3ae594d722991984801164b9592fc9c0e80a7d60a037143f56854e0509c0a2f6

.gitattributes

@@ -41,3 +41,5 @@ json/Kabbalah/Zohar/Ohr[[:space:]]HaChamah[[:space:]]on[[:space:]]Zohar/Hebrew/O
 json/Kabbalah/Zohar/Zohar/Hebrew/merged.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 json/Kabbalah/Zohar/Zohar/Hebrew/Hebrew[[:space:]]Translation.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
 json/Kabbalah/Zohar/Zohar/Hebrew/Vocalized[[:space:]]Zohar,[[:space:]]Israel[[:space:]]2013.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+json/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.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+json/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.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text

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

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "A New Israeli Commentary on Pirkei Avot",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "פירוש ישראלי חדש על פרקי אבות",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "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."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "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."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "<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.    "
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "פירוש ישראלי חדש על פרקי אבות",
+        "enTitle": "A New Israeli Commentary on Pirkei Avot",
+        "key": "A New Israeli Commentary on Pirkei Avot",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "מבוא",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

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

@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+{
+    "title": "A New Israeli Commentary on Pirkei Avot",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/A_New_Israeli_Commentary_on_Pirkei_Avot",
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "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."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "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."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [],
+                [
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "",
+                    "<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.    "
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Sefaria Community Translation",
+            "https://www.sefaria.org"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "פירוש ישראלי חדש על פרקי אבות",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "פירוש ישראלי חדש על פרקי אבות",
+        "enTitle": "A New Israeli Commentary on Pirkei Avot",
+        "key": "A New Israeli Commentary on Pirkei Avot",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "מבוא",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Bikkurim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json

@@ -0,0 +1,286 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bikkurim",
+    "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/",
+    "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "license": "CC-BY",
+    "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ביכורים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Zeraim"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "The first fruits of the seven species that Israel was “blessed with” (wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olive oil and date honey) must be brought to the Temple in Jerusalem and given to the priests. These fruits are called in Hebrew, bikkurim.  The Mishnah describes an elaborate procession whereby the people would carry decorated baskets in which they would place their first fruits. While many people would bring their first fruits during one of the pilgrimage festivals, either Shavuot or Sukkot, in order to avoid having to come to the Temple again, others would make special trips just to bring the bikkurim. These trips would have been occasions of great festivity. When a person hands his bikkurim over to the priest he has to make a formal declaration. This declaration is found in Deuteronomy 26 (see below) and is elaborated upon in the Mishnah. Tractate Bikkurim contains a fourth chapter that is not really part of the Mishnah. It was a medieval addition that was appended to the Mishnah from the Tosefta (a parallel tannaitic source). Nevertheless, we have included it in Mishnah Yomit because it is included in many printed editions of the Mishnah.  Below are the verses from the Torah which mention bikkurim.  ",
+            "Exodus 23:19 The choice first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the LORD your God. ",
+            "Numbers 18:13 The first fruits of everything in their land, that they bring to the LORD, shall be yours; everyone of your household who is clean may eat them.",
+            "Deuteronomy 26  1When you enter the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a heritage, and you possess it and settle in it,  2 you shall take some of every first fruit of the soil, which you harvest from the land that the LORD your God is giving you, put it in a basket and go to the place where the LORD your God will choose to establish His name.  3 You shall go to the priest in charge at that time and say to him, \"I acknowledge this day before the LORD your God that I have entered the land that the LORD swore to our fathers to assign us.\"  4 The priest shall take the basket from your hand and set it down in front of the altar of the LORD your God.  5 You shall then recite as follows before the LORD your God: \"My father was a fugitive Aramean. He went down to Egypt with meager numbers and sojourned there; but there he became a great and very populous nation.  6 The Egyptians dealt harshly with us and oppressed us; they imposed heavy labor upon us.  7 We cried to the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our plea and saw our plight, our misery, and our oppression.  8 The LORD freed us from Egypt by a mighty hand, by an outstretched arm and awesome power, and by signs and portents.  9 He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey.  10 Wherefore I now bring the first fruits of the soil which You, O LORD, have given me.\" You shall leave it before the LORD your God and bow low before the LORD your God.  11 And you shall enjoy, together with the Levite and the stranger in your midst, all the bounty that the LORD your God has bestowed upon you and your household.",
+            "Good luck learning Tractate Bikkurim—the last tractate in all of Seder Zeraim!"
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>There are some who bring bikkurim and recite [the declaration]; others who only bring, but do not recite; and there are some who neither bring nor recite.<br>The following are those that do not bring: one who plants [a vine] on his own property, but buries [a shoot in the ground] so that [it] grows on property belonging to [another] individual or to the public.<br>And similarly if one buries [a shoot in the ground] of another person’s private property or in public property, so that it grows on his own property;<br>Or, if one plants [a vine] on his own [property] and [buries it in the ground] so that it still grows on his own property, but there is a private or public road between, such a one does not bring [bikkurim.]<br>Rabbi Judah says: such a one has to bring bikkurim.</b><br>There are two mitzvoth when it comes to bikkurim: bringing them and making the formal declaration. Our mishnah clarifies that some people are obligated to bring the fruits and make the recitation, whereas others bring the fruits but don’t make the declaration and there are yet other types of people who need not bring bikkurim at all.<br>Section one: The mishnah describes a practice of grape-farmers to bury a vine into the ground in one place and then bring it up in another place. This would give the vine another place to derive water and nutrients from the ground without having to plant a whole new vine. The “new” vine looks new because it is coming out of the ground. However, it is not in reality new it is just the same vine as before coming up in a new place.<br>If a person puts a vine that begins on his property into the ground and then brings it up on property that is not his, he does not bring bikkurim. We will learn the reason why not in mishnah two.<br>Section two: The same is true if the vine begins on another’s property or on public property and he then brings it up out of the ground on his property. Even though the grapes will be harvested from his own property, he does not bring bikkurim.<br>Section three: In this case, the vine begins on his property, travels underneath another person’s private property or public property and then is brought up again on his property. The sages say that even though the vine begins and ends on his property he still does not bring. Rabbi Judah disagrees in this case (but not in the cases in sections one and two) and says that he does bring. Some commentators explain that Rabbi Judah disagrees only concerning a case where the vine traveled underneath public property. Rabbi Judah holds that a person can use the ground underneath public property for his own private use and therefore this is like a case where the entire vine grew on his property. The other rabbis hold that one cannot use the ground underneath public property and therefore, this is a case where the vine grew on property that did not belong to him. Rabbi Judah agrees that if the vine traveled underneath another’s private domain, he cannot bring bikkurim."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah brings scriptural support (meaning a midrash) for the rules found in yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>For what reason may he not bring them? Because it is said, “The first-fruits of your land” (Exodus 23:19) until all of their growth is on your land.</b>  The Torah states that one brings first fruits from “your land.” Since in all of the cases in yesterday’s mishnah a person used ground that did not belong to him for it was either public property or private property, in all of those cases he does not bring bikkurim.",
+                    "<b>Sharecroppers, leasers, or occupiers of confiscated property (, or a robber does not bring them for the same reason, because it says, “The first-fruits of your land.”</b>  The same verse explains why a person doesn’t bring bikkurim if he doesn’t own the land on which the fruit grew. “Sharecroppers” receive the land from its owner and in return they give him a percentage of the produce. “Leasers” give the owner a fixed sum, no matter what the level of produce is. An “occupier” refers to a person who bought land that the government had confiscated from its legal owners (see Gittin 5:6). Such a person does not own the property until he compensates the original owner. Since none of the people listed in this section own the land on which they have grown the fruit none of them bring bikkurim."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe Torah never directly states that first fruits are to be brought only from the seven species in which Israel was blessed (Deuteronomy 8:8), wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olive oil and date-honey. Nevertheless, our mishnah teaches that bikkurim are brought only from these species and only from quality types of these species.",
+                    "<b>Bikkurim are brought only from the seven species.</b>  As stated in the introduction, the laws of bikkurim apply only to these species.",
+                    "<b>Not from dates grown on hills, nor from [the other species] grown in the valley, nor from olives that are not choice.</b>  Choice dates grow in the valleys, whereas when it comes to the other species, the choice types grow in the hilly country. Therefore, one can bring dates only from trees that grow in the valleys and from the other species when they grow in the hills. Similarly, one can only bring choice olives.",
+                    "<b>Bikkurim are not to be brought before Shavuot.</b>  The Torah does not actually state when one is to bring bikkurim. However, it alludes to this when it calls Shavuot “the festival of the harvest, the first-fruits of your labors.” From this verse the rabbis learned that one cannot bring bikkurim before Shavuot, although one can bring them after Shavuot.",
+                    "<b>The people from Mt. Zevoim brought bikkurim prior to Atzeret (, but they did not accept from them, on for it is written in the Torah: “And the festival of the harvest, the first-fruits of your labors, which you have sown in the field” (Exodus 23:16).</b>  This final section was found also in Hallah 4:10. The people from Mt. Zevoim evidently thought that it was okay to bring first fruits before Shavuot. When they got to the Temple, the priests did not accept them."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah continues to explicate mishnah one by providing an example of someone who brings the bikkurim but does not read the declaration when he gives them to the priest.",
+                    "<b>These bring [bikkurim] but do not read the declaration:<br>The convert, since he cannot say: “Which the Lord has sworn to our fathers, to give to us” (Deuteronomy 26:3).</b>  The first example of a person who brings but does not recite is a convert. This mishnah might shock the reader who is accustomed to the attitude that a convert is a “full Jew” and that the law does not discriminate against him/her. While this is largely true, and when it comes to legal rights, one cannot discriminate against a convert, the Mishnah does not accord full liturgical equality to the convert. The convert cannot recite “the Lord has sworn to our fathers” because his father was not an Israelite.",
+                    "<b>If his mother was an Israelite, then he brings bikkurim and recites.</b>  If his mother was an Israelite then he can make the declaration because he is not really a convert. It is interesting to note that the Mishnah does not take for granted that the reader knows that a person whose mother is Jewish is not a convert. It needs to clarify the matter perhaps because this law was not yet firmly established at the time when the Mishnah was composed.",
+                    "<b>When he prays privately, he says: “God of the fathers of Israel,” but when he is in the synagogue, he should say: “The God of your fathers.”</b>  The liturgical inequality extends to prayer as well. The convert cannot state “Our God and the God of our fathers” which is in the opening lines of the Amidah because our God was not the God of his fathers. Rather, when he prays on his own he should say “our God, God of the fathers of Israel” and when he prays in the synagogue, probably as the prayer leader, he should say, “The God of your fathers.” I should note that this is no longer practiced. A convert recites the same Amidah as does every other Jew.",
+                    "<b>But if his mother was an Israelite, he says: “The God of our fathers’.</b>  Again, if his mother was an Israelite he is not a convert and therefore he can say “Our God, and the God of our fathers.”"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: a woman who is a daughter of a convert may not marry a priest unless her mother was herself an Israelite.<br>[This law applies equally to the offspring] whether of proselytes or freed slaves, even to ten generations, unless their mother is an Israelite.<br>A guardian, an agent, a slave, a woman, one of doubtful sex, or a hermaphrodite bring the bikkurim, but do not recite, since they cannot say: “Which you, O Lord, have given to me” (Deuteronomy 26:10).</b><br>The first part of today’s mishnah continues to deal with some halakhic differences between converts and those born Jewish.<br>The second part of the mishnah provides more examples of a person who brings bikkurim but does not make the declaration.<br>Section one: In order to be able to marry a priest, a woman must have been born to a Jewish mother or at least to a Jewish father. In other words, a daughter of two converts cannot marry a priest. The same is true with regard to the daughter of freed slaves. Furthermore, the same law applies for all subsequent generations. This means that if the daughter of two converts marries another convert, their daughter cannot marry a priest.<br>The main place for this halakhah is Mishnah Kiddushin 4:7. In that mishnah R. Yose disagrees and holds that the daughter of two converts can marry an Israelite. This is the accepted halakhah. The priest is only restricted from marrying an actual convert. The source of this law is probably Ezekiel 44:22 which states, “For they (priests) shall take for themselves as wives a widow or a divorcee, but rather a virgin from the seed of Israel.” To Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, the daughter of converts is not considered to be from the seed of Israel.<br>Section two: One can bring bikkurim and make the recitation only if the land on which the fruit grew belongs to him. The guardian, the agent and the slave are all bringing bikkurim on behalf of another person. This is a legitimate way to send one’s bikkurim to the Temple but the person bringing fruit on behalf of another cannot recite the declaration.<br>A woman, a person of doubtful sex (meaning they don’t have physical signs of being either male or female) and a hermaphrodite (has both male and female genitalia) can all own land. However, they were not a part of the original inheritance of the land in the time of Joshua. At that point, according to rabbinic tradition, the land was only bequeathed to men, more specifically to men who could demonstrate that they were certain men. This is derived from the verse “Which You, O Lord, have given to me.” The “giving” here does not refer to the current status of the land all of these people can own land. Rather it refers to the original division of the Land. Since they cannot recite this line, they don’t make the recitation."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah contains three more instances of a person who brings but does not recite. In each of these cases one of the other rabbis disputes the sages’ opinion and says that the person both brings the bikkurim and makes the recitation.",
+                    "<b>One who buys two trees [that had grown] in property belonging to his fellow brings bikkurim but does not recite the declaration. Rabbi Meir says: he brings and recites.</b>  When a person buys two standing trees from his friend, the land is not de facto included in the sale (see Bava Batra 5:4). Since he does not own the land and he just owns the fruit, he doesn’t recite the declaration. Rabbi Meir says that he does acquire the land when he buys two trees and therefore, he does make the declaration.",
+                    "<b>If the well dried up, or the tree was cut down, he brings but does not recite. Rabbi Judah says: he brings and recites.</b>  If the well from which he watered his trees dried up, it is as if he doesn’t have land. Water seems to have been so scarce and valuable that without water, the land really doesn’t mean very much. In such a case he will bring bikkurim, but not make the declaration. Similarly, if the tree from which the fruit grew was cut down, he doesn’t recite the declaration because the tree is not attached to the land anymore. It is as if the fruit no longer has land. Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that in both of these cases he does make the recital because after all, the land does still exist and he still owns it.",
+                    "<b>From Atzeret ( until the Festival (of he brings and recites.</b>  From Shavuot until Sukkot, which is the harvest time in the land of Israel, is the preferred time for bringing first fruits. One who brings at this time can make the declaration.",
+                    "<b>From the Festival (of and until Hannukah he brings, but does not recite. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: he brings and recites.</b>  Between Sukkot and Hannukah, which is about two months, some fruits are still left over in the trees. Therefore, he can bring bikkurim, but he can’t make the declaration. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says that as late as Hannukah, he can still bring the first fruit. After Hannukah, one can’t bring bikkurim until the following Shavuot."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with a situation in which a person sets aside his bikkurim and then sells his field before he is able to bring them to the Temple.",
+                    "<b>If one set aside his bikkurim and [afterwards] sold his field, he brings but does not recite.</b>  One who sold his field before he brought his first fruits cannot make the bikkurim declaration because he doesn’t own land when he brings them to the Temple.",
+                    "<b>The second one [who bought the field] does not bring [bikkurim] of the same species, but of another species he brings and recites.</b>  The second owner cannot bring bikkurim from the same species that the first person already set aside, because bikkurim cannot be brought twice in one year from the same species. However, he must bring bikkurim from another species and he makes the declaration as well.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: he may also bring of the same kind and recite.</b>  Rabbi Judah holds that the obligation to bring bikkurim falls on the person who owns the land. Since the second owner now owns the land, he must bring bikkurim even though they have already been brought from that species. In contrast, the other sages holds that bikkurim is an obligation that falls upon the fruit if the obligation has already been fulfilled then it cannot be filled again. ‘ ‘"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with a person whose bikkurim are either lost or ruined.",
+                    "<b>If one set aside his bikkurim and they were robbed, or rotted, were stolen or lost, or became unclean, he must bring others in their place, but does not recite [the declaration].</b>  Once a person sets aside his bikkurim he is responsible for them and if they are lost or ruined by either rotting or becoming impure, he must bring new bikkurim in their place. We shall learn the reason for this in tomorrow’s mishnah. However, when he brings the second set of bikkurim he cannot make the recitation because these are not actually “the first of his fruits.”",
+                    "<b>These others are not subject to the law of the [added] fifth.</b>  The rules governing bikkurim are like the rules governing terumah. If a non-priest eats them he must bring an added fifth. We will return to this subject in 2:1. Our mishnah teaches that this is so only with regard to the original first fruits. If a non-priest eats the replacement fruits, he is not liable to replace what he ate, but not to bring an added fifth. In essence, what the mishnah is saying is that the replacement fruits are not really bikkurim.",
+                    "<b>If they become unclean while in the Temple court, he must scatter them and he does not recite.</b>  Once he brings the fruit to the Temple court he is no longer responsible to replace them if they are lost or stolen. If they are become impure he cannot present them to the priest so what he should do is shake out the basket."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first part of our mishnah explains the scriptural source for yesterday’s mishnah where we learned that one is responsible to bring replacement bikkurim if his original bikkurim were either lost or ruined.\nThe second part of the mishnah deals with a person who brings bikkurim on two separate occasions.",
+                    "<b>From where do we know that one is responsible [for his bikkurim] until he brings them to the temple Mount? Because it says: “The first of the first-fruits of your land you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God” (Exodus 23:19) this teaches that he is responsible until he brings them to the Temple Mount.</b>  According to the rabbinic reading of this verse, it is not sufficient to just set aside one’s first fruits, one must bring them to the Temple in Jerusalem. If one cannot because they were lost or ruined, then he must set aside new first fruits in their place, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>If he brought [bikkurim] of one kind and made the recital and then brought of another kind, he does not make a [second] recital.</b>  If he brought bikkurim of one kind on one occasion, and then came back to the Temple on another occasion with bikkurim of another kind, he cannot make the declaration again. The declaration can be made only on one occasion. Even Rabbi Judah, who said in mishnah seven that if a person sells his field, the purchaser can bring bikkurim from the same species that the previous owner already brought, would agree here that one person cannot make the recital twice."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah lists those who bring bikkurim and make the declaration.",
+                    "<b>These bring and recite:<br>[One who brings bikkurim] from Atzeret until the Festival [of Sukkot], from the seven species, from fruit grown on the mountains, or dates grown in the valleys, from oil-olives, and from [produce] from the other side of the Jordan.</b>  Most of this list is just the opposite of those cases found in mishnah three, where we learned who doesn’t bring bikkurim. The one new piece of information in this mishnah is the issue of produce from the other side of the Jordan (also called Transjordan). According to the first opinion, since the Transjordan is “the land the Lord promised to our ancestors” (Deuteronomy 26:3) one can and must bring produce from this region.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: one does not bring [bikkurim] from transjordania, since that is not a land flowing with milk and honey.</b>  In contrast, Rabbi Yose the Galilean holds that one does not bring bikkurim from the other side of the Jordan because that is not considered to be a “land flowing with milk and honey” and in his recitation he mentions these words (verse 9)."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of this chapter relates back to mishnayot two and six.",
+                    "<b>One who bought three trees in another’s field, he brings [bikkurim] and recites. Rabbi Meir says: even [if he bought] only two.</b>  In mishnah six we learned that if a person buys two trees, he is not considered to have bought the land on which the trees grow. He brings bikkurim but he doesn’t recite. We learn today the obvious inference: if he buys three trees the land is his and he must bring and recite. Rabbi Meir says that even one who buys two trees is considered to have bought the land and he brings and recites. The same opinion was found in mishnah six.",
+                    "<b>If he bought one tree with its land, he brings [bikkurim] and recites.</b>  The above section dealt with a person who bought the trees but did not explicitly buy the land. If he explicitly buys the land that the tree grows on he brings and recites, even if he only bought one tree.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: even sharecroppers and leasers bring and recite.</b>  Rabbi Judah disagrees with the opinion found in mishnah two, that one who doesn’t own the land on which the produce grows does not brings the bikkurim. Rabbi Judah holds that a sharecropper’s and a leaser’s grasp on the land is sufficient enough to cause them to be liable to bring bikkurim and make the declaration as well."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first four mishnayot of this chapter compare the rules governing bikkurim with those governing terumah and maaser sheni.",
+                    "<b>Regarding terumah and bikkurim:<br>One is liable to death</b>  A non-priest who intentionally eats terumah or bikkurim is liable for “death by the hands of heaven.” He is not executed by a human court.",
+                    "<b>And the [additional] fifth;</b>  If a non-priest eats them unwittingly, when he discovers what he has done he must restore the value plus an added fifth (see Terumot 6:1-2).",
+                    "<b>And they are forbidden to non-priests;</b>  We already know this from sections one and two. It is taught here so that when we read section eight, we will understand that tithes are permitted to non-priests.",
+                    "<b>And they are the property of the priest;</b>  Bikkurim and terumah are the personal property of the priest who receives them and therefore he can use them to buy any thing he wishes, as long as the person who ends up eating them is also a priest.",
+                    "<b>And they are neutralized in a hundred and one parts;</b>  If one part bikkurim or terumah fall into one hundred parts hullin (non-sacred produce), one can remove one part, give it to the priest and the rest remains hullin. If there is less than 100 parts hullin, then the mixture is doubtful terumah/bikkurim and cannot be eaten by a non-priest.",
+                    "<b>And they require the washing of hands;</b>  One who comes to touch bikkurim or terumah must first ritually wash his hands.",
+                    "<b>And the setting of the sun.</b>  Before an impure priest eats terumah/bikkurim he must first go to the mikveh to purify himself. Afterwards he cannot eat them until the sun sets (see Leviticus 22:7).",
+                    "<b>These [laws] apply only to terumah and bikkurim, but not to tithe.</b>  All of these laws apply only to terumah and bikkurim. When it comes to maaser sheni (second tithe), a non-priest can eat them, one can use maaser sheni money to buy only food, drink or anointing oils (see Maaser Sheni 1:7), and if maaser sheni falls into a mixture, as long as it is less than half the mixture, it is nullified. First tithe is treated like hullin in all ways, except that it must be given to the Levite."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah compares maaser sheni with bikkurim.",
+                    "<b>There are [laws] which apply to [second tithe] and bikkurim but not to terumah:<br>That [second] tithe and bikkurim must to be brought to [the appointed] place;</b>  Both second tithe and bikkurim must be brought to Jerusalem.",
+                    "<b>They require confession;</b>  When one brings second tithe and bikkurim he has to make a recitation. For maaser sheni he makes what is known as the “confession of tithes”, see Deuteronomy 26:13 and for bikkurim he recites Deuteronomy 26:5-10.",
+                    "<b>They are forbidden to an onen. But Rabbi Shimon permits [bikkurim to an onen];</b>  An onen is a person who has had a close relative die but who has not yet buried him/her. This period extends only to the day of death. When it comes to tithe, as part of his confession he recites, “I did not eat of it in my period of morning (oni).” An onen cannot eat tithe. That same passage refers to tithe as “kodesh (holy)” and since bikkurim are also called “kodesh” the rabbis derive that an onen cannot eat bikkurim either. Rabbi Shimon allows an onen to eat bikkurim. In general we shall see that Rabbi Shimon holds that bikkurim are closer to terumah.",
+                    "<b>They are subject to [the law of] removal. But Rabbi Shimon exempts [bikkurim from removal].</b>  On the eve of the last day of Pesah on the fourth and seventh years of the sabbatical cycle one must remove all bikkurim and maaser that has accrued in one’s home (see Deuteronomy 26:13 and Maaser Sheni 5:6). At that point one takes them out and lets them rot. Again, Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that bikkurim are like terumah and that even after this time period has passed, one must give them to the priest.",
+                    "<b>And in Jerusalem the slightest mixture of them [with hullin of the same species] renders it forbidden to be consumed [as common food outside of Jerusalem.]</b>  If even the smallest amount of either bikkurim or maaser sheni becomes mixed in with hullin, the mixture cannot be eaten outside of Jerusalem. This is true only if the mixture occurs in Jerusalem. However, if the mixture happens outside of Jerusalem, then bikkurim are nullified in a ratio of 100-1 and maaser sheni is nullified as long as it is less than half of the mixture (we learned this in yesterday’s mishnah).",
+                    "<b>And what grows from them in Jerusalem is forbidden to be consumed [outside of Jerusalem],</b>  If plants grow in Jerusalem from bikkurim or maaser plants, the new plants must be treated as bikkurim or maaser sheni and they too must be consumed in Jerusalem. If the plants grow outside of Jerusalem then they are treated like hullin (see Terumot 9:4).",
+                    "<b>Even by non-priests or by cattle; But Rabbi Shimon permits.</b>  A mixture of the tiniest amount bikkurim and hullin is prohibited to non-priests, as are plants that grow from them in Jerusalem. The same is true when it comes to second tithe and hullin: the mixture cannot be eaten by animals, as is generally true of maaser sheni, nor can the plants that grow from it in Jerusalem. Rabbi Shimon says that the rules in the previous three sections apply only to maaser sheni but not to bikkurim.",
+                    "<b>Even by non-priests or by cattle; But Rabbi Shimon permits.</b>  Terumah need not be brought to Jerusalem, nor does one make a confession when one gives it to the priest. The rules regarding terumah are no different inside Jerusalem then they are outside."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah points out the similarities between terumah and maaser [sheni] that are not shared by bikkurim.",
+                    "<b>There are [laws] which apply to terumah and maaser [sheni] but not to bikkurim:<br>Terumah and the [second] tithe render forbidden [the contents of] the threshing-floor;</b>  Produce from which terumah or maaser sheni has not been removed is forbidden to be eaten. This is what it means that these things, “forbid the contents of the threshing-floor.” The “threshing-floor” here is just an example. Other types of produce, such as wine, oil, fruits and vegetables, also cannot be eaten until terumah and maaser sheni have been removed. However, one can eat produce if bikkurim have not been removed.",
+                    "<b>They have a set amount.</b>  Maaser sheni is a tenth of the produce that remains after first tithe and terumah have been removed. While the Torah did not set a fixed amount for terumah, the rabbis established that a generous amount is 1/40, a standard amount is 1/50 and a miserly amount is 1/60. For bikkurim there is no set amount (see Peah 1:1).",
+                    "<b>They apply to all produce;</b>  Terumah and maaser must be removed from all types of produce whereas bikkurim is taken out of the seven species only.",
+                    "<b>Both during and after Temple times;</b>  The laws of terumah and maaser remain in force even at a time when there is no Temple. The laws of bikkurim apply only when the Temple still stands.",
+                    "<b>[And they apply to to produce grown] by sharecroppers, leasers, or occupiers of confiscated property (, or a robber.</b>  In mishnah 1:2 we learned that a person who doesn’t own the land from which he grew his crops does not have to bring bikkurim. This is only true with regard to bikkurim when it comes to terumah and maaser sheni, they must be removed from the produce before it is eaten regardless of who grows it.",
+                    "<b>These are [the laws] which apply to terumah and maaser [sheni], but not to bikkurim.</b>  All of the above rules apply to terumah and maaser sheni, but not to bikkurim."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nSometimes bikkurim has unique laws that apply only to it and not to terumah or maaser.",
+                    "<b>And there are [laws] which apply to bikkurim which do not [apply] to terumah or maaser sheni:<br>For bikkurim can become acquired while still attached [to the soil].</b>  One can designate produce to be bikkurim while it is still attached to the ground. That would not work when it comes to terumah or maaser. These can only be designated as such once they have already been harvested.",
+                    "<b>And a man may make his entire field bikkurim;</b>  One can make one’s entire field into bikkurim, but one cannot make one’s entire threshing floor into terumah or maaser (see Hallah 1:9). Perhaps this is a result of terumah and maaser having set amounts since there is a set amount, one cannot make the entire crop into terumah or maaser.",
+                    "<b>He is responsible for them;</b>  As we learned in 1:9, one is responsible for his bikkurim until they get to the Temple Mount. In contrast, if one sets aside terumah or maaser and they spoil or are lost, he is not responsible to replace them.",
+                    "<b>And they require a sacrifice, a song, waving and spending the night in Jerusalem.</b>  When one brings bikkurim to the Temple, he must also bring a well-being sacrifice. This is derived from Deuteronomy 26:11, which states, “And you shall enjoy, together with the Levite and the stranger in your midst, all the bounty that the LORD your God has bestowed upon you and your household.” The rabbis understand this mitzvah as being a mitzvah to bring a sacrifice and rejoice in eating it. There is also a Psalm, called by our mishnah a song, that accompanies the bikkurim (we will see this in chapter three, mishnah four). When one presents the basket to the priest, he waves it as if it was a sacrifice (more on this below in 3:6). Finally, one who brings bikkurim to Jerusalem must spend the night there. This was probably done in order to help the innkeepers of Jerusalem make a living, and in order to aid in the festive atmosphere of the bikkurim procession. Funnily, I grew up in Atlantic City and one of the big complaints there was that people would come to gamble for the day and not stay the night. Perhaps the hoteliers should have had some rabbis help them out!"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nHaving completed comparing bikkurim, terumah and maaser with one another, the Mishnah now turns its attention to comparing terumat maaser with bikkurim and maaser. Terumat maaser is the terumah that the Levite takes out of the tithe that he receives (see Numbers 18:26).",
+                    "<b>The terumah of tithe is like bikkurim in two ways, and like terumah in two other ways:<br>It may be taken from pure produce for impure produce;</b>  There are two ways in which terumat maaser is like bikkurim. First of all, if one has pure maaser and impure maaser , he can separate terumah from his pure maaser in order to exempt his impure maaser. When it comes to terumah, one cannot do this (see Hallah 1:9; Terumot 2:1).",
+                    "<b>And from such produce that is not in close proximity, like bikkurim.</b>  If one has two piles of maaser, one that is in close proximity and one that lies further away, he can take terumat maaser from the close pile and thereby exempt the pile that is further away. Again, this cannot be done when it comes to giving terumah (see Hallah 1:9).",
+                    "<b>And it renders the contents of the threshing-floor forbidden,</b>  Terumat maaser is similar to terumah in that before one separates terumat maaser he cannot eat the grain that is found on the threshing floor, or other produce found elsewhere (see above mishnah three). Not having taken bikkurim, as we learned, does not render the produce forbidden.",
+                    "<b>And it has a prescribed amount like terumah.</b>  Terumat maaser is 1/10 of the maaser. This amount is fixed, as is terumah. Bikkurim, as we saw in mishnah three, do not have a fixed amount."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b> The rabbis seem to have caught comparison fever. Having finished comparing various agricultural gifts, they thought, \"Why stop now?\" Our mishnah compares the laws governing etrogim to those governing vegetables and fruits.  If you’re sick of talking about produce, don't worry, in the next mishnah we’ll compare different types of blood, and after that we’ll move on to the animal kingdom.",
+                    "<b>An etrog is similar in three ways to [the fruit of an ordinary] tree, and in one way to a vegetable.  is similar to a tree in respect of orlah, fourth year plantings, and [the law of] the seventh year;</b> When it comes to determining what year of its growth or of a sabbatical cycle the fruit of an etrog tree is in, we go after the time that the fruit begins to bud on the tree and not after the time that it is picked from the tree. If it buds during the third year, then it is prohibited because it is orlah. If it buds during the fourth year, it must be brought up to Jerusalem and eaten there. If it buds during the seventh year, it has the status of sabbatical year produce, which means that it must be treated with a certain amount of sanctity (see my Introduction to Sheviit).",
+                    "<b>And it is similar to a vegetable in one thing: that its tithing goes according to the time it is harvested, the words of Rabban Gamaliel. Rabbi Eliezer says: it is similar to a tree in all ways.</b> When it comes to determining what tithe year an etrog is in, meaning determining whether it is in its first, second, fourth or fifth year of a seven year sabbatical cycle, in which case second tithe is given, or whether it is in its third or sixth year in which case poor tithe is given, Rabban Gamaliel holds that we follow the time when the etrog is harvested, as is the case with vegetables. Thus, if the etrog buds during the second year of the sabbatical cycle, but is picked in the third year, the tithe removed is maaser ani (poor tithe) and not maaser sheni (second tithe).",
+                    "Rabbi Eliezer holds that in all ways an etrog is treated like the fruit of a tree and thus if it buds in the second year, maaser sheni is given even if it is picked during the third year."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe mishnah compares the laws governing human blood with those governing the blood of beasts (domesticated animals) and the blood of a sheretz, a creepy crawly thing, which includes reptiles and amphibians.",
+                    "<b>The blood of those who walk on two [legs] is like the blood of beasts in that it renders seeds susceptible [to impurity].</b>  Interestingly, human beings are called “those who walk on two legs” (which invokes Orwellian images of pigs). In order for seeds (or anything that grows from the ground) to become susceptible to impurity, they must become wet by one of seven liquids, one of which is blood (see Terumot 11:2). The blood of human beings and beasts serves to render the seeds susceptible, but the blood of a sheretz (which is cold-blooded) does not.",
+                    "<b>And it is like the blood of a sheretz, in that one is not liable for eating it.</b>  While one is not allowed to eat the blood of a sheretz, one who does so is not liable for the biblical punishment of karet (if done intentionally) nor is he liable to bring a sin offering if done unwittingly. The same is true of human blood it is prohibited, but one who eats it is not liable for either karet or a sacrifice."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A koy is in some ways like a wild animal (hayyah); in some ways it is like a domesticated animal (behemah); in some ways it is like both a behemah and a hayyah, and in some ways it is like neither a behemah nor a hayyah.</b><br>The laws regarding a domesticated beast (a behemah, such as a cow) and those governing a wild animal (a hayah, such as a deer) are different. The rest of the chapter discusses a koy an animal that is in some ways treated as if it was a domesticated beast and in some ways treated as if it was a wild animal. Because this animal doesn’t fit neatly into one category, how it works must be discussed. Besides, the rabbis just love to categorize and they especially love to talk about things that fall in-between two categories.<br>Some scholars say that a koy was a type of ram while others say it is the cross-breed between a male goat and a female deer. In any case, its precise identification is not crucial for understanding the Mishnah.<br>Today’s mishnah is just an introduction, one which doesn’t really provide any information. There is no commentary below."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah notes ways in which a koy (see yesterday’s explanation) is similar to a hayyah, a wild animal.",
+                    "<b>How is it like a wild animal?<br>Its blood must be covered like the blood of a wild animal.</b>  When one slaughters a hayyah one must pour the blood out on the ground and cover it (Leviticus 17:13). Since a koy might be a hayyah, one should do the same with a koy.",
+                    "<b>It may not be slaughtered on a festival.</b>  Preparation of food, including slaughtering, is permitted on Yom Tov, the first and last days of Pesah and Sukkot, and Shavuot. The problem with slaughtering a hayyah is that it is prohibited to dig up dirt in order to cover its blood. If there is already dirt set aside for this use, then one can slaughter a hayyah. However, when it comes to a koy, there is another problem--one cannot use even dirt that has already been dug up, because if the koy is actually a domesticated beast, then the dirt is muktzeh because it could not have been set aside to cover blood. Therefore, one cannot slaughter a koy on Yom Tov.",
