the tractate seems to be a push for our own atonement and for our own sensitivity to crisis in the world.  According to the tractate there is meaning in history and events and it is up to humans to learn how to respond properly.  There is also a lot in the tractate about the cycles of rejoicing and mourning. As always, congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah. Tomorrow we begin Megillah.  

txt/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Moed/English Explanation of Mishnah Taanit/English/merged.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,284 @@
+English Explanation of Mishnah Taanit
+ביאור אנגלי על משנה תענית
+merged
+https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Taanit
+This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
+-Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
+-http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/
+
+English Explanation of Mishnah Taanit
+
+Introduction
+
+Tractate Taanit is about the practice of fasting and offering special prayers in times of trouble, especially during a drought.  The Bible is full of examples of the Israelites fasting, praying and engaging in other forms of supplication in order to entreat God to respond to their needs.  The most famous of these cases is probably Esther who calls for a three-day fast to ensure her success and safety when entering in to speak to the king.  See also Joel 1:14; Jeremiah 14:11-12; Jonah 3:5-8; Nehemiah 9:1; Daniel 9:3 and others.  
+Numbers 10:9 was used by the rabbis as toraitic proof for this concept.  The verse states, “And when you come into battle in your land against the foe who assails you, you shall let out a long blast with the trumpets and be remembered before the Lord your God and be rescued from your enemies.”  According to the rabbis the specific example of blowing trumpets in times of war is a paradigm for all times of trouble.  There is a positive commandment in the Torah to cry out to God in all times of trouble, to blow shofars and to fast as well.  The days of fast described in our mishnah were accompanied by special prayers, by trumpet and shofar blasts and sometimes by work-stoppages.  
+As we study the tractate we shall constantly note how important rain was in the land of Israel in mishnaic times.  Rain is still critical to the well-being of those who live in this arid region, although modern technology has to a certain measure alleviated short-term crises.  In ancient times, a season with no or little rain would have been an utter disaster. Crops would have failed, livestock would have died or been in danger of dying, and people would not have had enough water to drink.  By the sheer amount of material that the rabbis devote to this subject, we can see just how important this was for their lives.
+
+
+
+
+
+Chapter 1
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+During the rainy season during the second part of the Amidah, in the paragraph about God’s power, we add in the words “He causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall.” In our mishnah Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua debate when we begin to say this phrase.
+<b>From when do they mention the powers of [bringing] rain? Rabbi Eliezer says: from the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot]. Rabbi Joshua says: on the last day of the Festival [of Sukkot].</b>  This is the question that is debated in this mishnah when do we begin to mention that God has the power to bring rain?  Both sages agree that we begin during Sukkot they argue over whether we begin mentioning rain on the first or on the last day of Sukkot.
+<b>Rabbi Joshua said to him: Since rain on the Festival is nothing but a sign of [God’s] curse why should he mention it?</b>  Rain on Sukkot is considered to be a rebuke by God (see Sukkah 2:9) because it prevents one from being able to dwell (eat and sleep) in the Sukkah. Therefore, Rabbi Joshua argues, it does not make sense to mention God’s rain-giving powers at this time.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer said to him: I also did not say to request [rain] but to make mention, “He causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall” in its due season.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer agrees that rain on Sukkot is a curse.  However, he responds that he was not suggesting that we ask for rain at the beginning of Sukkot, but rather that we just mention that God has the power to bring rain in its due season.  We ask for rain in the ninth blessing of the Amidah when we say, “And provide dew and rain (ten tal umatar).”
+<b>He replied to him: if so one should at all times make mention of it.</b>  Rabbi Joshua responds that if all we are doing in this prayer is mentioning rain, why not mention it all throughout the year.  The fact that Rabbi Eliezer agrees that we only mention it during the rainy season means that he too agrees that it is connected with actual rain.  If so, then he should also agree that we shouldn’t mention it until the time when we hope that the rainy season will actually begin, that is at the end of Sukkot when we are done sitting in the sukkah. The halakhah is according to Rabbi Joshua.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The previous mishnah discussed the concept of “mentioning rain.”  This mishnah adds in a discussion of the subject of “asking for rain.” This refers to the addition of the words “and give dew and rain (veten tal umatar)” in the ninth blessing of the Amidah, which is called “The Blessing of the Years.”
+<b>They don’t pray for rain except close to the rainy season.</b>  In Israel there is a clearly defined rainy season, which lasts roughly from Sukkot to Pesah. It does not rain in the summer in Israel.  The mishnah teaches that we request rain only in the season in which it is normal for it to rain.  There are probably two reasons for this.  First of all, rain in the wrong season can destroy crops, so one shouldn’t ask for something if it will cause damage.  Secondly, we ask God for nature to perform in a predictable and stable fashion, for it to run its course. We do not ask God for miracles, nor do we rely on them or expect them.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: One who goes down before the ark on the last day of Sukkot the last one mentions [rain], the first does not; on the first day of Pesah, the first mentions, the last does not.</b>  This section returns to discuss the “mentioning of rain” that comes during the second blessing of the Amidah.  In yesterday’s mishnah Rabbi Joshua said that we begin to mention rain on the last day of Sukkot.  Rabbi Judah in our mishnah agrees and merely points out that there are two prayer leaders on a festival, one for Shacharit and one for Mussaf.  On the last day of Sukkot the prayer leader, one who “goes down before the ark” for Mussaf begins to mention rain. The prayer leader for Shacharit does not.  The opposite is true at the other end of the spectrum.  On the first day of Pesah, the prayer leader for Shacharit still mentions the rain, but the prayer leader for Mussaf does not.  In other words, at both times the change is made during Mussaf.  This means that there is almost no point in the festival during which rain is mentioned rather dew is basically mentioned all of the time.  This is because dew, which falls during the summer months, is a blessing during the festival because it doesn’t disrupt people’s travel. While rain is good for the land, we all still love a bright sun shiny day!
+<b>Up until when do they request rain? Rabbi Judah says:  Until Pesah is over. Rabbi Meir says:  Until Nissan is over, as it says, “Now He makes the rain fall in the first month, early rain and late rain” (Joel 2:23).</b>  In this section two sages disagree with regard to how long in the season we ask for rain.  Rabbi Judah says that we ask until Pesah is over.  We should note that Rabbi Judah’s opinion in this section seems to disagree with what he said before, that we stop mentioning rain on the first day of Pesah.  The Talmud resolves this problem by saying that there are two different versions of Rabbi Judah’s opinion within this mishnah. Rabbi Meir says that we ask for rain until the entire month of Nissan is over. He uses the verse from Joel as a prooftext that rain is a blessing in the entire first month, the month of Nissan.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah teaches when we begin to ask for rain in the ninth blessing of the Amidah.  We should note that at the very beginning of the rainy season we begin to mention rain but we do not yet ask for it.  Later, when the rainy season should really begin in full force, we begin to ask for rain.  In our prayers we slowly build up to really petitioning God for rain.
+<b>On the third of Marheshvan they [begin to] ask for rain.</b>  The third of Marheshvan (today called Heshvan), the second month of the year, is when we begin to ask for rain. This is when the rainy season is supposed to begin.
+<b>Rabban Gamaliel says: on the seventh, fifteen days after the Festival [of Sukkot] so that the last of the Jews reaches the river Euphrates.</b>  Rabban Gamaliel delays asking for rain until the seventh of Marheshvan, which gives pilgrims who were making their way back from Israel time to reach the river Euphrates in Babylonia.  It would not be appropriate to begin to ask for rain while Jews were still returning from performing the important mitzvah of making a pilgrimage to the land of Israel and to the Temple in Jerusalem.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah proceeds chronologically from the last mishnah.  There we learned that on either the third or seventh of Marheshvan they add into the Amidah a request for rain.  If that prayer has not been answered by the seventeenth of Marheshvan, then a series of progressively more stringent fasts begins.
