File size: 62,704 Bytes
e58a1cb |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 |
{
"title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Chagigah",
"language": "en",
"versionTitle": "merged",
"versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Chagigah",
"text": {
"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. \n"
],
"": [
[
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nOur 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."
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nIn 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."
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nWhen 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."
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nDuring 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."
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nAs 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."
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nThis 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.”"
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nThe 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.”"
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nThis 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."
]
],
[
[
"<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."
],
[
"<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."
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nIn 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."
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nAtzeret (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."
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nFrom 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.\nOur 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."
],
[
"<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."
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nThe 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.\nOn 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."
]
],
[
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nIn 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."
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nThis 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."
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nAnother 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."
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nThis 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."
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nThe 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."
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nOur 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."
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nDuring 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.\nThe 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."
],
[
"<b>Introduction</b>\nThe 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."
]
]
]
},
"versions": [
[
"Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
"http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/"
]
],
"heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה חגיגה",
"categories": [
"Mishnah",
"Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
"English Explanation of Mishnah",
"Seder Moed"
],
"schema": {
"heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה חגיגה",
"enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Chagigah",
"key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Chagigah",
"nodes": [
{
"heTitle": "הקדמה",
"enTitle": "Introduction"
},
{
"heTitle": "",
"enTitle": ""
}
]
}
} |