+                    "<b>If he slaughtered it, he should not cover its blood.</b>  If he nevertheless did slaughter a koy, he should not cover its blood. It might not be a hayyah, in which case covering its blood would not be necessary.",
+                    "<b>Its fat is impure like that of a wild animal, but its impurity is of doubtful status.</b>  A certain type of fat, called “helev,” is impure when it comes from a hayyah but not when it comes from an improperly slaughtered behemah. When it comes to the koy, we must be concerned lest it really is a hayyah, and therefore we need to treat its fat as if it was impure. However, the status of the impurity that it conveys is only “doubtful” because it may indeed be a behemah. This has certain ramifications that I do not wish to get into here.",
+                    "<b>One does not redeem with it the first-born of a donkey.</b>  A first-born donkey must be redeemed by giving the priest a first born sheep in its stead (Exodus 13:13). Although a koy might be related to a sheep, or perhaps be a type of sheep, it can’t be used to redeem a first born donkey, because it might be a wild animal."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday we learn in what ways a koy is similar to a domesticated beast.",
+                    "<b>And how is [the koy] similar to a behemah (a domesticated?<br>Its fat ( is prohibited like the fat of a behemah, but one [who eats it] is not liable for karet.</b>  Leviticus 7:23-25 prohibits eating the helev, a type of fat, from a domesticated animal (other types of fat are permitted otherwise how would we get shmaltz?). Since a koy might actually be classified as a behemah, one cannot eat its helev. However, since it is not definite that a koy is a behemah, one who does eat the helev of a koy is not liable for the punishment of karet (I just used four Hebrew terms in one sentence I hope they were all clear).",
+                    "<b>It may not be bought with the money from second tithe to be eaten in Jerusalem.</b>  Second tithe is redeemed outside of Jerusalem, the money is brought to Jerusalem and there it is used to buy food or drink. If one wishes to buy meat he can buy a domesticated beast such as a sheep to use as a sacrifice or he can buy a hayyah to just eat. He can’t buy a koy to eat, because it might be a behemah and one can buy a behemah only  to use it as a sacrifice. He also can’t buy a koy to use as a sacrifice because it is not fit for sacrifice as it might be a hayyah, which are never used for sacrifices.",
+                    "<b>It is subject to [the priest’s share of] the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw. Rabbi Eliezer exempts it because the burden of proof is upon the one who extracts from his neighbor.</b>  When one slaughters a domesticated animal as hullin (non-sacrificial), he has to give a priest the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw. According to the first opinion, since a koy might be a behemah, when one slaughters a koy, he must give these to the priest. Rabbi Eliezer, disagrees and invokes the well-known principle that the burden of proof is upon the claimant. The priest would have to prove that a koy is a behemah in order to get these parts from an Israelite. Since he can’t, the Israelite need not give them to him."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of this chapter discusses ways that a koy is either different from both a behemah and a hayyah and ways that it is similar to both.",
+                    "<b>And how is [a koy] neither like a behemah nor like a hayyah?<br>It is forbidden because of kilayim [to yoke it] with either a behemah or a hayyah.</b>  It is forbidden to yoke together two animals of different species. Since a koy might be a behemah, it cannot be yoked with any hayyah, and since it might be a hayyah, it cannot be yoked together with any other behemah.",
+                    "<b>One who deeds his son his behemah and his hayyah he has not [thereby] given him the koy.</b>  If one writes a will to his son, bequeathing to him his behemot and his hayyot, he has not bequeathed to him his koy, because a koy is neither a behemah or a hayyah.",
+                    "<b>If one says, “I will become a nazirite if this is [not] a hayyah or a behemah”, he is a nazirite. In all other ways it is like a behemah and a hayyah:</b>  The person here makes a bet that an animal approaching is either a behemah or a hayyah. If he loses his bet, he will be a nazirite. Although this would seem to be a hard bet to lose, somehow he does lose the bet, for a koy is indeed, neither a behemah nor a hayyah.",
+                    "<b>It requires slaughtering ( like them both;</b>  The mishnah now begins to list ways in which a koy has the same rules that apply to a behemah and to a hayyah. The first is that one who wishes to eat a koy must slaughter it in the appropriate manner.",
+                    "<b>It carries carrion impurity;</b>  Carrion (nevelah) is an animal that was not slaughtered in a proper manner. The nevelah of a kosher animal is impure, and since the koy is kosher, its nevelah is impure.",
+                    "<b>And to it applies the law relating to a limb of a living being   like them both.</b>  It is forbidden to eat the limb of a living animal. This law applies only to beasts and wild animals but not to reptiles and other non-mammals. It applies to the koy in the same way that it applies to all behemot and hayyot."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nChapter three discusses how bikkurim were set aside and then it goes on to describe the festive ceremony of the bringing of the bikkurim to the Temple in Jerusalem.",
+                    "<b>How does one set aside bikkurim? A man goes down into his field, he sees a fig that ripened, or a cluster of grapes that ripened, or a pomegranate that ripened, he ties a reed-rope around it and says: “Let these be bikkurim.”</b>  Unlike most agricultural gifts, such as terumah and maaser, that are designated as such only once they have been plucked from the soil, bikkurim are set aside as soon as they begin to ripen, while they are still attached to the ground. In order to remember which fruits he designated as bikkurim, he ties a rope around them. When he harvests the figs, grapes or pomegranates, he need not designate them again as bikkurim.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: even so, he must again designate them as bikkurim after they have been plucked from the soil.</b>  Rabbi Shimon holds that even though he designated them as bikkurim while they were still attached to the ground, he must designate them again as bikkurim when he harvests them."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>How were the bikkurim taken up [to Jerusalem]?  All [the inhabitants of] the cities of the maamad would assemble in the city of the maamad, and they would spend the night in the open street and they would not entering any of the houses.<br>Early in the morning the officer would say: “Let us arise and go up to Zion, into the house of the Lord our God” (Jeremiah 31:5).</b><br>Our mishnah begins to describe the ceremony of bringing the bikkurim to the Temple. While a person could bring his bikkurim to the Temple on his own, the mishnah prefers to describe a festive ceremony in which everyone from all of Israel would bring their bikkurim at the same time.<br>In Temple times the priests were divided into 24 “mishmarot.”  The main purpose of this division was that each week a different mishmar of priests would serve in the Temple. Parallel to the division of the priests, the other people were divided into “maamadot.” When a mishmar’s priests were serving in the Temple, the people of the corresponding maamad would gather in the synagogues and read from the beginning of the book of Genesis. Others from the maamad would go up to Jerusalem with the priests to serve as their region’s representatives when the Tamid daily sacrifice was being offered in the Temple. One person was designated the “Rosh Hamaamad” or the Head of the Maamad, and it was in his town that the people would gather. For more on this topic see Taanit 4:2.<br>When it came time to bring bikkurim up to the Temple, all of the people of the various cities of the maamad would gather together in the “city of the maamad” which was the city where the Rosh Hamaamad dwelled. They would not sleep inside, but rather outside in the street. This would prevent them from possibly contracting corpse impurity inside the houses. Corpse impurity would disqualify them from bringing the bikkurim.<br>When they rose in the morning, an appointed officer would begin the ritual by reciting a charge taken from the book of Jeremiah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Those who lived near [Jerusalem] would bring fresh figs and grapes, while those who lived far away would bring dried figs and raisins.<br>An ox would go in front of them, his horns bedecked with gold and with an olive-crown on its head.<br>The flute would play before them until they would draw close to Jerusalem.<br>When they drew close to Jerusalem they would send messengers in advance, and they would adorn their bikkurim.<br>The governors and chiefs and treasurers [of the Temple] would go out to greet them, and according to the rank of the entrants they would go forth.<br>All the skilled artisans of Jerusalem would stand up before them and greet them saying, “Our brothers, men of such and such a place, we welcome you in peace.”</b><br>The mishnah continues to describe the procession to Jerusalem. The mishnah is easily understood, so I will comment here on a few interesting matters and refrain from commenting below.<br>Saul Lieberman, the preeminent scholar of rabbinic literature in the 20th century, wrote a book called Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, and in the book he devotes a chapter entitled, “Heathen Pre-Sacrificial Rites in the Light of Rabbinic Sources,” to the ritual described in our mishnah. Lieberman notes that the bikkurim ritual as described in this mishnah is not taken from the Bible, which makes no mention of such a ritual. Rather, certain elements are customs that are parallel to Greco-Roman sacrificial rituals, most significantly the ox with gilded horns. This was a common feature in sacrificial processions in the Roman Empire. Clearly, when Jews of the time came to create a new ritual, they did so based on what they saw in the non-Jewish world. However, Lieberman also notes that this is the only time the mishnah describes an ox with gilded horns. Such a practice was not done with regular sacrificial oxen used in the Temple. In other words, when it came to the heart of their ancient tradition, the Temple ritual, the Jews were less likely to adopt foreign practice than they were with innovative rituals that were performed outside of the Temple.<br>The other feature that I find interesting in this mishnah is the line, “according to the rank of the entrants they would go forth.” This means that important Temple and Jerusalem officials would go out to greet important guests, whereas lesser officials would greet lesser guests. This is of course not surprising and is indeed human nature, but it is still important to note that ritual often served and still does serve as an opportunity for human beings to emphasize their social hierarchy. We should think in our own lives how often our public rituals are often laden with issues concerning the social hierarchy."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The flute would play before them, until they reached the Temple Mount.<br>When they reached the Temple Mount even King Agrippas would take the basket and place it on his shoulder and walk as far as the Temple Court.<br>When he got to the Temple Court, the Levites would sing the song: “I will extol You, O Lord, for You have raised me up, and You have not let my enemies rejoice over me” (Psalms 30:2).</b><br>Having been greeted at the entrance to Jerusalem, we continue on our journey to the Temple Mount. Most of this mishnah is straightforward, so I will only deal with certain issues that come up in section two.<br>Section two: In the Second Temple period there were a few kings named Agrippas. A ccording to Albeck, the Mishnah refers to Agrippas I, who lived between 10 B.C.E-44 C.E. and ruled in the Galilee between 37-41 and became king of Judea from 41-44. He was the grandson of Herod the Great. He is also referred to favorably in Sotah 7:8. The mishnah there discusses a festive gathering which occurred on the last day of Sukkot at the end of the Sabbatical year. At that time they would read portions from Deuteronomy. The mishnah states:<br>The synagogue attendant takes a Torah scroll and hands it to the head of the synagogue, the head of the synagogue hands it to the deputy and he hands it to the high priest, and the high priest hands it to the king and the king stands and receives it, but reads it while sitting. King Agrippa stood and received it and read standing, and the sages praised him. When he reached, “You shall not place a foreigner over you” (ibid 17:15) his eyes ran with tears. They said to him, “Fear not, Agrippas, you are our brother, you are our brother!”<br>Just as he acted humbly in that mishnah by standing when he could have sat, so too in our mishnah, Agrippas is mentioned favorably, for he humbly puts the basket with the bikkurim in it on his shoulder, just as all other Jews did.<br>This mishnah serves as an interesting foil for yesterday’s mishnah. There we learned that the social status of the people visiting Jerusalem was emphasized by those coming out to greet them when they arrived. Today we see the opposite the very king of Israel would make sure that he acted in the same humble manner as everyone else. Perhaps this is also a tendency of human beings. We want to see our leaders act humbly, so that we can think of them as being “just like us.” On the other hand, we also want to elevate any small social advantage we have over others. Oh what fascinating creatures we are!"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The birds [tied to] the basket were [offered] as whole burnt-offerings, and those which they held in their hands they gave to the priests.</b> Along with the baskets of fruit and other produce that they brought to the Temple, to augment their gifts, they would also bring some birds, both for use as sacrifices and to serve as gifts to the priests. Some of the birds were tied to the baskets these would be offered as whole burnt offerings, but those brought by hand were given simply as gifts to the priests. Bon Appetit priests!"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah explains at what precise point in the procedure the verses from Deuteronomy 26 were actually recited. In order to better understand this mishnah, I will bring here the biblical verses that it explains:\n3 You shall go to the priest in charge at that time and say to him, \"I acknowledge this day before the LORD your God that I have entered the land that the LORD swore to our fathers to assign us.\"\n4 The priest shall take the basket from your hand and set it down in front of the altar of the LORD your God.\n5 You shall then recite as follows before the LORD your God: \"My father was a fugitive Aramean. He went down to Egypt with meager numbers and sojourned there; but there he became a great and very populous nation.\n6 The Egyptians dealt harshly with us and oppressed us; they imposed heavy labor upon us.\n7 We cried to the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our plea and saw our plight, our misery, and our oppression.\n8 The LORD freed us from Egypt by a mighty hand, by an outstretched arm and awesome power, and by signs and portents.\n9 He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey.\n10 Wherefore I now bring the first fruits of the soil which You, O LORD, have given me.\" You shall leave it before the LORD your God and bow low before the LORD your God.",
+                    "<b>While the basket was still on his shoulder he recites from: \"I acknowledge this day before the LORD your God that I have entered the land that the LORD swore to our fathers to assign us” (Deuteronomy 26:3) until he completes the passage.</b>  According to the first opinion in the mishnah, the entire passage is read while the basket is still on his shoulders. He would then take the basket off his shoulders and leave it at the altar, as it states in section ten.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah said: until [he reaches] “My father was a fugitive Aramean” (v. 5). When he reaches, “My father was a fugitive Aramean”, he takes the basket off his shoulder and holds it by its edges, and the priest places his hand beneath it and waves it. He then recites from “My father was a fugitive Aramean” until he completes the entire passage.</b>  Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that only verse 3 is recited while he has the basket on his shoulder. After that point, he lowers the basket and he and the priest jointly hold it and wave it, in the same way that many offerings are waved before the altar. This is also the same opinion found in 2:4 above. We should note that Rabbi Judah might be making an attempt to resolve a certain difficulty in the verses. Verse 4 says that the priest shall take it from your hand, implying that one says verse 3, then the priest takes the basket and then one continues with verses 5-9 while the priest holds the basket. However, verse 10 says that at that point shall he leave the basket, perhaps implying that while reciting verses 5-9 he was still holding the basket. Rabbi Judah seems to resolve this difficulty by positing that they jointly hold the basket while he recites verses 5-9.",
+                    "<b>He then deposits the basket by the side of the altar, bow and depart.</b>  This section returns to being everyone’s opinion. He puts the basket down and leaves, as is explicitly stated in verse 10."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Originally all who knew how to recite would recite while those who did not know how to recite, others would read it for them [and they would repeat the words].<br>But when they refrained from bringing, they decreed that they should read the words to both those who could and those who could not [recite so that they could repeat after them].</b><br>Evidently, not everyone knew how to recite the bikkurim verses from the Torah. Originally, to remedy this problem someone who knew how to read would read the passage and the person bringing the bikkurim who did not know how to read would repeat the words after him.<br>The problem with this is that it was embarrassing for people to admit that they couldn’t read. To avoid this embarrassing situation, people stopped bringing bikkurim altogether. It is interesting to note that already in ancient times people feared having to make public liturgical declarations. This is reminiscent of people who might not come to synagogue today because they fear being embarrassed at not knowing how to say the words or not knowing when to sit or stand.<br>In order to solve this problem, they instituted that the recitation would be read to everyone, so that everyone would have to repeat after someone else. This way no one would be singled out for embarrassment. Note that the rabbis didn’t just say, “Let them learn how to read.” That might be desirable, but would probably not solve the problem of people not bringing bikkurim. Rather, they found a solution that would prevent people from being embarrassed, allow them to bring their bikkurim, without forcing them to have to spend years of their life educating themselves."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The rich would bring their bikkurim in baskets overlaid with silver or gold, while the poor used wicker-baskets of peeled willow-branches, and the baskets and the bikkurim were given to the priest.</b> Today’s mishnah again returns to the distinctions made during the bikkurim procession between the rich and the poor. The rich would overlay their baskets with gold and silver while the poor were forced to bring their bikkurim in simple wicker baskets. Interestingly, according to the Babylonian Talmud, the rich would take their baskets back and only the poor had to leave their baskets there. This proves a folk saying found in the Talmud, “Poverty follows the poor.” That is to say, the poor get poorer, while the rich stay rich by getting their beautiful baskets back."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn mishnah three we learned that they would decorate the baskets with beautiful fruits. In our mishnah two sages debate how they would decorate the baskets.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas says: they would decorate the bikkurim [with produce] other than the seven species.</b>  According to Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas, they were allowed to decorate the bikkurim baskets with any kind of produce, even produce that is not one of the seven species from which one brings bikkurim.",
+                    "<b>But Rabbi Akiva says: they may decorate only with produce of the seven kinds.</b>  Rabbi Akiva says that just as the bikkurim themselves come only from the seven species, so too the fruits used as decoration may come only from the seven species. He seems to be concerned lest it seem that they are bringing bikkurim from other species, and therefore he rules that even decorative produce must also be of the seven species."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah analyzes the differences between the bikkurim, fruits that are brought as an addition to the bikkurim and fruits used to decorate the bikkurim baskets.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says:  there are three elements in bikkurim: the bikkurim, the additions   to the bikkurim, and the ornamentations of the bikkurim.</b>  Rabbi Shimon wishes to distinguish between the bikkurim themselves and two other categories. The first is “the additions to the bikkurim” which are fruit that a person did not designate as bikkurim when he originally set the bikkurim aside but that he wishes to bring as bikkurim when he goes to the Temple. The second category is the purely ornamental fruit, discussed in yesterday’s mishnah. As we shall see, the additions to the bikkurim are basically treated as bikkurim, whereas the ornamentations are not.",
+                    "<b>The additions to the bikkurim must be of a like kind; But the ornamentations can be of a different kind.</b>  The additions to the bikkurim must be of the same species as the bikkurim themselves. Thus if he wants to add to his figs, he must bring more figs. However, the ornamentations can be of any species, as Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas stated in yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>The additions to the bikkurim can only be eaten in purity, and are exempt from demai. But the ornamentations of the bikkurim are subject to demai.</b>  The additions to the bikkurim are treated almost as if they were themselves bikkurim and therefore they can be eaten only in a state of ritual purity. They are exempt from demai, which means that if a priest receives additions to bikkurim from an am haaretz (one who is not trusted with regard to tithes), he need not tithe them out of doubt lest they had not yet been tithed. Bikkurim themselves are completely exempt from tithes. In contrast, if a priest receives bikkurim ornamentations from an am haaretz he needs to tithe them, just as one always needs to tithe produce received from an am haaretz. All the more so must he remove tithes if he knows that the fruit has not yet been tithed. Again, the ornamentations of bikkurim do not have the status of bikkurim and they are fully obligated in all tithing laws."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>When did they say that the additions to the bikkurim are like bikkurim [themselves]? When they come from the land [of Israel]; but if they do not come from the land, they were not regarded as bikkurim [themselves].</b> This mishnah clarifies a point in yesterday’s mishnah. Additions to bikkurim have the halakhic status of bikkurim only if they are brought from the land of Israel. If they are brought from outside of the land, for instance from Transjordan which is in according to some opinions liable for bikkurim (see 1:10), then they don’t have the same status as bikkurim. This means they will be liable for demai and they can be eaten while impure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah, the last of our chapter, discusses the ramifications of the fact that the bikkurim belong to the priest and they are his property, a rule we learned in 2:1.",
+                    "<b>In what respect did they say that bikkurim are the property of the priest? In that he can purchase with bikkurim slaves and land and unclean beasts, and a creditor [of his] may take them for his debt, and his wife for her ketubah.</b>  The priest can sell or barter his bikkurim as he pleases. He can buy anything he wants with them. They count as his money and therefore if he owes money to a creditor or to his wife to pay off her ketubah, the creditor or wife can collect from bikkurim that were given to the priest. Of course, even after he sells them or gives them to a creditor the rules governing the eating of bikkurim still apply. Only priests could eat them, and they would need to be eaten in a state of ritual purity.",
+                    "<b>As may be done with a Torah scroll.</b>  Technically, a Torah scroll may also be sold in order to buy something else or used in the collection of a debt. However, the rabbis said that anyone who sells a Torah scroll will never see a blessing. Perhaps the mishnah also wants to make that negative comparison with selling a Torah, as if to say, yes, one can sell bikkurim, just as one can sell a Torah, but one who does so will never see a blessing. Another reading of this mishnah says not “as may be done with a Torah” but “and a Torah scroll.” This would mean that one can use bikkurim to buy a Torah scroll. However, it is unlikely that this version is original. After all, if you can use bikkurim to buy slaves etc., then why would you think you couldn’t use them to buy a Torah scroll.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: bikkurim may be given only to [a priest that is] a haver (an and as a favor.</b>  Rabbi Judah says that one can give bikkurim only to a priest known to scrupulously observe the purity laws. Such a priest is called a “haver” which in rabbinic terminology is the opposite of an “am haaretz,” one who is suspected of not observing the purity laws or properly tithing his produce. Rabbi Judah also holds that one can choose which priest he gives his bikkurim to. When he gives the bikkurim to this priest, the priest may consider it a favor, and perhaps return the favor at some later point. However, the priest may not pay for the bikkurim.",
+                    "<b>But the sages say: they are given to the men of the mishmar, and they divide them among themselves as [they do] with all other consecrated objects.</b>  The other rabbis disagree as to how bikkurim are divided among the priests. In their opinion bikkurim are divided in the same way as are other consecrated objects whatever mishmar, priestly watch, is on duty in the Temple at that time receives them. A person does not have a choice as to which priest receives his bikkurim. The mishmar would decide which priest is trustworthy to eat the bikkurim while in a state of purity, just as they do with other consecrated objects such as sacrifices."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAs I noted in the introduction to the tractate, chapter four of Bikkurim is not an original part of Mishnah Bikkurim. It was appended to some manuscripts and some printed editions of the Mishnah, but its origins are in the Tosefta, a tannaitic companion to the Mishnah. It was not commented upon in the Yerushalmi, nor was it commented upon by the classic mishnaic commentators. I have included it here because some Mishnah Yomit schedules include it.\nThe topic of the chapter is the hermaphrodite, known in Hebrew/Greek as the “androgynus,” a person who has the signs of being both a man and a woman. It is discussed here as an appendix to chapter two, which discussed things that don’t fit neatly into one category, such as the koy. The hermaphrodite does not fit neatly into the category of either man or woman, and hence the rabbis find it interesting to clarify in what ways a hermaphrodite is like a man and it what ways he/she is like a woman.",
+                    "<b>The hermaphrodite is in some ways like men, and in other ways like women. In other ways he is like men and women, and in others he is like neither men nor women.</b> This mishnah is patterned after 2:8 which discussed the koy. It serves as an introduction for the rest of the chapter without really providing any information."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn today’s mishnah we learn in what ways a hermaphrodite is halakhically treated like a man.",
+                    "<b>In what ways is he like men?<br>He causes impurity with white discharge, like men;</b>  A zav is a man who has had an abnormal genital discharge. This discharge is white in color, like an egg white. The color of a woman’s abnormal genital discharge, which makes her into a zavah, is not white. A hermaphrodite becomes a zav if he has a white discharge, whereas a woman who had a white discharge would not.",
+                    "<b>He dresses like men;</b>  The Torah prohibits a man from dressing like a woman and a woman from dressing like a man. The hermaphrodite must dress like a man.",
+                    "<b>He can take a wife but not be taken as a wife, like men.</b>  When it comes to marriage, the hermaphrodite is treated like a man he can marry a woman, but he cannot be married by a man.",
+                    "<b>[When he is born] his mother counts the blood of purification, like men;</b>  When a boy is born, his mother is impure for seven days. After this seven day period, if she has discharges of blood during the next 33 days, the blood is treated as pure. These amounts are double for a girl (Leviticus 12:2-5). A hermaphrodite is treated like a boy and his mother counts the blood of purification for 33 days. Note that this is a stringency after 33 days, any blood she sees is considered impure.",
+                    "<b>He may not be secluded with women, like men.</b>  A hermaphrodite may not be secluded with women, just as men may not (see Kiddushin 4:12).",
+                    "<b>He is not maintained with the daughters, like men;</b>  When a man dies, his daughters are maintained by his estate until they are either married or reach maturity. Boys, on the other hand, are not maintained. Since the hermaphrodite is not considered a female, he is not maintained.",
+                    "<b>He transgresses the law of: “You shall not round” (Leviticus 19:2 and “You shall not defile for the dead,” (Leviticus 21:1) like men;</b>  The two prohibitions mentioned here, not to round the corners of one’s head and for priests not to intentionally become impure by contact with the dead, apply only to men. They apply to hermaphrodites as well.",
+                    "<b>And he must perform all the commandments of the Torah, like men.</b>  Men are obligated in all of the commandments, unlike women who are exempt from positive, time-bound commandments. Hermaphrodites are obligated for all of the commandments, like men."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn today’s mishnah we see that in some ways the laws that apply to a hermaphrodite are the same laws that apply to women. What the Mishnah seems to be saying in today’s mishnah and yesterday’s is that while a hermaphrodite is mostly treated as if he was male, and therefore he can marry a woman, we must be concerned lest he is actually a female. This leads to many stringencies which are enumerated here.",
+                    "<b>And in what ways is he like women?<br>He causes impurity with red discharge, like women;</b>  A woman becomes a zavah when she has a red discharge (at a time other than when she is menstruating). A hermaphrodite who has a red abnormal discharge is impure, like women. Were s/he to be considered a man, such a discharge would not make him impure.",
+                    "<b>And he must not be secluded with men, like women;</b>  A hermaphrodite cannot be secluded with men, the same rule that applies to women. We see that a hermaphrodite can’t be secluded with anyone, because we don’t know what sex she/he is.",
+                    "<b>And he doesn’t make his brother’s wife liable for yibbum (levirate;</b>  If a man’s brother is a hermaphrodite and the man dies without a child, his wife is not liable for levirate marriage with the hermaphrodite, as she would be if he was a man.",
+                    "<b>And he does not share [in the inheritance] with the sons, like women;</b>  If a man dies with male and female children, the males inherit and the females are maintained by the money left in the estate. We saw yesterday that the hermaphrodite is not maintained with the girls, because he might be male. Today we learn that he is not treated as a boy either, so he doesn’t share in the inheritance. We should think of this law as reflecting the principle “the burden of proof is upon the claimant.” He can’t prove that he is female, so the other girls can say to him, “You don’t share in being maintained until you can prove that you are female.” But he also can’t prove that he is male, so the other male children can say to him, “You can’t share in the inheritance until you can prove that you are male.”",
+                    "<b>And he cannot eat most holy sacrifices, like women.</b>  Only priests can eat most holy sacrifices. Daughters and wives of priests do not. Since the hermaphrodite might be female, s/he too cannot eat these sacrifices.",
+                    "<b>At his birth his mother counts the blood of her impurity like [they do when they give birth to a] girl;</b>  Yesterday we saw that when a child is born, his mother counts 7 days of impurity for a boy, and then 33 days in which any blood she sees is pure. For a girl she is impure for 14 days, and then for 66 days any blood she sees is pure. When it came to the pure days, a woman who gives birth to a hermaphrodite counts only 33, as if the child was male. Here we learn, that when it comes to the impure days, she counts 14 days, as if the child was female. Both of these rules are stringencies, for we must be concerned lest the hermaphrodite is male and lest she/he is female.",
+                    "<b>And he is disqualified from being a witness, like women.</b>  Only males can serve as witnesses, at least in most areas of halakhah. The hermaphrodite cannot serve as a witness, lest s/he be female.",
+                    "<b>If he had illicit intercourse, he is disqualified from eating terumah, like women.</b>  A daughter of a priest who has had forbidden intercourse (adultery or incest) can no longer eat terumah. This rule applies to the hermaphrodite, lest he is a female. Note that a male priest who has forbidden intercourse is not disqualified from eating terumah. Were the hermaphrodite to be considered male, he could keep eating terumah. Again this is a stringency."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>In what ways is he like both men and women?<br>One who strikes him or curses him is liable, as in the case of men and women;<br>One who unwittingly kills him must go into exile, and if on purpose, then [the slayer] receives the death penalty, as in the case of men and women.<br>His mother must [at his birth] bring an offering, as in the case of men and women.<br>He may eat holy things that are eaten outside of the Temple;<br>And he may inherit any inheritance, as in the case of men and women.</b><br>This mishnah lists ways in which a hermaphrodite is similar to both a man and a woman.<br>Sections one and two: These sections simply state that laws that apply equally to men and women, apply to the hermaphrodite as well. The hermaphrodite is neither fully male nor fully female, but he/she is fully human. Thus one who strikes or curses him is liable for a punishment. Someone who kills him, either accidentally or on purpose, is liable for the same penalty as is incurred for killing a man or a woman.<br>Section three: When a woman gives birth she must bring a sacrifice (Leviticus 12:6). For a hermaphrodite she brings this sacrifice at the end of a 40 day period.<br>Section four: All Jews can eat certain sacrifices, namely those that can be eaten outside of the Temple court, such as the pesah sacrifice. The hermaphrodite can eat these as well.<br>Section five: If a hermaphrodite is an only child, he inherits his father (and his mother, if his mother’s husband is no longer alive.)"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of our chapter, tractate and seder (game, set and match) delineates ways in which a hermaphrodite is like neither a man nor a woman.",
+                    "<b>And in what is he different from both men and women?<br>One does not burn terumah if it came into contact with his discharge,</b>  In mishnayot 2 and 3 we learned that when it comes to the impurity of his discharge, the hermaphrodite is a doubtful male/female. Therefore, if he sees white discharge like a man, we must be concerned lest he is male, and if he sees red discharge like a female, we must be concerned lest he is female. Here we learn that whether he sees red or white discharge, his status is only that of doubtfully impure. When one who is doubtfully impure comes into contact with terumah, the terumah is not burned as is done if it comes into contact with someone who is certainly impure, because it is forbidden to burn pure terumah and this terumah might in reality be pure. They couldn’t eat the terumah, lest it be impure. Rather, they would wait until the terumah became certainly impure, and then they could burn it.",
+                    "<b>Neither is he liable for entering the temple while impure, unlike men or women.</b>  A male or a female who enters the Temple while impure has transgressed. However, this only applies to someone who is either certainly male or certainly female. Since the hermaphrodite is neither, he is not liable for entering the Temple while impure.",
+                    "<b>He must not be sold as a Hebrew slave, unlike men or women.</b>  An adult male can be sold as a Hebrew slave (usually if he was caught stealing and doesn’t have money to repay his debt) but a adult woman cannot. Since the hermaphrodite might be a female, he can’t be sold as a Hebrew slave. A female can be sold by her father while she is still a minor, but a male cannot. Since the hermaphrodite might be male, he cannot be sold as a minor. It turns out that a hermaphrodite can never be sold into slavery.",
+                    "<b>He cannot be evaluated, unlike men or women.</b>  Leviticus 27 deals with the evaluation of a person whose value has been dedicated to the Temple. Every person has a value that is dependent upon sex and age. Since a hermaphrodite’s sex cannot be determined, he cannot be evaluated.",
+                    "<b>If one says: “I will be a nazirite, if he is neither a man nor a woman,” then he becomes a nazirite.</b>  In the scenario described here, upon seeing someone a person says that he will be a nazirite if that person is neither a male nor a female. Since the hermaphrodite is actually neither male nor female, the person who took the nazirite vow has become a nazirite.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: the hermaphrodite is a unique creature, and the sages could not decide about him. But this is not so with a tumtum (one of doubtful, for sometimes he is a man and sometimes he is a woman.</b>  In this final section, Rabbi Yose distinguishes between a true hermaphrodite, and what is termed a “tumtum,” a pseudo-hermaphrodite. The true hermaphrodite is actually unique and the sages could not decide whether to classify him as male or female. In contrast, the pseudo-hermaphrodite’s sex can be determined, sometimes as male and sometimes as female. While the doubt concerning the hermaphrodite’s sex is permanent, the “true” sex of the pseudo-hermaphrodite can, at least on occasion, be determined. Congratulations!  We have finished Bikkurim and Seder Zeraim! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and the seder 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. Wow! We have finished Seder Zeraim. We began this seder with Berakhot in June of 2007 and it is now March 2009 almost two full years have passed. For those of you who began learning Mishnah Yomit in the very beginning with Seder Nezikin we have been learning for about 5 years. Your commitment, whether you have been learning for years, months or weeks, is what keeps this program going. That’s the good news. The even better news is that we still have two seders to go, and they are going to be more challenging than the first four (why do you think we started with Nezikin?). Tomorrow we begin to learn Seder Kodashim which deals with sacrificial law and various other subjects related to the Temple. So look for the Introduction to Tractate Zevahim that will appear in your inbox tomorrow. But for now, kick back and feel good about having learned all of Seder Zeraim, and for some of you an entire 2/3 of the Mishnah. The end (at least our first run through, there is never a real end to learning) is only a few years away! Tomorrow we begin Tracate Zevahim."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ביכורים",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bikkurim",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bikkurim",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Bikkurim/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,283 @@
+{
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bikkurim",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Bikkurim",
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "The first fruits of the seven species that Israel was “blessed with” (wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olive oil and date honey) must be brought to the Temple in Jerusalem and given to the priests. These fruits are called in Hebrew, bikkurim.  The Mishnah describes an elaborate procession whereby the people would carry decorated baskets in which they would place their first fruits. While many people would bring their first fruits during one of the pilgrimage festivals, either Shavuot or Sukkot, in order to avoid having to come to the Temple again, others would make special trips just to bring the bikkurim. These trips would have been occasions of great festivity. When a person hands his bikkurim over to the priest he has to make a formal declaration. This declaration is found in Deuteronomy 26 (see below) and is elaborated upon in the Mishnah. Tractate Bikkurim contains a fourth chapter that is not really part of the Mishnah. It was a medieval addition that was appended to the Mishnah from the Tosefta (a parallel tannaitic source). Nevertheless, we have included it in Mishnah Yomit because it is included in many printed editions of the Mishnah.  Below are the verses from the Torah which mention bikkurim.  ",
+            "Exodus 23:19 The choice first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the LORD your God. ",
+            "Numbers 18:13 The first fruits of everything in their land, that they bring to the LORD, shall be yours; everyone of your household who is clean may eat them.",
+            "Deuteronomy 26  1When you enter the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a heritage, and you possess it and settle in it,  2 you shall take some of every first fruit of the soil, which you harvest from the land that the LORD your God is giving you, put it in a basket and go to the place where the LORD your God will choose to establish His name.  3 You shall go to the priest in charge at that time and say to him, \"I acknowledge this day before the LORD your God that I have entered the land that the LORD swore to our fathers to assign us.\"  4 The priest shall take the basket from your hand and set it down in front of the altar of the LORD your God.  5 You shall then recite as follows before the LORD your God: \"My father was a fugitive Aramean. He went down to Egypt with meager numbers and sojourned there; but there he became a great and very populous nation.  6 The Egyptians dealt harshly with us and oppressed us; they imposed heavy labor upon us.  7 We cried to the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our plea and saw our plight, our misery, and our oppression.  8 The LORD freed us from Egypt by a mighty hand, by an outstretched arm and awesome power, and by signs and portents.  9 He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey.  10 Wherefore I now bring the first fruits of the soil which You, O LORD, have given me.\" You shall leave it before the LORD your God and bow low before the LORD your God.  11 And you shall enjoy, together with the Levite and the stranger in your midst, all the bounty that the LORD your God has bestowed upon you and your household.",
+            "Good luck learning Tractate Bikkurim—the last tractate in all of Seder Zeraim!"