+<b>If the seventeenth of Marheshvan came and no rain fell, individuals begin to fast three fasts.</b>  The first set of fasts is not observed by the entire community, but rather only by individuals, probably rabbis and other public figures.
+<b>They eat and drink after it gets dark and they are permitted to do work, to bathe, to anoint themselves with oil, to wear shoes, and to have marital relations.</b>  The lightness of the fasts is expressed in the fact that the night before the fast they can eat the fast only begins in the morning. Furthermore, the only prohibition that they take upon themselves is eating and drinking.  All of the other prohibitions that sometimes apply on fast days do not apply here. The idea of progressively making the fasts more stringent is an interesting idea.  We relate to God as we would to another human being.  If we really want something, but it is something that we are going to need frequently, we don’t pull out all of the stops immediately.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues with the next series of fasts.
+<b>If Rosh Hodesh Kislev came and no rain fell the court ordains upon the community three fasts; they may eat and drink while it is still dark and it is permissible to do work, to bathe, to anoint oneself with oil, to wear shoes, and to have marital relations.</b> The only difference between these fasts and the previous three is that these are observed by the entire community.  Other than that, everything is still the same.  They eat and drink the night before, and only eating and drinking is prohibited.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues with the series of increasingly more stringent fasts.
+<b>If these passed and there was no answer, the court decrees three more fasts on the community.</b>  If after the first three communal fasts there is still no rain, then the court decrees another set of three fasts on the community.
+<b>They may eat and drink [only] while it is still day; they may not work, bathe, anoint themselves with oil, wear shoes, or have marital, relations.  And the bathhouses are closed.</b>  These fasts are stricter because they begin the night before.  The mishnah refers to the day before the fast and rules that one can eat only while it is still day. On these fasts all of the major prohibitions apply. These are the same prohibitions that apply on Yom Kippur. The bathhouses are closed because there is no need for them to be open.  Also, this is a very public sign of mourning.
+<b>If these passed and there was no answer the court decrees upon the community a further seven, making a total of thirteen.</b>  If these three fasts are not effective, then another seven are decreed, bringing the total number of communal fasts to thirteen.
+<b>These are greater than the first, for on these they blast the shofar and they lock the shops.</b>  All of the prohibitions from the previous three fasts still apply and new practices are added.  They blow the shofar as a sign of distress (on this practice see the introduction to the tractate).  They also close the shops as a further sign of communal mourning and distress.
+<b>On Mondays the shutters [of the shops] are opened a little when it gets dark, but on Thursdays they are permitted [the whole day] because of the Shabbat.</b>  The problem with closing the stores is that people need to buy supplies for the next day.  Therefore they allow the stores to open their shutters a little bit towards the end of the day on Monday.  On Thursday the stores are allowed to be opened all day because people need to buy food for Shabbat.  We can see a value statement being made here.  As important as it is to pray for rain and as dire as the situation of drought may be, people must remember and be able to honor the Shabbat.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In the final mishnah of this chapter we learn what the community would do if all of their fasts had not worked and God still had not sent rain.
+<b>If these passed and there was [still] no answer then they restrict engaging in business, and in building, planting, betrothal and marriage, and in greeting one another, as if they were people undesirable to God.</b>  By this point, it seems that the fasts just aren’t going to be effective.  They therefore go into a state of semi-mourning. They cut back on the normal creative activities of life, perhaps as a symbol that all around them there is death.  By this point, the crops have probably died, many animals have probably died and people’s health and wellbeing is in great danger.  Indeed, it seems that God has rejected the entire community; it is as if He put them into a state of excommunication. The community is in despair and until things are set aright, they make few plans for the future.
+<b>The individuals go back to fasting anew until the end of Nisan.</b>  The community no longer takes upon itself more fasts.  Only those individual leaders, those who began fasting at the outset, go back to fasting.  These are people whose merit was supposed to help bring rain in the first place.  In essence, the failure to achieve rain is partially seen as being their fault.
+<b>If Nisan passes and then rain falls this is a sign of a curse, as it is written, “It is the season of the wheat harvest.  [I will pray to the Lord and He will send thunder and rain; then you will take thought and realize what a wicked thing you did in the sight of the Lord when you asked for a king” (I Samuel 12:17).</b>  If Nisan, the last rainy month passes, and then it rains, this too is perceived as a curse.  Rain in Nisan in the land of Israel will further damage the crops.  It is if God is being particularly cruel, not giving rain at the proper time and then giving it at the improper time.  The prooftext demonstrates quite clearly that rain at the improper time is a way of God rebuking the people of Israel.
+
+Chapter 2
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b> In the previous chapter we learned about the series of fast days declared in order to petition God for rain.  In this chapter we learn the rituals that were observed on those days.
+<b>What is the order [of service] for fast days?<br>They take the ark out to the open space of the city.</b>  They bring the ark with the Torah or Torahs outside to the open space where they will have a very public ceremony.  This is part of their attempt to achieve as broad of a spectrum of involvement as possible.
+<b>And they put ashes on the ark and on the head of the Nasi and on the head of the head of the court (av bet din).</b>  The leaders of the community ceremonially put ashes on the heads of the two main leaders of the community and on the ark as well.  It seems that by putting ashes on the ark, it is as if they were putting ashes on God’s head as well.  Perhaps they might even be trying to show that God is sharing in Israel’s distress.  Theologically, this creates somewhat of a paradox we are praying to God for rain, rain that God is withholding, and yet at the same time we believe and we demonstrate that God is sharing in our distress.  The image is one of a parent, punishing a child and yet at the same time feeling the child’s pain.
+<b>And everyone [else] puts ashes on his own head.</b>  Everyone else puts ashes on their own heads.  The ritual application of the ashes is performed only for the two leaders and for the ark.
+<b>The elder among them says in front of them words of admonition, “Brothers, it does not say of the people of Nineveh, ‘And God saw their sackcloth and their fasting,’ but, ‘And God saw their deeds, for they turned from their evil way. (Jonah 3:10)’ And in the prophets it says, ‘And rend your heart and not your garments” (Joel 2:13).</b>  The elder among the people now reminds them that the external motions are meant to invoke inner teshuvah, repentance.  When God sees that Nineveh has repented, He says that He has seen their deeds and not that He has seen their external signs.  Similarly, Joel tells the people that they should rend their hearts, meaning tear their hearts so that they repent, and not merely their external garments.  Note that the mishnah emphasizes this message at the very point at which they are describing the intricate ritual of the Taanit.  It is as if they wish to warn us of the danger of slipping into “ritualism” a fixation on the external at the expense of the more important internal.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah continues to set the scene for the prayers recited on the special fast days.
+<b>[When] they stand up to pray they bring down before the ark an old man conversant [with the prayers], one who has children and whose house is empty [of food], so that his heart is complete prayer.</b>  This section describes the shaliah tzibbur, the prayer leader. It is critical for the success of the community’s prayers for them to choose a qualified shaliah tzibbur.  Their prayers will be mediated through him so as a community this is a consequential choice. The person chosen is not one who sings the best, but one whose prayers will be the most heart felt and who knows the liturgy.  The person has to be old, one who has gone through many of life’s experience and is therefore wiser.  The person has to have children.  A man who has children will pray even harder during a drought because he knows that without rain he will not be able to provide food for them.  As hard as it is for a person to suffer, it is even harder for one to watch his/her children suffer.  Finally, his house must be empty, for if his house were full, his prayers would be less personal.  In short, they would find an old poor person who has children.