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>There are some who bring bikkurim and recite [the declaration]; others who only bring, but do not recite; and there are some who neither bring nor recite.<br>The following are those that do not bring: one who plants [a vine] on his own property, but buries [a shoot in the ground] so that [it] grows on property belonging to [another] individual or to the public.<br>And similarly if one buries [a shoot in the ground] of another person’s private property or in public property, so that it grows on his own property;<br>Or, if one plants [a vine] on his own [property] and [buries it in the ground] so that it still grows on his own property, but there is a private or public road between, such a one does not bring [bikkurim.]<br>Rabbi Judah says: such a one has to bring bikkurim.</b><br>There are two mitzvoth when it comes to bikkurim: bringing them and making the formal declaration. Our mishnah clarifies that some people are obligated to bring the fruits and make the recitation, whereas others bring the fruits but don’t make the declaration and there are yet other types of people who need not bring bikkurim at all.<br>Section one: The mishnah describes a practice of grape-farmers to bury a vine into the ground in one place and then bring it up in another place. This would give the vine another place to derive water and nutrients from the ground without having to plant a whole new vine. The “new” vine looks new because it is coming out of the ground. However, it is not in reality new it is just the same vine as before coming up in a new place.<br>If a person puts a vine that begins on his property into the ground and then brings it up on property that is not his, he does not bring bikkurim. We will learn the reason why not in mishnah two.<br>Section two: The same is true if the vine begins on another’s property or on public property and he then brings it up out of the ground on his property. Even though the grapes will be harvested from his own property, he does not bring bikkurim.<br>Section three: In this case, the vine begins on his property, travels underneath another person’s private property or public property and then is brought up again on his property. The sages say that even though the vine begins and ends on his property he still does not bring. Rabbi Judah disagrees in this case (but not in the cases in sections one and two) and says that he does bring. Some commentators explain that Rabbi Judah disagrees only concerning a case where the vine traveled underneath public property. Rabbi Judah holds that a person can use the ground underneath public property for his own private use and therefore this is like a case where the entire vine grew on his property. The other rabbis hold that one cannot use the ground underneath public property and therefore, this is a case where the vine grew on property that did not belong to him. Rabbi Judah agrees that if the vine traveled underneath another’s private domain, he cannot bring bikkurim."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah brings scriptural support (meaning a midrash) for the rules found in yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>For what reason may he not bring them? Because it is said, “The first-fruits of your land” (Exodus 23:19) until all of their growth is on your land.</b>  The Torah states that one brings first fruits from “your land.” Since in all of the cases in yesterday’s mishnah a person used ground that did not belong to him for it was either public property or private property, in all of those cases he does not bring bikkurim.",
+                    "<b>Sharecroppers, leasers, or occupiers of confiscated property (, or a robber does not bring them for the same reason, because it says, “The first-fruits of your land.”</b>  The same verse explains why a person doesn’t bring bikkurim if he doesn’t own the land on which the fruit grew. “Sharecroppers” receive the land from its owner and in return they give him a percentage of the produce. “Leasers” give the owner a fixed sum, no matter what the level of produce is. An “occupier” refers to a person who bought land that the government had confiscated from its legal owners (see Gittin 5:6). Such a person does not own the property until he compensates the original owner. Since none of the people listed in this section own the land on which they have grown the fruit none of them bring bikkurim."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe Torah never directly states that first fruits are to be brought only from the seven species in which Israel was blessed (Deuteronomy 8:8), wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olive oil and date-honey. Nevertheless, our mishnah teaches that bikkurim are brought only from these species and only from quality types of these species.",
+                    "<b>Bikkurim are brought only from the seven species.</b>  As stated in the introduction, the laws of bikkurim apply only to these species.",
+                    "<b>Not from dates grown on hills, nor from [the other species] grown in the valley, nor from olives that are not choice.</b>  Choice dates grow in the valleys, whereas when it comes to the other species, the choice types grow in the hilly country. Therefore, one can bring dates only from trees that grow in the valleys and from the other species when they grow in the hills. Similarly, one can only bring choice olives.",
+                    "<b>Bikkurim are not to be brought before Shavuot.</b>  The Torah does not actually state when one is to bring bikkurim. However, it alludes to this when it calls Shavuot “the festival of the harvest, the first-fruits of your labors.” From this verse the rabbis learned that one cannot bring bikkurim before Shavuot, although one can bring them after Shavuot.",
+                    "<b>The people from Mt. Zevoim brought bikkurim prior to Atzeret (, but they did not accept from them, on for it is written in the Torah: “And the festival of the harvest, the first-fruits of your labors, which you have sown in the field” (Exodus 23:16).</b>  This final section was found also in Hallah 4:10. The people from Mt. Zevoim evidently thought that it was okay to bring first fruits before Shavuot. When they got to the Temple, the priests did not accept them."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah continues to explicate mishnah one by providing an example of someone who brings the bikkurim but does not read the declaration when he gives them to the priest.",
+                    "<b>These bring [bikkurim] but do not read the declaration:<br>The convert, since he cannot say: “Which the Lord has sworn to our fathers, to give to us” (Deuteronomy 26:3).</b>  The first example of a person who brings but does not recite is a convert. This mishnah might shock the reader who is accustomed to the attitude that a convert is a “full Jew” and that the law does not discriminate against him/her. While this is largely true, and when it comes to legal rights, one cannot discriminate against a convert, the Mishnah does not accord full liturgical equality to the convert. The convert cannot recite “the Lord has sworn to our fathers” because his father was not an Israelite.",
+                    "<b>If his mother was an Israelite, then he brings bikkurim and recites.</b>  If his mother was an Israelite then he can make the declaration because he is not really a convert. It is interesting to note that the Mishnah does not take for granted that the reader knows that a person whose mother is Jewish is not a convert. It needs to clarify the matter perhaps because this law was not yet firmly established at the time when the Mishnah was composed.",
+                    "<b>When he prays privately, he says: “God of the fathers of Israel,” but when he is in the synagogue, he should say: “The God of your fathers.”</b>  The liturgical inequality extends to prayer as well. The convert cannot state “Our God and the God of our fathers” which is in the opening lines of the Amidah because our God was not the God of his fathers. Rather, when he prays on his own he should say “our God, God of the fathers of Israel” and when he prays in the synagogue, probably as the prayer leader, he should say, “The God of your fathers.” I should note that this is no longer practiced. A convert recites the same Amidah as does every other Jew.",
+                    "<b>But if his mother was an Israelite, he says: “The God of our fathers’.</b>  Again, if his mother was an Israelite he is not a convert and therefore he can say “Our God, and the God of our fathers.”"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: a woman who is a daughter of a convert may not marry a priest unless her mother was herself an Israelite.<br>[This law applies equally to the offspring] whether of proselytes or freed slaves, even to ten generations, unless their mother is an Israelite.<br>A guardian, an agent, a slave, a woman, one of doubtful sex, or a hermaphrodite bring the bikkurim, but do not recite, since they cannot say: “Which you, O Lord, have given to me” (Deuteronomy 26:10).</b><br>The first part of today’s mishnah continues to deal with some halakhic differences between converts and those born Jewish.<br>The second part of the mishnah provides more examples of a person who brings bikkurim but does not make the declaration.<br>Section one: In order to be able to marry a priest, a woman must have been born to a Jewish mother or at least to a Jewish father. In other words, a daughter of two converts cannot marry a priest. The same is true with regard to the daughter of freed slaves. Furthermore, the same law applies for all subsequent generations. This means that if the daughter of two converts marries another convert, their daughter cannot marry a priest.<br>The main place for this halakhah is Mishnah Kiddushin 4:7. In that mishnah R. Yose disagrees and holds that the daughter of two converts can marry an Israelite. This is the accepted halakhah. The priest is only restricted from marrying an actual convert. The source of this law is probably Ezekiel 44:22 which states, “For they (priests) shall take for themselves as wives a widow or a divorcee, but rather a virgin from the seed of Israel.” To Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, the daughter of converts is not considered to be from the seed of Israel.<br>Section two: One can bring bikkurim and make the recitation only if the land on which the fruit grew belongs to him. The guardian, the agent and the slave are all bringing bikkurim on behalf of another person. This is a legitimate way to send one’s bikkurim to the Temple but the person bringing fruit on behalf of another cannot recite the declaration.<br>A woman, a person of doubtful sex (meaning they don’t have physical signs of being either male or female) and a hermaphrodite (has both male and female genitalia) can all own land. However, they were not a part of the original inheritance of the land in the time of Joshua. At that point, according to rabbinic tradition, the land was only bequeathed to men, more specifically to men who could demonstrate that they were certain men. This is derived from the verse “Which You, O Lord, have given to me.” The “giving” here does not refer to the current status of the land all of these people can own land. Rather it refers to the original division of the Land. Since they cannot recite this line, they don’t make the recitation."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah contains three more instances of a person who brings but does not recite. In each of these cases one of the other rabbis disputes the sages’ opinion and says that the person both brings the bikkurim and makes the recitation.",
+                    "<b>One who buys two trees [that had grown] in property belonging to his fellow brings bikkurim but does not recite the declaration. Rabbi Meir says: he brings and recites.</b>  When a person buys two standing trees from his friend, the land is not de facto included in the sale (see Bava Batra 5:4). Since he does not own the land and he just owns the fruit, he doesn’t recite the declaration. Rabbi Meir says that he does acquire the land when he buys two trees and therefore, he does make the declaration.",
+                    "<b>If the well dried up, or the tree was cut down, he brings but does not recite. Rabbi Judah says: he brings and recites.</b>  If the well from which he watered his trees dried up, it is as if he doesn’t have land. Water seems to have been so scarce and valuable that without water, the land really doesn’t mean very much. In such a case he will bring bikkurim, but not make the declaration. Similarly, if the tree from which the fruit grew was cut down, he doesn’t recite the declaration because the tree is not attached to the land anymore. It is as if the fruit no longer has land. Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that in both of these cases he does make the recital because after all, the land does still exist and he still owns it.",
+                    "<b>From Atzeret ( until the Festival (of he brings and recites.</b>  From Shavuot until Sukkot, which is the harvest time in the land of Israel, is the preferred time for bringing first fruits. One who brings at this time can make the declaration.",
+                    "<b>From the Festival (of and until Hannukah he brings, but does not recite. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says: he brings and recites.</b>  Between Sukkot and Hannukah, which is about two months, some fruits are still left over in the trees. Therefore, he can bring bikkurim, but he can’t make the declaration. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says that as late as Hannukah, he can still bring the first fruit. After Hannukah, one can’t bring bikkurim until the following Shavuot."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with a situation in which a person sets aside his bikkurim and then sells his field before he is able to bring them to the Temple.",
+                    "<b>If one set aside his bikkurim and [afterwards] sold his field, he brings but does not recite.</b>  One who sold his field before he brought his first fruits cannot make the bikkurim declaration because he doesn’t own land when he brings them to the Temple.",
+                    "<b>The second one [who bought the field] does not bring [bikkurim] of the same species, but of another species he brings and recites.</b>  The second owner cannot bring bikkurim from the same species that the first person already set aside, because bikkurim cannot be brought twice in one year from the same species. However, he must bring bikkurim from another species and he makes the declaration as well.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: he may also bring of the same kind and recite.</b>  Rabbi Judah holds that the obligation to bring bikkurim falls on the person who owns the land. Since the second owner now owns the land, he must bring bikkurim even though they have already been brought from that species. In contrast, the other sages holds that bikkurim is an obligation that falls upon the fruit if the obligation has already been fulfilled then it cannot be filled again. ‘ ‘"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with a person whose bikkurim are either lost or ruined.",
+                    "<b>If one set aside his bikkurim and they were robbed, or rotted, were stolen or lost, or became unclean, he must bring others in their place, but does not recite [the declaration].</b>  Once a person sets aside his bikkurim he is responsible for them and if they are lost or ruined by either rotting or becoming impure, he must bring new bikkurim in their place. We shall learn the reason for this in tomorrow’s mishnah. However, when he brings the second set of bikkurim he cannot make the recitation because these are not actually “the first of his fruits.”",
+                    "<b>These others are not subject to the law of the [added] fifth.</b>  The rules governing bikkurim are like the rules governing terumah. If a non-priest eats them he must bring an added fifth. We will return to this subject in 2:1. Our mishnah teaches that this is so only with regard to the original first fruits. If a non-priest eats the replacement fruits, he is not liable to replace what he ate, but not to bring an added fifth. In essence, what the mishnah is saying is that the replacement fruits are not really bikkurim.",
+                    "<b>If they become unclean while in the Temple court, he must scatter them and he does not recite.</b>  Once he brings the fruit to the Temple court he is no longer responsible to replace them if they are lost or stolen. If they are become impure he cannot present them to the priest so what he should do is shake out the basket."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first part of our mishnah explains the scriptural source for yesterday’s mishnah where we learned that one is responsible to bring replacement bikkurim if his original bikkurim were either lost or ruined.\nThe second part of the mishnah deals with a person who brings bikkurim on two separate occasions.",
+                    "<b>From where do we know that one is responsible [for his bikkurim] until he brings them to the temple Mount? Because it says: “The first of the first-fruits of your land you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God” (Exodus 23:19) this teaches that he is responsible until he brings them to the Temple Mount.</b>  According to the rabbinic reading of this verse, it is not sufficient to just set aside one’s first fruits, one must bring them to the Temple in Jerusalem. If one cannot because they were lost or ruined, then he must set aside new first fruits in their place, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>If he brought [bikkurim] of one kind and made the recital and then brought of another kind, he does not make a [second] recital.</b>  If he brought bikkurim of one kind on one occasion, and then came back to the Temple on another occasion with bikkurim of another kind, he cannot make the declaration again. The declaration can be made only on one occasion. Even Rabbi Judah, who said in mishnah seven that if a person sells his field, the purchaser can bring bikkurim from the same species that the previous owner already brought, would agree here that one person cannot make the recital twice."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah lists those who bring bikkurim and make the declaration.",
+                    "<b>These bring and recite:<br>[One who brings bikkurim] from Atzeret until the Festival [of Sukkot], from the seven species, from fruit grown on the mountains, or dates grown in the valleys, from oil-olives, and from [produce] from the other side of the Jordan.</b>  Most of this list is just the opposite of those cases found in mishnah three, where we learned who doesn’t bring bikkurim. The one new piece of information in this mishnah is the issue of produce from the other side of the Jordan (also called Transjordan). According to the first opinion, since the Transjordan is “the land the Lord promised to our ancestors” (Deuteronomy 26:3) one can and must bring produce from this region.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: one does not bring [bikkurim] from transjordania, since that is not a land flowing with milk and honey.</b>  In contrast, Rabbi Yose the Galilean holds that one does not bring bikkurim from the other side of the Jordan because that is not considered to be a “land flowing with milk and honey” and in his recitation he mentions these words (verse 9)."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of this chapter relates back to mishnayot two and six.",
+                    "<b>One who bought three trees in another’s field, he brings [bikkurim] and recites. Rabbi Meir says: even [if he bought] only two.</b>  In mishnah six we learned that if a person buys two trees, he is not considered to have bought the land on which the trees grow. He brings bikkurim but he doesn’t recite. We learn today the obvious inference: if he buys three trees the land is his and he must bring and recite. Rabbi Meir says that even one who buys two trees is considered to have bought the land and he brings and recites. The same opinion was found in mishnah six.",
+                    "<b>If he bought one tree with its land, he brings [bikkurim] and recites.</b>  The above section dealt with a person who bought the trees but did not explicitly buy the land. If he explicitly buys the land that the tree grows on he brings and recites, even if he only bought one tree.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: even sharecroppers and leasers bring and recite.</b>  Rabbi Judah disagrees with the opinion found in mishnah two, that one who doesn’t own the land on which the produce grows does not brings the bikkurim. Rabbi Judah holds that a sharecropper’s and a leaser’s grasp on the land is sufficient enough to cause them to be liable to bring bikkurim and make the declaration as well."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first four mishnayot of this chapter compare the rules governing bikkurim with those governing terumah and maaser sheni.",
+                    "<b>Regarding terumah and bikkurim:<br>One is liable to death</b>  A non-priest who intentionally eats terumah or bikkurim is liable for “death by the hands of heaven.” He is not executed by a human court.",
+                    "<b>And the [additional] fifth;</b>  If a non-priest eats them unwittingly, when he discovers what he has done he must restore the value plus an added fifth (see Terumot 6:1-2).",
+                    "<b>And they are forbidden to non-priests;</b>  We already know this from sections one and two. It is taught here so that when we read section eight, we will understand that tithes are permitted to non-priests.",
+                    "<b>And they are the property of the priest;</b>  Bikkurim and terumah are the personal property of the priest who receives them and therefore he can use them to buy any thing he wishes, as long as the person who ends up eating them is also a priest.",
+                    "<b>And they are neutralized in a hundred and one parts;</b>  If one part bikkurim or terumah fall into one hundred parts hullin (non-sacred produce), one can remove one part, give it to the priest and the rest remains hullin. If there is less than 100 parts hullin, then the mixture is doubtful terumah/bikkurim and cannot be eaten by a non-priest.",
+                    "<b>And they require the washing of hands;</b>  One who comes to touch bikkurim or terumah must first ritually wash his hands.",
+                    "<b>And the setting of the sun.</b>  Before an impure priest eats terumah/bikkurim he must first go to the mikveh to purify himself. Afterwards he cannot eat them until the sun sets (see Leviticus 22:7).",
+                    "<b>These [laws] apply only to terumah and bikkurim, but not to tithe.</b>  All of these laws apply only to terumah and bikkurim. When it comes to maaser sheni (second tithe), a non-priest can eat them, one can use maaser sheni money to buy only food, drink or anointing oils (see Maaser Sheni 1:7), and if maaser sheni falls into a mixture, as long as it is less than half the mixture, it is nullified. First tithe is treated like hullin in all ways, except that it must be given to the Levite."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah compares maaser sheni with bikkurim.",
+                    "<b>There are [laws] which apply to [second tithe] and bikkurim but not to terumah:<br>That [second] tithe and bikkurim must to be brought to [the appointed] place;</b>  Both second tithe and bikkurim must be brought to Jerusalem.",
+                    "<b>They require confession;</b>  When one brings second tithe and bikkurim he has to make a recitation. For maaser sheni he makes what is known as the “confession of tithes”, see Deuteronomy 26:13 and for bikkurim he recites Deuteronomy 26:5-10.",
+                    "<b>They are forbidden to an onen. But Rabbi Shimon permits [bikkurim to an onen];</b>  An onen is a person who has had a close relative die but who has not yet buried him/her. This period extends only to the day of death. When it comes to tithe, as part of his confession he recites, “I did not eat of it in my period of morning (oni).” An onen cannot eat tithe. That same passage refers to tithe as “kodesh (holy)” and since bikkurim are also called “kodesh” the rabbis derive that an onen cannot eat bikkurim either. Rabbi Shimon allows an onen to eat bikkurim. In general we shall see that Rabbi Shimon holds that bikkurim are closer to terumah.",
+                    "<b>They are subject to [the law of] removal. But Rabbi Shimon exempts [bikkurim from removal].</b>  On the eve of the last day of Pesah on the fourth and seventh years of the sabbatical cycle one must remove all bikkurim and maaser that has accrued in one’s home (see Deuteronomy 26:13 and Maaser Sheni 5:6). At that point one takes them out and lets them rot. Again, Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that bikkurim are like terumah and that even after this time period has passed, one must give them to the priest.",
+                    "<b>And in Jerusalem the slightest mixture of them [with hullin of the same species] renders it forbidden to be consumed [as common food outside of Jerusalem.]</b>  If even the smallest amount of either bikkurim or maaser sheni becomes mixed in with hullin, the mixture cannot be eaten outside of Jerusalem. This is true only if the mixture occurs in Jerusalem. However, if the mixture happens outside of Jerusalem, then bikkurim are nullified in a ratio of 100-1 and maaser sheni is nullified as long as it is less than half of the mixture (we learned this in yesterday’s mishnah).",
+                    "<b>And what grows from them in Jerusalem is forbidden to be consumed [outside of Jerusalem],</b>  If plants grow in Jerusalem from bikkurim or maaser plants, the new plants must be treated as bikkurim or maaser sheni and they too must be consumed in Jerusalem. If the plants grow outside of Jerusalem then they are treated like hullin (see Terumot 9:4).",
+                    "<b>Even by non-priests or by cattle; But Rabbi Shimon permits.</b>  A mixture of the tiniest amount bikkurim and hullin is prohibited to non-priests, as are plants that grow from them in Jerusalem. The same is true when it comes to second tithe and hullin: the mixture cannot be eaten by animals, as is generally true of maaser sheni, nor can the plants that grow from it in Jerusalem. Rabbi Shimon says that the rules in the previous three sections apply only to maaser sheni but not to bikkurim.",
+                    "<b>Even by non-priests or by cattle; But Rabbi Shimon permits.</b>  Terumah need not be brought to Jerusalem, nor does one make a confession when one gives it to the priest. The rules regarding terumah are no different inside Jerusalem then they are outside."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah points out the similarities between terumah and maaser [sheni] that are not shared by bikkurim.",
+                    "<b>There are [laws] which apply to terumah and maaser [sheni] but not to bikkurim:<br>Terumah and the [second] tithe render forbidden [the contents of] the threshing-floor;</b>  Produce from which terumah or maaser sheni has not been removed is forbidden to be eaten. This is what it means that these things, “forbid the contents of the threshing-floor.” The “threshing-floor” here is just an example. Other types of produce, such as wine, oil, fruits and vegetables, also cannot be eaten until terumah and maaser sheni have been removed. However, one can eat produce if bikkurim have not been removed.",
+                    "<b>They have a set amount.</b>  Maaser sheni is a tenth of the produce that remains after first tithe and terumah have been removed. While the Torah did not set a fixed amount for terumah, the rabbis established that a generous amount is 1/40, a standard amount is 1/50 and a miserly amount is 1/60. For bikkurim there is no set amount (see Peah 1:1).",
+                    "<b>They apply to all produce;</b>  Terumah and maaser must be removed from all types of produce whereas bikkurim is taken out of the seven species only.",
+                    "<b>Both during and after Temple times;</b>  The laws of terumah and maaser remain in force even at a time when there is no Temple. The laws of bikkurim apply only when the Temple still stands.",
+                    "<b>[And they apply to to produce grown] by sharecroppers, leasers, or occupiers of confiscated property (, or a robber.</b>  In mishnah 1:2 we learned that a person who doesn’t own the land from which he grew his crops does not have to bring bikkurim. This is only true with regard to bikkurim when it comes to terumah and maaser sheni, they must be removed from the produce before it is eaten regardless of who grows it.",
+                    "<b>These are [the laws] which apply to terumah and maaser [sheni], but not to bikkurim.</b>  All of the above rules apply to terumah and maaser sheni, but not to bikkurim."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nSometimes bikkurim has unique laws that apply only to it and not to terumah or maaser.",
+                    "<b>And there are [laws] which apply to bikkurim which do not [apply] to terumah or maaser sheni:<br>For bikkurim can become acquired while still attached [to the soil].</b>  One can designate produce to be bikkurim while it is still attached to the ground. That would not work when it comes to terumah or maaser. These can only be designated as such once they have already been harvested.",
+                    "<b>And a man may make his entire field bikkurim;</b>  One can make one’s entire field into bikkurim, but one cannot make one’s entire threshing floor into terumah or maaser (see Hallah 1:9). Perhaps this is a result of terumah and maaser having set amounts since there is a set amount, one cannot make the entire crop into terumah or maaser.",
+                    "<b>He is responsible for them;</b>  As we learned in 1:9, one is responsible for his bikkurim until they get to the Temple Mount. In contrast, if one sets aside terumah or maaser and they spoil or are lost, he is not responsible to replace them.",
+                    "<b>And they require a sacrifice, a song, waving and spending the night in Jerusalem.</b>  When one brings bikkurim to the Temple, he must also bring a well-being sacrifice. This is derived from Deuteronomy 26:11, which states, “And you shall enjoy, together with the Levite and the stranger in your midst, all the bounty that the LORD your God has bestowed upon you and your household.” The rabbis understand this mitzvah as being a mitzvah to bring a sacrifice and rejoice in eating it. There is also a Psalm, called by our mishnah a song, that accompanies the bikkurim (we will see this in chapter three, mishnah four). When one presents the basket to the priest, he waves it as if it was a sacrifice (more on this below in 3:6). Finally, one who brings bikkurim to Jerusalem must spend the night there. This was probably done in order to help the innkeepers of Jerusalem make a living, and in order to aid in the festive atmosphere of the bikkurim procession. Funnily, I grew up in Atlantic City and one of the big complaints there was that people would come to gamble for the day and not stay the night. Perhaps the hoteliers should have had some rabbis help them out!"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nHaving completed comparing bikkurim, terumah and maaser with one another, the Mishnah now turns its attention to comparing terumat maaser with bikkurim and maaser. Terumat maaser is the terumah that the Levite takes out of the tithe that he receives (see Numbers 18:26).",
+                    "<b>The terumah of tithe is like bikkurim in two ways, and like terumah in two other ways:<br>It may be taken from pure produce for impure produce;</b>  There are two ways in which terumat maaser is like bikkurim. First of all, if one has pure maaser and impure maaser , he can separate terumah from his pure maaser in order to exempt his impure maaser. When it comes to terumah, one cannot do this (see Hallah 1:9; Terumot 2:1).",
+                    "<b>And from such produce that is not in close proximity, like bikkurim.</b>  If one has two piles of maaser, one that is in close proximity and one that lies further away, he can take terumat maaser from the close pile and thereby exempt the pile that is further away. Again, this cannot be done when it comes to giving terumah (see Hallah 1:9).",
+                    "<b>And it renders the contents of the threshing-floor forbidden,</b>  Terumat maaser is similar to terumah in that before one separates terumat maaser he cannot eat the grain that is found on the threshing floor, or other produce found elsewhere (see above mishnah three). Not having taken bikkurim, as we learned, does not render the produce forbidden.",
+                    "<b>And it has a prescribed amount like terumah.</b>  Terumat maaser is 1/10 of the maaser. This amount is fixed, as is terumah. Bikkurim, as we saw in mishnah three, do not have a fixed amount."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b> The rabbis seem to have caught comparison fever. Having finished comparing various agricultural gifts, they thought, \"Why stop now?\" Our mishnah compares the laws governing etrogim to those governing vegetables and fruits.  If you’re sick of talking about produce, don't worry, in the next mishnah we’ll compare different types of blood, and after that we’ll move on to the animal kingdom.",
+                    "<b>An etrog is similar in three ways to [the fruit of an ordinary] tree, and in one way to a vegetable.  is similar to a tree in respect of orlah, fourth year plantings, and [the law of] the seventh year;</b> When it comes to determining what year of its growth or of a sabbatical cycle the fruit of an etrog tree is in, we go after the time that the fruit begins to bud on the tree and not after the time that it is picked from the tree. If it buds during the third year, then it is prohibited because it is orlah. If it buds during the fourth year, it must be brought up to Jerusalem and eaten there. If it buds during the seventh year, it has the status of sabbatical year produce, which means that it must be treated with a certain amount of sanctity (see my Introduction to Sheviit).",
+                    "<b>And it is similar to a vegetable in one thing: that its tithing goes according to the time it is harvested, the words of Rabban Gamaliel. Rabbi Eliezer says: it is similar to a tree in all ways.</b> When it comes to determining what tithe year an etrog is in, meaning determining whether it is in its first, second, fourth or fifth year of a seven year sabbatical cycle, in which case second tithe is given, or whether it is in its third or sixth year in which case poor tithe is given, Rabban Gamaliel holds that we follow the time when the etrog is harvested, as is the case with vegetables. Thus, if the etrog buds during the second year of the sabbatical cycle, but is picked in the third year, the tithe removed is maaser ani (poor tithe) and not maaser sheni (second tithe).",
+                    "Rabbi Eliezer holds that in all ways an etrog is treated like the fruit of a tree and thus if it buds in the second year, maaser sheni is given even if it is picked during the third year."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe mishnah compares the laws governing human blood with those governing the blood of beasts (domesticated animals) and the blood of a sheretz, a creepy crawly thing, which includes reptiles and amphibians.",
+                    "<b>The blood of those who walk on two [legs] is like the blood of beasts in that it renders seeds susceptible [to impurity].</b>  Interestingly, human beings are called “those who walk on two legs” (which invokes Orwellian images of pigs). In order for seeds (or anything that grows from the ground) to become susceptible to impurity, they must become wet by one of seven liquids, one of which is blood (see Terumot 11:2). The blood of human beings and beasts serves to render the seeds susceptible, but the blood of a sheretz (which is cold-blooded) does not.",
+                    "<b>And it is like the blood of a sheretz, in that one is not liable for eating it.</b>  While one is not allowed to eat the blood of a sheretz, one who does so is not liable for the biblical punishment of karet (if done intentionally) nor is he liable to bring a sin offering if done unwittingly. The same is true of human blood it is prohibited, but one who eats it is not liable for either karet or a sacrifice."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A koy is in some ways like a wild animal (hayyah); in some ways it is like a domesticated animal (behemah); in some ways it is like both a behemah and a hayyah, and in some ways it is like neither a behemah nor a hayyah.</b><br>The laws regarding a domesticated beast (a behemah, such as a cow) and those governing a wild animal (a hayah, such as a deer) are different. The rest of the chapter discusses a koy an animal that is in some ways treated as if it was a domesticated beast and in some ways treated as if it was a wild animal. Because this animal doesn’t fit neatly into one category, how it works must be discussed. Besides, the rabbis just love to categorize and they especially love to talk about things that fall in-between two categories.<br>Some scholars say that a koy was a type of ram while others say it is the cross-breed between a male goat and a female deer. In any case, its precise identification is not crucial for understanding the Mishnah.<br>Today’s mishnah is just an introduction, one which doesn’t really provide any information. There is no commentary below."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah notes ways in which a koy (see yesterday’s explanation) is similar to a hayyah, a wild animal.",
+                    "<b>How is it like a wild animal?<br>Its blood must be covered like the blood of a wild animal.</b>  When one slaughters a hayyah one must pour the blood out on the ground and cover it (Leviticus 17:13). Since a koy might be a hayyah, one should do the same with a koy.",
+                    "<b>It may not be slaughtered on a festival.</b>  Preparation of food, including slaughtering, is permitted on Yom Tov, the first and last days of Pesah and Sukkot, and Shavuot. The problem with slaughtering a hayyah is that it is prohibited to dig up dirt in order to cover its blood. If there is already dirt set aside for this use, then one can slaughter a hayyah. However, when it comes to a koy, there is another problem--one cannot use even dirt that has already been dug up, because if the koy is actually a domesticated beast, then the dirt is muktzeh because it could not have been set aside to cover blood. Therefore, one cannot slaughter a koy on Yom Tov.",
+                    "<b>If he slaughtered it, he should not cover its blood.</b>  If he nevertheless did slaughter a koy, he should not cover its blood. It might not be a hayyah, in which case covering its blood would not be necessary.",
+                    "<b>Its fat is impure like that of a wild animal, but its impurity is of doubtful status.</b>  A certain type of fat, called “helev,” is impure when it comes from a hayyah but not when it comes from an improperly slaughtered behemah. When it comes to the koy, we must be concerned lest it really is a hayyah, and therefore we need to treat its fat as if it was impure. However, the status of the impurity that it conveys is only “doubtful” because it may indeed be a behemah. This has certain ramifications that I do not wish to get into here.",
+                    "<b>One does not redeem with it the first-born of a donkey.</b>  A first-born donkey must be redeemed by giving the priest a first born sheep in its stead (Exodus 13:13). Although a koy might be related to a sheep, or perhaps be a type of sheep, it can’t be used to redeem a first born donkey, because it might be a wild animal."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday we learn in what ways a koy is similar to a domesticated beast.",
+                    "<b>And how is [the koy] similar to a behemah (a domesticated?<br>Its fat ( is prohibited like the fat of a behemah, but one [who eats it] is not liable for karet.</b>  Leviticus 7:23-25 prohibits eating the helev, a type of fat, from a domesticated animal (other types of fat are permitted otherwise how would we get shmaltz?). Since a koy might actually be classified as a behemah, one cannot eat its helev. However, since it is not definite that a koy is a behemah, one who does eat the helev of a koy is not liable for the punishment of karet (I just used four Hebrew terms in one sentence I hope they were all clear).",
+                    "<b>It may not be bought with the money from second tithe to be eaten in Jerusalem.</b>  Second tithe is redeemed outside of Jerusalem, the money is brought to Jerusalem and there it is used to buy food or drink. If one wishes to buy meat he can buy a domesticated beast such as a sheep to use as a sacrifice or he can buy a hayyah to just eat. He can’t buy a koy to eat, because it might be a behemah and one can buy a behemah only  to use it as a sacrifice. He also can’t buy a koy to use as a sacrifice because it is not fit for sacrifice as it might be a hayyah, which are never used for sacrifices.",
+                    "<b>It is subject to [the priest’s share of] the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw. Rabbi Eliezer exempts it because the burden of proof is upon the one who extracts from his neighbor.</b>  When one slaughters a domesticated animal as hullin (non-sacrificial), he has to give a priest the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw. According to the first opinion, since a koy might be a behemah, when one slaughters a koy, he must give these to the priest. Rabbi Eliezer, disagrees and invokes the well-known principle that the burden of proof is upon the claimant. The priest would have to prove that a koy is a behemah in order to get these parts from an Israelite. Since he can’t, the Israelite need not give them to him."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of this chapter discusses ways that a koy is either different from both a behemah and a hayyah and ways that it is similar to both.",
+                    "<b>And how is [a koy] neither like a behemah nor like a hayyah?<br>It is forbidden because of kilayim [to yoke it] with either a behemah or a hayyah.</b>  It is forbidden to yoke together two animals of different species. Since a koy might be a behemah, it cannot be yoked with any hayyah, and since it might be a hayyah, it cannot be yoked together with any other behemah.",
+                    "<b>One who deeds his son his behemah and his hayyah he has not [thereby] given him the koy.</b>  If one writes a will to his son, bequeathing to him his behemot and his hayyot, he has not bequeathed to him his koy, because a koy is neither a behemah or a hayyah.",
+                    "<b>If one says, “I will become a nazirite if this is [not] a hayyah or a behemah”, he is a nazirite. In all other ways it is like a behemah and a hayyah:</b>  The person here makes a bet that an animal approaching is either a behemah or a hayyah. If he loses his bet, he will be a nazirite. Although this would seem to be a hard bet to lose, somehow he does lose the bet, for a koy is indeed, neither a behemah nor a hayyah.",
+                    "<b>It requires slaughtering ( like them both;</b>  The mishnah now begins to list ways in which a koy has the same rules that apply to a behemah and to a hayyah. The first is that one who wishes to eat a koy must slaughter it in the appropriate manner.",
+                    "<b>It carries carrion impurity;</b>  Carrion (nevelah) is an animal that was not slaughtered in a proper manner. The nevelah of a kosher animal is impure, and since the koy is kosher, its nevelah is impure.",
+                    "<b>And to it applies the law relating to a limb of a living being   like them both.</b>  It is forbidden to eat the limb of a living animal. This law applies only to beasts and wild animals but not to reptiles and other non-mammals. It applies to the koy in the same way that it applies to all behemot and hayyot."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nChapter three discusses how bikkurim were set aside and then it goes on to describe the festive ceremony of the bringing of the bikkurim to the Temple in Jerusalem.",
+                    "<b>How does one set aside bikkurim? A man goes down into his field, he sees a fig that ripened, or a cluster of grapes that ripened, or a pomegranate that ripened, he ties a reed-rope around it and says: “Let these be bikkurim.”</b>  Unlike most agricultural gifts, such as terumah and maaser, that are designated as such only once they have been plucked from the soil, bikkurim are set aside as soon as they begin to ripen, while they are still attached to the ground. In order to remember which fruits he designated as bikkurim, he ties a rope around them. When he harvests the figs, grapes or pomegranates, he need not designate them again as bikkurim.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: even so, he must again designate them as bikkurim after they have been plucked from the soil.</b>  Rabbi Shimon holds that even though he designated them as bikkurim while they were still attached to the ground, he must designate them again as bikkurim when he harvests them."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>How were the bikkurim taken up [to Jerusalem]?  All [the inhabitants of] the cities of the maamad would assemble in the city of the maamad, and they would spend the night in the open street and they would not entering any of the houses.<br>Early in the morning the officer would say: “Let us arise and go up to Zion, into the house of the Lord our God” (Jeremiah 31:5).</b><br>Our mishnah begins to describe the ceremony of bringing the bikkurim to the Temple. While a person could bring his bikkurim to the Temple on his own, the mishnah prefers to describe a festive ceremony in which everyone from all of Israel would bring their bikkurim at the same time.<br>In Temple times the priests were divided into 24 “mishmarot.”  The main purpose of this division was that each week a different mishmar of priests would serve in the Temple. Parallel to the division of the priests, the other people were divided into “maamadot.” When a mishmar’s priests were serving in the Temple, the people of the corresponding maamad would gather in the synagogues and read from the beginning of the book of Genesis. Others from the maamad would go up to Jerusalem with the priests to serve as their region’s representatives when the Tamid daily sacrifice was being offered in the Temple. One person was designated the “Rosh Hamaamad” or the Head of the Maamad, and it was in his town that the people would gather. For more on this topic see Taanit 4:2.<br>When it came time to bring bikkurim up to the Temple, all of the people of the various cities of the maamad would gather together in the “city of the maamad” which was the city where the Rosh Hamaamad dwelled. They would not sleep inside, but rather outside in the street. This would prevent them from possibly contracting corpse impurity inside the houses. Corpse impurity would disqualify them from bringing the bikkurim.<br>When they rose in the morning, an appointed officer would begin the ritual by reciting a charge taken from the book of Jeremiah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Those who lived near [Jerusalem] would bring fresh figs and grapes, while those who lived far away would bring dried figs and raisins.<br>An ox would go in front of them, his horns bedecked with gold and with an olive-crown on its head.<br>The flute would play before them until they would draw close to Jerusalem.<br>When they drew close to Jerusalem they would send messengers in advance, and they would adorn their bikkurim.<br>The governors and chiefs and treasurers [of the Temple] would go out to greet them, and according to the rank of the entrants they would go forth.<br>All the skilled artisans of Jerusalem would stand up before them and greet them saying, “Our brothers, men of such and such a place, we welcome you in peace.”</b><br>The mishnah continues to describe the procession to Jerusalem. The mishnah is easily understood, so I will comment here on a few interesting matters and refrain from commenting below.<br>Saul Lieberman, the preeminent scholar of rabbinic literature in the 20th century, wrote a book called Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, and in the book he devotes a chapter entitled, “Heathen Pre-Sacrificial Rites in the Light of Rabbinic Sources,” to the ritual described in our mishnah. Lieberman notes that the bikkurim ritual as described in this mishnah is not taken from the Bible, which makes no mention of such a ritual. Rather, certain elements are customs that are parallel to Greco-Roman sacrificial rituals, most significantly the ox with gilded horns. This was a common feature in sacrificial processions in the Roman Empire. Clearly, when Jews of the time came to create a new ritual, they did so based on what they saw in the non-Jewish world. However, Lieberman also notes that this is the only time the mishnah describes an ox with gilded horns. Such a practice was not done with regular sacrificial oxen used in the Temple. In other words, when it came to the heart of their ancient tradition, the Temple ritual, the Jews were less likely to adopt foreign practice than they were with innovative rituals that were performed outside of the Temple.<br>The other feature that I find interesting in this mishnah is the line, “according to the rank of the entrants they would go forth.” This means that important Temple and Jerusalem officials would go out to greet important guests, whereas lesser officials would greet lesser guests. This is of course not surprising and is indeed human nature, but it is still important to note that ritual often served and still does serve as an opportunity for human beings to emphasize their social hierarchy. We should think in our own lives how often our public rituals are often laden with issues concerning the social hierarchy."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The flute would play before them, until they reached the Temple Mount.<br>When they reached the Temple Mount even King Agrippas would take the basket and place it on his shoulder and walk as far as the Temple Court.<br>When he got to the Temple Court, the Levites would sing the song: “I will extol You, O Lord, for You have raised me up, and You have not let my enemies rejoice over me” (Psalms 30:2).</b><br>Having been greeted at the entrance to Jerusalem, we continue on our journey to the Temple Mount. Most of this mishnah is straightforward, so I will only deal with certain issues that come up in section two.<br>Section two: In the Second Temple period there were a few kings named Agrippas. A ccording to Albeck, the Mishnah refers to Agrippas I, who lived between 10 B.C.E-44 C.E. and ruled in the Galilee between 37-41 and became king of Judea from 41-44. He was the grandson of Herod the Great. He is also referred to favorably in Sotah 7:8. The mishnah there discusses a festive gathering which occurred on the last day of Sukkot at the end of the Sabbatical year. At that time they would read portions from Deuteronomy. The mishnah states:<br>The synagogue attendant takes a Torah scroll and hands it to the head of the synagogue, the head of the synagogue hands it to the deputy and he hands it to the high priest, and the high priest hands it to the king and the king stands and receives it, but reads it while sitting. King Agrippa stood and received it and read standing, and the sages praised him. When he reached, “You shall not place a foreigner over you” (ibid 17:15) his eyes ran with tears. They said to him, “Fear not, Agrippas, you are our brother, you are our brother!”<br>Just as he acted humbly in that mishnah by standing when he could have sat, so too in our mishnah, Agrippas is mentioned favorably, for he humbly puts the basket with the bikkurim in it on his shoulder, just as all other Jews did.<br>This mishnah serves as an interesting foil for yesterday’s mishnah. There we learned that the social status of the people visiting Jerusalem was emphasized by those coming out to greet them when they arrived. Today we see the opposite the very king of Israel would make sure that he acted in the same humble manner as everyone else. Perhaps this is also a tendency of human beings. We want to see our leaders act humbly, so that we can think of them as being “just like us.” On the other hand, we also want to elevate any small social advantage we have over others. Oh what fascinating creatures we are!"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The birds [tied to] the basket were [offered] as whole burnt-offerings, and those which they held in their hands they gave to the priests.</b> Along with the baskets of fruit and other produce that they brought to the Temple, to augment their gifts, they would also bring some birds, both for use as sacrifices and to serve as gifts to the priests. Some of the birds were tied to the baskets these would be offered as whole burnt offerings, but those brought by hand were given simply as gifts to the priests. Bon Appetit priests!"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah explains at what precise point in the procedure the verses from Deuteronomy 26 were actually recited. In order to better understand this mishnah, I will bring here the biblical verses that it explains:\n3 You shall go to the priest in charge at that time and say to him, \"I acknowledge this day before the LORD your God that I have entered the land that the LORD swore to our fathers to assign us.\"\n4 The priest shall take the basket from your hand and set it down in front of the altar of the LORD your God.\n5 You shall then recite as follows before the LORD your God: \"My father was a fugitive Aramean. He went down to Egypt with meager numbers and sojourned there; but there he became a great and very populous nation.\n6 The Egyptians dealt harshly with us and oppressed us; they imposed heavy labor upon us.\n7 We cried to the LORD, the God of our fathers, and the LORD heard our plea and saw our plight, our misery, and our oppression.\n8 The LORD freed us from Egypt by a mighty hand, by an outstretched arm and awesome power, and by signs and portents.\n9 He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey.\n10 Wherefore I now bring the first fruits of the soil which You, O LORD, have given me.\" You shall leave it before the LORD your God and bow low before the LORD your God.",