+<b>He recites before them twenty-four benedictions, the eighteen recited daily, to which he adds six.</b>  This section begins to describe the contents of the prayers themselves.  The Amidah for fast days is made up of the 18 benedictions that are recited every week day, plus another six special blessings, which shall be enumerated in the following mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>These are they [the six additional benedictions:</b> There are six additional benedictions listed in our mishnah.  Our mishnah provides the scriptural verses that are recited as part of these benedictions.  In the following mishnah we will learn the additional liturgy attached to each benedictions, liturgy based on verses but composed by the rabbis.
+<b>Zikhronot, “If there is famine in the land, if there is pestilence” (I Kings 8:37). Shofarot, “The word of the Lord which came to Jeremiah concerning the droughts” (Jeremiah 14).</b>  The first two benedictions are the same as two of the three benedictions recited on Rosh Hashanah zikhronot, remembrances and shofarot.  These are appropriate for fast days because we are asking God to remember us and deliver us rain and we blow the shofar.  Malkhuyot, kingship, the other special benediction for Rosh Hashanah would not be appropriate for a fast day.
+<b>“In my distress I called to the Lord and He answered me” (Psalm 120). “I turn my eyes to the mountains” (Psalm 121). “Out of the depths I call you, O Lord” (Psalm 130). “A prayer of lowly man when he is faint�� (Psalm 102).</b> The other four benedictions consist of Psalms.  While the mishnah only mentions the first verse, the meaning is that the entire Psalm is recited.
+<b>Rabbi Judah says: he need not recite the zikhronot and shofarot, but instead he should recite [the following]:</b> Rabbi Judah disagrees with the recitation of the zikhronot and shofarot and instead offers two other appropriate biblical verses.
+<b>And he ends each [of the additional six] sections with its appropriate concluding benediction.</b> Each section is ended with an appropriate concluding benediction.  These are explicated in tomorrow’s mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Today’s mishnah provides liturgical conclusions to the six additional benedictions for the Taanit Amidah.  Each conclusion here correlates with one of the seven benedictions in the previous mishnah.
+The basic structure of this liturgy is quite simple.  After having read a Psalm or other biblical passage, the benediction concludes by reminding God of another incident in which He answered Israel’s prayers.  It then ends with a concluding benediction.
+There are actually seven benedictions in our mishnah, but only six are additional. The first “who redeems Israel” is the seventh benediction in every weekday Amidah.  The following six are additional.
+<b>For the first he says:  He who answered Abraham on Mt. Moriah, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who redeems Israel.</b>  This first benediction is part of the weekday Amidah.  It refers to the binding of Isaac.
+<b>For the second he says:  He who answered our fathers at the Sea of Reeds, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who remembers all forgotten things.</b>  This is the additional benediction called “zikhronot”, remembrances, in the previous mishnah. It refers to the splitting of the Sea of Reeds.
+<b>For the third he says: He who answered Joshua in Gilgal, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who hears a blast.</b>  This is the additional benediction called “shofarot”.  The reference is to Joshua 6-7, when he blew shofarot to destroy the walls of Jericho.  In Joshua 5:10 we learn that the Israelites were encamped in Gilgal.
+<b>For the fourth he says:  He who answered Shmuel in Mitzpah, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who listens to cries.</b>  This is a reference to I Samuel 7:5-9 where Shmuel leads the people to a decisive victory over the Philistines.
+<b>For the fifth he says: He who answered Elijah on Mt. Carmel, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who hears prayer.</b>  This refers to I Kings 18:26-39 where Elijah challenges the false prophets and God sends a fire from heaven to demonstrate that He is the true and only God. Since this episode takes place on Mt. Carmel, it is appropriate for Psalm 121 which begins, “I lift my eyes up to the hills” (Psalms 121).  This Psalm is the heart of this benediction, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>For the sixth he says:  He who answered Jonah in the belly of the fish, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord who answers in time of trouble.</b>  A reference to Jonah in the belly of the whale is appropriate to Psalm 130 used in this fifth benediction, since it begins, “Out of the depths I called to You Lord”.
+<b>For the seventh he says:  He who answered David and Shlomo his son in Jerusalem, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Blessed are You Lord Who has mercy upon the land.</b>  God rescued David in a time of famine (II Samuel 21: 1-14).  Shlomo prays to God for rain (I Kings 8:35) and to stop a famine (ibid, 37) and God answers him (ibid 9:3). The liturgist mentions David and Shlomo at the end because they were answered in the very type of occasion in which this liturgy was being recited famine or drought.  Had the benedictions gone in simple chronological order, David and Shlomo should have been before Elijah and Jonah. The concluding formula, “Who has mercy on the land” is appropriate because Psalm 102 which is part of the benediction includes the verse, “You will surely arise and have mercy on Zion” (v. 14).
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Our mishnah relates a story in which some people used slightly different liturgy than was dictated in yesterday’s mishnah, and the rabbis objected to this liturgy.
+<b>It happened in the days of Rabbi Halafta and Rabbi Hanina ben Tradyon that a man passed before the ark [as shaliah tzibbur] and completed the entire benediction and they did not respond, “amen.” [The hazzan called out]:  Sound a tekiah, priests, sound a tekiah. [The shaliah tzibbur continued]:  He who answered Abraham on Mt. Moriah, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Then [the hazzan called out]:  Sound a teru'ah, sons of Aaron, sound a teru'ah. [The shaliah tzibbur continued]:  He who answered our fathers at the Sea of Reeds, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day.</b>  There seem to be several differences between the customs mentioned here and those in the previous mishnah. First of all the people did not answer “Amen.” According to the Talmud they answered “Blessed is the name of His Kingship forever and ever” instead (this is the line we say after the first line of the Shema).  Another difference, according to some commentators, is that they blew the shofar after every benediction, instead of blowing once at the end of the entire Amidah.
+<b>And when the matter came up before the sages, they said:  they only practiced in this way at the eastern gates on the Temple Mount.</b>  When the sages heard the report about these practices, they objected.  Note that they didn’t say that this practice was completely illegitimate, just that now that the Temple has been destroyed, our practice has changed slightly.  To me this seems very typical of rabbinic activity they preserve many earlier practices, but modify them slightly to denote the radical change in the world that occurred during the destruction of the Second Temple.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+The priests were divided into twenty-four guards called “mishmarot.”  Each guard served in the Temple for one week.  Each guard was divided into subsections by the father’s house, and on each day a different father’s house would serve in the Temple.  Our mishnah deals with how these guards and father’s houses would act on fast days decreed because of rain.
+<b>On the first three fasts the men of the guard fast but do not complete their fast, and the men of the father’s house do not fast at all. On the second three fasts the men of the guard fast and complete their fast and the men of the father’s house fast but do not complete their fast. On the last seven both fast and complete their fast, the words of Rabbi Joshua.</b>  The fasts are divided into three sets, each set of fasts more serious than the previous one (see above 1:5).  The general principle in the mishnah is clear.  The “men of the guard” fast less than normal people. Thus during the first three fasts, while other people complete their fast, meaning they fast until the end of the day, the men of the guard end their fast early.  The reason is that since they are serving in the Temple, the day is somewhat of a personal holiday for them.  However, according to Rabbi Joshua, by the second set of fasts they are already acting like all other people. The “men of the father’s house” are those who are actually serving in the Temple on that day. Since they are actually working, it is an even greater day of celebration for them. To denote this, they don’t fast at all during the first three fasts, they semi-fast during the second set and only begin to fully fast during the last seven fasts.
+<b>The sages say: on the first three fasts neither fast at all. On the second three, the men of the guard fast but do not complete their fast, and the men of the father’s house do not fast at all. On the last seven, the men of the guard fast and complete their fast and the men of the father’s house fast but do not complete their fast.</b>  The sages agree with the general principles of Rabbi Joshua, they are just more lenient than he is at every stage.  For instance, on the first three fasts, even the men of the guard don’t fast at all.  And even on the last seven, the men of the father’s house don’t fully fast.  Assumedly, the other sages hold that serving in the Temple is a greater celebration than Rabbi Joshua thinks.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In the previous mishnah we learned that the men of the guard have to fast more on a Taanit then the “men of the father’s house.”  Today’s mishnah teaches another distinction between the two groups, one that has nothing to do with fast days.
+<b>The men of the guard are permitted to drink wine in the evenings but not during the day, but the men of the father’s house may not [drink wine] either on the day or on the preceding evening.</b>  A kohen may not be drunk while serving in the Temple.  Our mishnah discusses when during his week of service in the Temple a priest may drink. The men not serving in the Temple on a given day may drink at night.  Since there is little work to be done in the Temple at night, they are allowed to drink.  However, during the day they may not drink. This is because these kohanim may be asked to replace or supplement those members of the father’s house who are serving on that day. Since they might end up serving in the Temple, they may not drink. The men of the father’s house, who are actually serving in the Temple may not drink either at night or in the day.  Even though there is not much work to be done at night, there may be some work so they may not drink.
+<b>Both the men of the guard and the men of the ma'amad may not cut their hair nor wash their clothes, but on Thursday they may [do so] in honor of Shabbat.</b>  Corresponding to the twenty-four divisions of priests, there were twenty-four divisions of Israelites who would offer up special prayers while their corresponding division of priests were serving in the Temple.  These groups are called ma’amadim or a ma’amad.  The purpose of this set-up is to allow all of Israel to take part in the sacrificial service.  This week is special holiday-like time for each group.  In order to encourage the men of the ma’amad to cut their hair and wash their clothes before their week, they are not allowed to do so during this week.  As an aside, we should note that this is similar to the laws concerning the intermediate days of the festival (we shall learn these when we learn Tractate Moed Katan).  However, they may cut their hair and wash their clothes on Thursday in preparation for the coming of Shabbat.  Again we see what an important place Shabbat played in their lives.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In mishnaic times there existed a scroll called “Megillat Taanit”, which literally translates as “Scroll of Fasts.”  Despite its name, the scroll does not contain a list of fasts but rather a list of days on which it is forbidden to eulogize at funerals and/or fast.  Most of these days were commemorations of various military victories that occurred throughout the Second Temple period, from the Hasmonean period in the mid-second century B.C.E. through the Roman period in the subsequent centuries.  By Talmudic times these days were mostly forgotten and neglected. The only two that were still observed were Hannukah and Purim.
+<b>[With regard to every day] about which it is written in the Scroll of Fasts (Megillat “One may not eulogize” on the preceding day it is prohibited but on the following day it is permitted. Rabbi Yose says: it is forbidden [to mourn] both on the preceding day and on the following day.</b>  Concerning some of the days listed in Megillat Taanit, it says that one may not eulogize because eulogies are a sign of mourning.  For these days it is prohibited to eulogize also on the previous day, but not on the subsequent day. Rabbi Yose holds that for these days one may not offer a eulogy on the preceding or on the following day.
+<b>[On days about which it is written], “One may not fast” on the preceding day and on the following day it is permitted. Rabbi Yose says: on the preceding day it is forbidden but on the following day it is permitted.</b>  Days concerning which it is written “One may not fast” are somewhat lesser than days concerning which it is written “One may not eulogize.”  Therefore, for these days one may fast on both the preceding and following days. Rabbi Yose is again slightly stricter and allows fasting only on the following day but not on the preceding day.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah discusses on what day the series of fasts can begin.
+<b>They do not decree upon the community a fast to begin on a Thursday in order not to cause a rise in the market prices.</b>  There are several explanations as to why the market prices will rise if a series of fasts is decreed on Thursday.  One explanation is that if the store owners see people buying big meals on a Thursday, a meal for the end of the fast and large meals for Shabbat, they will think that a famine has struck and they will raise the prices. This is not a problem on Monday which is not next to Shabbat and so people are buying less food. Another explanation is that fasting so close to Shabbat will cause the storeowners to think that there will be a great panic and they will raise the prices. Yet another explanation is that since the villagers bring the food to sell in the market on Thursday, and they will not know that there is a fast ahead of time, they will not bring enough food for the Shabbat and the break-fast meal and the great demand will cause a rise in the prices. What I find interesting is that in times of crisis the rabbis were cautious not to impose additional financial hardships by decreeing fasts.
+<b>Rather the first three fasts are held [in this order], Monday, Thursday, and Monday; the second three, Thursday, Monday, and Thursday. Rabbi Yose says: just as the first three [fasts] should not begin on a Thursday so too neither the second [three] nor the last [seven].</b>  According to the first opinion, while the first three fasts do not begin on Thursday, the second set does.  Since the second set is not the beginning of the entire series but rather just a continuation of it, they need not fear that starting on Thursday will cause prices to rise. Rabbi Yose holds that none of the series of fasts begins on Thursday.
+
+Mishnah 10
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah deals with fast days that come into conflict with other various holidays.
+<b>They do not ordain upon the community a fast on Rosh Hodesh, on Hanukkah, or on Purim, but if they had already begun [a series of fasts and one of these days intervened] they do not interrupt [their fasts], the words of Rabban Gamaliel.</b>  According to Rabban Gamaliel, the court may not decree that a series of fast days begins on any of these holidays.  However, if a series of fast days had begun and then one of these holidays landed on a Monday or Thursday on which people were supposed to fast, they do indeed fast.
+<b>Rabbi Meir said: even though Rabban Gamaliel said that the [fasts] should not be interrupted he agrees that they should not complete their fasts.</b>  Rabbi Meir says that when Rabban Gamaliel said that Rosh Hodesh, Hannukah and Purim do not interrupt if the series of fasts had already begun, he nevertheless agrees that on these days they should not complete their fasts until the evening.  In this way people will signify in at least some way that the day still has some celebratory character to it.
+<b>And the same applies to the Ninth of Av should it fall on Friday.</b>  In the days in which the monthly calendar was not predetermined, the Ninth of Av (Tisha B’av) could fall on Friday.  Today this cannot happen.  If this happens they do not complete the fast, due to the honor accorded to Shabbat, so that they shouldn’t begin Shabbat with ravenous hunger.  Another reason seems to be that there is a mitzvah to add on to Shabbat at both the beginning and at the end.  If one fasts during this period he is diminishing the joy of a time of day when he should already be celebrating.
+
+Chapter 3
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah teaches that sometimes we skip the order of fasts that was taught in the previous two chapters and we proceed straight to the last set of fasts, when we blow the shofar and fast for the entire day.
+<b>The order of public fasts mentioned above is enacted because of [lack of] the first rain, but if the crops have undergone [an unusual] change they sound a blast immediately.</b>  If it doesn’t rain during the first season in which rain should come, then we begin the series of fasts that was described in the previous two chapters.  However, if the crops start to look as if they are going bad, then the situation is obviously more serious.  In such a case we skip the first two sets of fasts and go right to the third set, the set where we blast the shofar.  The change of the crops appearance is far more serious and therefore it calls for an immediate sounding of the alarm.