+                    "<b>While the basket was still on his shoulder he recites from: \"I acknowledge this day before the LORD your God that I have entered the land that the LORD swore to our fathers to assign us” (Deuteronomy 26:3) until he completes the passage.</b>  According to the first opinion in the mishnah, the entire passage is read while the basket is still on his shoulders. He would then take the basket off his shoulders and leave it at the altar, as it states in section ten.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah said: until [he reaches] “My father was a fugitive Aramean” (v. 5). When he reaches, “My father was a fugitive Aramean”, he takes the basket off his shoulder and holds it by its edges, and the priest places his hand beneath it and waves it. He then recites from “My father was a fugitive Aramean” until he completes the entire passage.</b>  Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that only verse 3 is recited while he has the basket on his shoulder. After that point, he lowers the basket and he and the priest jointly hold it and wave it, in the same way that many offerings are waved before the altar. This is also the same opinion found in 2:4 above. We should note that Rabbi Judah might be making an attempt to resolve a certain difficulty in the verses. Verse 4 says that the priest shall take it from your hand, implying that one says verse 3, then the priest takes the basket and then one continues with verses 5-9 while the priest holds the basket. However, verse 10 says that at that point shall he leave the basket, perhaps implying that while reciting verses 5-9 he was still holding the basket. Rabbi Judah seems to resolve this difficulty by positing that they jointly hold the basket while he recites verses 5-9.",
+                    "<b>He then deposits the basket by the side of the altar, bow and depart.</b>  This section returns to being everyone’s opinion. He puts the basket down and leaves, as is explicitly stated in verse 10."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Originally all who knew how to recite would recite while those who did not know how to recite, others would read it for them [and they would repeat the words].<br>But when they refrained from bringing, they decreed that they should read the words to both those who could and those who could not [recite so that they could repeat after them].</b><br>Evidently, not everyone knew how to recite the bikkurim verses from the Torah. Originally, to remedy this problem someone who knew how to read would read the passage and the person bringing the bikkurim who did not know how to read would repeat the words after him.<br>The problem with this is that it was embarrassing for people to admit that they couldn’t read. To avoid this embarrassing situation, people stopped bringing bikkurim altogether. It is interesting to note that already in ancient times people feared having to make public liturgical declarations. This is reminiscent of people who might not come to synagogue today because they fear being embarrassed at not knowing how to say the words or not knowing when to sit or stand.<br>In order to solve this problem, they instituted that the recitation would be read to everyone, so that everyone would have to repeat after someone else. This way no one would be singled out for embarrassment. Note that the rabbis didn’t just say, “Let them learn how to read.” That might be desirable, but would probably not solve the problem of people not bringing bikkurim. Rather, they found a solution that would prevent people from being embarrassed, allow them to bring their bikkurim, without forcing them to have to spend years of their life educating themselves."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The rich would bring their bikkurim in baskets overlaid with silver or gold, while the poor used wicker-baskets of peeled willow-branches, and the baskets and the bikkurim were given to the priest.</b> Today’s mishnah again returns to the distinctions made during the bikkurim procession between the rich and the poor. The rich would overlay their baskets with gold and silver while the poor were forced to bring their bikkurim in simple wicker baskets. Interestingly, according to the Babylonian Talmud, the rich would take their baskets back and only the poor had to leave their baskets there. This proves a folk saying found in the Talmud, “Poverty follows the poor.” That is to say, the poor get poorer, while the rich stay rich by getting their beautiful baskets back."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn mishnah three we learned that they would decorate the baskets with beautiful fruits. In our mishnah two sages debate how they would decorate the baskets.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas says: they would decorate the bikkurim [with produce] other than the seven species.</b>  According to Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas, they were allowed to decorate the bikkurim baskets with any kind of produce, even produce that is not one of the seven species from which one brings bikkurim.",
+                    "<b>But Rabbi Akiva says: they may decorate only with produce of the seven kinds.</b>  Rabbi Akiva says that just as the bikkurim themselves come only from the seven species, so too the fruits used as decoration may come only from the seven species. He seems to be concerned lest it seem that they are bringing bikkurim from other species, and therefore he rules that even decorative produce must also be of the seven species."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah analyzes the differences between the bikkurim, fruits that are brought as an addition to the bikkurim and fruits used to decorate the bikkurim baskets.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says:  there are three elements in bikkurim: the bikkurim, the additions   to the bikkurim, and the ornamentations of the bikkurim.</b>  Rabbi Shimon wishes to distinguish between the bikkurim themselves and two other categories. The first is “the additions to the bikkurim” which are fruit that a person did not designate as bikkurim when he originally set the bikkurim aside but that he wishes to bring as bikkurim when he goes to the Temple. The second category is the purely ornamental fruit, discussed in yesterday’s mishnah. As we shall see, the additions to the bikkurim are basically treated as bikkurim, whereas the ornamentations are not.",
+                    "<b>The additions to the bikkurim must be of a like kind; But the ornamentations can be of a different kind.</b>  The additions to the bikkurim must be of the same species as the bikkurim themselves. Thus if he wants to add to his figs, he must bring more figs. However, the ornamentations can be of any species, as Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas stated in yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>The additions to the bikkurim can only be eaten in purity, and are exempt from demai. But the ornamentations of the bikkurim are subject to demai.</b>  The additions to the bikkurim are treated almost as if they were themselves bikkurim and therefore they can be eaten only in a state of ritual purity. They are exempt from demai, which means that if a priest receives additions to bikkurim from an am haaretz (one who is not trusted with regard to tithes), he need not tithe them out of doubt lest they had not yet been tithed. Bikkurim themselves are completely exempt from tithes. In contrast, if a priest receives bikkurim ornamentations from an am haaretz he needs to tithe them, just as one always needs to tithe produce received from an am haaretz. All the more so must he remove tithes if he knows that the fruit has not yet been tithed. Again, the ornamentations of bikkurim do not have the status of bikkurim and they are fully obligated in all tithing laws."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>When did they say that the additions to the bikkurim are like bikkurim [themselves]? When they come from the land [of Israel]; but if they do not come from the land, they were not regarded as bikkurim [themselves].</b> This mishnah clarifies a point in yesterday’s mishnah. Additions to bikkurim have the halakhic status of bikkurim only if they are brought from the land of Israel. If they are brought from outside of the land, for instance from Transjordan which is in according to some opinions liable for bikkurim (see 1:10), then they don’t have the same status as bikkurim. This means they will be liable for demai and they can be eaten while impure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah, the last of our chapter, discusses the ramifications of the fact that the bikkurim belong to the priest and they are his property, a rule we learned in 2:1.",
+                    "<b>In what respect did they say that bikkurim are the property of the priest? In that he can purchase with bikkurim slaves and land and unclean beasts, and a creditor [of his] may take them for his debt, and his wife for her ketubah.</b>  The priest can sell or barter his bikkurim as he pleases. He can buy anything he wants with them. They count as his money and therefore if he owes money to a creditor or to his wife to pay off her ketubah, the creditor or wife can collect from bikkurim that were given to the priest. Of course, even after he sells them or gives them to a creditor the rules governing the eating of bikkurim still apply. Only priests could eat them, and they would need to be eaten in a state of ritual purity.",
+                    "<b>As may be done with a Torah scroll.</b>  Technically, a Torah scroll may also be sold in order to buy something else or used in the collection of a debt. However, the rabbis said that anyone who sells a Torah scroll will never see a blessing. Perhaps the mishnah also wants to make that negative comparison with selling a Torah, as if to say, yes, one can sell bikkurim, just as one can sell a Torah, but one who does so will never see a blessing. Another reading of this mishnah says not “as may be done with a Torah” but “and a Torah scroll.” This would mean that one can use bikkurim to buy a Torah scroll. However, it is unlikely that this version is original. After all, if you can use bikkurim to buy slaves etc., then why would you think you couldn’t use them to buy a Torah scroll.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: bikkurim may be given only to [a priest that is] a haver (an and as a favor.</b>  Rabbi Judah says that one can give bikkurim only to a priest known to scrupulously observe the purity laws. Such a priest is called a “haver” which in rabbinic terminology is the opposite of an “am haaretz,” one who is suspected of not observing the purity laws or properly tithing his produce. Rabbi Judah also holds that one can choose which priest he gives his bikkurim to. When he gives the bikkurim to this priest, the priest may consider it a favor, and perhaps return the favor at some later point. However, the priest may not pay for the bikkurim.",
+                    "<b>But the sages say: they are given to the men of the mishmar, and they divide them among themselves as [they do] with all other consecrated objects.</b>  The other rabbis disagree as to how bikkurim are divided among the priests. In their opinion bikkurim are divided in the same way as are other consecrated objects whatever mishmar, priestly watch, is on duty in the Temple at that time receives them. A person does not have a choice as to which priest receives his bikkurim. The mishmar would decide which priest is trustworthy to eat the bikkurim while in a state of purity, just as they do with other consecrated objects such as sacrifices."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAs I noted in the introduction to the tractate, chapter four of Bikkurim is not an original part of Mishnah Bikkurim. It was appended to some manuscripts and some printed editions of the Mishnah, but its origins are in the Tosefta, a tannaitic companion to the Mishnah. It was not commented upon in the Yerushalmi, nor was it commented upon by the classic mishnaic commentators. I have included it here because some Mishnah Yomit schedules include it.\nThe topic of the chapter is the hermaphrodite, known in Hebrew/Greek as the “androgynus,” a person who has the signs of being both a man and a woman. It is discussed here as an appendix to chapter two, which discussed things that don’t fit neatly into one category, such as the koy. The hermaphrodite does not fit neatly into the category of either man or woman, and hence the rabbis find it interesting to clarify in what ways a hermaphrodite is like a man and it what ways he/she is like a woman.",
+                    "<b>The hermaphrodite is in some ways like men, and in other ways like women. In other ways he is like men and women, and in others he is like neither men nor women.</b> This mishnah is patterned after 2:8 which discussed the koy. It serves as an introduction for the rest of the chapter without really providing any information."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn today’s mishnah we learn in what ways a hermaphrodite is halakhically treated like a man.",
+                    "<b>In what ways is he like men?<br>He causes impurity with white discharge, like men;</b>  A zav is a man who has had an abnormal genital discharge. This discharge is white in color, like an egg white. The color of a woman’s abnormal genital discharge, which makes her into a zavah, is not white. A hermaphrodite becomes a zav if he has a white discharge, whereas a woman who had a white discharge would not.",
+                    "<b>He dresses like men;</b>  The Torah prohibits a man from dressing like a woman and a woman from dressing like a man. The hermaphrodite must dress like a man.",
+                    "<b>He can take a wife but not be taken as a wife, like men.</b>  When it comes to marriage, the hermaphrodite is treated like a man he can marry a woman, but he cannot be married by a man.",
+                    "<b>[When he is born] his mother counts the blood of purification, like men;</b>  When a boy is born, his mother is impure for seven days. After this seven day period, if she has discharges of blood during the next 33 days, the blood is treated as pure. These amounts are double for a girl (Leviticus 12:2-5). A hermaphrodite is treated like a boy and his mother counts the blood of purification for 33 days. Note that this is a stringency after 33 days, any blood she sees is considered impure.",
+                    "<b>He may not be secluded with women, like men.</b>  A hermaphrodite may not be secluded with women, just as men may not (see Kiddushin 4:12).",
+                    "<b>He is not maintained with the daughters, like men;</b>  When a man dies, his daughters are maintained by his estate until they are either married or reach maturity. Boys, on the other hand, are not maintained. Since the hermaphrodite is not considered a female, he is not maintained.",
+                    "<b>He transgresses the law of: “You shall not round” (Leviticus 19:2 and “You shall not defile for the dead,” (Leviticus 21:1) like men;</b>  The two prohibitions mentioned here, not to round the corners of one’s head and for priests not to intentionally become impure by contact with the dead, apply only to men. They apply to hermaphrodites as well.",
+                    "<b>And he must perform all the commandments of the Torah, like men.</b>  Men are obligated in all of the commandments, unlike women who are exempt from positive, time-bound commandments. Hermaphrodites are obligated for all of the commandments, like men."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn today’s mishnah we see that in some ways the laws that apply to a hermaphrodite are the same laws that apply to women. What the Mishnah seems to be saying in today’s mishnah and yesterday’s is that while a hermaphrodite is mostly treated as if he was male, and therefore he can marry a woman, we must be concerned lest he is actually a female. This leads to many stringencies which are enumerated here.",
+                    "<b>And in what ways is he like women?<br>He causes impurity with red discharge, like women;</b>  A woman becomes a zavah when she has a red discharge (at a time other than when she is menstruating). A hermaphrodite who has a red abnormal discharge is impure, like women. Were s/he to be considered a man, such a discharge would not make him impure.",
+                    "<b>And he must not be secluded with men, like women;</b>  A hermaphrodite cannot be secluded with men, the same rule that applies to women. We see that a hermaphrodite can’t be secluded with anyone, because we don’t know what sex she/he is.",
+                    "<b>And he doesn’t make his brother’s wife liable for yibbum (levirate;</b>  If a man’s brother is a hermaphrodite and the man dies without a child, his wife is not liable for levirate marriage with the hermaphrodite, as she would be if he was a man.",
+                    "<b>And he does not share [in the inheritance] with the sons, like women;</b>  If a man dies with male and female children, the males inherit and the females are maintained by the money left in the estate. We saw yesterday that the hermaphrodite is not maintained with the girls, because he might be male. Today we learn that he is not treated as a boy either, so he doesn’t share in the inheritance. We should think of this law as reflecting the principle “the burden of proof is upon the claimant.” He can’t prove that he is female, so the other girls can say to him, “You don’t share in being maintained until you can prove that you are female.” But he also can’t prove that he is male, so the other male children can say to him, “You can’t share in the inheritance until you can prove that you are male.”",
+                    "<b>And he cannot eat most holy sacrifices, like women.</b>  Only priests can eat most holy sacrifices. Daughters and wives of priests do not. Since the hermaphrodite might be female, s/he too cannot eat these sacrifices.",
+                    "<b>At his birth his mother counts the blood of her impurity like [they do when they give birth to a] girl;</b>  Yesterday we saw that when a child is born, his mother counts 7 days of impurity for a boy, and then 33 days in which any blood she sees is pure. For a girl she is impure for 14 days, and then for 66 days any blood she sees is pure. When it came to the pure days, a woman who gives birth to a hermaphrodite counts only 33, as if the child was male. Here we learn, that when it comes to the impure days, she counts 14 days, as if the child was female. Both of these rules are stringencies, for we must be concerned lest the hermaphrodite is male and lest she/he is female.",
+                    "<b>And he is disqualified from being a witness, like women.</b>  Only males can serve as witnesses, at least in most areas of halakhah. The hermaphrodite cannot serve as a witness, lest s/he be female.",
+                    "<b>If he had illicit intercourse, he is disqualified from eating terumah, like women.</b>  A daughter of a priest who has had forbidden intercourse (adultery or incest) can no longer eat terumah. This rule applies to the hermaphrodite, lest he is a female. Note that a male priest who has forbidden intercourse is not disqualified from eating terumah. Were the hermaphrodite to be considered male, he could keep eating terumah. Again this is a stringency."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>In what ways is he like both men and women?<br>One who strikes him or curses him is liable, as in the case of men and women;<br>One who unwittingly kills him must go into exile, and if on purpose, then [the slayer] receives the death penalty, as in the case of men and women.<br>His mother must [at his birth] bring an offering, as in the case of men and women.<br>He may eat holy things that are eaten outside of the Temple;<br>And he may inherit any inheritance, as in the case of men and women.</b><br>This mishnah lists ways in which a hermaphrodite is similar to both a man and a woman.<br>Sections one and two: These sections simply state that laws that apply equally to men and women, apply to the hermaphrodite as well. The hermaphrodite is neither fully male nor fully female, but he/she is fully human. Thus one who strikes or curses him is liable for a punishment. Someone who kills him, either accidentally or on purpose, is liable for the same penalty as is incurred for killing a man or a woman.<br>Section three: When a woman gives birth she must bring a sacrifice (Leviticus 12:6). For a hermaphrodite she brings this sacrifice at the end of a 40 day period.<br>Section four: All Jews can eat certain sacrifices, namely those that can be eaten outside of the Temple court, such as the pesah sacrifice. The hermaphrodite can eat these as well.<br>Section five: If a hermaphrodite is an only child, he inherits his father (and his mother, if his mother’s husband is no longer alive.)"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of our chapter, tractate and seder (game, set and match) delineates ways in which a hermaphrodite is like neither a man nor a woman.",
+                    "<b>And in what is he different from both men and women?<br>One does not burn terumah if it came into contact with his discharge,</b>  In mishnayot 2 and 3 we learned that when it comes to the impurity of his discharge, the hermaphrodite is a doubtful male/female. Therefore, if he sees white discharge like a man, we must be concerned lest he is male, and if he sees red discharge like a female, we must be concerned lest he is female. Here we learn that whether he sees red or white discharge, his status is only that of doubtfully impure. When one who is doubtfully impure comes into contact with terumah, the terumah is not burned as is done if it comes into contact with someone who is certainly impure, because it is forbidden to burn pure terumah and this terumah might in reality be pure. They couldn’t eat the terumah, lest it be impure. Rather, they would wait until the terumah became certainly impure, and then they could burn it.",
+                    "<b>Neither is he liable for entering the temple while impure, unlike men or women.</b>  A male or a female who enters the Temple while impure has transgressed. However, this only applies to someone who is either certainly male or certainly female. Since the hermaphrodite is neither, he is not liable for entering the Temple while impure.",
+                    "<b>He must not be sold as a Hebrew slave, unlike men or women.</b>  An adult male can be sold as a Hebrew slave (usually if he was caught stealing and doesn’t have money to repay his debt) but a adult woman cannot. Since the hermaphrodite might be a female, he can’t be sold as a Hebrew slave. A female can be sold by her father while she is still a minor, but a male cannot. Since the hermaphrodite might be male, he cannot be sold as a minor. It turns out that a hermaphrodite can never be sold into slavery.",
+                    "<b>He cannot be evaluated, unlike men or women.</b>  Leviticus 27 deals with the evaluation of a person whose value has been dedicated to the Temple. Every person has a value that is dependent upon sex and age. Since a hermaphrodite’s sex cannot be determined, he cannot be evaluated.",
+                    "<b>If one says: “I will be a nazirite, if he is neither a man nor a woman,” then he becomes a nazirite.</b>  In the scenario described here, upon seeing someone a person says that he will be a nazirite if that person is neither a male nor a female. Since the hermaphrodite is actually neither male nor female, the person who took the nazirite vow has become a nazirite.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: the hermaphrodite is a unique creature, and the sages could not decide about him. But this is not so with a tumtum (one of doubtful, for sometimes he is a man and sometimes he is a woman.</b>  In this final section, Rabbi Yose distinguishes between a true hermaphrodite, and what is termed a “tumtum,” a pseudo-hermaphrodite. The true hermaphrodite is actually unique and the sages could not decide whether to classify him as male or female. In contrast, the pseudo-hermaphrodite’s sex can be determined, sometimes as male and sometimes as female. While the doubt concerning the hermaphrodite’s sex is permanent, the “true” sex of the pseudo-hermaphrodite can, at least on occasion, be determined. Congratulations!  We have finished Bikkurim and Seder Zeraim! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and the seder 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. Wow! We have finished Seder Zeraim. We began this seder with Berakhot in June of 2007 and it is now March 2009 almost two full years have passed. For those of you who began learning Mishnah Yomit in the very beginning with Seder Nezikin we have been learning for about 5 years. Your commitment, whether you have been learning for years, months or weeks, is what keeps this program going. That’s the good news. The even better news is that we still have two seders to go, and they are going to be more challenging than the first four (why do you think we started with Nezikin?). Tomorrow we begin to learn Seder Kodashim which deals with sacrificial law and various other subjects related to the Temple. So look for the Introduction to Tractate Zevahim that will appear in your inbox tomorrow. But for now, kick back and feel good about having learned all of Seder Zeraim, and for some of you an entire 2/3 of the Mishnah. The end (at least our first run through, there is never a real end to learning) is only a few years away! Tomorrow we begin Tracate Zevahim."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+            "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ביכורים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Zeraim"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ביכורים",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bikkurim",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Bikkurim",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Challah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json

@@ -0,0 +1,289 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Challah",
+    "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/",
+    "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "license": "CC-BY",
+    "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה חלה",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Zeraim"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "General Overview",
+            "Structure and Organization",
+            "Summary of Legal Topics, Technical Terms, and Concepts",
+            "Relationship to Biblical Law",
+            "Hallah is the part of the dough that is separated and given to the priests. It is referred to in Numbers 15: 18-21:",
+            "When you enter the land to which I am taking you and you eat of the bread of the land, you shall set aside some as a gift to the Lord, as the first yield of your baking. You shall set aside a loaf as a gift; you shall set it aside as a gift like the gift from the threshing floor. You shall make a gift to the Lord from the first yield of your baking, throughout the ages.",
+            "Nehemiah 10:38 and Ezekiel 44:30 describe this gift was given to the priests, and the rabbinic halakhah follows this assumption.",
+            "According to the rabbis, “the first yield of your baking” means that you should give this gift, called hallah, from the dough before it is baked, at the time when it is being kneaded in the kneading trough. However, they also held that if one did not separate hallah while the dough was being kneaded, he could still do so later after the bread was already baked. ",
+            "Tractate Hallah will deal with issues such as: from what types of grain must hallah be separated? How much hallah must be given? Does one have to give hallah from even small quantities of baked bread? These and other issues will be dealt with throughout this short tractate. "
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches what species counts as grain and is therefore subject to all of the laws associated with grain.",
+                    "<b>Five species [of grains] are subject to [the law of] hallah: wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye.</b>  There are only five species of grain that count as grain in Jewish law-- wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye. If bread is made from some other type of grain, it doesn’t count as grain. For instance, before eating other types of grain, one would not say “hamotzi” or “mezonot” but rather “haadamah.” Tomorrow we will learn other consequences of the fact that these five are considered grain and others are not.",
+                    "<b>These are subject to hallah, and [dough made from different types of these grains] are accounted together one with another [as one quantity].</b>  If one makes dough from a combination of these types of grain, and each type of grain is not of a sufficient quantity to make the dough liable for hallah, the different grains can join together to make the dough liable. In later chapters we will see that the minimum measure of dough to be liable in hallah is 1 ¼ kav. So if there is a mixture of these grains, as long as there is a total of 1 ¼, then hallah must be separated.",
+                    "<b>And their “new” [harvest] is prohibited prior to Pesah, and [they are subject] to [the prohibition of] reaping prior to the Omer.</b>  Until the omer begins to be sacrificed, which is on the second day of Pesah, it is forbidden to eat of the new grain harvest (Leviticus 23:10-14). It is also forbidden to begin to harvest until the omer is first harvested. Only these five grains are subject to these laws all other grains may be harvested whenever a person wants.",
+                    "<b>If they took root prior to the Omer, the omer permits them. If not, they are prohibited until the next Omer has come.</b>  The mishnah now clarifies what counts as the new harvest in terms of the Omer. If the grain had taken root before Pesah (the omer), then one may harvest it after the omer has begun. But if it had not yet taken root, he would have to wait an entire year, until the next omer, in order to harvest it."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to deal with the consequences of the fact that only these five species are considered to be grain.",
+                    "<b>If one has eaten of [these five] on Pesah an olive-size piece of matzah, he has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Matzah must be made of one of these species of grain in order for one to fulfill the obligation of eating matzah on Pesah.",
+                    "<b>[If he ate on Pesah] an olive-size of piece of hametz [made of these grains], he is liable for karet.</b>  The opposite also holds true hametz can only be from these five species. One who eats one of these five species when they are hametz has transgressed Pesah. Other species are completely permitted on Pesah, save for the fact that Ashkenazim customarily do not eat rice.",
+                    "<b>If one of these [grains, having become leavened,] became mixed with any other species, one must remove it on Pesah.</b>  If one of these grains, when leavened, becomes mixed with other species, it must be removed from one’s possession before Pesah.",
+                    "<b>If one has vowed [to abstain] from [consuming] bread and tevuah (, he is prohibited from consuming these [five species] the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: if one has vowed [to abstain] from [consuming] dagan, is prohibited only from [consuming] these [species] only.</b>  In this section Rabbi Meir and the sages debate the meaning of the word “tevuah” which I usually translate as produce. All agree that if one vows to abstain from bread, he means these five species. The question is: what if he vows to abstain from tevuah? According to Rabbi Meir, tevuah refers to these five species. Thus in such a case he may not have these five species, but he may have beans. The sages say that “dagan” is the word used to refer to these five species. If one vows not to have “dagan” then he can’t have these species, but if he vows not to have tevuah, he can’t have beans or other types of produce either. Tevuah is a more inclusive term.",
+                    "<b>They are subject to hallah and tithes.</b>  As stated above, these five species are liable for hallah. They are also liable for tithes. This note is included at the end of today’s mishnah because tomorrow we will learn what things are exempt from tithes."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches that although some things are exempt from tithes, they may still be liable for hallah.",
+                    "<b>The following are subject to hallah, but exempt from tithes: gleanings, from the forgotten sheaf, from peah or from ownerless produce and the first tithe from which terumah has been removed, second tithe and consecrated [produce] which has been redeemed, and that which remains over from the omer, and grain which has not grown one-third [ripe]. Rabbi Eliezer says: grain which has not grown one-third [ripe] is exempt [also] from hallah.</b> Gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, peah and ownerless produce are all exempt from tithes because they are all, in a sense, already given to someone else. If the Levite is poor he can just come and take them for himself. Anyone can take the ownerless produce. Therefore, one need not give tithes from these things. However, all of them are liable for hallah. First tithe from which terumah has been removed is not liable for tithes (it already is tithe!) but the Levite must separate hallah and give it to the priest. Second tithe and consecrated produce are likewise, obviously not subject to tithes, but if they are grain, one must separate hallah before eating them. When they would harvest the omer, beginning on the second night of Pesah, they would harvest three seahs worth of barley. However, they would only use the choicest tenth of a seah. The rest they would redeem in order to make it hullin and then it could be eaten by anyone. This flour is exempt from tithes, because at the time its processing was done (when it was harvested and made it into a pile) it was holy and exempt from tithes. However, liability for hallah is determined by when it was made into dough, and by the time the omer flour was made into dough, it was already hullin, non-sacred. In Maasrot 1:3 we learned that grain that had not yet become one third ripe is exempt from tithes. However, according to the sages, it is still liable for hallah. This is because dough made from this unripe grain is still called bread (I can’t imagine it would have tasted very good, but who knows?). Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and says that such dough is also exempt from hallah. Numbers 15:20 calls hallah “terumah.” Since terumah is not separated from produce that is not one third ripe, so too hallah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is the opposite of yesterday’s mishnah. Today, the mishnah lists things that are, for various reasons, liable for tithes, but exempt from hallah.",
+                    "<b>The following are liable for tithes, but exempt from hallah: rice, millet, poppy-seed, sesame seeds, pulse, and less than five-fourths [of a kab] of [the five kinds of] grain, sponge-cakes, honey-cakes, dumplings, a cake [cooked] in a pan and medumma are exempt from hallah.</b> Rice, millet, poppy-seed, sesame seeds, pulse: These are all liable for tithes but exempt from hallah because only the five grains are liable for hallah. Less than five-quarters [of a kav] of [the five kinds of] grain: This small amount is not liable for hallah because it is too small of an amount. We shall return to this issue in a later chapter. Sponge-cakes, honey-cakes, dumplings, a cake [cooked] in a pan: These are all exempt from hallah because they are not baked in an oven. Only things baked in an oven are liable for hallah. Medumma: Medumma is a mixture of hullin and terumah in which there is not sufficient hullin to nullify the terumah (there are less than 100 parts hullin for each part terumah). This mixture is treated like terumah and can only be eaten by a priest. It is exempt from hallah because it already has terumah in it, and as we have seen hallah is called terumah by the Torah. The rabbis ruled that one doesn’t separate terumah/hallah from something that is already, even partially, terumah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to discuss sponge-cakes, which we learned yesterday were not liable for hallah. Sponge-cakes were made from watery dough and they were cooked either just in the sun, or with a little heat in a pan over an open flame. Since they are not made like bread, they are exempt from hallah.",
+                    "<b>Dough which was originally [intended for] sponge-cakes, and in the end is [cooked as] sponge-cake, is exempt from hallah.</b>  If the flour and water mixture was originally put together in order to be made into sponge-cakes and in the end it was cooked to be sponge-cakes in the way that sponge-cakes are cooked, then it is exempt from hallah.",
+                    "<b>[If it was] originally [ordinary] dough, but in the end [cooked as] sponge-cakes, [or if it was] originally [intended for] sponge-cakes, but finally [cooked as ordinary] dough, it is subject to hallah.</b>  However, if it was originally intended to be ordinary dough, dough whose consistency is thicker than that used for sponge-cakes, and then he cooked it in the way that one cooks sponge-cakes, in a pan or in water or with some other ingredients, then it is liable for hallah. So too, if it began as watery sponge-cake dough, and then he baked it in a regular oven, it is also liable for hallah. As long as it either began or ended up like regular dough, hallah must be taken out.",
+                    "<b>Similarly, bread crumbs ( are subject [to hallah].</b>  Kenuvkaot come from bread and then are boiled in small pieces in a pan to be food for small children. They are liable for hallah because they began as bread, even though they were eventually cooked in a manner similar to sponge-cakes."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with other various types of dough and whether it is exempt from hallah.",
+                    "<b>Meisah: Bet Shammai exempts [from hallah], And Bet Hillel makes liable [for hallah].</b>  Meisah is flour into which boiling water has been mixed. It seems that Bet Hillel makes him liable because the water is put into the flour, just as water is normally poured into flour to make it into dough. In contrast, Bet Shammai makes him exempt.",
+                    "<b>Halita: Bet Shammai makes liable, And Bet Hillel exempts.</b>  Halitah is like meisah, except in this case the flour is poured into the water. Hence, Bet Hillel exempts him. It is not clear why Bet Shammai makes liable. We should note that according to both talmudim, section one disagrees with section two, and the two come from different sources. If so, there is no halakhic difference between meisah and halita. According to the first opinion, Bet Shammai exempts both from hallah, and Bet Hillel makes them both liable. According to the second opinion, Bet Shammai makes both liable for hallah, and Bet Hillel makes them both exempt. This would imply that Rabbi Judah Hanasi took two different sources that contradict each other and pasted them together in the Mishnah. It is unclear why he would do such a thing.",
+                    "<b>The loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the wafers of a nazirite: if one made them for oneself, they are exempt [from hallah]. [If one made them] to sell in the market, they are subject [to hallah].</b>  The thanksgiving offering is accompanied by three loaves of matzah (Leviticus 7:12).  When the Nazirite completes his naziriteship he brings loaves and wafers (Numbers 6:15). If a person makes these for himself, and from the time he begins to make the dough he intends to use them for these holy purposes, then they are sanctified from the beginning of their existence. One does not have to separate hallah from sanctified food. However, if he makes them to sell them at market, then he must separate hallah from them because they were not sanctified from the outset. They only become sanctified when a person buys them with the intention of using them in the Temple."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with dough prepared by a baker and whether it is liable for hallah.",
+                    "<b>A baker who made dough to divide it up into pieces, it is subject to hallah.</b>  The baker makes a large batch of dough which he intends to divide up into small pieces, each of which contain less than the measure necessary for dough to be liable for hallah (five quarters of a kav). He will sell the smaller pieces of dough to individuals, who will let it rise and then bake it themselves. This dough is liable for hallah, because if he can’t find people to buy it, he will bake it all himself. Potentially, this is going to end up as one person’s dough.",
+                    "<b>Women who gave [flour] to a baker to make for them dough, if there is not in any one of them a [minimum] measure, it is exempt from hallah.</b>  On the other hand, if a few women give flour to a baker, and each woman gives less than is necessary for dough to be liable for hallah, then the dough is exempt from hallah. The difference between this case and the case in section one is that here the small pieces of dough are already owned by different individuals. This mishnah teaches that dough owned by different people does not join together to become liable for hallah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with dough made for the consumption of dogs. The mishnah deals with whether this dough is treated like human food, which carries with it a number of implications.",
+                    "<b>Dough for dogs:<br>If shepherds eat it: it is subject to hallah, and one may use it to make an eruv or a shittuf; and one should say the blessings over it, and one should make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it; and it may be made on a festival; and one fulfills his obligation with it on Pesah.</b>  If this dough was prepared well so that the shepherds could also eat it, then it is treated as human food, even though it was made mostly for animals. This has implications in five areas of halakhah: a) it is subject to hallah: Only human food is subject to hallah. b) and one may use it to make an eruv, or a shittuf: An eruv or a shittuf is a common meal which allows one to carry from a house into a courtyard or from a courtyard into the adjoining alleyway on Shabbat. An eruv can also allow one to travel further than the Shabbat limit, which is 2000 cubits from the border of the city (see the introduction to Eruvin for more information). If this dough is eaten by shepherds then it counts as potential human food and can be used to make an eruv or shittuf. c) and one should say the blessings over it, and one should make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it: Before eating this dough one would say “hamotzi” and afterwards “birkat hamazon.” In addition, if eating in a group of at least three, the invitation to recite birkat hamazon would be recited. d) and it may be made on a festival: only human food can be made on Yom Tov, a festival. e) and one fulfills his obligation with it on Pesah: if it was not leavened, then one could use it for matzah on Pesah.",
+                    "<b>But if shepherds do not eat it: it is not subject to hallah; and one may not use it to make an eruv, or a shittuf; and one does not say the blessings over it, and one does not make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it; and it may not be made on a festival; and one does not fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah.</b>  If it was made in a poor fashion, so that the shepherds would not want to eat it, then it doesn’t count as food and none of the above halakhot apply.",
+                    "<b>In either case it is susceptible to ritual defilement affecting food.</b>  Even if it was made in a poor fashion, shepherds might still come to eat it occasionally. Therefore, in any case, the dough is subject to the rules of food impurity. Only food that is eaten solely by animals, for instance straw, would not be subject to these rules."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah lists similarities between the rules concerning terumah with those concerning hallah.",
+                    "<b>In the case of hallah and terumah:<br>One is liable for death on account of [having eaten] them death [intentionally], or to [repay] an added fifth [if unwittingly];</b>  The penalty for a non-priest who intentionally eats terumah or hallah is “death by the hands of heaven.” This is derived from Leviticus 22:9-10. If one unintentionally eats terumah or hallah he must repay the value of that which he ate, plus an added fifth (see Leviticus 22:14).",
+                    "<b>They are forbidden to non-priests;</b>  Only priests may eat terumah and hallah.",
+                    "<b>They are the property of the priest;</b>  The priest can sell the terumah or the hallah to someone else (assumedly another priest) and then he can use the proceeds to buy anything he wants. In other words, these are not like sacrifices, which the priest cannot sell and keep the proceeds for himself.",