+<b>Similarly, if the rain has stopped for forty days between one rainfall and the next, they sound a blast immediately, because it is a plague of drought.</b>  Another case in which we skip immediately to blowing the shofar and fasting for the entire day is a situation in which it began to rain but then stopped raining for forty days.  Such a situation foreshadows drought and therefore it is especially dangerous.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to discuss situations in which they would immediately skip to the latter stages of fasting.
+<b>If [rain] falls for crops but not for the trees, for the trees but not for crops, for both of these but not for cisterns, ditches and caves they sound a blast immediately.</b> Light rain is good for the crops because crops don’t need the rain to penetrate deep into the land.  However, it is not good for the trees.  Heavy rain is good for the trees but not good for the crops.  Finally, it requires very heavy rain to fill up the cisterns, ditches and caves so that people will have drinking water.  According to the mishnah if it rains but there is not sufficient or appropriate rain for every one of these categories, they skip the first stage and go immediately to the stage of more serious fasting, as we described in yesterday’s mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah teaches that if the drought was local, then the fasts are only performed locally as well.
+<b>And so too a city, upon which no rain has fallen  as it is written, “And I caused it to rain upon one city, and I caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece was rained upon…” (Amos 4:7) that city fasts and they sound a blast, but those [in the places] around it fast but do not sound the alarm. Rabbi Akiva says: they sound the alarm but do not fast.</b> The quote from Amos shows that droughts can be localized and that God can send a drought upon one city, but not upon another.  In such a case that city fasts and performs the entire ritual.  The surrounding cities partially join in the fast as a show of support.  However they do not fully join in, because it is, after all, raining in their city.  It seems that partial fasting/sounding the shofar is to show both their empathy for their fellow Israelites and yet at the same time show their gratitude to God for causing it to rain on their town.  The sages and Rabbi Akiva debate concerning which part of the fasting ritual is observed by those in the neighboring town. The sages say that they fast but do not blow the shofar whereas Rabbi Akiva holds the opposite.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah continues to discussed localized fasts, the topic begun in yesterday’s mishnah.
+<b>And so too a city which has a plague or [its buildings] collapse that city fasts and they sound a blast, but those [in the places] around it fast but do not sound the alarm. Rabbi Akiva says: they sound the alarm but do not fast.</b>  This section is basically the same as yesterday’s mishnah, it just mentions plagues and building collapse as opposed to rain. Just as Rabbi Akiva and the sages debated what the surrounding cities do in the case of drought, so too they debate these cases.
+<b>What constitutes a plague? If in a city that can supply five hundred foot-soldiers and three deaths occurred on three consecutive days, behold this constitutes a plague, less than this is not a plague.</b>  This section differentiates between a plague and isolated instances of death.  For something to be a plague a certain percentage of the people of a town must die within a certain amount of time.  The mishnah’s answers its question by stating that if the town is large enough to send out 500 foot-soldiers, meaning 500 men who are at an age capable of fighting in the army, and three people die of disease in three days, then they can declare an official plague and observe a fast.  If less people die then it is not a plague and they need not fast. We should note that it is not clear if the law would be different if the city could produce 1,000 soldiers, or 10,000 soldiers.  Would more people have to die in the same time period in order for it to be a plague?  Can a plague be declared in a town with fewer people?  These questions are not directly addressed by the mishnah.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+In the previous mishnayot we learned of situations in which the people of the town effected by the plague fast and sound the shofar and the people in the neighboring towns do not fully participate.  In our mishnah we learn for certain plagues, not only the people of the town directly effected participate, but also the people of all the surrounding towns as well.
+<b>For these they sound a blast in all places:  for the drying up of crops (shidafon), for plant disease, for locusts, and for the hasil (a type of locust), for wild beasts and for the sword they sound a blast for these are plagues likely to spread.</b> All of these plagues are likely to spread; therefore, even though they may have directly effected only one part of the region, everyone must fast and sound the shofar.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah gives two concrete cases in which sages decreed fasts.
+<b>It once happened that elders went down from Jerusalem to their own cities and ordered a fast because there was seen in Ashkelon a shidafon which affected as much grain as would fill an oven [with loaves].</b>  A shidafon is a drying up of the crops, an event referred to in the previous mishnah.  This story teaches that the amount of shidafon-effected crops necessary to justify decreeing a fast is enough grain to bake sufficient loaves to fill an oven.  While I do not know exactly how much grain this is, it does not seem to be a particularly large amount.
+<b>They also decreed a fast because wolves devoured two children on the other side of the Jordan. Rabbi Yose says: not because they devoured [the children] but [merely] because they were seen.</b>  This is another case addressed by yesterday’s mishnah a plague of wild beasts.  There is a debate about whether the wolves were merely seen or whether they actually devoured two children.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Generally, one does not fast or sound a shofar blast in alarm on Shabbat.  However, sometimes disaster is so imminent that they sound a blast even on Shabbat.
+We should note that there is a debate concerning whether they fast on Shabbat.
+<b>For these matters they sound a blast even on Shabbat: if a city is besieged by Gentile [troops] or a river, or if a ship is foundering on the sea.</b>  The impending disasters referred to here are so immediate that they would blow the shofar even on Shabbat.  However, on all other occasions they would wait until after Shabbat to begin blowing the shofar and fasting.
+<b>Rabbi Yose says: [they sound a blast] for help but not for an outcry (for the sake of.</b>  Rabbi Yose says that they blow the shofar so that people will come and help but that they don’t blow the shofar on Shabbat as part of a prayer ritual.  Accordingly, the special prayers are not added on Shabbat.
+<b>Shimon the Yemenite says: also for a plague, but the sages did not agree with him.</b>  Rabbi Yose says that a plague should also belong on this list.  However, the other sages do not agree with him.  According to their opinion, a plague is less of an imminent danger and hence they mention it above in mishnah four.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah contains the famous story of Honi the circle drawer, who demanded that God bring rain and his prayers were effective.