+                    "<b>They are nullified [in a mixture of] one-hundred-and-one [parts, the rest being non-sacred dough or produce];</b>  If one hundred parts hullin (non-sacred produce) are mixed in with one part terumah or hallah, then one can take out one part, give it to the priest as terumah/hallah and the rest reverts to being hullin. If there is less than a 100-1 ratio of hullin to terumah/hallah, then the whole mixture must be treated like terumah and only priests can eat it.",
+                    "<b>They require washing of one’s hands;</b>  Before one touches terumah or hallah, one must wash one’s hands to ritually cleanse them. This is true even if one was not known to be ritually impure.",
+                    "<b>And [waiting until] the setting of the sun [prior to eating them];</b>  An impure person who has been to the mikveh during the day to cleanse him/herself, must wait until the sun sets in order to eat terumah (Leviticus 22:7).",
+                    "<b>They may not be separated from pure [stuff] for impure;</b>  If one has some pure produce/dough and some impure produce/dough, he cannot separate terumah or hallah from the pure in order to exempt the impure, even though this might seem beneficial to a priest, who would surely prefer the pure terumah/hallah (which he can eat the impure terumah/hallah cannot be eaten). See Terumot 2:1 for more information",
+                    "<b>But rather from that which is close,</b>  When one comes to separate terumah or hallah, he must take the terumah and hallah out of produce or dough that is close by. Thus if I have some dough here in Modiin, I can’t take hallah out of dough that I also have in Jerusalem, but I could take hallah out of dough that I have in my second kitchen. I don’t have a second kitchen, but if I did, I could make bread in both kitchens and take hallah out of one batch of dough and exempt the other batch. Probably not a good enough reason to get a second kitchen.",
+                    "<b>And from that [in a] finished [state].</b>  Terumah is separated from produce whose processing has been completed, and hallah is separated from dough, and not from flour.",
+                    "<b>If one said: “All my threshing-floor is terumah, or all my dough is hallah,” he has not said anything, unless he has left some over.</b>  It is impossible to make all of one’s grain at the threshing floor or all of one’s dough into terumah or hallah. Numbers 15:21 says, “From the first of one’s dough you shall give terumah, for all your generations.” The rabbis make a midrash on the word “from the first” and not all of the first, meaning not all of one’s produce or dough can become terumah/hallah."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with whether one is liable to separate hallah from produce that is grown outside the land of Israel.",
+                    "<b>Produce [grown] outside the land [of Israel] that came into the land is subject to Hallah.</b>  Outside the land of Israel, one is not obligated to separate hallah from dough. However, if the produce, in this case grain, was grown outside the land, and then brought in, it is liable for hallah, because the flour was mixed with water inside the land of Israel. As we have seen, when it comes to separating hallah, the critical moment is when the flour is mixed with dough.",
+                    "<b>[If it] went out from here to there: Rabbi Eliezer makes it liable, But Rabbi Akiva makes it exempt.</b>  If the produce was grown in the land of Israel, but then brought outside the land and there it was made into dough, Rabbi Eliezer says that it is still liable for hallah. This seems to be based on a midrash of Numbers 15:19 which states, “from the bread of the land” and bread made from the produce of the land is still “bread of the land” no matter where it is made. Rabbi Akiva says he is exempt, because the very same verse states, “When you enter the land to which I am taking you…” The implication is that when you are not in the land, you are not liable for hallah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Earth from outside the land has come to the land [of Israel] in a boat, [the produce grown in it] is subject to tithes and to the [law relating to] the seventh year.</b>  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that if grain from outside the land of Israel is brought into Israel, it becomes liable for hallah. Today’s mishnah teaches that if a boat comes close to the land of Israel and there is produce in the boat, the produce is liable for tithes and it is subject to the laws governing produce grown in the seventh year, just as if the produce was grown in Israel itself.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah: when does this apply? When the boat touches [the ground].</b>  Rabbi Judah says that this applies only if the boat is actually touching the ground. This is interpreted as meaning that the boat is ten handbreadths from the bottom of the sea. That makes it as if the earth on the boat is attached to the ground. But if the boat was floating high on the water, its produce is exempt from these laws.",
+                    "<b>Dough which has been kneaded with fruit-juice is subject to hallah, and may be eaten with unclean hands.</b>  Dough which is kneaded with fruit-juice instead of water is still liable for hallah. However, it cannot receive impurity because fruit-juice is not one of the seven liquids that makes produce susceptible to impurity. Therefore, the hallah separated from this dough can be eaten with unclean hands, without fear that the hallah will become impure and forbidden for consumption."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with two topics.\nThe first is separating hallah while naked perhaps there was a nudist colony?\nThe second is how to make dough while ritually impure. This is a problem because ritually impure hallah cannot be eaten it must be burned.",
+                    "<b>A woman may sit and separate hallah while she is naked, since she can cover herself  but a man may not.</b>  A person’s whose nakedness, meaning genitalia, are showing cannot separate hallah from dough because doing so requires the recitation of a blessing, and it is forbidden to recite a blessing while naked. A woman can separate hallah while sitting naked because she can hide her nakedness with her legs. However a man cannot hide his nakedness while sitting, therefore he cannot separate hallah. I realize that some of you men reading this may be saying to yourselves, “I can cover my nakedness while I sit.” I implore you don’t try this at home!",
+                    "<b>If one is not able to make one's dough in cleanness he should make it [in separate] kavs,   rather than make it in uncleanness.</b>  Dough is liable for hallah only if there are 1 ¼ kavs. One who kneads a lesser quantity is not liable to separate hallah. According to the first opinion in this mishnah, if one is unable to separate dough in a state of purity, she should knead it in quantities smaller than 1 ¼ kavs, and this way she can avoid becoming liable for hallah.",
+                    "<b>But Rabbi Akiva says: let him make it in uncleanness rather than make it [in separate] kavs, just as he calls the clean, so too he calls the unclean; this one he cals hallah with the Name, and the other he also calls hallah with the Name, but [separate] kavs have no portion [devoted] to the Name.</b>  Rabbi Akiva says that it would be better for him to knead the dough in a state of impurity, rather than making it in separate kavs. For when he kneads it in impurity, he will separate hallah and recite a blessing over it using God’s name, even though the hallah is impure. Rabbi Akiva says that the most important thing is that the blessing is recited because this is what sanctifies God’s name. In contrast, when he kneads each kav separately in order to avoid separating hallah, no blessing is recited and God’s name is not sancitified. I find this debate fascinating. According to Rabbi Akiva, God’s name is sanctified, even over impure hallah. It seems that sanctity and impurity are not polar opposites, at least not in this case. In contrast, the first opinion wishes to avoid a situation where one will be forced to create impure hallah. While one might still have to recite a blessing over this hallah, it seems to be more problematic in the eyes of the author of this section."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with the topic of how kavs of dough that were kneaded separately can join to constitute the necessary amount of dough to be liable for hallah.",
+                    "<b>One who makes his dough [in separate] kavs, and they touch one another, they are exempt from hallah unless they stick together.</b>  If one makes separate batches of dough and they merely touch one another, they are still exempt from hallah. Touching does not turn them into one batch. However, if they stick together, then they are considered one batch and they are liable for hallah. They are considered to be “sticking together” if when they are pulled apart, some of one batch sticks to the other batch.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: also if one takes out [loaves from an oven] and puts [them] into a basket, the basket joins them together for [the purposes of] hallah.</b>  If one takes loaves out of an oven and puts them all into one basket, the loaves, which were not originally liable for hallah, join together to constitute an amount liable for hallah. Even though hallah is usually taken out from the dough, according to Rabbi Eliezer they can still be joined together by the basket even after they have been baked."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with someone who separates his hallah before the flour has been mixed with water to become dough. The Torah says that you are supposed to give the first of “your dough” to the kohen, not the flour before it becomes dough. Our mishnah rules that the flour that he calls “hallah” does not actually become hallah.",
+                    "<b>If one separates his hallah [while it is still] flour, it is not hallah, and in the hand of a priest it is considered stolen property.</b>  As stated above, if he separates his hallah before he mixes it with water to become dough, that which he calls hallah does not have the status of hallah. Therefore, if he gives it to a kohen, the kohen must return it to him. If the kohen does not return it, it is as it is a stolen thing in the kohen’s possession.",
+                    "<b>The dough is still subject to hallah;</b>  The dough made from the remaining flour is still subject to hallah, because the hallah that he did take out does not count.",
+                    "<b>And the flour, if there is the minimum quantity, it [also is] subject to hallah.</b>  The flour that he took out and called hallah, if there is a minimum amount (1 ¼ kavs) then hallah must be taken from this dough as well.",
+                    "<b>And it is prohibited to non-priests, the words of Rabbi Joshua.</b>  Despite the fact that this flour does not have the status of hallah, Rabbi Joshua says that it is prohibited to non-priests. According to Rabbi Joshua, since he called it hallah, it can only be eaten by priests, even though it is not actually hallah.",
+                    "<b>They said to him: It happened that a non-priest sage seized it [for himself].</b>  The other sages respond that it happened that a non-priest who was a sage grabbed a loaf made from this flour in order to eat it. This proves, to the sages, that this flour is permitted to non-priests.",
+                    "<b>He said to them: He did something damaging to himself, but he benefited others.</b>  Rabbi Joshua responds that what the sage did was indeed forbidden. But in a roundabout way, he helped others. Other non-priests will now eat this bread thinking that it is permitted to them as well. Since they don’t know that it is actually prohibited, they are not considered to be sinning. So it turns out that this sage knowingly erred, in order to aid others. While this is a strange concept, we should remember that the only reason that Rabbi Joshua considers this bread prohibited to non-priests is that he called it hallah it is not actually hallah. The transgression of a non-priest eating it is certainly not from the Torah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches the basic law that we have encountered several times 1 ¼ kav of flour is liable for hallah. If there is less, one need not remove hallah.",
+                    "<b>Five-fourths [of a kav] of flour are subject to hallah.</b>  This is the basic law, to which we have made reference on several occasions.",
+                    "<b>If their leaven, their light bran and their coarse bran [make up the] five-fourths, they are subject.</b>  When measuring the flour, one includes the leaven (the starter dough used to leaven the bread), and all of the bran.",
+                    "<b>If their coarse bran had been removed from them and returned to them, they are exempt.</b>  If the coarse bran was removed, which is typical in the processing of better quality flour, and then it was added back in, the flour is not subject to hallah. This is because putting back the course bran is unusual."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches the minimum measure of hallah that a person must separate from his dough. We should note that this measure is not set by the Torah. According to Torah law, even the tiniest amount would exempt the dough. However, as we saw in the case of terumah, the rabbis set a minimum amount. The fact that this amount is not considered to be from the Torah, also allowed them the ability to make the amount variable depending on the circumstance.",
+                    "<b>The [minimum] measure of hallah is one twenty-fourth [part of the dough].</b>  In general, one must give 1/24 of one’s dough to a kohen as hallah.",
+                    "<b>If he makes dough for himself, or if he makes it for his son’s [wedding] banquet, it is one twenty-fourth.</b>  The above is true for a person who makes dough for own personal use, or for use at a family celebration.",
+                    "<b>If a baker makes to sell in the market, and so [also] if a woman makes to sell in the market, it is one forty-eighth.</b>  The rabbis were lenient when it came to a baker or a woman making dough to sell in the market. Since these people tend to make larger quantities, even 1/48 will be sufficient enough to give something substantial to the kohen.",
+                    "<b>If dough is made unclean either unwittingly or by an unforeseeable circumstance, it is one forty-eighth.</b>  When one has dough that was made impure either unwittingly, or by some unforeseeable circumstance, s/he only has to give 1/48 as hallah. Since this hallah won’t be able to be eaten anyway, only a minimal measurement is required.",
+                    "<b>If it was made unclean intentionally, it is one twenty-fourth, in order that a sinner should not profit.</b>  However, if he intentionally makes it unclean in order to get away with giving less hallah, he must give the larger measure. Clearly, we don’t want a person to make his dough unclean so that he can get away with giving less hallah. Remember, the part of the dough that is not hallah can still be eaten, so if he were to get away with giving the lesser amount, a “sinner would profit.”"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn this mishnah Rabbi Eliezer finds a way to give hallah from pure dough in order to exempt a separate batch of impure dough.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: Hallah may be taken from [dough] that is clean, [in order to exempt] that which is unclean. How [may this be done]? [If one has] clean dough and unclean dough, he takes sufficient hallah out of the [clean] dough whose hallah has not yet been taken, and puts [dough] less than the size of an egg in the middle, in order that he may take off [the hallah] from what is close together.</b>  The problem in this situation is how to join the two batches of dough together so that one hallah can be taken from both, without causing the pure dough to become impure. He cannot just take from one to exempt the other because hallah taken from one batch of dough cannot exempt a separate batch of dough. This is how Rabbi Eliezer suggests it may be done. First, he takes a sufficient measure of hallah from the clean dough in order to exempt both batches of dough. He does this at the outset lest the clean dough is made impure at least he now has enough clean hallah to exempt both batches. Then in between the two batches he puts an amount of dough less than the size of an egg. This serves to attach the two batches, but because it is less than an egg’s worth in volume, the impurity is not conveyed across to the pure dough. Now, the hallah that he took from the pure dough counts to exempt the impure dough.",
+                    "<b>But the sages prohibit.</b>  The other rabbis prohibit one from separating hallah from pure dough for impure dough, lest he unwittingly causes the pure dough to become impure. Rather he should take pure hallah from the pure dough and impure hallah from the impure dough."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with the question of when one can eat dough without separating hallah.",
+                    "<b>One may snack from dough, until it is rolled, in [the case of] wheat [flour], or before it is made into a solid mass, in [the case of] barley [flour].</b>  A person can eat a piece of dough as a snack even though hallah has not yet been removed from it. This is true as long as long as it has not yet been rolled, if the flour was made of wheat, or made into a solid mass, in the case of barley. Wheat flour is finer and therefore, it is considered dough once it has been kneaded well and rolled out to make loaves of bread (flat like pita). Barley flour is coarser and therefore it is considered dough once she gets it to stick together into a lump. This rule should be familiar if you have already learned Tractate Maasrot. There we learned that in general one can snack from produce before its processing has been completed.",
+                    "<b>[Once] one has rolled it [in the case of] wheat [flour], or made it into a solid mass, in [the case of] barley [flour], one who eats it is liable for death [at the hands of heaven].</b>  After it has been either rolled or made into a solid mass, a non-priest who eats it is liable for “death at the hands of heaven.” This is the same penalty for a non-priest who eats terumah, and as we have seen, the laws of hallah are frequently derived from the laws of terumah, because the Torah calls both “holy.”",
+                    "<b>As soon as she puts in the water she should lift out the hallah, provided that there are not five-fourths [of a kav] of flour left there.</b>  The way to avoid this severe penalty is for the woman to remove the hallah from the dough as soon as she puts water in the flour. Even though one could snack on it until it is rolled or made into a solid mass, this is not advisable, because it might lead one to snack on it at a later point. The version of our mishnah reads “provided that there are not five-fourths [of a kav] of flour left there.” This is interpreted to mean that if even after she removes hallah before it has been kneaded, there remain 5/4 of a kav, then the problem has not been solved, because she took out hallah to early she should only take it out once it has been kneaded, and not as soon as the water has been mixed in with the flour. Another version of this section reads, “as long as there are 5/4 of a kav of flour there.” If there is not such a measure, she should not take out hallah, even if she will add more flour later on."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned that once a woman rolls out wheat dough it becomes liable for terumah. Our mishnah teaches some differences between the rules that apply before she rolls out the dough and those that apply after she rolls out the dough.",
+                    "<b>Dough which became medumma before she had rolled it, it is exempt [from hallah]. If after she had rolled it, it is subject [to hallah].</b>  Medumma is a mixture of terumah and hullin (non-sacred produce) when there are not 100 parts of hullin for one part terumah (this topic was dealt with at length in tractate Terumah). If the non-sacred dough becomes mixed with terumah dough before it is rolled out, then she does not need to take out hallah, because it was exempt from hallah before it ever became liable for hallah. However, if it first becomes liable for hallah when she rolls it, and only afterwards it is mixed with terumah and becomes medumma, then it is still liable for hallah. What will happen in this case is that she will have to give the hallah to the priest and the rest remains medumma, doubtful terumah. Medumma may not be eaten by a non-priest, but it may be sold to a priest.",
+                    "<b>If there occurred to her some doubtful uncleanness before she had rolled it, it may be completed in uncleanness. If after she had rolled it, it should be completed in cleanness.</b>  If the dough becomes doubtfully unclean before it becomes liable for hallah, meaning something may (or may not) have happened to it to make it ritually unclean, then she can continue to make the dough in a state of uncleanness. In any case the priest cannot eat the hallah that will be taken out of the dough, for it may be impure, and therefore it doesn’t matter if she makes it certainly impure. However, if it becomes doubtfully unclean after it has been rolled, then it became liable for hallah before it became impure. It is forbidden to impart certain impurity to hallah (or terumah) that is only doubtfully impure. Since this dough has already been rolled, and thereby made liable for hallah, it is treated as if it is hallah. She must make the rest of the dough in a state of purity."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to deal with differences between the rules that apply before she rolls the dough and those that apply afterwards.",
+                    "<b>[If] she dedicated her dough [to the Temple] before rolling it, and then redeemed it, it is subject [to hallah].</b>  Dough that has been dedicated to the Temple is exempt from hallah. This is true with regard to all of the agricultural gifts one is exempt from giving them if the produce has already been dedicated to the Temple. However, in order for the dough to be exempt it has to belong to the Temple at the time it becomes liable for hallah, meaning when it is rolled. Thus, if a woman dedicated her dough to the Temple before she rolled it and then redeemed it before she rolled it, it is subject to hallah because when she rolls it, it belongs to her again.",
+                    "<b>[If she dedicated it] after rolling it, and redeemed it, it is subject [to hallah].</b>  Similarly, if she dedicates the dough after it has been rolled and then she redeems it, it is liable for hallah, because she owned it at the time it became liable.",
+                    "<b>[But if] she dedicated it before rolling it, and the Temple treasurer rolled it, and after that she redeemed it, it is exempt, since at the time of its obligation it was exempt.</b>  However, if she dedicates it before she rolls it, and then the Temple treasurer (or any other Temple agent) takes possession of it and rolls it, and then she redeems it, it is exempt because it belonged to the Temple when it became liable for hallah. While this may be a case that will never in actuality happen, what is important is that it teaches a principle if it is in her possession when it becomes liable for hallah, she must separate the hallah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. This time the subject is tithes.  Produce becomes liable for tithes once its processing is completed. This very same mishnah appeared in Peah 4:8. My commentary here is the same as I wrote there.",
+                    "<b>Similarly one who dedicates his produce prior to the stage when they are subject to tithes   and then redeemed them, they are liable [to be tithed].</b>  Produce becomes liable to be tithed once it has been harvested, processed and made into a pile.  Before this point he may eat of it without tithing.  In the scenario in this section, he dedicates it before it becomes liable to be tithed and then he redeems it before it comes liable to be tithed.  He is then liable to tithe the produce when it becomes liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>If [he dedicated them] when they had already become subject to tithes and then redeemed them, they are liable [to be tithed].</b>  In this case he dedicated it and redeemed it after he became liable for tithing, so again, he is liable to tithe the produce before he goes ahead and uses it.",
+                    "<b>If he dedicated them before they had ripened, and they became ripe while in the possession of the [Temple] treasurer, and he then redeemed them, they are exempt, since at the time when they would have been liable, they were exempt.</b>  In this case, he dedicates it before it is even a third ripe and then the produce ripens, is harvested and the Temple treasurer makes the grain into a pile.  Since the grain was in the legal possession of the Temple when it became liable for tithes, he is not liable for tithes when he redeems it."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOnly dough owned by a Jew is subject to hallah, not dough owned by a Gentile. This mishnah teaches when the dough is considered to be owned by a Jew.",
+                    "<b>If a Gentile gave [flour] to an Israelite to make for him dough, it is exempt from hallah.</b>  Since this flour is owned by a Gentile, it is exempt from hallah, even though the Jew is the one who kneaded it.",
+                    "<b>If the Gentile gave it to him as a gift, before rolling it, he is liable. If after rolling it, he is exempt.</b>  If the Gentile gave the dough to the Jew as a gift, then it will depend on when he gave it to him. If he gave it to him before rolling it, then it is liable for hallah because a Jew owned it when it became liable for hallah. But if he gave it to him after he rolled it, then it is exempt from hallah, because a Gentile owned it when it became liable.",
+                    "<b>If one makes dough together with a Gentile, then if there is not in [the portion] of the Israelite the minimum measure subject to hallah, it is exempt from hallah.</b>  If a Jew joins in a partnership with a Gentile to make dough, then the dough is liable for hallah if the Jew’s portion is the minimum measure of 5/4 of a kav. If not, then the dough is exempt, even if there is together more than 5/4 of a kav."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A convert who converted and had dough: if it was made before he became a convert, he is exempt [from hallah]. After he converted, he is liable.</b>  As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, a non-Jew’s dough is not subject to hallah. If a non-Jew has dough, and then converts, the dough is not subject to hallah if he made it before he converted. If he made it after he converted, it is subject to hallah.",
+                    "<b>And if there is doubt, he is liable, but [a non-priest who has unwittingly eaten of such hallah] is not liable for the additional one-fifth.</b>  If it is unclear whether he made it before he converted or not, then he must give hallah. However, this hallah is not treated as “certain” hallah, rather just as “doubtful” hallah, meaning it may or not be hallah. It should be eaten by a priest but if a non-priest eats it, he must restore to the priests the value of that which he ate, but not an added fifth. Only one who eats “certain” hallah must pay back an added fifth of the value, which is the same law that governs terumah.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Akiva said: it all depends on the [time of the] formation of the light crust in the oven.</b>  In all of the above mishnayot we learned that dough becomes liable for hallah once it is rolled. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with all of these mishnayot and holds that the end of processing for dough, meaning the point at which it becomes obligated for hallah, is when it forms a light crust in the oven. This is derived from Numbers 15:19 which reads, “And it will be when you eat from the bread of the land, you shall take out terumah for the Lord.” The operative word here is “bread” once it can be considered bread, then one must remove hallah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>One who makes dough from wheat [flour] and from rice [flour] if it has a taste of grain, it is subject to hallah, and one can fulfill one’s obligation with it on Pesah.<br>But if it does not have the taste of grain, it is not subject to hallah, and one cannot fulfill with it one’s obligation on Pesah.</b><br>Rice is not one of the five grains subject to the laws of hallah (see 1:1), nor can one use it as matzah on Pesah. Our mishnah teaches that if one mixes rice and one of the other five grains, such as wheat, he is liable for hallah if he can taste the wheat. If he makes it into matzah he can use it as matzah at the seder, as long as he can taste the wheat.<br>He is obligated for hallah even if there is not enough wheat flour to constitute the minimum measure required for dough to be liable for hallah (5/4 of a kav).<br>If he cannot taste the wheat then there is no need to separate hallah and it can’t be used as matzah on Pesah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nBefore people bought yeast at the supermarket, people used starter dough to leaven their bread. They would take a piece of leavened dough (sour dough) from one batch and put it into another batch. Our mishnah deals with a person who takes starter dough from a batch of dough from which hallah had not been taken, and puts it into a batch of dough from which hallah had been taken. He obviously wants to avoid having to separate hallah again from dough which already had hallah removed.",
+                    "<b>One who takes leaven out of dough from which hallah had not been taken and puts it into dough from which hallah had been taken:<br>If he has a supply from another place, he can take out [hallah] in accordance with the precise amount.</b>  If he has another batch of dough (a third batch) from which hallah had not yet been removed, and he can use that batch to remove hallah to exempt the leaven which he put into another batch (meaning that batch is large enough), then he may do so according to the amount of leaven he added to the other batch.",
+                    "<b>But if does not, he takes out one [portion of] hallah for the whole [dough].</b>  However, if he does not have another batch of hallah, then he must remove hallah from the batch to which he added the leaven according to the amount of dough in the entire batch, even though he only added a little bit of leaven. Since he can’t separate hallah for that little bit of leaven from another batch, it places the entire batch into which it has been under the category of dough from which hallah has not been removed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nWhen one harvests olive trees, and some olives are left in the tree, the poor have the right to come and strike the tree to bring down the last remaining olives. Similarly, if there are grapes that are not fully formed at the regular time of harvest, they belong to the poor.\nRegularly harvested grapes and olives are liable to terumah and tithes, but those left for the poor are not.\nOur mishnah discusses what one can do if his regularly harvested grapes or olives become mixed with those belonging to the poor. Can he get away without having to separate terumah and tithes based on the entire larger amount?",
+                    "<b>Similarly, if olives of [regular] picking became mixed with olives [left over] for striking-off   [by the poor], or grapes of [regular] picking, with grapes [left over] for gleaning [by the poor]:<br>If he has a supply from another place, he can take out [terumah and tithes] in accordance with the precise amount.</b>  This is the same rule as that found in section one in yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>But if does not, he takes out one terumah and terumat maaser for all of the grapes.</b>  If he does not have other produce from which to take out the terumah, then he must separate terumah and the terumah that is taken from tithes (terumat maaser) for the entire amount, even though the produce that was for the poor was exempt. Note that he does not need to take out tithes for the entire amount. The law is stricter when it comes to terumah because a non-priest who eats terumah is liable for death by the hands of heaven. Therefore, he has to be certain that he has separated terumah for the entire amount.",
+                    "<b>And as for the rest, [he takes out] tithe and the second tithe in accordance with the precise amount.</b>  The laws regarding tithes are not as strict because a non-priest can eat tithe. Therefore, he can take out tithe and second tithe for the amount of produce that is actually liable to tithes and second tithe. This is the amount of his produce that is in the mixture; it does not include the produce that belongs to the poor."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah returns us to the subject that was first raised in mishnah seven above dough from wheat flour that is mixed in with dough from rice flour. As a reminder, wheat flour is subject to the laws of hallah whereas rice flour is not.",
+                    "<b>One who takes leaven from a dough of wheat [flour] and puts [it] into dough of rice [flour],   [then] if it has the taste of grain, it is subject to hallah, [but] if not, it is exempt.</b>  Leaven is the sour dough used to make new batches of bread rise. If leaven is taken from wheat flour dough and put into rice flour dough, the batch is liable for hallah only if one can still taste the wheat flour.",
+                    "<b>If so, why did they say: “Untithed produce of any amount renders food prohibited”?</b>  This section raises a difficulty on the law presented in the previous section. According to the quote in this section, “untithed produce of any amount renders food prohibited,” if even a small amount of untithed produce falls into a large amount of tithed produce, then one cannot eat the produce until he removes tithes and terumah. Why then did they say in section one that the mixture becomes prohibited only if it imparts taste?",
+                    "<b>That is [with regard to a mixture of] a species with its own species, but [with regard to a mixture of a species] not with its own species, only when it imparts taste.</b>  The answer is that there is a difference between cases in which one species becomes mixed up in the same species and cases where different species are mixed. So, for instance, if a tiny bit of wheat dough from which hallah had not been removed became mixed up with a large batch of wheat dough from which hallah had been removed, it would be forbidden to eat of it until he removes hallah. There can be no concept of “imparting taste” here because it all has the same taste. In contrast, if there are two different species, then the species that has not had its terumah removed (or that is liable for hallah, as in section one) must impart taste to the species that has had its terumah removed (or is liable for hallah). If there is no taste, then the mixture is not prohibited."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah discusses the difference between cases where two batches of dough from the same species come into contact and cases where two batches of dough from different species come into contact.",
+                    "<b>Two women who made [separate doughs] from two [separate] kavs, and these [doughs] touched one another, even if they are of the same species, they are exempt [from hallah].</b>  In this case two women each make a batch of dough and this batch of dough is only a kav in volume, which means that the dough is not subject to hallah (5/4 of a kav is the minimum). If these two batches of dough come into contact with each other they are still not subject to hallah because they are owned by different women. This is true even if they are of the same species.",
+                    "<b>When they belong to one woman: If one species [comes into contact] with the same species, they are subject [to hallah]. If different species, they are exempt.</b>  If the two batches of dough belong to the same woman, then if the two batches of dough are made from the same species, they are liable because they join together to create the minimum measure. If they are of different species then the two batches do not join together to form a minimum measure and they remain exempt from hallah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn the beginning of the tractate we learned that there are five species of grain: wheat, barley, rye, spelt and oats. Here we see that for the purpose of mixtures of different types of grain, these don’t all count as separate species. Rather, in most cases, these different species are reckoned together. This is probably because they look somewhat the same.",
+                    "<b>What counts as a species with its same species?<br>Wheat is not reckoned together with any [species] other than with spelt;</b>  Wheat is a separate species and is not reckoned together with any other species, other than spelt. Thus if wheat and oat batches of dough come into contact, they do not join for the sake of making them subject to hallah.",
+                    "<b>Barley is reckoned together with all [species] except wheat.</b>  Barley is reckoned with all four other species, except for wheat, which we learned above is only reckoned with spelt.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the rest of the species are reckoned together one with another.</b>  Finally, Rabbi Yohanan b. Nuri explains that with regard to spelt, rye and oats, they are all reckoned together. We should note that overall the better the quality of grain, the less likely it is to join together with other species. Wheat is the “king of grains” and the best bread is made from wheat. Therefore, it is nearly exclusive, joining together only with spelt. Barley is less than wheat, and so it joins together with everything but wheat. Finally, the other grains are similar to barley and they too join together with all other grains, except for wheat."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to deal with the topic of when separate batches of dough join together. The mishnah describes a situation in which there are three batches of dough in a row. The first batch and the third batch are subject to hallah but the middle batch, which is touching both the first and third batch, is exempt from hallah.",
+                    "<b>[If there are two doughs from] two [separate] kavs, and a kav of rice [dough] or a kav of terumah dough [lying] between, they are not reckoned together.</b>  The fact that the middle batch of dough is exempt from hallah because it is made of rice, or because it is terumah dough which was never subject to hallah, means that it does not serve to join the two outside batches of dough. Since they are each less than the minimum measurement of 5/4 of a kav, they are exempt.",
+                    "<b>[If there was] dough from which hallah had already been taken [lying] between, they are reckoned together, since it had once been subject to hallah.</b>  If, however, the middle batch of dough is exempt from hallah because its hallah has already been removed, then it does serve to connect the two outside batches of dough. This dough was once liable for hallah and it is therefore categorically subject to the laws of hallah, unlike the rice or terumah dough which were never subject to hallah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A kav of [dough made from] new grain and a kav of [dough from] old grain which are stuck together: Rabbi Ishmael says: let him take [hallah] from the middle; But the sages prohibit.</b>  Here there are two batches of dough, each of which consists of a kav, less than the minimum measure to make it liable for hallah. One batch is from new grain (lesser quality) and one is from old grain (greater quality). The two batches are stuck together, thereby making them liable for hallah according to all opinions. The question is whether one can take hallah from one in order to exempt the other. Rabbi Ishmael says that one should take from the middle of the two batches, and in this way he will take from both and exempt the entire batch. However, the sages prohibit and say that he must take from the old to exempt the old and from the new to exempt the new. Hallah that he separates from the new cannot exempt the old, nor can hallah from the old exempt the new, even though they are from the same species. Note that these two batches are similar enough to join together but not similar to allow one to separate from one for the other.",
+                    "<b>One who has taken hallah from [dough made out of] one kav: Rabbi Akiva says: it is hallah; But the sages say: it is not hallah.</b>  If one takes hallah out of a batch of dough that is not liable for hallah, Rabbi Akiva says that that which he takes out is considered hallah and all of the rules of hallah apply to it. Since he called it hallah, it is hallah. Rabbi Akiva seems to think that what makes hallah is the person, not the dough. The other sages say that it is not hallah, because if the dough wasn’t subject to hallah, that which he takes out of it cannot be hallah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. It continues to discuss a situation where a person separated hallah from dough that was smaller than the minimum measure.",
+                    "<b>Two [separate] kavs [of dough], this one had its hallah removed on its own, and this one had its hallah removed on its own, and then he went back and made of them one dough: Rabbi Akiva exempts; But the sages make it liable.</b>  There were two separate kavs of dough, and the owner took hallah out of each of them even though both were exempt because they were not of sufficient quantity to be liable. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that according to Rabbi Akiva that which he removed and called hallah is actually hallah, whereas the other sages hold that it is not. So to Rabbi Akiva, both batches are considered dough whose hallah has been removed, whereas the other sages would hold that no hallah has been removed from these two. After having separated hallah from the two batches he now goes and makes one batch of dough out of them. Now the dough is large enough to be liable for hallah. Rabbi Akiva says that since hallah has already been removed, the mixture of the two batches is not liable for hallah. The sages hold that the dough he separated from the batches when they were separate is not considered hallah and hence “hallah” has never really been taken out of this dough. Therefore, he has to separate hallah from the mixed batch.",
+                    "<b>It turns out that the stringency of his [first] ruling leads to the leniency of his other ruling.</b>  The rabbis love paradoxes, or at least surprising twists of halakhah. In this case, the stringency of Rabbi Akiva in the previous mishnah, that he considers that which was separated to be hallah, leads to the leniency in today’s mishnah the mixed batch is exempt. The opposite could be said about the other rabbis their leniency in yesterday’s mishnah, that which was separated is not considered hallah, leads to their stringency in today’s mishnah the mixed batch is liable. While this section doesn’t really add any information, it is the type of phenomenon that the Mishnah loves to pay attention to."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is complicated and I will explain it entirely, as opposed to line by line, below.",
+                    "<b>A man may take the requisite amount for hallah out of [clean] dough from which hallah has not [previously] been removed in order to remove it in a state of cleanness   in order to go on separating [hallah] from it for [unclean] demai, until it becomes putrid, since hallah for demai may be taken from clean [dough] for unclean [dough], and from [one dough for another dough] which is not in close proximity.</b> This mishnah refers to a person who sets aside dough in order for this dough to count as hallah for other dough that he will receive in the future from which he doesn’t want to bother separating hallah. The dough that he will receive in the future is “demai” meaning it was received from an am haaretz, one who doesn’t observe these laws, and therefore we have to be concerned lest hallah has not been removed from it. However, the laws are usually more lenient when it comes to demai. Generally, one cannot take hallah from one batch of dough in order to exempt different dough unless the two batches are in close proximity. When it comes to demai this is permitted. Secondly, one cannot separate hallah from clean dough in order to exempt unclean dough. Again, when it comes to demai this is permitted. The demai dough that he receives from the am haaretz can be assumed to be impure, and nevertheless he can separate pure hallah in order to exempt impure dough. To return to our situation, this person sets aside dough in order for that dough to count as hallah for demai dough that he will receive in the future from an am haaretz. He can do this until the dough becomes putrid. However, he is concerned lest the dough that he sets aside to count as hallah will become impure.  The problem would then be that this dough has not had its hallah removed and by the time he takes the hallah out, it will be impure hallah. To prevent this from happening, he should immediately take the hallah out of this batch of dough. This way at least the hallah for this dough will be pure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn rabbinic language “Syria” refers to the land that borders the land of Israel to the north and east but is not considered fully part of Israel.  The rules of tithing and terumah do apply to produce grown by a Jew in Syria but one who purchases produce in Syria can assume that it grew on gentile land and is therefore exempt from the laws of tithing and terumah.  The first subject dealt with in our mishnah is people who are tenant-farming land that belongs to non-Jews in Syria. Tenant-farming means that the tenant has received a piece of land from its owner in order to work the land and keep for himself a portion of the crops.\nThe second section deals with whether the laws of hallah apply to dough in Syria in the same way that they do in the land of Israel.",
+                    "<b>An Israelite who was a tenant of a non-Jew in Syria: Rabbi Eliezer makes their produce liable to tithes and to [the law of] the sabbatical year; But Rabban Gamaliel makes [it] exempt.</b>  According to Rabbi Eliezer, Syria is treated like the land of Israel when it comes to tithes and to sheviit (the sabbatical year). Just as in the land of Israel if a Jew is a tenant-farmer for a non-Jew on land owned by a non-Jew, he still has to separate tithes and observe the laws of the sabbatical year, so too when it comes to land in Syria, he must separate tithes and observe the sabbatical laws. Rabban Gamaliel disagrees. He holds that since the land belongs to a non-Jew and the Jew who is working the land doesn’t own it, he need not separate tithes or observe the sabbatical laws.",
+                    "<b>Rabban Gamaliel says: [one is to give] two hallah-portions in Syria; But Rabbi Eliezer says: [only] one hallah-portion.</b>  In tomorrow’s mishnah we will learn that outside of the land of Israel one has to separate two portions of hallah from the dough. Consequently, Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer debate what to do in Syria. Rabban Gamaliel stated above that Syria was not treated like Israel therefore, in Syria one has to separate two portions of hallah. Rabbi Eliezer above treated Syria like the land of Israel therefore in Syria one has to separate only one portion.",
+                    "<b>They adopted the lenient ruling of Rabban Gamaliel and the lenient ruling of Rabbi Eliezer. Eventually they went back and acted in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel in both respects.</b>  The mishnah now treats us to an interesting tidbit concerning the way people were acting. Originally, they adopted both lenient rulings. In other words, when it came to tithes and the sabbatical year, they treated Syria as if it was not the land of Israel. However, when it came to hallah, they separated only one portion, as if it was the land of Israel. They were not consistent as to which rabbi they followed they always adopted the more lenient opinion. However, eventually they changed their practice and acted consistent with the opinion of Rabban Gamaliel. This seems to be the way of behaving preferred by the mishnah here and in other places as well. One should not select lenient opinions from various rabbis rather one should choose one rabbi and follow his opinions, at least when these opinions are consistent with one another, as they are here."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn today’s mishnah Rabban Gamaliel defines the borders of Israel with regard to the issue of hallah. This same division is found in Sheviit 6:1, so I am not going to explain the geographical or historical issues here. Please look there for more information.\nAccording to the Torah, one need not separate hallah outside of the land of Israel (see Numbers 15:19). However, the rabbis decreed that Jews should continue to separate hallah from dough even outside of the land of Israel so that the laws of hallah would not be forgotten while the Jews were in the Diaspora. The problem is that outside of the land of Israel was considered to be impure, so that any hallah separated there would also be impure. So the hallah that they took out had to be burned. In order to remember that hallah was originally given to priests, the rabbis decreed that a Jew should separate a second portion of hallah and give that portion to the priests. It turns out, as we learned yesterday’s mishnah, that outside of the land of Israel a person would have to set aside a double portion of hallah.",
+                    "<b>Rabban Gamaliel says: there are three territories with regard to [liability to] hallah:<br>From the land of Israel to Chezib: one hallah-portion.</b>  The northern border of the land of Israel is set at Chezib (see Sheviit 6:1). Until that point one separates from dough one portion of hallah.",
+                    "<b>From Chezib to the river and to Amanah: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has a minimum measure, and the one for the priest does not have a minimum measure.</b>  This is an “in-between” geographical region. In Sheviit 6:1 we learned that some of the laws of sheviit apply here and some do not. With regard to hallah, what is important to understand is that the region is considered impure, as are all lands outside of Israel, and therefore any hallah separated there will be impure. So the first thing he does is separate a measure of hallah and then he destroys it by burning it. The problem with this is that the rabbis were concerned lest Jews forget the rules of hallah. Seeing the hallah burnt, they may not realize that the reason it was burned and not eaten is that it was impure by virtue of it being outside of Israel. Therefore they decreed that along with the “real” hallah that needs to be burned, people should also separate one portion of hallah and give it to a priest. This hallah is not the true biblically mandated hallah, but rather originates in a decree of the rabbis. Therefore we can be more lenient with it and it need not be of the minimum size (1/48). However, the hallah that is burned is biblically mandated and therefore it must consist of the minimum measure.",
+                    "<b>From the river and from Amanah and inward: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has no minimum measure, and the one for the priest has a minimum measure.</b>  In this region, the agricultural laws do not apply and therefore both portions of hallah, the one that is burned and the one that is given to the priest, are decrees of the rabbis and not biblically mandated. In this case the law concerning which portion requires a minimum measure applies in an opposite fashion. The portion that is burned does not need to be of minimum measure because this portion is separated only because of a rabbinic decree. However, there is a minimum measure to the portion given to the priest, even though it too was a decree of the rabbis. One of the two portions needs to be of minimum measure so that these laws will not be forgotten, so it might as well be the portion that will not go to waste.",
+                    "<b>And [a priest] who has immersed himself during the day [and has not waited till sunset for his purification to be complete] may eat it. Rabbi Yose says: he does not require immersion. But it is forbidden to zavim and zavot, to menstruants, and to women after childbirth;</b>  This portion given to the priest is only of rabbinic origin. Therefore, some of the purity laws that normally apply to biblically-mandated hallah, do not apply to this portion. Normally, an impure priest would go to the mikveh and immerse, and then be able to eat hallah/terumah only at nightfall. In this case it is sufficient for him to go the mikveh and eat the hallah before nightfall, because this is not actually hallah. It seems that the rabbis wanted him to go to the mikveh before eating this hallah so that he would remember that hallah should not be eaten in a state of impurity. However, in order to signify that this hallah was not biblically-mandated, they were somewhat lax in the application of these laws and they allowed him to eat before he was actually pure. Rabbi Yose rules that even an impure priest may eat this terumah, without going to the mikveh at all. But, he agrees that it can’t be eaten by anyone whose impurity stems from their own body. This would include zavim and zavot, men or women who have an abnormal genital discharge, menstruants and women after childbirth. Note that the women referred to here must be either wives or daughters of priests they too can eat hallah.",
+                    "<b>It may be eaten with a non-priest at the [same] table;</b>  Normally, a priest should not eat terumah or hallah at a table with a non-priest, lest the non-priest come to eat food strictly prohibited to him. Since this hallah is only of rabbinic origin, it may be eaten at a table with a non-priest.",
+                    "<b>And it may be given to any priest.</b>  Normally, one should not give hallah to an “am haaretz” priest, lest he defile it. We are again lenient in this case since the hallah is not biblically-mandated."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned that one can give hallah from outside of Israel to any priest, even an am haaretz who might defile it, because there is no prohibition of defiling this hallah. Our mishnah continues to list other priestly gifts that can be given to any priest, without fear that he will defile it. With regard to some of these things, there is no prohibition against defilement, and with regard to some of them, we assume that the priest will be cautious and not defile them.",
+                    "<b>These may be given to any priest:<br>Devoted things (;</b>  Haramim are referred to in Numbers 18:14, which states, “all herem (devoted thing) in Israel shall be yours (to Aaron and his descendents).” These refer to gifts given to priests there is no prohibition of making them impure.",
+                    "<b>Firstlings;</b>  “Firstlings” are the first born of pure domesticated animals, sheep, cows and goats. If they are unblemished they are sacrificed and parts are eaten by priests. If they are blemished, then the priest gets to keep the entire animal.",
+                    "<b>The redemption of the first born;</b>  This is the five shekels used to redeem a first-born human child (see Numbers 18:17-18).",
+                    "<b>The [lamb substituted as] ransom for the firstling of a donkey;</b>  The first born of a donkey is redeemed with a lamb (see Exodus 13:13). The priest gets the lamb.",
+                    "<b>The shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw;</b>  The parts of non-sacrificial animals given to the priest (see Deuteronomy 18:3-4).",
+                    "<b>The first of the fleece;</b>  The priest gets the first shearings of the sheep (Deuteronomy 18:4).",
+                    "<b>Oil [fit only] for burning;</b>  Impure terumah must be burned. Since it is already impure, one can give it to an am haaretz priest.",
+                    "<b>Consecrated food [which must be eaten] within the Temple;</b>  If the priest has to eat the offering within the Temple then we can assume that he will eat it in purity. Am haaretz priests were not suspected of going into the Temple while impure.",
+                    "<b>And bikkurim. Rabbi Judah prohibits bikkurim.</b>  First fruits must be eaten while pure (both the fruit and the person). The rabbis hold that since these first fruits will be brought to the Temple, the am haaretz priest will be careful with their purity and therefore they can be given to any priest. Rabbi Judah disagrees.",
+                    "<b>Vetches of terumah: Rabbi Akiva permits, But the sages prohibit.</b>  Vetches are normally animal food (see Maaser Sheni 2:4) but are occasionally eaten by humans. Rabbi Akiva holds that since they are not really food for humans, the laws of purity don’t apply and therefore they can be given to an am haaretz priest. The other rabbis hold that the purity laws do apply, and they should only be given to a priest known to preserve the purity laws."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Nittai of Tekoa brought hallah-portions from Be-Yitur, but they did not accept from him.<br>The people of Alexandria brought hallah, but they did not accept from them.<br>The people from Mt. Zevoim brought bikkurim prior to Atzeret (, but they did not accept from them, on for it is written in the Torah: “And the festival of the harvest, the first-fruits of your labors, which you have sown in the field” (Exodus 23:16).</b><br>Our mishnah mentions people who did two things that were against rabbinic law. The first thing is that they brought hallah from outside of Israel into Israel. The rabbis forbade bringing hallah or terumah into Israel from outside Israel. This was prohibited in order to discourage priests from going outside of Israel to bring back terumah or hallah (see also Sheviit 6:6).<br>The second issue mentioned is that some people would bring bikkurim before Shavuot. The rabbis also forbade this, for the verse in Exodus alludes to the fact that the first fruits should be brought on Shavuot.<br>I find several interesting things in this mishnah. First of all, the people who did not observe rabbinic law were actually acting in some ways stricter than the rabbis demanded. They were shlepping their hallah all the way from outside of Israel into the land of Israel. They were bringing their bikkurim before they were supposed to. The picture we get is of people who were zealous in their observance, and who were being calmed down by the rabbis. It is also interesting that those outside of Israel were not following rabbinic law. We know from many places that rabbinic influence was felt largely in Israel, where most rabbis lived. This mishnah supports the notion that outside of the land, Jews did not always follow, or perhaps didn’t even know, what rabbis were teaching. But to emphasize this does not mean that they were not observant of Jewish law.<br>Secondly, while the rabbis opposed these practices, they also bothered remembering them. The mishnah disapproves of what these people did, but it is almost as if the mishnah is also saying that although the practices are not sanctioned, they are still in some ways admirable.<br>The mishnah itself should be easily understood, and hence there is no explanation below."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>Ben Antigonus brought up firstlings from Babylon, but they did not accept from him.</b>  According to rabbinic law, one does not bring bekhorot, first-born animals, from outside the land of Israel.",
+                    "<b>Joseph the priest brought first fruits of wine and oil, but they did not accept from him.</b>  The mistake of Joseph the priest was that he brought his first fruits in their processed form, as wine or oil, instead of bringing them as grapes or olives (see Terumot 11:3, for a conflicting opinion).",
+                    "<b>He also brought up his sons and members of his household to celebrate Pesah katan in Jerusalem, but they turned him back, so that the thing should not become firmly fixed as an obligation.</b>  Pesah Sheni, also called Pesah Katan, is on the fourteenth of Iyyar, the month after Nissan (Numbers 9:11), during which the first “real” Pesah is celebrated. It is the “make-up date” for those who could not offer their Pesah sacrifice on the first Pesah. Joseph the priest brought his children and member’s of his household with him to Jerusalem. The rabbis directed Joseph the priest to return them home because one is obligated to bring one’s family to Jerusalem only during the first Pesah (see Exodus 23:17). Note that it is not prohibited to bring the family for Pesah Katan, it is merely unnecessary. As such, his kids and other members of his household could have stayed in Jerusalem. However, if they had stayed people would have thought that it was obligatory to bring the members of one’s household to on Pesah Sheni. Hence the rabbis told him that he should demonstrate this by bringing them back immediately.",
+                    "<b>Ariston brought his first fruits from Apamea and they accepted from him, because they said, one who buys [a field] in Syria is as one who buys [a field] in the outskirts of Jerusalem.</b>  The mishnah (and the tractate) ends with someone whose actions were accepted by the rabbis (whew!). Ariston (not a very Jewish sounding name) lived in Apamea which is in Syria. He brought his bikkurim from there to Jerusalem. The rabbis ruled that these were acceptable because when it comes to the laws of bikkurim, Syria is treated like a suburb of Jerusalem (Haffez Assad might not like this one). We should note that one does not bring terumah from Syria, but one does bring bikkurim. The reason for this difference is that a person who sets aside terumah is not obligated to bring it to the priests in Israel. Therefore we are concerned that priests will go outside of Israel to collect their terumah. In contrast, a person must bring his first fruits to Jerusalem. Therefore, there was no need to be concerned lest priests run off to collect their bikkurim outside of Israel. Congratulations!  We have finished Hallah! 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. Hallah is special among the tractates that we have learned because it is still observed to this day outside of the land of Israel. This is not the place for instruction as to how to observe this halakhah, but I hope that learning the tractate but I hope that it has given people “food for thought” (pun intended) as to the observance of this commandment. Of course, despite the fact that we learned that one doesn’t bring hallah from outside the land to Israel, there is no prohibition for bring delicious hallot to a hungry Talmudist living in the land of Israel…☺ Tomorrow we begin Tractate Orlah."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה חלה",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Challah",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Challah",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Challah/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,286 @@
+{
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Challah",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Challah",
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "General Overview",
+            "Structure and Organization",
+            "Summary of Legal Topics, Technical Terms, and Concepts",
+            "Relationship to Biblical Law",
+            "Hallah is the part of the dough that is separated and given to the priests. It is referred to in Numbers 15: 18-21:",
+            "When you enter the land to which I am taking you and you eat of the bread of the land, you shall set aside some as a gift to the Lord, as the first yield of your baking. You shall set aside a loaf as a gift; you shall set it aside as a gift like the gift from the threshing floor. You shall make a gift to the Lord from the first yield of your baking, throughout the ages.",
+            "Nehemiah 10:38 and Ezekiel 44:30 describe this gift was given to the priests, and the rabbinic halakhah follows this assumption.",
+            "According to the rabbis, “the first yield of your baking” means that you should give this gift, called hallah, from the dough before it is baked, at the time when it is being kneaded in the kneading trough. However, they also held that if one did not separate hallah while the dough was being kneaded, he could still do so later after the bread was already baked. ",
+            "Tractate Hallah will deal with issues such as: from what types of grain must hallah be separated? How much hallah must be given? Does one have to give hallah from even small quantities of baked bread? These and other issues will be dealt with throughout this short tractate. "
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches what species counts as grain and is therefore subject to all of the laws associated with grain.",
+                    "<b>Five species [of grains] are subject to [the law of] hallah: wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye.</b>  There are only five species of grain that count as grain in Jewish law-- wheat, barley, spelt, oats and rye. If bread is made from some other type of grain, it doesn’t count as grain. For instance, before eating other types of grain, one would not say “hamotzi” or “mezonot” but rather “haadamah.” Tomorrow we will learn other consequences of the fact that these five are considered grain and others are not.",
+                    "<b>These are subject to hallah, and [dough made from different types of these grains] are accounted together one with another [as one quantity].</b>  If one makes dough from a combination of these types of grain, and each type of grain is not of a sufficient quantity to make the dough liable for hallah, the different grains can join together to make the dough liable. In later chapters we will see that the minimum measure of dough to be liable in hallah is 1 ¼ kav. So if there is a mixture of these grains, as long as there is a total of 1 ¼, then hallah must be separated.",
+                    "<b>And their “new” [harvest] is prohibited prior to Pesah, and [they are subject] to [the prohibition of] reaping prior to the Omer.</b>  Until the omer begins to be sacrificed, which is on the second day of Pesah, it is forbidden to eat of the new grain harvest (Leviticus 23:10-14). It is also forbidden to begin to harvest until the omer is first harvested. Only these five grains are subject to these laws all other grains may be harvested whenever a person wants.",
+                    "<b>If they took root prior to the Omer, the omer permits them. If not, they are prohibited until the next Omer has come.</b>  The mishnah now clarifies what counts as the new harvest in terms of the Omer. If the grain had taken root before Pesah (the omer), then one may harvest it after the omer has begun. But if it had not yet taken root, he would have to wait an entire year, until the next omer, in order to harvest it."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to deal with the consequences of the fact that only these five species are considered to be grain.",
+                    "<b>If one has eaten of [these five] on Pesah an olive-size piece of matzah, he has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Matzah must be made of one of these species of grain in order for one to fulfill the obligation of eating matzah on Pesah.",
+                    "<b>[If he ate on Pesah] an olive-size of piece of hametz [made of these grains], he is liable for karet.</b>  The opposite also holds true hametz can only be from these five species. One who eats one of these five species when they are hametz has transgressed Pesah. Other species are completely permitted on Pesah, save for the fact that Ashkenazim customarily do not eat rice.",
+                    "<b>If one of these [grains, having become leavened,] became mixed with any other species, one must remove it on Pesah.</b>  If one of these grains, when leavened, becomes mixed with other species, it must be removed from one’s possession before Pesah.",
+                    "<b>If one has vowed [to abstain] from [consuming] bread and tevuah (, he is prohibited from consuming these [five species] the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: if one has vowed [to abstain] from [consuming] dagan, is prohibited only from [consuming] these [species] only.</b>  In this section Rabbi Meir and the sages debate the meaning of the word “tevuah” which I usually translate as produce. All agree that if one vows to abstain from bread, he means these five species. The question is: what if he vows to abstain from tevuah? According to Rabbi Meir, tevuah refers to these five species. Thus in such a case he may not have these five species, but he may have beans. The sages say that “dagan” is the word used to refer to these five species. If one vows not to have “dagan” then he can’t have these species, but if he vows not to have tevuah, he can’t have beans or other types of produce either. Tevuah is a more inclusive term.",
+                    "<b>They are subject to hallah and tithes.</b>  As stated above, these five species are liable for hallah. They are also liable for tithes. This note is included at the end of today’s mishnah because tomorrow we will learn what things are exempt from tithes."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches that although some things are exempt from tithes, they may still be liable for hallah.",
+                    "<b>The following are subject to hallah, but exempt from tithes: gleanings, from the forgotten sheaf, from peah or from ownerless produce and the first tithe from which terumah has been removed, second tithe and consecrated [produce] which has been redeemed, and that which remains over from the omer, and grain which has not grown one-third [ripe]. Rabbi Eliezer says: grain which has not grown one-third [ripe] is exempt [also] from hallah.</b> Gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, peah and ownerless produce are all exempt from tithes because they are all, in a sense, already given to someone else. If the Levite is poor he can just come and take them for himself. Anyone can take the ownerless produce. Therefore, one need not give tithes from these things. However, all of them are liable for hallah. First tithe from which terumah has been removed is not liable for tithes (it already is tithe!) but the Levite must separate hallah and give it to the priest. Second tithe and consecrated produce are likewise, obviously not subject to tithes, but if they are grain, one must separate hallah before eating them. When they would harvest the omer, beginning on the second night of Pesah, they would harvest three seahs worth of barley. However, they would only use the choicest tenth of a seah. The rest they would redeem in order to make it hullin and then it could be eaten by anyone. This flour is exempt from tithes, because at the time its processing was done (when it was harvested and made it into a pile) it was holy and exempt from tithes. However, liability for hallah is determined by when it was made into dough, and by the time the omer flour was made into dough, it was already hullin, non-sacred. In Maasrot 1:3 we learned that grain that had not yet become one third ripe is exempt from tithes. However, according to the sages, it is still liable for hallah. This is because dough made from this unripe grain is still called bread (I can’t imagine it would have tasted very good, but who knows?). Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and says that such dough is also exempt from hallah. Numbers 15:20 calls hallah “terumah.” Since terumah is not separated from produce that is not one third ripe, so too hallah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is the opposite of yesterday’s mishnah. Today, the mishnah lists things that are, for various reasons, liable for tithes, but exempt from hallah.",
+                    "<b>The following are liable for tithes, but exempt from hallah: rice, millet, poppy-seed, sesame seeds, pulse, and less than five-fourths [of a kab] of [the five kinds of] grain, sponge-cakes, honey-cakes, dumplings, a cake [cooked] in a pan and medumma are exempt from hallah.</b> Rice, millet, poppy-seed, sesame seeds, pulse: These are all liable for tithes but exempt from hallah because only the five grains are liable for hallah. Less than five-quarters [of a kav] of [the five kinds of] grain: This small amount is not liable for hallah because it is too small of an amount. We shall return to this issue in a later chapter. Sponge-cakes, honey-cakes, dumplings, a cake [cooked] in a pan: These are all exempt from hallah because they are not baked in an oven. Only things baked in an oven are liable for hallah. Medumma: Medumma is a mixture of hullin and terumah in which there is not sufficient hullin to nullify the terumah (there are less than 100 parts hullin for each part terumah). This mixture is treated like terumah and can only be eaten by a priest. It is exempt from hallah because it already has terumah in it, and as we have seen hallah is called terumah by the Torah. The rabbis ruled that one doesn’t separate terumah/hallah from something that is already, even partially, terumah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to discuss sponge-cakes, which we learned yesterday were not liable for hallah. Sponge-cakes were made from watery dough and they were cooked either just in the sun, or with a little heat in a pan over an open flame. Since they are not made like bread, they are exempt from hallah.",
+                    "<b>Dough which was originally [intended for] sponge-cakes, and in the end is [cooked as] sponge-cake, is exempt from hallah.</b>  If the flour and water mixture was originally put together in order to be made into sponge-cakes and in the end it was cooked to be sponge-cakes in the way that sponge-cakes are cooked, then it is exempt from hallah.",
+                    "<b>[If it was] originally [ordinary] dough, but in the end [cooked as] sponge-cakes, [or if it was] originally [intended for] sponge-cakes, but finally [cooked as ordinary] dough, it is subject to hallah.</b>  However, if it was originally intended to be ordinary dough, dough whose consistency is thicker than that used for sponge-cakes, and then he cooked it in the way that one cooks sponge-cakes, in a pan or in water or with some other ingredients, then it is liable for hallah. So too, if it began as watery sponge-cake dough, and then he baked it in a regular oven, it is also liable for hallah. As long as it either began or ended up like regular dough, hallah must be taken out.",
+                    "<b>Similarly, bread crumbs ( are subject [to hallah].</b>  Kenuvkaot come from bread and then are boiled in small pieces in a pan to be food for small children. They are liable for hallah because they began as bread, even though they were eventually cooked in a manner similar to sponge-cakes."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with other various types of dough and whether it is exempt from hallah.",
+                    "<b>Meisah: Bet Shammai exempts [from hallah], And Bet Hillel makes liable [for hallah].</b>  Meisah is flour into which boiling water has been mixed. It seems that Bet Hillel makes him liable because the water is put into the flour, just as water is normally poured into flour to make it into dough. In contrast, Bet Shammai makes him exempt.",
+                    "<b>Halita: Bet Shammai makes liable, And Bet Hillel exempts.</b>  Halitah is like meisah, except in this case the flour is poured into the water. Hence, Bet Hillel exempts him. It is not clear why Bet Shammai makes liable. We should note that according to both talmudim, section one disagrees with section two, and the two come from different sources. If so, there is no halakhic difference between meisah and halita. According to the first opinion, Bet Shammai exempts both from hallah, and Bet Hillel makes them both liable. According to the second opinion, Bet Shammai makes both liable for hallah, and Bet Hillel makes them both exempt. This would imply that Rabbi Judah Hanasi took two different sources that contradict each other and pasted them together in the Mishnah. It is unclear why he would do such a thing.",
+                    "<b>The loaves of the thanksgiving sacrifice and the wafers of a nazirite: if one made them for oneself, they are exempt [from hallah]. [If one made them] to sell in the market, they are subject [to hallah].</b>  The thanksgiving offering is accompanied by three loaves of matzah (Leviticus 7:12).  When the Nazirite completes his naziriteship he brings loaves and wafers (Numbers 6:15). If a person makes these for himself, and from the time he begins to make the dough he intends to use them for these holy purposes, then they are sanctified from the beginning of their existence. One does not have to separate hallah from sanctified food. However, if he makes them to sell them at market, then he must separate hallah from them because they were not sanctified from the outset. They only become sanctified when a person buys them with the intention of using them in the Temple."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with dough prepared by a baker and whether it is liable for hallah.",
+                    "<b>A baker who made dough to divide it up into pieces, it is subject to hallah.</b>  The baker makes a large batch of dough which he intends to divide up into small pieces, each of which contain less than the measure necessary for dough to be liable for hallah (five quarters of a kav). He will sell the smaller pieces of dough to individuals, who will let it rise and then bake it themselves. This dough is liable for hallah, because if he can’t find people to buy it, he will bake it all himself. Potentially, this is going to end up as one person’s dough.",
+                    "<b>Women who gave [flour] to a baker to make for them dough, if there is not in any one of them a [minimum] measure, it is exempt from hallah.</b>  On the other hand, if a few women give flour to a baker, and each woman gives less than is necessary for dough to be liable for hallah, then the dough is exempt from hallah. The difference between this case and the case in section one is that here the small pieces of dough are already owned by different individuals. This mishnah teaches that dough owned by different people does not join together to become liable for hallah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with dough made for the consumption of dogs. The mishnah deals with whether this dough is treated like human food, which carries with it a number of implications.",
+                    "<b>Dough for dogs:<br>If shepherds eat it: it is subject to hallah, and one may use it to make an eruv or a shittuf; and one should say the blessings over it, and one should make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it; and it may be made on a festival; and one fulfills his obligation with it on Pesah.</b>  If this dough was prepared well so that the shepherds could also eat it, then it is treated as human food, even though it was made mostly for animals. This has implications in five areas of halakhah: a) it is subject to hallah: Only human food is subject to hallah. b) and one may use it to make an eruv, or a shittuf: An eruv or a shittuf is a common meal which allows one to carry from a house into a courtyard or from a courtyard into the adjoining alleyway on Shabbat. An eruv can also allow one to travel further than the Shabbat limit, which is 2000 cubits from the border of the city (see the introduction to Eruvin for more information). If this dough is eaten by shepherds then it counts as potential human food and can be used to make an eruv or shittuf. c) and one should say the blessings over it, and one should make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it: Before eating this dough one would say “hamotzi” and afterwards “birkat hamazon.” In addition, if eating in a group of at least three, the invitation to recite birkat hamazon would be recited. d) and it may be made on a festival: only human food can be made on Yom Tov, a festival. e) and one fulfills his obligation with it on Pesah: if it was not leavened, then one could use it for matzah on Pesah.",
+                    "<b>But if shepherds do not eat it: it is not subject to hallah; and one may not use it to make an eruv, or a shittuf; and one does not say the blessings over it, and one does not make an invitation for birkat hamazon over it; and it may not be made on a festival; and one does not fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah.</b>  If it was made in a poor fashion, so that the shepherds would not want to eat it, then it doesn’t count as food and none of the above halakhot apply.",
+                    "<b>In either case it is susceptible to ritual defilement affecting food.</b>  Even if it was made in a poor fashion, shepherds might still come to eat it occasionally. Therefore, in any case, the dough is subject to the rules of food impurity. Only food that is eaten solely by animals, for instance straw, would not be subject to these rules."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah lists similarities between the rules concerning terumah with those concerning hallah.",
+                    "<b>In the case of hallah and terumah:<br>One is liable for death on account of [having eaten] them death [intentionally], or to [repay] an added fifth [if unwittingly];</b>  The penalty for a non-priest who intentionally eats terumah or hallah is “death by the hands of heaven.” This is derived from Leviticus 22:9-10. If one unintentionally eats terumah or hallah he must repay the value of that which he ate, plus an added fifth (see Leviticus 22:14).",
+                    "<b>They are forbidden to non-priests;</b>  Only priests may eat terumah and hallah.",
+                    "<b>They are the property of the priest;</b>  The priest can sell the terumah or the hallah to someone else (assumedly another priest) and then he can use the proceeds to buy anything he wants. In other words, these are not like sacrifices, which the priest cannot sell and keep the proceeds for himself.",
+                    "<b>They are nullified [in a mixture of] one-hundred-and-one [parts, the rest being non-sacred dough or produce];</b>  If one hundred parts hullin (non-sacred produce) are mixed in with one part terumah or hallah, then one can take out one part, give it to the priest as terumah/hallah and the rest reverts to being hullin. If there is less than a 100-1 ratio of hullin to terumah/hallah, then the whole mixture must be treated like terumah and only priests can eat it.",
+                    "<b>They require washing of one’s hands;</b>  Before one touches terumah or hallah, one must wash one’s hands to ritually cleanse them. This is true even if one was not known to be ritually impure.",
+                    "<b>And [waiting until] the setting of the sun [prior to eating them];</b>  An impure person who has been to the mikveh during the day to cleanse him/herself, must wait until the sun sets in order to eat terumah (Leviticus 22:7).",
+                    "<b>They may not be separated from pure [stuff] for impure;</b>  If one has some pure produce/dough and some impure produce/dough, he cannot separate terumah or hallah from the pure in order to exempt the impure, even though this might seem beneficial to a priest, who would surely prefer the pure terumah/hallah (which he can eat the impure terumah/hallah cannot be eaten). See Terumot 2:1 for more information",
+                    "<b>But rather from that which is close,</b>  When one comes to separate terumah or hallah, he must take the terumah and hallah out of produce or dough that is close by. Thus if I have some dough here in Modiin, I can’t take hallah out of dough that I also have in Jerusalem, but I could take hallah out of dough that I have in my second kitchen. I don’t have a second kitchen, but if I did, I could make bread in both kitchens and take hallah out of one batch of dough and exempt the other batch. Probably not a good enough reason to get a second kitchen.",
+                    "<b>And from that [in a] finished [state].</b>  Terumah is separated from produce whose processing has been completed, and hallah is separated from dough, and not from flour.",
+                    "<b>If one said: “All my threshing-floor is terumah, or all my dough is hallah,” he has not said anything, unless he has left some over.</b>  It is impossible to make all of one’s grain at the threshing floor or all of one’s dough into terumah or hallah. Numbers 15:21 says, “From the first of one’s dough you shall give terumah, for all your generations.” The rabbis make a midrash on the word “from the first” and not all of the first, meaning not all of one’s produce or dough can become terumah/hallah."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with whether one is liable to separate hallah from produce that is grown outside the land of Israel.",
+                    "<b>Produce [grown] outside the land [of Israel] that came into the land is subject to Hallah.</b>  Outside the land of Israel, one is not obligated to separate hallah from dough. However, if the produce, in this case grain, was grown outside the land, and then brought in, it is liable for hallah, because the flour was mixed with water inside the land of Israel. As we have seen, when it comes to separating hallah, the critical moment is when the flour is mixed with dough.",
+                    "<b>[If it] went out from here to there: Rabbi Eliezer makes it liable, But Rabbi Akiva makes it exempt.</b>  If the produce was grown in the land of Israel, but then brought outside the land and there it was made into dough, Rabbi Eliezer says that it is still liable for hallah. This seems to be based on a midrash of Numbers 15:19 which states, “from the bread of the land” and bread made from the produce of the land is still “bread of the land” no matter where it is made. Rabbi Akiva says he is exempt, because the very same verse states, “When you enter the land to which I am taking you…” The implication is that when you are not in the land, you are not liable for hallah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Earth from outside the land has come to the land [of Israel] in a boat, [the produce grown in it] is subject to tithes and to the [law relating to] the seventh year.</b>  In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that if grain from outside the land of Israel is brought into Israel, it becomes liable for hallah. Today’s mishnah teaches that if a boat comes close to the land of Israel and there is produce in the boat, the produce is liable for tithes and it is subject to the laws governing produce grown in the seventh year, just as if the produce was grown in Israel itself.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah: when does this apply? When the boat touches [the ground].</b>  Rabbi Judah says that this applies only if the boat is actually touching the ground. This is interpreted as meaning that the boat is ten handbreadths from the bottom of the sea. That makes it as if the earth on the boat is attached to the ground. But if the boat was floating high on the water, its produce is exempt from these laws.",
+                    "<b>Dough which has been kneaded with fruit-juice is subject to hallah, and may be eaten with unclean hands.</b>  Dough which is kneaded with fruit-juice instead of water is still liable for hallah. However, it cannot receive impurity because fruit-juice is not one of the seven liquids that makes produce susceptible to impurity. Therefore, the hallah separated from this dough can be eaten with unclean hands, without fear that the hallah will become impure and forbidden for consumption."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with two topics.\nThe first is separating hallah while naked perhaps there was a nudist colony?\nThe second is how to make dough while ritually impure. This is a problem because ritually impure hallah cannot be eaten it must be burned.",
+                    "<b>A woman may sit and separate hallah while she is naked, since she can cover herself  but a man may not.</b>  A person’s whose nakedness, meaning genitalia, are showing cannot separate hallah from dough because doing so requires the recitation of a blessing, and it is forbidden to recite a blessing while naked. A woman can separate hallah while sitting naked because she can hide her nakedness with her legs. However a man cannot hide his nakedness while sitting, therefore he cannot separate hallah. I realize that some of you men reading this may be saying to yourselves, “I can cover my nakedness while I sit.” I implore you don’t try this at home!",
+                    "<b>If one is not able to make one's dough in cleanness he should make it [in separate] kavs,   rather than make it in uncleanness.</b>  Dough is liable for hallah only if there are 1 ¼ kavs. One who kneads a lesser quantity is not liable to separate hallah. According to the first opinion in this mishnah, if one is unable to separate dough in a state of purity, she should knead it in quantities smaller than 1 ¼ kavs, and this way she can avoid becoming liable for hallah.",
+                    "<b>But Rabbi Akiva says: let him make it in uncleanness rather than make it [in separate] kavs, just as he calls the clean, so too he calls the unclean; this one he cals hallah with the Name, and the other he also calls hallah with the Name, but [separate] kavs have no portion [devoted] to the Name.</b>  Rabbi Akiva says that it would be better for him to knead the dough in a state of impurity, rather than making it in separate kavs. For when he kneads it in impurity, he will separate hallah and recite a blessing over it using God’s name, even though the hallah is impure. Rabbi Akiva says that the most important thing is that the blessing is recited because this is what sanctifies God’s name. In contrast, when he kneads each kav separately in order to avoid separating hallah, no blessing is recited and God’s name is not sancitified. I find this debate fascinating. According to Rabbi Akiva, God’s name is sanctified, even over impure hallah. It seems that sanctity and impurity are not polar opposites, at least not in this case. In contrast, the first opinion wishes to avoid a situation where one will be forced to create impure hallah. While one might still have to recite a blessing over this hallah, it seems to be more problematic in the eyes of the author of this section."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with the topic of how kavs of dough that were kneaded separately can join to constitute the necessary amount of dough to be liable for hallah.",
+                    "<b>One who makes his dough [in separate] kavs, and they touch one another, they are exempt from hallah unless they stick together.</b>  If one makes separate batches of dough and they merely touch one another, they are still exempt from hallah. Touching does not turn them into one batch. However, if they stick together, then they are considered one batch and they are liable for hallah. They are considered to be “sticking together” if when they are pulled apart, some of one batch sticks to the other batch.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: also if one takes out [loaves from an oven] and puts [them] into a basket, the basket joins them together for [the purposes of] hallah.</b>  If one takes loaves out of an oven and puts them all into one basket, the loaves, which were not originally liable for hallah, join together to constitute an amount liable for hallah. Even though hallah is usually taken out from the dough, according to Rabbi Eliezer they can still be joined together by the basket even after they have been baked."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with someone who separates his hallah before the flour has been mixed with water to become dough. The Torah says that you are supposed to give the first of “your dough” to the kohen, not the flour before it becomes dough. Our mishnah rules that the flour that he calls “hallah” does not actually become hallah.",
+                    "<b>If one separates his hallah [while it is still] flour, it is not hallah, and in the hand of a priest it is considered stolen property.</b>  As stated above, if he separates his hallah before he mixes it with water to become dough, that which he calls hallah does not have the status of hallah. Therefore, if he gives it to a kohen, the kohen must return it to him. If the kohen does not return it, it is as it is a stolen thing in the kohen’s possession.",
+                    "<b>The dough is still subject to hallah;</b>  The dough made from the remaining flour is still subject to hallah, because the hallah that he did take out does not count.",
+                    "<b>And the flour, if there is the minimum quantity, it [also is] subject to hallah.</b>  The flour that he took out and called hallah, if there is a minimum amount (1 ¼ kavs) then hallah must be taken from this dough as well.",
+                    "<b>And it is prohibited to non-priests, the words of Rabbi Joshua.</b>  Despite the fact that this flour does not have the status of hallah, Rabbi Joshua says that it is prohibited to non-priests. According to Rabbi Joshua, since he called it hallah, it can only be eaten by priests, even though it is not actually hallah.",
+                    "<b>They said to him: It happened that a non-priest sage seized it [for himself].</b>  The other sages respond that it happened that a non-priest who was a sage grabbed a loaf made from this flour in order to eat it. This proves, to the sages, that this flour is permitted to non-priests.",
+                    "<b>He said to them: He did something damaging to himself, but he benefited others.</b>  Rabbi Joshua responds that what the sage did was indeed forbidden. But in a roundabout way, he helped others. Other non-priests will now eat this bread thinking that it is permitted to them as well. Since they don’t know that it is actually prohibited, they are not considered to be sinning. So it turns out that this sage knowingly erred, in order to aid others. While this is a strange concept, we should remember that the only reason that Rabbi Joshua considers this bread prohibited to non-priests is that he called it hallah it is not actually hallah. The transgression of a non-priest eating it is certainly not from the Torah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches the basic law that we have encountered several times 1 ¼ kav of flour is liable for hallah. If there is less, one need not remove hallah.",
+                    "<b>Five-fourths [of a kav] of flour are subject to hallah.</b>  This is the basic law, to which we have made reference on several occasions.",
+                    "<b>If their leaven, their light bran and their coarse bran [make up the] five-fourths, they are subject.</b>  When measuring the flour, one includes the leaven (the starter dough used to leaven the bread), and all of the bran.",
+                    "<b>If their coarse bran had been removed from them and returned to them, they are exempt.</b>  If the coarse bran was removed, which is typical in the processing of better quality flour, and then it was added back in, the flour is not subject to hallah. This is because putting back the course bran is unusual."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches the minimum measure of hallah that a person must separate from his dough. We should note that this measure is not set by the Torah. According to Torah law, even the tiniest amount would exempt the dough. However, as we saw in the case of terumah, the rabbis set a minimum amount. The fact that this amount is not considered to be from the Torah, also allowed them the ability to make the amount variable depending on the circumstance.",
+                    "<b>The [minimum] measure of hallah is one twenty-fourth [part of the dough].</b>  In general, one must give 1/24 of one’s dough to a kohen as hallah.",
+                    "<b>If he makes dough for himself, or if he makes it for his son’s [wedding] banquet, it is one twenty-fourth.</b>  The above is true for a person who makes dough for own personal use, or for use at a family celebration.",
+                    "<b>If a baker makes to sell in the market, and so [also] if a woman makes to sell in the market, it is one forty-eighth.</b>  The rabbis were lenient when it came to a baker or a woman making dough to sell in the market. Since these people tend to make larger quantities, even 1/48 will be sufficient enough to give something substantial to the kohen.",
+                    "<b>If dough is made unclean either unwittingly or by an unforeseeable circumstance, it is one forty-eighth.</b>  When one has dough that was made impure either unwittingly, or by some unforeseeable circumstance, s/he only has to give 1/48 as hallah. Since this hallah won’t be able to be eaten anyway, only a minimal measurement is required.",
+                    "<b>If it was made unclean intentionally, it is one twenty-fourth, in order that a sinner should not profit.</b>  However, if he intentionally makes it unclean in order to get away with giving less hallah, he must give the larger measure. Clearly, we don’t want a person to make his dough unclean so that he can get away with giving less hallah. Remember, the part of the dough that is not hallah can still be eaten, so if he were to get away with giving the lesser amount, a “sinner would profit.”"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn this mishnah Rabbi Eliezer finds a way to give hallah from pure dough in order to exempt a separate batch of impure dough.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: Hallah may be taken from [dough] that is clean, [in order to exempt] that which is unclean. How [may this be done]? [If one has] clean dough and unclean dough, he takes sufficient hallah out of the [clean] dough whose hallah has not yet been taken, and puts [dough] less than the size of an egg in the middle, in order that he may take off [the hallah] from what is close together.</b>  The problem in this situation is how to join the two batches of dough together so that one hallah can be taken from both, without causing the pure dough to become impure. He cannot just take from one to exempt the other because hallah taken from one batch of dough cannot exempt a separate batch of dough. This is how Rabbi Eliezer suggests it may be done. First, he takes a sufficient measure of hallah from the clean dough in order to exempt both batches of dough. He does this at the outset lest the clean dough is made impure at least he now has enough clean hallah to exempt both batches. Then in between the two batches he puts an amount of dough less than the size of an egg. This serves to attach the two batches, but because it is less than an egg’s worth in volume, the impurity is not conveyed across to the pure dough. Now, the hallah that he took from the pure dough counts to exempt the impure dough.",
+                    "<b>But the sages prohibit.</b>  The other rabbis prohibit one from separating hallah from pure dough for impure dough, lest he unwittingly causes the pure dough to become impure. Rather he should take pure hallah from the pure dough and impure hallah from the impure dough."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with the question of when one can eat dough without separating hallah.",