+<b>For every trouble that should not come upon the community they sound a blast except on account of too much rain. It happened that they said to Honi the circle drawer: “Pray for rain to fall.” He replied: “Go and bring in the pesah ovens so that they do not dissolve.” He prayed and no rain fell. What did he do? He drew a circle and stood within it and exclaimed before Him:  “Master of the universe, Your children have turned their faces to me because I am like one who was born in Your house.  I swear by Your great name that I will not move from here until You have mercy upon Your children.” Rain then began to drip, and he exclaimed:  “I did not request this but rain [which can fill] cisterns, ditches and caves. The rain then began to come down with great force, and he exclaimed:  “I did not request this but pleasing rain of blessing and abudance.” Rain then fell in the normal way until the Jews in Jerusalem had to go up Temple Mount because of the rain. They came and said to him: “In the same way that you prayed for [the rain] to fall pray [now] for the rain to stop.” He replied:  “Go and see if the stone of people claiming lost objects has washed away.” Rabbi Shimon ben Shetah sent to him: “Were you not Honi I would have excommunicated you, but what can I do to you, for you are spoiled before God and he does your will like a son that is spoiled before his father and his father does his request.  Concerning you it is written, “Let your father and your mother rejoice, and let she that bore you rejoice” (Proverbs 23:25).</b> “That should not come upon the community” is a euphemism. The mishnah is actually referring to troubles that do come upon the community. An overabundance of rain is not a blessing and can actually destroy the crops and endanger people’s lives.  However, since rain is usually a blessing and is so scarce in the land of Israel, one doesn’t pray for rain to stop.  It’s as if we don’t want to risk God’s anger by asking him to stop the rain, after having already asked for it to begin to rain. The story itself probably needs little explaining. The people turn to Honi the circle maker, so named because in order to bring rain he would draw a circle around himself and not move until rain came.  Assumedly, Honi was famous as a rainmaker, a well-known profession in pre-modern societies dependant upon rainfall.  Honi responds with exaggerated confidence, telling them that he will bring so much rain that even the ovens used to roast the pesah offerings, the strongest ovens that they usually had, would begin to melt.  Honi proceeds to draw his circle and demand that God bring rain. God answers his call, but then Honi refines his request and demands proper rain, rain which is not too weak and not too strong (but just right!).  Eventually, the necessary type of rain does begin to fall and continues to fall until the people must abandon the lower places in Jerusalem and flee to the Temple Mount for safety.  Heeding the halakhah with which this mishnah began, Honi refuses to pray for rain to stop until a famous stone has dissolved, which is an exaggerated way of saying that he will not pray for the rain to stop, even though it is endangering their lives.  This is a key point in the mishnah. Even though Honi is a miracle worker, someone who seems to be outside the normal circle of rabbis, he still obeys the halakhah and there is a limit to what even he will ask for. Rabbi Shimon ben Shetah’s rebuke to Honi is probably even more telling as to the point of this mishnah than Honi’s prayer itself.  Indeed, in my opinion the rebuke is the reason that the mishnah is here in the first place. In the beginning of this mishnah we learned that people should not act with chutzpah when asking for rain.  Honi, who God treats like a son, is somewhat of an exception.  He can have that chutzpah in front of God, because God spoils Honi like a son.  We often let our children get away with things that we won’t allow others to get away with.  Others who would act like Honi will probably not have their requests answered and may indeed be rebuked for their presumptuous behavior. One might go so far as to say that the message of this mishnah is one of simultaneous nearness and distance.  Certain human beings do have the possibility of drawing close enough to God that God will heed their every request.  Humanity as a whole can achieve true closeness to God. However, such a relationship cannot be expected or presumed. As individuals we should not look at ourselves as being on the level of Honi.  For most of us, we must respect the fact that there is a vast distance separating us from God and that if we were to make a demand, it might very well be ignored.  Indeed, the entire tractate has been consistently cognizant with the fact that prayers are often simply not answered.
+
+Mishnah 9
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah discusses what happens if they begin to fast and then it rains on the fast day.
+<b>If while they are fasting rain falls: If before sunrise they do not complete the fast, If after sunrise, they do complete the fast.</b>  The fast actually begins at sunrise.  Therefore if it rains before sunrise then the rain has begun before the fast and there is no reason to fast.  However, if it rains after sunrise they must continue and complete the fast.
+<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: if before noon they do not complete the fast, if after noon they do complete it.</b>  Noon is when most people eat their mid-day meal, the main meal of the day.  One who does not eat until noon is not really fasting, even though he may not have eaten.  Therefore, according to Rabbi Eliezer, if it rains before noon it is as if they have not yet begun the fast and they do not have to complete it.  If it rains after noon they must complete the fast.
+<b>It happened that the rabbis decreed a fast in Lod and rain fell before noon. Rabbi Tarfon said to them: go, eat and drink and make a holiday. They went and ate and drank and observed the day as a holiday and at evening time they came and recited the Hallel Hagadol.</b>  In this section we have a story that illustrates Rabbi Eliezer’s halakhah and goes even further.  Not only did they end their fast, but they went out and celebrated the arrival of the rain.  In the evening they recited Hallel Hagadol, which is Psalm 136, which contains the line “He provides food for all living creatures”, a line especially significant on the day when it begins to rain.
+
+Chapter 4
+
+
+
+Mishnah 1
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+During regular weekday prayers, the priests offer a priestly benediction as part of the Amidah.  This consists of their lifting up their hands and reciting Numbers 6:24-26.  The priestly benediction is normally done only during Shacharit, the morning service and not at Minhah.  On Shabbatot and holidays that have a Mussaf service, it is also done during Mussaf.  It is not normally done during Minhah because it is feared that the kohen may have drunk some wine during the day and it is forbidden to recite the priestly blessing while drunk. Such a concern does not exist on fast days, when the priests would not be drinking wine.
+The mishnah also teaches that on fast days another service is added, Neilah, which means “closing [of the gates].”  This service is added as a special additional supplication.
+<b>On three occasions during the year, on fast days, on ma’amadot,  and on Yom Kippur the priests lift up their hands to bless [the people] four times during the day--at Shaharit, at Mussaf, at Minhah and at Neilah.</b> Ma’amadot is an institution that was mentioned in passing above in 2:7 and will be explained in greater detail in tomorrow’s mishnah. On these three types of days the priests offer the priestly blessing every time there is a prayer service.  According to the Babylonian Talmud, the mishnah is not entirely accurate since there is no Mussaf service on fast days or on ma’amadot.  What the mishnah means to say is that every time there is a prayer service, the priests lift up their hands four times on Yom Kippur and three times on the other occasions. However, other sources seem to hold that there is a Mussaf service on fast days and on ma’amadot.
+
+Mishnah 2
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah explains what the “ma’madot” were and their origins.
+<b>What are the ma’amadot?  Since it is said, “Command the children of Israel and say to them: My offering, My food” (Numbers 28:2).  Now how can a man’s offering be offered and he is not present?  [Therefore] the former prophets instituted twenty-four mishmarot (guards).  For each mishmar there was a ma’amad [at the Temple] in Jerusalem consisting of priests, Levites and Israelites. When the time came for the mishmar to go up [to Jerusalem] the priests and Levites went up to Jerusalem and the Israelites of that mishmar assembled in their cities and read the story of creation.</b> Numbers 28:2 states, “Command the Children of Israel saying:  Of my near-offering, my food, as my fire-offerings, my soothing savor, you are to be in charge, bringing it near to me at its appointed time” (this translation is from Everett Fox, who translates very literally.)  This verse is said in reference to the tamid offering.  The verse seems to imply that each Israelite is to offer the tamid and yet it is obviously impossible for all of Israel to be personally responsible for one offering.  The ma’amadot are a means through which all of Israel is able participate in the tamid, the one offering that is offered twice every day. The ma’amadot correspond to the mishmarot, the twenty-four groups of priests each of which serves one week in the Temple.  It is not entirely clear what made up the maamad.  According to one interpretation the maamad a group of priests and Levites who were not serving in the Temple together with some Israelites who would go to Jerusalem. According to another interpretation the priests and Levites were part of the mishmar and the Israelites were part of the maamad. When time came for the mishmar to go to Jerusalem, the priests and Levites would go to Jerusalem and the Israelites from that mishmar, those who were not part of the maamad, would gather together in their cities and begin to read the story of the creation of the world, as we shall learn tomorrow. We should note just how foundational this institution may have been in rabbinic thought. The sacrificial service is the most elitist element in Judaism in order to participate one must be a kohen; even Levites can only partially participate.  Since one can only be born a kohen, there is no way for most of Israel to participate in this most central aspect of Judaism. By instituting the “ma’amadot” the rabbis seem to have found a way to make Judaism far more egalitarian.  While it is still true that Israelites are limited as to what they can do, they are allowed to take part in this type of worship of God and it seems that their participation is not considered less significant than that of the kohanim themselves.