+                    "<b>One may snack from dough, until it is rolled, in [the case of] wheat [flour], or before it is made into a solid mass, in [the case of] barley [flour].</b>  A person can eat a piece of dough as a snack even though hallah has not yet been removed from it. This is true as long as long as it has not yet been rolled, if the flour was made of wheat, or made into a solid mass, in the case of barley. Wheat flour is finer and therefore, it is considered dough once it has been kneaded well and rolled out to make loaves of bread (flat like pita). Barley flour is coarser and therefore it is considered dough once she gets it to stick together into a lump. This rule should be familiar if you have already learned Tractate Maasrot. There we learned that in general one can snack from produce before its processing has been completed.",
+                    "<b>[Once] one has rolled it [in the case of] wheat [flour], or made it into a solid mass, in [the case of] barley [flour], one who eats it is liable for death [at the hands of heaven].</b>  After it has been either rolled or made into a solid mass, a non-priest who eats it is liable for “death at the hands of heaven.” This is the same penalty for a non-priest who eats terumah, and as we have seen, the laws of hallah are frequently derived from the laws of terumah, because the Torah calls both “holy.”",
+                    "<b>As soon as she puts in the water she should lift out the hallah, provided that there are not five-fourths [of a kav] of flour left there.</b>  The way to avoid this severe penalty is for the woman to remove the hallah from the dough as soon as she puts water in the flour. Even though one could snack on it until it is rolled or made into a solid mass, this is not advisable, because it might lead one to snack on it at a later point. The version of our mishnah reads “provided that there are not five-fourths [of a kav] of flour left there.” This is interpreted to mean that if even after she removes hallah before it has been kneaded, there remain 5/4 of a kav, then the problem has not been solved, because she took out hallah to early she should only take it out once it has been kneaded, and not as soon as the water has been mixed in with the flour. Another version of this section reads, “as long as there are 5/4 of a kav of flour there.” If there is not such a measure, she should not take out hallah, even if she will add more flour later on."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned that once a woman rolls out wheat dough it becomes liable for terumah. Our mishnah teaches some differences between the rules that apply before she rolls out the dough and those that apply after she rolls out the dough.",
+                    "<b>Dough which became medumma before she had rolled it, it is exempt [from hallah]. If after she had rolled it, it is subject [to hallah].</b>  Medumma is a mixture of terumah and hullin (non-sacred produce) when there are not 100 parts of hullin for one part terumah (this topic was dealt with at length in tractate Terumah). If the non-sacred dough becomes mixed with terumah dough before it is rolled out, then she does not need to take out hallah, because it was exempt from hallah before it ever became liable for hallah. However, if it first becomes liable for hallah when she rolls it, and only afterwards it is mixed with terumah and becomes medumma, then it is still liable for hallah. What will happen in this case is that she will have to give the hallah to the priest and the rest remains medumma, doubtful terumah. Medumma may not be eaten by a non-priest, but it may be sold to a priest.",
+                    "<b>If there occurred to her some doubtful uncleanness before she had rolled it, it may be completed in uncleanness. If after she had rolled it, it should be completed in cleanness.</b>  If the dough becomes doubtfully unclean before it becomes liable for hallah, meaning something may (or may not) have happened to it to make it ritually unclean, then she can continue to make the dough in a state of uncleanness. In any case the priest cannot eat the hallah that will be taken out of the dough, for it may be impure, and therefore it doesn’t matter if she makes it certainly impure. However, if it becomes doubtfully unclean after it has been rolled, then it became liable for hallah before it became impure. It is forbidden to impart certain impurity to hallah (or terumah) that is only doubtfully impure. Since this dough has already been rolled, and thereby made liable for hallah, it is treated as if it is hallah. She must make the rest of the dough in a state of purity."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to deal with differences between the rules that apply before she rolls the dough and those that apply afterwards.",
+                    "<b>[If] she dedicated her dough [to the Temple] before rolling it, and then redeemed it, it is subject [to hallah].</b>  Dough that has been dedicated to the Temple is exempt from hallah. This is true with regard to all of the agricultural gifts one is exempt from giving them if the produce has already been dedicated to the Temple. However, in order for the dough to be exempt it has to belong to the Temple at the time it becomes liable for hallah, meaning when it is rolled. Thus, if a woman dedicated her dough to the Temple before she rolled it and then redeemed it before she rolled it, it is subject to hallah because when she rolls it, it belongs to her again.",
+                    "<b>[If she dedicated it] after rolling it, and redeemed it, it is subject [to hallah].</b>  Similarly, if she dedicates the dough after it has been rolled and then she redeems it, it is liable for hallah, because she owned it at the time it became liable.",
+                    "<b>[But if] she dedicated it before rolling it, and the Temple treasurer rolled it, and after that she redeemed it, it is exempt, since at the time of its obligation it was exempt.</b>  However, if she dedicates it before she rolls it, and then the Temple treasurer (or any other Temple agent) takes possession of it and rolls it, and then she redeems it, it is exempt because it belonged to the Temple when it became liable for hallah. While this may be a case that will never in actuality happen, what is important is that it teaches a principle if it is in her possession when it becomes liable for hallah, she must separate the hallah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. This time the subject is tithes.  Produce becomes liable for tithes once its processing is completed. This very same mishnah appeared in Peah 4:8. My commentary here is the same as I wrote there.",
+                    "<b>Similarly one who dedicates his produce prior to the stage when they are subject to tithes   and then redeemed them, they are liable [to be tithed].</b>  Produce becomes liable to be tithed once it has been harvested, processed and made into a pile.  Before this point he may eat of it without tithing.  In the scenario in this section, he dedicates it before it becomes liable to be tithed and then he redeems it before it comes liable to be tithed.  He is then liable to tithe the produce when it becomes liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>If [he dedicated them] when they had already become subject to tithes and then redeemed them, they are liable [to be tithed].</b>  In this case he dedicated it and redeemed it after he became liable for tithing, so again, he is liable to tithe the produce before he goes ahead and uses it.",
+                    "<b>If he dedicated them before they had ripened, and they became ripe while in the possession of the [Temple] treasurer, and he then redeemed them, they are exempt, since at the time when they would have been liable, they were exempt.</b>  In this case, he dedicates it before it is even a third ripe and then the produce ripens, is harvested and the Temple treasurer makes the grain into a pile.  Since the grain was in the legal possession of the Temple when it became liable for tithes, he is not liable for tithes when he redeems it."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOnly dough owned by a Jew is subject to hallah, not dough owned by a Gentile. This mishnah teaches when the dough is considered to be owned by a Jew.",
+                    "<b>If a Gentile gave [flour] to an Israelite to make for him dough, it is exempt from hallah.</b>  Since this flour is owned by a Gentile, it is exempt from hallah, even though the Jew is the one who kneaded it.",
+                    "<b>If the Gentile gave it to him as a gift, before rolling it, he is liable. If after rolling it, he is exempt.</b>  If the Gentile gave the dough to the Jew as a gift, then it will depend on when he gave it to him. If he gave it to him before rolling it, then it is liable for hallah because a Jew owned it when it became liable for hallah. But if he gave it to him after he rolled it, then it is exempt from hallah, because a Gentile owned it when it became liable.",
+                    "<b>If one makes dough together with a Gentile, then if there is not in [the portion] of the Israelite the minimum measure subject to hallah, it is exempt from hallah.</b>  If a Jew joins in a partnership with a Gentile to make dough, then the dough is liable for hallah if the Jew’s portion is the minimum measure of 5/4 of a kav. If not, then the dough is exempt, even if there is together more than 5/4 of a kav."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A convert who converted and had dough: if it was made before he became a convert, he is exempt [from hallah]. After he converted, he is liable.</b>  As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, a non-Jew’s dough is not subject to hallah. If a non-Jew has dough, and then converts, the dough is not subject to hallah if he made it before he converted. If he made it after he converted, it is subject to hallah.",
+                    "<b>And if there is doubt, he is liable, but [a non-priest who has unwittingly eaten of such hallah] is not liable for the additional one-fifth.</b>  If it is unclear whether he made it before he converted or not, then he must give hallah. However, this hallah is not treated as “certain” hallah, rather just as “doubtful” hallah, meaning it may or not be hallah. It should be eaten by a priest but if a non-priest eats it, he must restore to the priests the value of that which he ate, but not an added fifth. Only one who eats “certain” hallah must pay back an added fifth of the value, which is the same law that governs terumah.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Akiva said: it all depends on the [time of the] formation of the light crust in the oven.</b>  In all of the above mishnayot we learned that dough becomes liable for hallah once it is rolled. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with all of these mishnayot and holds that the end of processing for dough, meaning the point at which it becomes obligated for hallah, is when it forms a light crust in the oven. This is derived from Numbers 15:19 which reads, “And it will be when you eat from the bread of the land, you shall take out terumah for the Lord.” The operative word here is “bread” once it can be considered bread, then one must remove hallah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>One who makes dough from wheat [flour] and from rice [flour] if it has a taste of grain, it is subject to hallah, and one can fulfill one’s obligation with it on Pesah.<br>But if it does not have the taste of grain, it is not subject to hallah, and one cannot fulfill with it one’s obligation on Pesah.</b><br>Rice is not one of the five grains subject to the laws of hallah (see 1:1), nor can one use it as matzah on Pesah. Our mishnah teaches that if one mixes rice and one of the other five grains, such as wheat, he is liable for hallah if he can taste the wheat. If he makes it into matzah he can use it as matzah at the seder, as long as he can taste the wheat.<br>He is obligated for hallah even if there is not enough wheat flour to constitute the minimum measure required for dough to be liable for hallah (5/4 of a kav).<br>If he cannot taste the wheat then there is no need to separate hallah and it can’t be used as matzah on Pesah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nBefore people bought yeast at the supermarket, people used starter dough to leaven their bread. They would take a piece of leavened dough (sour dough) from one batch and put it into another batch. Our mishnah deals with a person who takes starter dough from a batch of dough from which hallah had not been taken, and puts it into a batch of dough from which hallah had been taken. He obviously wants to avoid having to separate hallah again from dough which already had hallah removed.",
+                    "<b>One who takes leaven out of dough from which hallah had not been taken and puts it into dough from which hallah had been taken:<br>If he has a supply from another place, he can take out [hallah] in accordance with the precise amount.</b>  If he has another batch of dough (a third batch) from which hallah had not yet been removed, and he can use that batch to remove hallah to exempt the leaven which he put into another batch (meaning that batch is large enough), then he may do so according to the amount of leaven he added to the other batch.",
+                    "<b>But if does not, he takes out one [portion of] hallah for the whole [dough].</b>  However, if he does not have another batch of hallah, then he must remove hallah from the batch to which he added the leaven according to the amount of dough in the entire batch, even though he only added a little bit of leaven. Since he can’t separate hallah for that little bit of leaven from another batch, it places the entire batch into which it has been under the category of dough from which hallah has not been removed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nWhen one harvests olive trees, and some olives are left in the tree, the poor have the right to come and strike the tree to bring down the last remaining olives. Similarly, if there are grapes that are not fully formed at the regular time of harvest, they belong to the poor.\nRegularly harvested grapes and olives are liable to terumah and tithes, but those left for the poor are not.\nOur mishnah discusses what one can do if his regularly harvested grapes or olives become mixed with those belonging to the poor. Can he get away without having to separate terumah and tithes based on the entire larger amount?",
+                    "<b>Similarly, if olives of [regular] picking became mixed with olives [left over] for striking-off   [by the poor], or grapes of [regular] picking, with grapes [left over] for gleaning [by the poor]:<br>If he has a supply from another place, he can take out [terumah and tithes] in accordance with the precise amount.</b>  This is the same rule as that found in section one in yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>But if does not, he takes out one terumah and terumat maaser for all of the grapes.</b>  If he does not have other produce from which to take out the terumah, then he must separate terumah and the terumah that is taken from tithes (terumat maaser) for the entire amount, even though the produce that was for the poor was exempt. Note that he does not need to take out tithes for the entire amount. The law is stricter when it comes to terumah because a non-priest who eats terumah is liable for death by the hands of heaven. Therefore, he has to be certain that he has separated terumah for the entire amount.",
+                    "<b>And as for the rest, [he takes out] tithe and the second tithe in accordance with the precise amount.</b>  The laws regarding tithes are not as strict because a non-priest can eat tithe. Therefore, he can take out tithe and second tithe for the amount of produce that is actually liable to tithes and second tithe. This is the amount of his produce that is in the mixture; it does not include the produce that belongs to the poor."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah returns us to the subject that was first raised in mishnah seven above dough from wheat flour that is mixed in with dough from rice flour. As a reminder, wheat flour is subject to the laws of hallah whereas rice flour is not.",
+                    "<b>One who takes leaven from a dough of wheat [flour] and puts [it] into dough of rice [flour],   [then] if it has the taste of grain, it is subject to hallah, [but] if not, it is exempt.</b>  Leaven is the sour dough used to make new batches of bread rise. If leaven is taken from wheat flour dough and put into rice flour dough, the batch is liable for hallah only if one can still taste the wheat flour.",
+                    "<b>If so, why did they say: “Untithed produce of any amount renders food prohibited”?</b>  This section raises a difficulty on the law presented in the previous section. According to the quote in this section, “untithed produce of any amount renders food prohibited,” if even a small amount of untithed produce falls into a large amount of tithed produce, then one cannot eat the produce until he removes tithes and terumah. Why then did they say in section one that the mixture becomes prohibited only if it imparts taste?",
+                    "<b>That is [with regard to a mixture of] a species with its own species, but [with regard to a mixture of a species] not with its own species, only when it imparts taste.</b>  The answer is that there is a difference between cases in which one species becomes mixed up in the same species and cases where different species are mixed. So, for instance, if a tiny bit of wheat dough from which hallah had not been removed became mixed up with a large batch of wheat dough from which hallah had been removed, it would be forbidden to eat of it until he removes hallah. There can be no concept of “imparting taste” here because it all has the same taste. In contrast, if there are two different species, then the species that has not had its terumah removed (or that is liable for hallah, as in section one) must impart taste to the species that has had its terumah removed (or is liable for hallah). If there is no taste, then the mixture is not prohibited."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah discusses the difference between cases where two batches of dough from the same species come into contact and cases where two batches of dough from different species come into contact.",
+                    "<b>Two women who made [separate doughs] from two [separate] kavs, and these [doughs] touched one another, even if they are of the same species, they are exempt [from hallah].</b>  In this case two women each make a batch of dough and this batch of dough is only a kav in volume, which means that the dough is not subject to hallah (5/4 of a kav is the minimum). If these two batches of dough come into contact with each other they are still not subject to hallah because they are owned by different women. This is true even if they are of the same species.",
+                    "<b>When they belong to one woman: If one species [comes into contact] with the same species, they are subject [to hallah]. If different species, they are exempt.</b>  If the two batches of dough belong to the same woman, then if the two batches of dough are made from the same species, they are liable because they join together to create the minimum measure. If they are of different species then the two batches do not join together to form a minimum measure and they remain exempt from hallah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn the beginning of the tractate we learned that there are five species of grain: wheat, barley, rye, spelt and oats. Here we see that for the purpose of mixtures of different types of grain, these don’t all count as separate species. Rather, in most cases, these different species are reckoned together. This is probably because they look somewhat the same.",
+                    "<b>What counts as a species with its same species?<br>Wheat is not reckoned together with any [species] other than with spelt;</b>  Wheat is a separate species and is not reckoned together with any other species, other than spelt. Thus if wheat and oat batches of dough come into contact, they do not join for the sake of making them subject to hallah.",
+                    "<b>Barley is reckoned together with all [species] except wheat.</b>  Barley is reckoned with all four other species, except for wheat, which we learned above is only reckoned with spelt.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the rest of the species are reckoned together one with another.</b>  Finally, Rabbi Yohanan b. Nuri explains that with regard to spelt, rye and oats, they are all reckoned together. We should note that overall the better the quality of grain, the less likely it is to join together with other species. Wheat is the “king of grains” and the best bread is made from wheat. Therefore, it is nearly exclusive, joining together only with spelt. Barley is less than wheat, and so it joins together with everything but wheat. Finally, the other grains are similar to barley and they too join together with all other grains, except for wheat."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to deal with the topic of when separate batches of dough join together. The mishnah describes a situation in which there are three batches of dough in a row. The first batch and the third batch are subject to hallah but the middle batch, which is touching both the first and third batch, is exempt from hallah.",
+                    "<b>[If there are two doughs from] two [separate] kavs, and a kav of rice [dough] or a kav of terumah dough [lying] between, they are not reckoned together.</b>  The fact that the middle batch of dough is exempt from hallah because it is made of rice, or because it is terumah dough which was never subject to hallah, means that it does not serve to join the two outside batches of dough. Since they are each less than the minimum measurement of 5/4 of a kav, they are exempt.",
+                    "<b>[If there was] dough from which hallah had already been taken [lying] between, they are reckoned together, since it had once been subject to hallah.</b>  If, however, the middle batch of dough is exempt from hallah because its hallah has already been removed, then it does serve to connect the two outside batches of dough. This dough was once liable for hallah and it is therefore categorically subject to the laws of hallah, unlike the rice or terumah dough which were never subject to hallah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A kav of [dough made from] new grain and a kav of [dough from] old grain which are stuck together: Rabbi Ishmael says: let him take [hallah] from the middle; But the sages prohibit.</b>  Here there are two batches of dough, each of which consists of a kav, less than the minimum measure to make it liable for hallah. One batch is from new grain (lesser quality) and one is from old grain (greater quality). The two batches are stuck together, thereby making them liable for hallah according to all opinions. The question is whether one can take hallah from one in order to exempt the other. Rabbi Ishmael says that one should take from the middle of the two batches, and in this way he will take from both and exempt the entire batch. However, the sages prohibit and say that he must take from the old to exempt the old and from the new to exempt the new. Hallah that he separates from the new cannot exempt the old, nor can hallah from the old exempt the new, even though they are from the same species. Note that these two batches are similar enough to join together but not similar to allow one to separate from one for the other.",
+                    "<b>One who has taken hallah from [dough made out of] one kav: Rabbi Akiva says: it is hallah; But the sages say: it is not hallah.</b>  If one takes hallah out of a batch of dough that is not liable for hallah, Rabbi Akiva says that that which he takes out is considered hallah and all of the rules of hallah apply to it. Since he called it hallah, it is hallah. Rabbi Akiva seems to think that what makes hallah is the person, not the dough. The other sages say that it is not hallah, because if the dough wasn’t subject to hallah, that which he takes out of it cannot be hallah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. It continues to discuss a situation where a person separated hallah from dough that was smaller than the minimum measure.",
+                    "<b>Two [separate] kavs [of dough], this one had its hallah removed on its own, and this one had its hallah removed on its own, and then he went back and made of them one dough: Rabbi Akiva exempts; But the sages make it liable.</b>  There were two separate kavs of dough, and the owner took hallah out of each of them even though both were exempt because they were not of sufficient quantity to be liable. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that according to Rabbi Akiva that which he removed and called hallah is actually hallah, whereas the other sages hold that it is not. So to Rabbi Akiva, both batches are considered dough whose hallah has been removed, whereas the other sages would hold that no hallah has been removed from these two. After having separated hallah from the two batches he now goes and makes one batch of dough out of them. Now the dough is large enough to be liable for hallah. Rabbi Akiva says that since hallah has already been removed, the mixture of the two batches is not liable for hallah. The sages hold that the dough he separated from the batches when they were separate is not considered hallah and hence “hallah” has never really been taken out of this dough. Therefore, he has to separate hallah from the mixed batch.",
+                    "<b>It turns out that the stringency of his [first] ruling leads to the leniency of his other ruling.</b>  The rabbis love paradoxes, or at least surprising twists of halakhah. In this case, the stringency of Rabbi Akiva in the previous mishnah, that he considers that which was separated to be hallah, leads to the leniency in today’s mishnah the mixed batch is exempt. The opposite could be said about the other rabbis their leniency in yesterday’s mishnah, that which was separated is not considered hallah, leads to their stringency in today’s mishnah the mixed batch is liable. While this section doesn’t really add any information, it is the type of phenomenon that the Mishnah loves to pay attention to."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is complicated and I will explain it entirely, as opposed to line by line, below.",
+                    "<b>A man may take the requisite amount for hallah out of [clean] dough from which hallah has not [previously] been removed in order to remove it in a state of cleanness   in order to go on separating [hallah] from it for [unclean] demai, until it becomes putrid, since hallah for demai may be taken from clean [dough] for unclean [dough], and from [one dough for another dough] which is not in close proximity.</b> This mishnah refers to a person who sets aside dough in order for this dough to count as hallah for other dough that he will receive in the future from which he doesn’t want to bother separating hallah. The dough that he will receive in the future is “demai” meaning it was received from an am haaretz, one who doesn’t observe these laws, and therefore we have to be concerned lest hallah has not been removed from it. However, the laws are usually more lenient when it comes to demai. Generally, one cannot take hallah from one batch of dough in order to exempt different dough unless the two batches are in close proximity. When it comes to demai this is permitted. Secondly, one cannot separate hallah from clean dough in order to exempt unclean dough. Again, when it comes to demai this is permitted. The demai dough that he receives from the am haaretz can be assumed to be impure, and nevertheless he can separate pure hallah in order to exempt impure dough. To return to our situation, this person sets aside dough in order for that dough to count as hallah for demai dough that he will receive in the future from an am haaretz. He can do this until the dough becomes putrid. However, he is concerned lest the dough that he sets aside to count as hallah will become impure.  The problem would then be that this dough has not had its hallah removed and by the time he takes the hallah out, it will be impure hallah. To prevent this from happening, he should immediately take the hallah out of this batch of dough. This way at least the hallah for this dough will be pure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn rabbinic language “Syria” refers to the land that borders the land of Israel to the north and east but is not considered fully part of Israel.  The rules of tithing and terumah do apply to produce grown by a Jew in Syria but one who purchases produce in Syria can assume that it grew on gentile land and is therefore exempt from the laws of tithing and terumah.  The first subject dealt with in our mishnah is people who are tenant-farming land that belongs to non-Jews in Syria. Tenant-farming means that the tenant has received a piece of land from its owner in order to work the land and keep for himself a portion of the crops.\nThe second section deals with whether the laws of hallah apply to dough in Syria in the same way that they do in the land of Israel.",
+                    "<b>An Israelite who was a tenant of a non-Jew in Syria: Rabbi Eliezer makes their produce liable to tithes and to [the law of] the sabbatical year; But Rabban Gamaliel makes [it] exempt.</b>  According to Rabbi Eliezer, Syria is treated like the land of Israel when it comes to tithes and to sheviit (the sabbatical year). Just as in the land of Israel if a Jew is a tenant-farmer for a non-Jew on land owned by a non-Jew, he still has to separate tithes and observe the laws of the sabbatical year, so too when it comes to land in Syria, he must separate tithes and observe the sabbatical laws. Rabban Gamaliel disagrees. He holds that since the land belongs to a non-Jew and the Jew who is working the land doesn’t own it, he need not separate tithes or observe the sabbatical laws.",
+                    "<b>Rabban Gamaliel says: [one is to give] two hallah-portions in Syria; But Rabbi Eliezer says: [only] one hallah-portion.</b>  In tomorrow’s mishnah we will learn that outside of the land of Israel one has to separate two portions of hallah from the dough. Consequently, Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer debate what to do in Syria. Rabban Gamaliel stated above that Syria was not treated like Israel therefore, in Syria one has to separate two portions of hallah. Rabbi Eliezer above treated Syria like the land of Israel therefore in Syria one has to separate only one portion.",
+                    "<b>They adopted the lenient ruling of Rabban Gamaliel and the lenient ruling of Rabbi Eliezer. Eventually they went back and acted in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel in both respects.</b>  The mishnah now treats us to an interesting tidbit concerning the way people were acting. Originally, they adopted both lenient rulings. In other words, when it came to tithes and the sabbatical year, they treated Syria as if it was not the land of Israel. However, when it came to hallah, they separated only one portion, as if it was the land of Israel. They were not consistent as to which rabbi they followed they always adopted the more lenient opinion. However, eventually they changed their practice and acted consistent with the opinion of Rabban Gamaliel. This seems to be the way of behaving preferred by the mishnah here and in other places as well. One should not select lenient opinions from various rabbis rather one should choose one rabbi and follow his opinions, at least when these opinions are consistent with one another, as they are here."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn today’s mishnah Rabban Gamaliel defines the borders of Israel with regard to the issue of hallah. This same division is found in Sheviit 6:1, so I am not going to explain the geographical or historical issues here. Please look there for more information.\nAccording to the Torah, one need not separate hallah outside of the land of Israel (see Numbers 15:19). However, the rabbis decreed that Jews should continue to separate hallah from dough even outside of the land of Israel so that the laws of hallah would not be forgotten while the Jews were in the Diaspora. The problem is that outside of the land of Israel was considered to be impure, so that any hallah separated there would also be impure. So the hallah that they took out had to be burned. In order to remember that hallah was originally given to priests, the rabbis decreed that a Jew should separate a second portion of hallah and give that portion to the priests. It turns out, as we learned yesterday’s mishnah, that outside of the land of Israel a person would have to set aside a double portion of hallah.",
+                    "<b>Rabban Gamaliel says: there are three territories with regard to [liability to] hallah:<br>From the land of Israel to Chezib: one hallah-portion.</b>  The northern border of the land of Israel is set at Chezib (see Sheviit 6:1). Until that point one separates from dough one portion of hallah.",
+                    "<b>From Chezib to the river and to Amanah: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has a minimum measure, and the one for the priest does not have a minimum measure.</b>  This is an “in-between” geographical region. In Sheviit 6:1 we learned that some of the laws of sheviit apply here and some do not. With regard to hallah, what is important to understand is that the region is considered impure, as are all lands outside of Israel, and therefore any hallah separated there will be impure. So the first thing he does is separate a measure of hallah and then he destroys it by burning it. The problem with this is that the rabbis were concerned lest Jews forget the rules of hallah. Seeing the hallah burnt, they may not realize that the reason it was burned and not eaten is that it was impure by virtue of it being outside of Israel. Therefore they decreed that along with the “real” hallah that needs to be burned, people should also separate one portion of hallah and give it to a priest. This hallah is not the true biblically mandated hallah, but rather originates in a decree of the rabbis. Therefore we can be more lenient with it and it need not be of the minimum size (1/48). However, the hallah that is burned is biblically mandated and therefore it must consist of the minimum measure.",
+                    "<b>From the river and from Amanah and inward: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has no minimum measure, and the one for the priest has a minimum measure.</b>  In this region, the agricultural laws do not apply and therefore both portions of hallah, the one that is burned and the one that is given to the priest, are decrees of the rabbis and not biblically mandated. In this case the law concerning which portion requires a minimum measure applies in an opposite fashion. The portion that is burned does not need to be of minimum measure because this portion is separated only because of a rabbinic decree. However, there is a minimum measure to the portion given to the priest, even though it too was a decree of the rabbis. One of the two portions needs to be of minimum measure so that these laws will not be forgotten, so it might as well be the portion that will not go to waste.",
+                    "<b>And [a priest] who has immersed himself during the day [and has not waited till sunset for his purification to be complete] may eat it. Rabbi Yose says: he does not require immersion. But it is forbidden to zavim and zavot, to menstruants, and to women after childbirth;</b>  This portion given to the priest is only of rabbinic origin. Therefore, some of the purity laws that normally apply to biblically-mandated hallah, do not apply to this portion. Normally, an impure priest would go to the mikveh and immerse, and then be able to eat hallah/terumah only at nightfall. In this case it is sufficient for him to go the mikveh and eat the hallah before nightfall, because this is not actually hallah. It seems that the rabbis wanted him to go to the mikveh before eating this hallah so that he would remember that hallah should not be eaten in a state of impurity. However, in order to signify that this hallah was not biblically-mandated, they were somewhat lax in the application of these laws and they allowed him to eat before he was actually pure. Rabbi Yose rules that even an impure priest may eat this terumah, without going to the mikveh at all. But, he agrees that it can’t be eaten by anyone whose impurity stems from their own body. This would include zavim and zavot, men or women who have an abnormal genital discharge, menstruants and women after childbirth. Note that the women referred to here must be either wives or daughters of priests they too can eat hallah.",
+                    "<b>It may be eaten with a non-priest at the [same] table;</b>  Normally, a priest should not eat terumah or hallah at a table with a non-priest, lest the non-priest come to eat food strictly prohibited to him. Since this hallah is only of rabbinic origin, it may be eaten at a table with a non-priest.",
+                    "<b>And it may be given to any priest.</b>  Normally, one should not give hallah to an “am haaretz” priest, lest he defile it. We are again lenient in this case since the hallah is not biblically-mandated."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned that one can give hallah from outside of Israel to any priest, even an am haaretz who might defile it, because there is no prohibition of defiling this hallah. Our mishnah continues to list other priestly gifts that can be given to any priest, without fear that he will defile it. With regard to some of these things, there is no prohibition against defilement, and with regard to some of them, we assume that the priest will be cautious and not defile them.",
+                    "<b>These may be given to any priest:<br>Devoted things (;</b>  Haramim are referred to in Numbers 18:14, which states, “all herem (devoted thing) in Israel shall be yours (to Aaron and his descendents).” These refer to gifts given to priests there is no prohibition of making them impure.",
+                    "<b>Firstlings;</b>  “Firstlings” are the first born of pure domesticated animals, sheep, cows and goats. If they are unblemished they are sacrificed and parts are eaten by priests. If they are blemished, then the priest gets to keep the entire animal.",
+                    "<b>The redemption of the first born;</b>  This is the five shekels used to redeem a first-born human child (see Numbers 18:17-18).",
+                    "<b>The [lamb substituted as] ransom for the firstling of a donkey;</b>  The first born of a donkey is redeemed with a lamb (see Exodus 13:13). The priest gets the lamb.",
+                    "<b>The shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw;</b>  The parts of non-sacrificial animals given to the priest (see Deuteronomy 18:3-4).",
+                    "<b>The first of the fleece;</b>  The priest gets the first shearings of the sheep (Deuteronomy 18:4).",
+                    "<b>Oil [fit only] for burning;</b>  Impure terumah must be burned. Since it is already impure, one can give it to an am haaretz priest.",
+                    "<b>Consecrated food [which must be eaten] within the Temple;</b>  If the priest has to eat the offering within the Temple then we can assume that he will eat it in purity. Am haaretz priests were not suspected of going into the Temple while impure.",
+                    "<b>And bikkurim. Rabbi Judah prohibits bikkurim.</b>  First fruits must be eaten while pure (both the fruit and the person). The rabbis hold that since these first fruits will be brought to the Temple, the am haaretz priest will be careful with their purity and therefore they can be given to any priest. Rabbi Judah disagrees.",
+                    "<b>Vetches of terumah: Rabbi Akiva permits, But the sages prohibit.</b>  Vetches are normally animal food (see Maaser Sheni 2:4) but are occasionally eaten by humans. Rabbi Akiva holds that since they are not really food for humans, the laws of purity don’t apply and therefore they can be given to an am haaretz priest. The other rabbis hold that the purity laws do apply, and they should only be given to a priest known to preserve the purity laws."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Nittai of Tekoa brought hallah-portions from Be-Yitur, but they did not accept from him.<br>The people of Alexandria brought hallah, but they did not accept from them.<br>The people from Mt. Zevoim brought bikkurim prior to Atzeret (, but they did not accept from them, on for it is written in the Torah: “And the festival of the harvest, the first-fruits of your labors, which you have sown in the field” (Exodus 23:16).</b><br>Our mishnah mentions people who did two things that were against rabbinic law. The first thing is that they brought hallah from outside of Israel into Israel. The rabbis forbade bringing hallah or terumah into Israel from outside Israel. This was prohibited in order to discourage priests from going outside of Israel to bring back terumah or hallah (see also Sheviit 6:6).<br>The second issue mentioned is that some people would bring bikkurim before Shavuot. The rabbis also forbade this, for the verse in Exodus alludes to the fact that the first fruits should be brought on Shavuot.<br>I find several interesting things in this mishnah. First of all, the people who did not observe rabbinic law were actually acting in some ways stricter than the rabbis demanded. They were shlepping their hallah all the way from outside of Israel into the land of Israel. They were bringing their bikkurim before they were supposed to. The picture we get is of people who were zealous in their observance, and who were being calmed down by the rabbis. It is also interesting that those outside of Israel were not following rabbinic law. We know from many places that rabbinic influence was felt largely in Israel, where most rabbis lived. This mishnah supports the notion that outside of the land, Jews did not always follow, or perhaps didn’t even know, what rabbis were teaching. But to emphasize this does not mean that they were not observant of Jewish law.<br>Secondly, while the rabbis opposed these practices, they also bothered remembering them. The mishnah disapproves of what these people did, but it is almost as if the mishnah is also saying that although the practices are not sanctioned, they are still in some ways admirable.<br>The mishnah itself should be easily understood, and hence there is no explanation below."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>Ben Antigonus brought up firstlings from Babylon, but they did not accept from him.</b>  According to rabbinic law, one does not bring bekhorot, first-born animals, from outside the land of Israel.",
+                    "<b>Joseph the priest brought first fruits of wine and oil, but they did not accept from him.</b>  The mistake of Joseph the priest was that he brought his first fruits in their processed form, as wine or oil, instead of bringing them as grapes or olives (see Terumot 11:3, for a conflicting opinion).",
+                    "<b>He also brought up his sons and members of his household to celebrate Pesah katan in Jerusalem, but they turned him back, so that the thing should not become firmly fixed as an obligation.</b>  Pesah Sheni, also called Pesah Katan, is on the fourteenth of Iyyar, the month after Nissan (Numbers 9:11), during which the first “real” Pesah is celebrated. It is the “make-up date” for those who could not offer their Pesah sacrifice on the first Pesah. Joseph the priest brought his children and member’s of his household with him to Jerusalem. The rabbis directed Joseph the priest to return them home because one is obligated to bring one’s family to Jerusalem only during the first Pesah (see Exodus 23:17). Note that it is not prohibited to bring the family for Pesah Katan, it is merely unnecessary. As such, his kids and other members of his household could have stayed in Jerusalem. However, if they had stayed people would have thought that it was obligatory to bring the members of one’s household to on Pesah Sheni. Hence the rabbis told him that he should demonstrate this by bringing them back immediately.",
+                    "<b>Ariston brought his first fruits from Apamea and they accepted from him, because they said, one who buys [a field] in Syria is as one who buys [a field] in the outskirts of Jerusalem.</b>  The mishnah (and the tractate) ends with someone whose actions were accepted by the rabbis (whew!). Ariston (not a very Jewish sounding name) lived in Apamea which is in Syria. He brought his bikkurim from there to Jerusalem. The rabbis ruled that these were acceptable because when it comes to the laws of bikkurim, Syria is treated like a suburb of Jerusalem (Haffez Assad might not like this one). We should note that one does not bring terumah from Syria, but one does bring bikkurim. The reason for this difference is that a person who sets aside terumah is not obligated to bring it to the priests in Israel. Therefore we are concerned that priests will go outside of Israel to collect their terumah. In contrast, a person must bring his first fruits to Jerusalem. Therefore, there was no need to be concerned lest priests run off to collect their bikkurim outside of Israel. Congratulations!  We have finished Hallah! 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. Hallah is special among the tractates that we have learned because it is still observed to this day outside of the land of Israel. This is not the place for instruction as to how to observe this halakhah, but I hope that learning the tractate but I hope that it has given people “food for thought” (pun intended) as to the observance of this commandment. Of course, despite the fact that we learned that one doesn’t bring hallah from outside the land to Israel, there is no prohibition for bring delicious hallot to a hungry Talmudist living in the land of Israel…☺ Tomorrow we begin Tractate Orlah."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+            "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה חלה",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Zeraim"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה חלה",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Challah",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Challah",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Maasrot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json

@@ -0,0 +1,298 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Maasrot",
+    "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/",
+    "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "license": "CC-BY",
+    "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מעשרות",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Zeraim"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "First tithe, the first tenth of one’s produce, are given to the Levites. The only verses in the Torah which deal with this tithe is Numbers 18:21-24:",
+            "21 And to the Levites I hereby give all the tithes in Israel as their share in return for the services that they perform, the services of the Tent of Meeting.  22 Henceforth, Israelites shall not trespass on the Tent of Meeting, and thus incur guilt and die: 23 Only Levites shall perform the services of the Tent of Meeting; others would incur guilt. It is the law for all time throughout the ages. But they shall have no territorial share among the Israelites; 24 For it is the tithes set aside by the Israelites as a gift to the LORD that I give to the Levites as their share. Therefore I have said concerning them: They shall have no territorial share among the Israelites.",
+            "The topic that is discussed throughout most of the tractate is when does produce become liable for tithes? To put this question another way—up until what point can one eat produce without tithing it? There are several potential occurrences that make produce liable for tithing, such as making it into a pile, taking it into one’s courtyard or house or cooking it. Before any of these actions happen, one can eat produce in a non-fixed meal, as a snack, but not as part of a more formal meal. For instance, if one is in the field, one can pick grapes directly off of the vine without tithing them. However, once one brings them into one’s house in order to drink the wine with a meal, he cannot drink it until it has been tithed. ",
+            "The word “maasrot” literally means “tithes,” but it often refers to terumah as well as tithes. The reason is that tithes and terumah would have been typically separated from produce at the same time. So many of these mishnayot deal both with terumah and tithes.",
+            "The mishnayot throughout the tractate assume that tithes are given to the Levite. However, there is ample evidence that in the Second Temple period, tithes were frequently given to priests, either along with Levites, or instead of Levites. Since this issue is not really relevant to our tractate, I am not going to delve further into it. ",
+            "We should also note that unlike terumah, which is strictly prohibited to non-priests, anybody can eat tithes. They are not called “holy” by the Torah. Therefore, there is no discussion about tithes that get mixed up with hullin, a discussion which took up a large portion of Terumot. "
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah teaches two general principles with regard to what foods cannot be eaten before they are tithed.",
+                    "<b>They said a general principle concerning tithes: whatever is food, and is looked after, and grows from the land, is liable for tithes.</b>  This is the same principle we saw with regard to peah in Peah 1:4. Only plants that are food for humans, and are worthy of storing (looking after) and grow from the land (according to the rabbis this excludes mushrooms) are liable for tithes. Foods that don’t fit all three of these categories need not be tithed before they are eaten.",