+
+Mishnah 3
+
+<b>The men of the maamad fasted on four days of that week, from Monday to Thursday; they did not fast on Friday out of respect for Shabbat or on Sunday in order not to switch from the rest and delight [of Shabbat] to weariness and fasting and [thereby] die.<br>On Sunday [they read], “In the beginning,” and, “Let there be a firmament;”<br>On Monday, “Let there be a firmament,” and, “Let the waters be gathered together;”<br>On Tuesday, “Let the waters be gathered together,” and, “Let there be lights;”<br>On Wednesday, “Let there be lights,” and, “Let the waters swarm;”<br>On Thursday, “Let the waters swarm,” and, “Let the earth bring forth;”<br>On Friday, “Let the earth bring forth,” and, “And the heavens [and the earth] were completed.”<br>For a long section two people read and for a short section one person.  [This is how they would read] at Shacharit and Mussaf.<br>And at minhah they assemble and read the section by heart, as they recite the Shema.<br>On Friday at minhah they did not assemble out of respect for Shabbat.</b><br>This mishnah mostly discusses what portions of the Torah were read during the maamad.<br>Section one:  The men of the maamad fasted most of the week every day from Monday through Thursday.  They only fasted from the morning until the night.  Fasting on Friday was not considered to be respectful to Shabbat because they that would cause them enter Shabbat with a ravenous appetite. They didn’t fast on Sunday because it was considered dangerous to eat a lot on Shabbat and then fast on Sunday.<br>Sections two-seven: Every day of the week they would read two portions concerning the creation.  This allowed them to read about all seven days within six days.<br>Section eight:  A long section, one with more than three verses is read by two people, but a portion of only three verses is read by one person.  Every day there were three aliyot to the Torah. If the first section was more than three verses, let’s say it was five verses, the first person would read the entire section and then the second person would read the third through the sixth verse.  This way there would always be three aliyot and never an aliyah of less three verses.<br>Section nine:  At minhah (the afternoon service) they would assemble but they would read by heart without using a Torah scroll.<br>Section ten:  On Friday at minhah they wouldn’t gather together because people were getting ready for Shabbat.
+
+Mishnah 4
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah teaches that on certain days they wouldn’t do the special maamad prayers at certain services.
+<b>On any day when there is Hallel there was no maamad at Shaharit; [On the day when] there is a Musaf-offering, there was no [maamad] at Ne'ilah. [On the day of] the wood-offering, there was no [maamad] at Minhah, the words of Rabbi Akiva.</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva, on days when there is Hallel but no Musaf, such as Hannukah, they wouldn’t do the maamad at Shacharit, but they would do it at Minhah and Neilah.  On days when there is a Musaf offering, they wouldn’t do the maamad at Neilah. This is understood to mean that even at Neilah they wouldn’t do the service, all the more so at Shacharit, Musaf and Minhah. Most commentators explain that this mishnah refers to those people of the maamad who were in Jerusalem. They were so busy on these days that they didn’t have time to take care of their duties and recite all of the maamad prayers.  The previous mishnah, according to which maamad prayers were recited on days which have Musaf, refers to those people of the maamad who were outside of Jerusalem. The wood-offering refers to the bringing of wood to the Temple by certain families who would volunteer to do so.  On this day they would offer a special sacrifice and they would make it into a holiday.  According to Rabbi Akiva on these special days there was no maamad at Minhah but there was at Neilah.  The next mishnah will discuss this at greater length.
+<b>Ben Azzai said to him: Thus did Rabbi Joshua learn: [On the day when] there is a Musaf-offering, there was no [maamad] at Minhah; [On the day of] the wood-offering, there was no [maamad] at Ne’ilah. Rabbi Akiva retracted and learned like Ben Azzai.</b>  Ben Azzai tells Rabbi Akiva that Rabbi Joshua disagrees with him concerning two of the three halakhot which he stated.  On days with Musaf, there is no maamad at Minhah but there is at Neilah.  However, on days when there was a wood-offering, there was no maamad even at Neilah. Upon hearing Rabbi Joshua’s tradition, Rabbi Akiva retracted his statement.
+
+Mishnah 5
+
+<b>The times of the wood of the priests and the people was nine:<br>On the first of Nisan the family Arah of Yehudah.<br>On the twentieth of Tammuz the family of David of Yehudah.<br>On the fifth of Av the family of Parosh of Yehudah.<br>On the seventh of the same month, the family of Yonadav of Rechav.<br>On the tenth of the same month, the family of Snaah of Benjamin.<br>On the fifteenth of the same month, the family of Zattu of Yehudah, and with them were the priests and Levites and all those who were not certain of their tribe and the family of Gonve Eli and the family of Kotze Ketizot.<br>On the twentieth of the same month the family of Pahat Moav of Yehudah.<br>On the twentieth of Elul the family of Adin of Yehudah.<br>On the first of Tevet the family of Parosh of Yehudah [offered] a second time.<br>On the first of Tevet there was no maamad for there was Hallel, Musaf and the wood-festival.</b><br>This mishnah teaches that there were nine fixed dates during the year upon which certain families would bring wood to the altar.  The mishnah seems to relate and expand upon what is stated in Nehemiah 10:35 by those who returned to the land of Israel after the first exile, “We have cast lots [among] the priests, the Levites and the people, to bring the wood-offering to the House of our God by clans annually at set times in order to provide fuel for the altar of the Lord our God, as is written in the Teaching.”  The name for these donations, “The wood of the priests and the people” comes from the beginning of this verse.  The Talmud teaches that even if there was already enough wood in the Temple, the wood donated by these families took priority, and would be used first.<br>We might also note that the very idea of celebrating and commemorating the bringing of wood to the Temple attests to how valuable and scarce wood was at those times in the land of Israel.  It remains to this day a relatively scarce commodity.<br>Section one:  This family is mentioned in Ezra 2:5 and Nehemiah 7:10.<br>Section three:  Mentioned in Ezra 2:3, Nehemiah 7:5.<br>Section four:  The “Rechavites” seem to have been some sort of separatist sect that existed during the First Temple period and continued to exist as a family in the Second Temple period. Jeremiah 35 is mostly about this sect. For more information you can look up the article on them in the Encyclopedia Judaica.<br>Section five:  Mentioned in Ezra 2:35; Nehemiah 7:38.<br>Section six:  Zattu is mentioned in Ezra 2:8 and Nehemiah 7:13.  On this day other priests and Levites brought wood as well as anyone who didn’t know what tribe they were from.  There were also two other families who donated wood on that day.<br>Section seven:  Mentioned in Ezra 2:6; Nehemiah 7:11.<br>Section eight: Ezra 2:15; Nehemiah 7:20.<br>Section nine:  This is the same family that already gave on the fifth of Av.<br>Section ten:  The first of Tevet is both Rosh Hodesh and Hannukah. Because of Hallel (recited because of Hannukah) there was no maamad during Shacharit, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.  The Mussaf and wood-offerings meant that there would be no other maamad either.  This seems to be the only day during the year that could have both a wood-offering, mussaf and a full Hallel.  Note that during those days Hallel was not recited on Rosh Hodesh.  Today half a Hallel is recited.
+
+Mishnah 6
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah lists events that occurred and are therefore commemorated on two fast days the seventeenth of Tammuz and the ninth of Av.  There are two connections between this mishnah and the rest of the tractate.  First of all, this is tractate Taanit, so it is a natural place for the mishnah to discuss fast days. Secondly, the previous mishnah dealt with the importance of specific dates.
+<b>There were five events that happened to our ancestors on the seventeenth of Tammuz and five on the ninth of Av.<br>On the seventeenth of Tammuz: The tablets were shattered; The tamid ( offering was cancelled; The [walls] of the city were breached; And Apostomos burned the Torah, and placed an idol in the Temple.</b>  There were five events that occurred on the seventeenth of Tammuz, which is considered a “minor” fast day, because the fast begins only at sunrise and the only prohibition is eating and drinking. 1)  Moshe broke the first set of tablets.  2)  On the seventeenth of Tammuz, shortly before the Second Temple was destroyed, they ran out of sheep to sacrifice and hence they had to cancel the tamid, the daily offering. 3) The Romans breached the walls of the city of Jerusalem.  4)  Apostomos, an unidentified Greek or Roman burned a Torah scroll and 5) placed an idol in the Temple.  The placing of an idol in the Temple by foreign rulers happened on several occasions throughout both the First and teh Second Temple period and hence it is impossible to identify with precision who Apostomos was.  Indeed, according to the Yerushalmi it was not Apostomos who put the idol in the Templ but rather Menashe, the king of Israel see II Kings 21:7.
+<b>On the ninth of Av It was decreed that our ancestors should not enter the land, The Temple was destroyed the first And the second time, Betar was captured, And the city was plowed up.</b>  There were five events that occurred on the ninth of Av, which besides Yom Kippur is the only major fast in the Jewish calendar.  1)  After the people of Israel believed the bad report of the ten spies over that of Joshua and Caleb, God decreed that no one over the age of twenty would make it into the land of Canaan (see Numbers 14:29).  2 +3)  Both Temples were destroyed, the first by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E. and the second by the Romans in 70 C.E.  The first Temple was set aflame on the ninth and burnt on the Tenth see Jeremiah 52:12-13.  4) Betar, an important Jewish stronghold during the Bar-Kochba revolt fell to the Romans.  5)  After the Bar Kochba rebellion was defeated, the Romans plowed over the city, destroying any remaining buildings and quashing any hopes that the Temple would be rebuilt.
+<b>When Av enters, they limit their rejoicing.</b>  Av is the counterpart to Adar. When the month of Adar begins we increase our celebration, in anticipation of Purim, a holiday of salvation.  When the month of Av enters, we decrease celebrations, on account of Tisha B’av, the greatest day of mourning on the Jewish calendar.  In tomorrow’s mishnah we will learn of some mourning practices customary during the first nine days of Av.
+
+Mishnah 7
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+This mishnah talks about the week which leads up to Tisha B’av and the day before.
+<b>During the week in which the ninth of Av falls it is forbidden to cut the hair and to wash clothes but on Thursday it is permitted in honor of Shabbat.</b>  Starting in the week in which Tisha B’av falls one begins to mourn by not cutting hair (this includes shaving) or washing clothes.  However, if Tisha B’av falls on Friday then it is permitted to cut one’s hair and wash one’s clothes on Thursday in preparation for Shabbat. In today’s calendar Tisha B’av can never fall on Friday or on Shabbat. We should also note that in Ashkenazi tradition these prohibitions begin with the seventeenth of Tammuz, three weeks before Tisha B’av.
+<b>On the eve of the ninth of Av one should not eat a meal of two cooked dishes, nor should he eat meat or drink wine. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: one should make change [his diet.]</b>  The meal before Tisha B’av is supposed to be a simple meal, one that does not consist of two cooked dishes, nor meat or wine.  This sharply contrasts with Yom Kippur, before which one is mandated to have a large meal in celebration of the coming holiday. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel is more flexible with regard to this meal.  He just mandates that one change his normal eating habits.  If one normally has two cooked dishes, one should have only one.  If one normally eats a lot of meat, one should just have a little.
+<b>Rabbi Judah obligated turning over the bed, but the sages did not agree with him.</b>  Turning over the bed is a sign of mourning.  In the time of the mishnah it was the custom of mourners to turn over their beds as a sign of the overturning of their worlds which occurred when they lost a relative.  Rabbi Judah says that on Tisha B’av everyone should turn over their beds as a sign of the collective mourning of the people.  However, the other sages disagree with him.
+
+Mishnah 8
+
+<b>Introduction</b>
+Tractate Taanit, a sad tractate which deals with drought and other distressful events and the fasts that Jews take upon themselves to ask for forgiveness from their sins, ends with a mishnah about the two happiest days in the Jewish calendar, the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur.
+<b>Section one:  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: There were no days of joy in Israel greater than the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur. Section two:  On these days the daughters of Jerusalem would go out in borrowed white garments in order not to shame any one who had none. All these garments required immersion.  The daughters of Jerusalem come out and dance in the vineyards. What would they say?  Young man, lift up your eyes and see what you choose for yourself. Do not set your eyes on beauty but set your eyes on the family. “Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman that fears the Lord, she shall be praised” (Proverbs 31:30).  And it further says, “Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her works praise her in the gates” (ibid, 31:31). Section three:  Similarly it says, “O maidens of Zion, go forth and gaze upon King Solomon wearing the crown that his mother gave him on his wedding day, on the day of the gladness of his heart” (Song of Songs 3:11).  “On his wedding day”:  this refers to Matan Torah (the Giving of the Torah). “And on the day of the gladness of his heart”: this refers to the building of the Temple; may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, Amen.</b>  There are several reasons why the fifteenth of Av became a day of celebration. First of all, as we learned in mishnah five above, this is the date when most families would have made their wood donation.  The Talmud provides several other reasons.  One of these is that on this day people from different tribes were allowed to intermarry.  Another explanation is that on this day the Israelites in the desert who were to die before they entered into the land of Israel stopped dying.  Anyone who made it through this day in the fortieth year in the desert knew that he was going to make it to the land of Canaan. Yom Kippur is a day of celebration for on it Jews receive atonement for their sins.  Yom Kippur, in sharp contrast with Tisha B’av, is not a day of mourning, but rather a day of celebration. Furthermore, according to tradition, the second set of the Tablets were given to Israel on Yom Kippur, which is in essence collective forgiveness for the sin of the golden calf.
+These two days were like an ancient Sadie Hawkins day (if you don’t know what this is, you can google it to find out), except instead of the girls chasing the boys, the girls would go out to the field and let the boys come and chase them.  The girls would go out to the field in white clothes and dance and let the boys choose for themselves brides.  These clothes were borrowed so that girls who could not afford a nice white garment would not be embarrassed.  The garments would be immersed before they were worn so that they would be pure.  The whole ceremony seems to be geared towards encouraging the boys to choose their girls not based on their looks or wealth but based on their families and piety.  In mishnaic times, and indeed in many traditional cultures, “yihus” being from a good family was probably the most important consideration in arranging marriages.
+Taanit ends with a midrash which which was originally not part of the mishnah as it is missing in manuscripts.  It was probably added to the end of Taanit as a prayer for the restoration of the Temple, and to end a depressing tractate on an upbeat note of hope and consolation.  It connects to the previous section because of its reference to girls going out.  Furthermore, the day under discussion in this midrash is understood to be Yom Kippur, the day on which the second set of Tablets was given.  Yom Kippur commemorates the past, and gives us hope for the future as well, for a time in which the Temple will be rebuilt. Congratulations!  We have finished Taanit. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Taanit is perhaps one of the most “theological” of tractates for it is all about how God responds to our misdeeds and how we respond to God’s rebuking.  One can look at the fasts as a way for Jews to remind themselves that they constantly need to be checking their own behavior, to looking at how we relate to each other and to the rest of the world and that our actions have an effect on our world. While it is probably hard for us to share an overly simplistic theology we do bad things, God punishes us directly and immediately, we pray and fast and things get better the deeper message of the tractate seems to be a push for our own atonement and for our own sensitivity to crisis in the world.  According to the tractate there is meaning in history and events and it is up to humans to learn how to respond properly.  There is also a lot in the tractate about the cycles of rejoicing and mourning. As always, congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah. Tomorrow we begin Megillah.