+                    "<b>And they have further stated another general principle [concerning tithes]: whatever is considered food both at the beginning and at the conclusion [of its growth] even though he holds on to it in order to increase the quantity of food, is liable [to tithe] whether [it is harvested] in its earlier or later stages.</b>  If there is a plant that is generally eaten in its early stage of ripening and in a later stage, it must be tithed no matter when it was harvested. Even though he might generally leave it in the ground in order to give it time to grow bigger, since it is also eaten at the earlier stage, it must be tithed when it is picked earlier. We shall see examples of this below in mishnah four.",
+                    "<b>But whatever is not considered food in the earlier stages [of its growth] but only in its later stages, is not liable [to tithe] until it can be considered food.</b>  However, if the produce is not considered edible at its earlier stage of growth, if it is nevertheless harvested at this earlier stage, it can be eaten without being tithed. An example might be a banana. A banana harvested at an earlier stage is not considered food and therefore one who does eat such a banana need not tithe it. It would only need to be tithed if harvested when ripe."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>When do fruits become liable for tithes?<br>Figs from the time they begin to ripe.<br>Grapes and wild grapes in the early stages of ripening.<br>Sumac and mulberries after they become red; [similarly] all red fruits, after they become red.<br>Pomegranates, when the insides become soft.<br>Dates when they begin to swell.<br>Peaches when [red] veins begin to show.<br>Walnuts when the nuts are separate from the shell.<br>Rabbi Judah says: walnuts and almonds, after their inner skins have been formed.</b><br>This mishnah lists various fruits of the tree and teaches when each of them becomes liable for tithes. The general principle seems to be that they are liable at the earliest point at which they are edible.<br>Since the words are self-explanatory I do not offer any explanation below."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Carobs [are liable to] tithes after they form dark spots; similarly all black fruits after they form dark spots.<br>Pears and crustumenian pears, quinces, and medlars [are liable to tithes] after their surface begins to grow smooth; similarly all white fruits, after their surface begins to grow smooth.<br>Fenugreek [is liable to tithe] when the seeds [can be planted and] will grow.<br>Grain and olives after they are one-third ripe.</b><br>This mishnah continues to teach when various types of produce become liable for tithes. Again, since it is self-explanatory, there are no comments below."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah begins to discuss when vegetables and other fruits that are eaten in early stages of ripening begin to become liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>With regard to when vegetables [are liable to tithes]:<br>Cucumbers, gourds, water-melons, cucumber-melons, apples and etrogs are liable [for tithes], whether gathered in the earlier or later stages of ripening.</b>  All of these vegetables/fruits are eaten at both an early stage in their ripening and a later stage. Hence, even if they are harvested at their earlier stage, they are still liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon exempts the etrog in the earlier stages.</b>  Rabbi Shimon holds that etrogs are only eaten at their later stage of ripening and therefore if they are picked at an earlier stage, they are exempt from tithes.",
+                    "<b>The condition in which bitter almonds are liable [to tithes] is exempt in the case of sweet almonds, and the condition in which sweet almonds are liable [to tithe] is exempt in the case of bitter almonds.</b>  Bitter almonds are eaten in the early stage of their ripening and sweet almonds are eaten in the later stage of their ripening. Therefore, the opposite rules apply to them. If bitter almonds are harvested at the later stage, they are exempt, because this is not when they are typically eaten, and if sweet almonds are harvested in their early stage, they are exempt because that is not when they are typically eaten."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>What is considered a “threshing floor” for tithes [i.e. when does produce become liable for tithes]?<br>Cucumbers and gourds [are liable for tithes] once he removes their fuzz. And if he doesn’t remove it, once he makes a pile.<br>Melons once he removes the fuzz with hot water. And if they he does not remove the fuzz, once he stores them in the muktzeh.<br>Vegetables which are tied in bundles, from the time he ties them up in bundles. If he does not tie them up in bundles, until he fills the vessel with them. And if he does not fill the vessel, after he has gathered all that he wishes to gather.<br>[Produce which is packed in] a basket [is liable for tithes] after he has covered it. If he is not going to cover it, until he fills the vessel with them. And if he does not fill the vessel, after he has gathered all that he wishes to gather.<br>When does this apply? When one brings [the produce] to the market. But when he brings it to his own house, he may make a chance meal of it, until he reaches his house.</b><br>This mishnah begins dealing with the issue of when produce become liable for tithes (see introduction). The mishnah calls this a “threshing floor” because at the threshing floor grain becomes liable for tithes. By extension, all produce is liable for tithes once its processing has been completed. After this point it is prohibited to eat even a chance meal from this produce without tithing it. Before this point one can eat a “chance meal” without tithing, but not a “fixed meal,” one which is more formal.<br>Sections one and two:  The processing of cucumbers, gourds and melons is completed once the owner removes the “fuzz”, some very fine hair, that is on them. After that point, they are liable for tithes. If he doesn’t intend to remove the fuzz, then the processing is complete once he has made them into a pile, or once he has stored them in the “muktzeh” a storage area behind the house.<br>Sections three and four: Vegetables which are usually tied up in bundles in order to be brought to market, are liable for tithes as soon as they are tied up in bundles. Similarly, produce which is usually stored in baskets is liable to be tithed once it is put in a basket. In both cases, these are the final stages in their preparation. If he doesn’t intend to do this stage, either tying up in bundles or covering them in a basket, then they are liable for tithes once he has filled up a vessel with them, a vessel which he will use to bring the vegetables to the market. Finally, if he isn’t going to even put them in a vessel at all, then they are liable for tithes as soon as he has gathered a sufficient amount that it is worth it for him to bring the produce to the market. Note that if the last normal stage is not going to happen, then the previous stage becomes the completing stage.<br>Section five: The rules in the above sections apply only when he is going to take the produce to the market. In such a situation, this processing is relevant. However, if he is intending to take the produce home, then the produce is not liable for tithes until he brings it into his house. He may make a “chance meal” from the produce until he brings it home."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Dried pomegranate seeds, raisins and carobs, [are liable for tithes] after he has made a pile.</b>  These dried fruits are liable for tithes once he has made them into a pile in order to bring them to market. [As an aside, I am eating a delicious pomegranate, fresh not dried, while I write this yummy and healthy! It doesn’t get any better than this.]",
+                    "<b>Onions, once he removes the onion seeds. If he does not remove the onion seeds, after he makes a pile.</b>  Albeck explains that the mishnah refers to removing the “mothers of the onion,” the parts of the onion used to grow new onions. Other interpreters make a slight modification in the spelling of the Hebrew, and interpret the mishnah to read “once he has peeled” the onion, which would refer to the very outer skin. The default point for onions and for other types of produce is “when he has made a pile” which is the first point when it comes to the dried fruits in the previous section.",
+                    "<b>Grain, once he smoothes out the pile. If he does not smooth the pile, after he makes a pile.</b>  Grain is liable for tithes once he smoothes out the pile, but if he doesn’t smooth out the pile, then it is liable from the time he makes a pile.",
+                    "<b>Pulse, after he has sifted it. If he does not sift, after he smoothes out a pile.</b>  Pulse, or legumes, is liable for tithes once it has been sifted in order to remove the “shmutz,” the dirt and pebbles. But if he does not intend to remove the shmutz, then pulse too is liable for tithes once he has smoothed out a pile.",
+                    "<b>Even after he has smoothed out the pile, he may [without tithing] take from the broken ears, from the sides of the piles, and from that which is mixed in with the chaff, and eat.</b>  This section refers to the grain mentioned in section three. Although grain is liable for tithes once he has smoothed out a pile, he may nevertheless continue to “nibble” from certain parts of the grain, such as ears of grain that have not been successfully threshed, without tithing them. He can also eat ears of grain that are on the sides of the pile and not in the pile itself, and he can eat ears of grain that are still mixed in with straw. In other words, he can’t eat from the ears of grain that have been successfully processed and placed in the pile, but he can continue to eat, without tithing, from ears of grain that were not successfully processed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with when wine and oil become liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Wine [is liable for tithes] after it has been skimmed [in the lower part of the winepress]. Even though it has been skimmed, he may take from the upper winepress, or from the duct, and drink [without taking out tithe].</b>  The wine that is found in the lower part of the winepress must be tithed once the stuff (skins and seeds) has been skimmed off the top. However, even after the wine in the lower part of the winepress has been skimmed, he can still drink from the wine remaining in the upper parts of the winepress because its processing has not yet been completed.",
+                    "<b>Oil [is liable for tithes] after it has gone down into the trough. But even after it has gone down into the trough he may still take oil from the pressing bale, or from the press beam, or from the boards between the press [without tithing,]</b>  Oil is liable for tithes once it has drained down into the trough, the lowest part of the olive press.",
+                    "<b>And he may put such oil on a cake, or large plate.</b>  Similar to the case of wine, although some of the oil has drained off into the trough, he may still take oil from other parts of the olive press and use it without tithing.",
+                    "<b>But he should not put the oil in a dish or stewpot, while they are boiling.</b>  There are certain rules as to how he can use oil that didn’t need to be tithed. He can use this oil to put on cakes and he can put it directly on a plate and eat it without tithing it.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: he may put it into anything except that which contains vinegar or brine.</b>  However, he cannot put it into a boiling dish because anything cooked cannot be eaten without being first tithed. Cooking, which by definition is a more formal way of eating, makes things liable for tithes, and therefore he can’t put the oil into a boiling dish. It seems like the mishnah would allow him to put the oil into a dish that has already been cooked because in such a case the oil itself is not being cooked, rather it is just being consumed with cooked food.",
+                    "Rabbi Judah holds that regular cooking, at least of oil, does not make the oil liable with tithes, and therefore he can put the oil into a boiling dish. The only thing he cannot put the oil in is a boiling dish that includes vinegar or brine, because by their sharpness these will hurry the cooking process."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of our chapter deals with figs.",
+                    "<b>A cake of pressed figs [is liable for tithes] from the moment it has been smoothed out [with fruit juice].</b>  The final step in processing a cake of pressed figs was to smooth it out using fruit juice. Once this step has occurred, one cannot eat the figs without tithing them.",
+                    "<b>They may smooth them out with [the juice of] untithed figs or grapes. Rabbi Judah forbids this.</b>  As an aside, the mishnah now discusses several halakhot connected to the smoothing out of fig cakes. First of all, there is the issue of whether the fruit juice itself must come from tithed produce. According to the first opinion, it need not because the juice that comes out from the grapes or figs is not treated like the grapes or figs itself.  Since the untithed figs or grapes do not directly come into contact with the fig cake, using juice from them before they are tithed is not a problem. Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that that the juice that flows from the grapes or figs is treated like the grapes or figs themselves and therefore it must be tithed.",
+                    "<b>If one smoothed with grapes, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Judah says it is susceptible.</b>  A correlated dispute is with regard to whether juice from grapes or figs causes other produce to be susceptible to uncleanness. According to the first opinion, there are only seven liquids that cause other produce to be susceptible to uncleanness (dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk, and bee honey) and juice is not among them (see Terumot 11:2). Rabbi Judah adds fruit juice to this list.",
+                    "<b>Dried figs [are liable to tithe] after they have been pressed [into a jar]. And [figs] stored in a bin [are liable to tithe] after they have been pressed.</b>  Dried figs are liable once they have been pressed into a jar and if they are going to be pressed into a storage bin, then once they have been pressed there into the bin.",
+                    "<b>If one was pressing [the figs] into a jar, or pressing them in a storage bin, and the jar was broken or the storage bin opened, he may not make a chance meal of them. Rabbi Yose permits this.</b>  The issue at stake here is whether something that has already become liable for tithes can go back to a state where one can eat from it without tithing. Once the figs were pressed into the jar or storage bin they became liable for tithes. When the jar or bin breaks, he is going to have to put them in another jar or bin they are now in a state of uncompleted processing. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, once they have become liable for tithes, one cannot go back to eating them without tithing them, no matter what happens. Rabbi Yose holds that they do revert to their previous status because at this point, their processing is no longer completed."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with someone who gets produce from someone else while walking on the street. There are two questions here: 1) can he eat them without tithing? 2) What if they were already tithed?",
+                    "<b>If one was passing through the street, and said “Take for yourself from my figs,” one may eat them and be exempt from tithes. Therefore if they brought them into their houses, they must separate [tithes and terumah] as if they were certainly untithed.</b>  The mishnah deals with a person who is bringing figs into his home and offers some to someone else. One can assume that they have not been tithed because usually produce that one is not bringing to market is not tithed until one brings it home. Had the figs already been tithed, he would have told the person he was giving them to that he could eat them at home. The receiver can eat the figs without tithing them before he brings them home, but once he brings them into his house he must tithe them before he can eat them. The tithes that he separates have to be considered “certain tithes” because we can be quite certain that they were not yet tithed.",
+                    "<b>[If he said], “Take and bring it into your houses,” they may not make a chance meal of them. Therefore if they brought them into their houses, they need tithe them only as demai.</b>  In this case, the person told him that he can eat the figs in their own home. This is taken as a hint at two possible things. First of all, he may be saying that the figs have already been in his home, which would make them liable for tithes, but they have not yet been tithed. Therefore, it is forbidden to make a chance meal of them before he tithes them. The other possibility is that he is telling him that he can eat them even in his own home because they have already been tithed. Therefore, when he brings them into his home he must tithe them as if they are “demai” doubtfully tithed produce. In sum, the mishnah is concerned for two opposite problems while in the street he can’t eat them lest they already were brought into the original person’s house and they were not tithed; once he brings them home, he must be concerned lest they already were tithed and therefore, the tithes that he takes out have the status of demai and not certain tithes."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah continues to deal with people who receive figs from passersby (I’d like to receive figs from passersby, but I guess people aren’t as nice as they used to be) and with the question of whether they can eat the figs before they tithe them.",
+                    "<b>If they were sitting at the gate or a shop, and one said [to them], “Take for yourselves figs,” they may eat and be exempt from tithes, but the owner of the gate, or the owner of the shop, is liable [to give tithe].</b>  Except for the owners, the people sitting at the gate or inside the shop can eat the figs without tithing them because the gate and the shop don’t belong to them. When we learned that once food is brought into one’s home it cannot be eaten before it is tithed, that meant one’s own home. Since these people didn’t own the gate or the shop, the figs are not liable for tithes for them. However, the owners of the gate and the shop have had the tithes brought into their homes (or at least a building owned by them), and therefore they can’t eat until they tithe.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah exempts him unless he turns his face or changes the place where he was sitting [and selling].</b>  Rabbi Judah holds that a gate and a shop do not make food liable for tithes because it wasn’t considered decent to eat in such places. People would be embarrassed to eat there because people generally didn’t eat in public places. So if he nevertheless eats in one of those places, he need not tithe before he eats. However, if he turns around so that they don’t see him eating, or he moves to another place within the gate or shop where he won’t be embarrassed to eat, then he must tithe before he eats the figs."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned that bring one’s produce into another person’s home doesn’t make the produce liable for tithes.  Only bringing it into one’s own home makes it liable for tithes.\nIn today’s mishnah we learn about people traveling on the road and staying at other people’s homes and when their food becomes liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>One who brings produce from the Galilee to Judea, or if he goes up to Jerusalem, he may eat of them until he arrives at the place to which he intends to go, and the same is true when he returns.</b>  When one is traveling on the road for business, or making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and he enters an inn to spend the night while on the way, he can continue to eat the harvested produce without tithing it until he gets to the place, meaning the home that he intended to go to. This is true even if that house is not actually his home. However, bringing the produce into someone else’s home while still on the way does not make it liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Meir says: [he may eat] until he reaches the place where he intends to rest [on Shabbat].</b>  Rabbi Meir says that once he gets to the place where he wants to spend Shabbat he can no longer eat his produce without tithing it, even if he gets to that place at some earlier time during the week. The beginning of Shabbat always means that produce must be tithed before it is eaten, but Rabbi Meir adds that just merely being at the place where one will spend Shabbat already makes the produce liable for tithes even if it is not yet Shabbat.",
+                    "<b>But peddlers who travel from town to town may eat until they reach the place where they intend to stay over night.</b>  Peddlers are constantly on the move, going from one place to another, and they don’t really have one place to which they are going. Therefore, the arrival at any place where they intend to spend the night makes their produce liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: the first house [he reaches] is his house.</b>  Rabbi Judah is even stricter and rules that even if he doesn’t intend to spend the night in a certain place, just entering any house makes his produce liable for tithes. A peddler’s home is whatever place he ends up in, and not just one that he plans on going to beforehand."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with a person who separated terumah from his produce before he finished its processing and before he separated the tithes.",
+                    "<b>Produce from which he separated terumah before its work was finished: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is forbidden to make a chance meal of it, But the sages permit it except when it is a basket of figs.</b>  According to Rabbi Eliezer, once one has separated terumah from produce it can no longer be eaten in a chance fashion until tithes have also been separated. To put it another way, taking out terumah makes the produce liable for tithes. The rabbis generally disagree and hold that separating terumah does not make produce liable for tithes. One can continue to eat chance meals from the produce.  The one exception is a basket of figs. Albeck tentatively explains that it was common to give figs to several people (as we saw above in mishnayot 1-2) and if he took out terumah then he has shown that his intention is to give away the figs while they are in the basket and therefore this is considered the final step in their processing. Furthermore, once he has separated the terumah he won’t put more hullin figs into the basket and therefore, their processing is complete. Therefore, he can no longer eat in a “chance” fashion from these figs.",
+                    "<b>A basket of figs from which one separated terumah: Rabbi Shimon permits it. But the sages forbid it.</b>  Rabbi Shimon does not distinguish between figs and other types of produce even though he separated terumah from the basket, it is still not liable for tithes and he can continue to eat in a chance fashion."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn our mishnah we learn that produce that has been sold and bought cannot be eaten, even in a chance fashion, until it has been tithed.",
+                    "<b>One who says to his friend: “Here is this issar, give me five figs for it”, he may not eat of [them] until he has tithed them, the words of Rabbi Meir.</b>  According to Rabbi Meir, once the figs have been bought, they must be tithed before he can eat from them.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: if he ate them one by one, he is exempt, but if he gathered them [to eat them] together, he is liable [to tithe.]</b>  According to Rabbi Judah, if the seller gives the buyer one fig at a time, he can eat them without tithing them. However, if the seller gathers several together and sells them to him at one time, then he can’t eat them at all until he has tithed them. According to Rabbi Judah, this is the type of sale that makes produce liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah said: it happened in a rose-garden in Jerusalem that there were figs being sold three or four for an issar, and neither terumah nor tithe was ever given from it.</b>  Rabbi Judah relates a story about a rose-garden in Jerusalem in which figs grew and people bought them at the price of three or four for an issar (a coin worth 1/24 of a dinar) and they never had to tithe them, because they ate them one at a time. Evidently, these rose-garden figs were quite delicious. I’ll keep my eye out for them here in the Holy City!"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches ways in which a person can buy produce and yet continue to eat it without tithing.",
+                    "<b>One who says to his friend: “Here is an issar for ten figs which I choose for myself,” he may choose them and eat [one at a time without tithing]. [If he said] “For a cluster of grapes which I choose for myself,” he may pick grapes from the cluster and eat. [If he said], “For a pomegranate which I choose for myself,” he may take apart [the pomegranate] and eat [it one piece at a time]. [If he said] “For a watermelon, which I choose for myself,” he may slice and eat [it one piece at a time].</b>  In all of the cases in this mishnah, the person gives the person money on condition that he chooses which particular piece of fruit he is buying. The fruit is still attached to the ground. The purchase is only completed once he picks the fruit. Therefore, he can eat them without tithing, but only one at a time, as was Rabbi Judah’s opinion in yesterday’s mishnah. The same is true for the grapes, pomegranate and watermelon mentioned in the remainder of this section. Since he doesn’t determine which piece of fruit he is buying until he picks it, this is considered a case of buying produce that is already detached from the ground.",
+                    "<b>But if he said “For these twenty figs,” or “For these two clusters,” or “For these two water-melons,” he may eat them in his usual way and be exempt [from tithe], because he bought them while they were still attached to the ground.</b>  In this case he specifies which of the fruit he wants to eat. In this way, he succeeds in acquiring the fruit while it is still attached to the ground. Buying fruit while it is still attached to the ground does not make it liable for tithes, and therefore, he can eat from it in a chance fashion before it is tithed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAccording to the rabbinic interpretation of Deuteronomy 23:25-26, the Torah allows a worker in a field to eat from the owner’s produce while he is working in the field (see also Bava Metzia 7:2). The produce that he eats is not considered a wage and hence it can be eaten without having been tithed. Our mishnah deals with several ramifications of this law.",
+                    "<b>One who has hired a worker to help him harvest figs, and he [the worker] said to him “On condition that I may eat the figs,” he may eat them and he is exempt [from tithing].</b>  As I explained in the introduction, the worker is allowed to eat while harvesting the grapes, even if he doesn’t stipulate that he may do so. Therefore, the fact that he says, “On condition that I may eat the figs” does not make the figs part of the contract and thereby like wages; rather he is allowed to eat the figs because of the Torah’s laws. Since the figs are not considered part of his wages, he may eat them without tithing.",
+                    "<b>[If he said,] “On condition that I and my son may eat,” or “that my son may eat of them in lieu of my receiving a wage,” he may eat and he is exempt [from tithing], but his son may eat but he is liable [for tithes].</b>  The Torah does not mandate that a worker’s son can eat of the produce while his father is working in the field. Therefore, if the worker makes this stipulation the figs that his son eats are considered wages and must be tithed before the son eats them.",
+                    "<b>[If he said,] “On condition that I may eat of them during the time of the fig harvest, and after the fig harvest,” during the time of the fig harvest he may eat and he is exempt [from tithing], but if he eats after the fig harvest he is liable, since he does not eat of them in the manner mandated by the Torah.</b>  The Torah mandates that he is allowed to eat while he is harvesting but not after the harvest has been completed. Thus, while still harvesting he can eat the figs without tithing them. However, if he eats figs after the harvest has been completed, these are considered to be wages and he must tithe them before he eats.",
+                    "<b>This is the general rule: one who eats in a manner mandated by the Torah is exempt [from tithes], and one who does not eat in the manner mandated by the Torah is liable.</b>  The general rule here is the basis of all the previous section. It is interesting to note that what the Torah mandates that the employer give his employee is not considered a wage, but a right."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to deal with when a worker working in field must tithe his produce. Some of the concepts of this mishnah were already taught in Bava Metzia 7:4.",
+                    "<b>If a man is working [as a hired worker] among cooking figs, he may not eat of white figs, and if among white figs, he may not eat of cooking figs, but he may restrain himself until he reaches the place where there are the better figs, and then he may eat.</b>  While working in the field, a worker may only eat from the type of produce that he is working with. Thus, if he is working with one type of figs, he cannot eat from another type. However, he can wait until he begins to work with the better type of figs and then he may eat from them.",
+                    "<b>If a man exchanges with his friend either [figs] for eating for [figs] for eating, or [figs] to be dried for figs [to be dried], of figs [for eating] for figs [to be dried], then he is liable to give tithes.</b>  According to the opinion in this section, when one exchanges any type of figs, figs that are going to be eaten fresh (what the mishnah calls “for eating) or figs that are going to dried, the exchange is treated like a purchase and neither party can eat of the figs before they are tithed.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: one who exchanges [figs] for [other figs for eating] is liable, but [if for figs] for drying he is exempt.</b>  Rabbi Judah says that if he exchanges his figs for other figs that are going to be dried out, then he can eat the figs he gets without first tithing them, because their work has not yet been completed. Rabbi Judah holds that purchasing makes produce liable for tithes only if its work has been completed. If he exchanges the figs for figs that he intends to eat fresh, then their work has been completed, and he cannot eat of them until they are tithed."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to deal with when workers can eat their employer’s produce without first tithing it.",
+                    "<b>One who was taking figs through his courtyard to be dried, his children and the other members of his household  may eat [of them] and they are exempt [from tithes].</b>  Once the processing of fruit has been completed and one brings the produce into one’s courtyard, one can no longer eat the produce without first tithing it. In the case in this section, the processing of the figs was not yet complete because he was on his way to dry them. Therefore, he and the rest of the members of his family can continue to eat the figs before they are dried without having to first tithe them.",
+                    "<b>The workers [who work] with him may eat and be exempt so long as he is not obliged to provide for them. If however, he is obligated to provide for them they may not eat.</b>  The workers here are those who work for the owner of the figs, but don’t work with the figs. The Torah does not mandate that they be allowed to eat the figs, because the Torah mandates only that a worker can eat from the type of produce with which he is working, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah. Since these worker’s don’t eat because of the Torah’s mandate, they can eat the figs only if they are receiving them as a gift from the owner, and not as part of their wages. If he has no obligation to feed them, meaning this was not part of their contract, then he has given them the figs as a gift, and they are exempt from tithes. If, however, he was obligated to feed them, then the figs are treated as if they are wages. As we learned in the previous chapter, when produce is involved in a financial transaction it becomes obligated for tithes. Therefore, these workers must tithe before they can eat the figs."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah continues to deal with the issue of when workers may eat of their employer’s produce without tithing.",
+                    "<b>One who brought his workers into the field, when he is not obligated to provide for them, they may eat and be exempt from tithes.</b>  These workers were brought out to the field but not to work with the figs, so again, the Torah does not mandate that they be allowed to eat the figs. If the employer is not obligated to feed them, then the figs that they eat are a present and since they are still out in the field, the workers may eat them without tithing them.",
+                    "<b>If, however, he is obligated to provide for them they may eat of the figs one at a time, but not from the basket, nor from the large basket, nor from the storage yard.</b>  If he is giving the workers figs as part of his obligation to feed them, then they in principle must tithe the figs before eating. However, since these figs have not yet been put into a basket, the workers may eat from them one at a time, because their processing has not yet been completed. Once they have been put into any storage place, be it a type of basket or be it a storage yard, they can no longer be eaten until they have been tithed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAccording to the rabbis’ interpretation of the Torah, a worker may eat from his employer’s produce only if he is working at the end of the processing of the produce. If he is tending to the field, he may not pluck produce that is still attached to the ground and eat it. If the owner allows him to do so, this produce is considered wages, and cannot be eaten without first being tithed.\nOur mishnah deals with a person who is working in a field but not at the time when the produce’s processing is being completed.",
+                    "<b>One who hired a worker to work with olives and he said to him, “On condition that I may eat the olives,” he may eat of them one at a time and be exempt [from tithes]. If, however, he gathered several together he is liable [for tithes].</b>  Since this worker was working with the olives at a time when their processing was not completed, the olives that he does receive are part of his wages and hence cannot be eaten without being tithed. As we saw in yesterday’s mishnah, he can eat one olive at a time, but if he gathers them together, he cannot eat them without first tithing them.",
+                    "<b>[If he had been hired] to weed out onions, and he said to him, “On condition that I may eat the vegetables,” he may pluck leaf by leaf, and eat [without tithing]. If, however, he gathered several together, he is liable [for tithes].</b>  The section teaches basically the same rule with regard to a person hired to work weeding onions. He can pluck the leaves up one at a time and eat them, but he cannot gather them together and eat them without first tithing."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMost of this mishnah deals with fruit that one finds can one eat it without tithing?",
+                    "<b>If one found cut figs on the road, or even beside a field [where cut figs] have been spread [to dry], and similarly, if a fig tree overhangs the road, and he found figs beneath it, they are allowed [with regard to the laws] of robbery, and they are exempt from tithe.</b>  The person who finds these cut figs may keep them, even if it is quite clear from which field they came. Taking them is not considered stealing because it is common for the field owner to make them ownerless, probably because he doesn’t consider it worth his while to pick up the figs that fell by the side of the road. The figs are also exempt from tithes because ownerless produce is always exempt from tithes (see chapter one, mishnah one).",
+                    "<b>But if they were olives and carobs, they are liable.</b>  Olives and carobs are assumed to be of greater value than figs. The owner does not make them ownerless, and therefore, the rules are opposite of those in section one which discussed figs. One who finds olives and carobs near their likely sources may not take them and if he does, he cannot eat them before they are tithed because they are not ownerless.",
+                    "<b>If one found dried figs, then if the majority of people had already trodden [their figs], he must tithe [them], but if not he is exempt.</b>  Figs are liable for tithes once they have been pressed into a jar (see 1:8). The figs that he finds have been dried, but he doesn’t know if they have already been pressed into a jar. In this case the status of the figs is determined by what the majority of people in that area have done. If most people have already pressed their figs, then he must assume that these figs were already pressed and he cannot eat them without first tithing. If most people have not pressed their figs, then he may eat them without tithing.",
+                    "<b>If one found slices of fig-cake he is liable [to tithe] since it is obvious they come from something whose processing had been fully completed.</b>  If he finds pieces of fig cakes, then he can be certain that they were already pressed into a jar and he cannot eat them without tithing.",
+                    "<b>With carobs, if they had not yet been on the top of the roof, he may take some down for his animals and be exempt [from tithe] since he returns that which is left over.</b>  The final step in the processing of carobs, the step that makes them fit for human consumption, is to bring them up to one’s roof to dry them out. Before he has brought them to the roof he can feed them to his cattle without tithing. We don’t say that by feeding them to his cattle he has shown that their processing is complete and therefore he must tithe them. The reason we don’t make such an assumption is that sometimes a person may begin feeding them to his cattle and then bring them back up to his roof to dry them out, so that people could eat them."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nBringing produce into a house causes it to become liable for tithes. Under certain circumstances, bringing the produce into a courtyard can also make it liable for tithes. In our mishnah five (!) tannaim debate what type of courtyard makes produce liable for tithes. The general principle is clear: if the courtyard is protected it makes the food liable for tithes because it is like a house.",
+                    "<b>Which courtyard is it which makes [the produce] liable to tithe?<br>Rabbi Ishmael says: the Tyrian yard for the vessels are protected therein.</b>  Both talmudim explain that a guard sits outside of the Tyrian courtyard and protects it. Since this courtyard is protected, food brought into it is liable for tithes the courtyard is like a house.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Akiva says: any courtyard which one person may open and another may shut is exempt.</b>  If two people share a courtyard, and when one person opens up the courtyard, the other is the one who closes it, then this courtyard is not well protected. Since it is not well-protected, produce that is brought into it is not liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Nehemiah says: any courtyard in which a man is not ashamed to eat is liable.</b>  In mishnaic times it was considered impolite or uncultured to eat in public. If the courtyard into which the produce was brought was closed off enough so that a person would eat in it, then the produce is liable for tithes. But if a person wouldn’t eat there, then the produce is not liable.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: any courtyard into which a person may enter and no one says to him, “what are you looking for” is exempt.</b>  If no one says anything to a stranger who enters into a courtyard, then it is not protected and produced brought into it is not liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: if there are two courtyards one within the other, the inner one makes liable and the outer one is exempt.</b>  In the case of two courtyards, the inner one, the one closer to the house, makes the produce liable to be tithed because it is relatively well-guarded and those from the outer courtyard cannot enter into the inner courtyard. In contrast, the outer courtyard, through which the people who live in the inner courtyard can walk, is less-guarded and food brought into it is not liable for tithes."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with other architectural structures and with whether they, like some courtyards, cause produce to become liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Roofs do not render [produce] liable, even though they belong to a courtyard which renders it liable.</b>  Bringing produce onto a roof does not make it liable for tithes, even if the roof is adjacent to a courtyard that does make the produce liable. While the courtyard does offer protection to the produce, the roof does not and therefore the produce is not liable.",
+                    "<b>A gate house, portico, or balcony, are like the courtyard [to which it belongs]; if [the courtyard] makes the [produce] liable [for tithes] so do they, and if it does not, they do not.</b>  The three structures mentioned here take on the status of the courtyard to which they are attached. The “gate house” is a little house in which a guard would sit to watch over the courtyard. The “portico” is a roofed colonnade, but without closed walls. The “balcony” juts out from the second story of the house. If the courtyard offers protection to the produce, then these structures do as well and the produce brought into them will be liable for tithes."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with huts or “sukkah” like structures and whether they render produce liable for tithes. Part of the issue here is how similar these structures are to houses, which do render produce liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Cone-shaped huts, watchtowers, and sheds in the field do not render [produce] liable.</b>  A cone-shaped hut does not have a roof and the rabbis defined houses as structures with roofs. Hence, it does not render the produce liable for tithes. While people spend time in watchtowers, they do not live in them, and therefore they are not considered houses. Neither do people live in sheds in a field they too do not render produce liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>A sukkah-hut like those used in Ginnosar, even though it contains millstones and poultry, does not render [produce] liable.</b>  Sukkah-like huts all have roofs and therefore, they might render produce liable for tithes. In Ginnosar, which is on the shores of the Galilee, people would dwell in these huts most of the year in order to guard the produce in the field. They would even bring millstones in order to grind wheat and poultry in order to have eggs and perhaps some meat. Nevertheless, since they do not live in these huts all year round, they do not cause produce to become liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>As for the potter’s sukkah-hut, the inner part renders [produce] liable and the outer part does not.</b>  The potter’s sukkah is divided into two parts the inner part, which the potter and his family use for living quarters, and the outer part, where they do their work. The outer part does not count as a house and therefore, it does not make produce liable for tithes, whereas the inner part does.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: anything which is not both a sunny season and rainy season dwelling does not render [produce] liable [to tithes].</b>  Rabbi Yose clarifies that in order for a structure to count as a house it must be a structure in which people would live in both the summer and winter months. Otherwise, the produce that is brought into it does not need to be tithed. I should note that it doesn’t seem that Rabbi Yose is saying that the person must actually live there all year round. Vacation homes, if built like normal homes, would make produce liable for tithes. What he is saying is that if the house is built only to be used in one season, then it is not truly a “house” and it does not make liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>A sukkah used on the Festival [of Sukkot]: Rabbi Judah says: this renders [produce] liable [for tithes] But the sages exempt.</b>  The final section in our mishnah is concerned with the sukkah used during the holiday of Sukkot. According to Rabbi Judah, since during Sukkot the sukkah is perceived, at least by him, as a “permanent dwelling place” it does render produce liable for tithes. Although one lives there only during Sukkot, for that week it is like one’s permanent home and just as one’s home renders liable for tithes, so too does the Sukkah. The rabbis disagree and hold that it is not truly a permanent home, since one lives there for only one week."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with the interesting situation of a tree that is growing in one’s courtyard can one eat from the fruit without tithing? In other words, does this count as “produce brought into the courtyard” which usually means that it can’t be eaten without tithing?",
+                    "<b>A fig tree which stands in a courtyard: one may eat the figs from it one at a time and be exempt [from tithes], but if he gathered some together he is liable.</b>  Since this tree is in the courtyard, the figs must be tithed before they are eaten. However, he can still eat one at a time without tithing as was the rule regarding produce that was purchased (see 3:3).",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: if he has [one in his right hand and one in his left hand and one in his mouth, he is exempt.</b>  Rabbi Shimon adds that it doesn’t count as “gathering together” if all he has is one in each hand and one in his mouth. The status of “gathered” figs means that he has more than one in at least one of his hands.",
+                    "<b>If he ascended to the top [of it], he may fill his bosom and eat.</b>  If he climbs up to the top of the tree to gather the figs, he can put a bunch in his shirt and eat them while he is up in the tree. However, if he brings them down he can no longer eat them until they have been tithed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah continues to deal with plants growing inside a courtyard.",
+                    "<b>A vine which was planted in a courtyard: one may take a whole cluster [and eat it without tithing]. Similarly with a pomegranate, or a melon, the words of Rabbi Tarfon.</b>  According to Rabbi Tarfon, one can eat the whole unit of fruit without tithing in the cases of a grape vine, pomegranate or melon growing in the courtyard. The cluster of grapes is treated as one integral unit, and therefore he can eat the whole thing.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Akiva says: he can pick single berries from the cluster, or split the pomegranate into slices, or cut slices of melon [and eat without tithing].</b>  Rabbi Akiva rules more strictly and says that one can only eat pieces of these fruits without tithing. If he wants to eat the whole cluster of grapes, the whole pomegranate or the whole melon, he must first tithe it because it is already in the courtyard.",
+                    "<b>Coriander which was sown in a courtyard: one may pluck leaf by leaf and eat [without tithing], but if he ate them together he is liable [for tithes].</b>  As was the case with the figs in yesterday’s mishnah, if he gathers several leaves together he must tithe before he eats, but if he plucks and eats them one at a time, he can eat without tithing.",
+                    "<b>Savory and hyssop, and thyme which are in the courtyard, if they are kept watch over, they are liable for tithe.</b>  If a person has grown these plants to be spices for human consumption, and he is watching over them, then the fact that they are in the courtyard makes them immediately liable for tithing. He can’t eat them at all until they are tithed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with the situation in which the trunk of a tree is found in one type of domain but its branches hang over into another.",
+                    "<b>A fig tree which stands in a courtyard, and hangs over into a garden: one may eat in his customary fashion and be exempt [from tithes].</b>  When it comes to tithes, what matters is where the branches are, because that is where the fruit is. So if it stands in the courtyard, but the fruit is on branches hanging over into the garden, then he may eat from the tree without tithing.",
+                    "<b>If it stands in the garden and hangs over into the courtyard, one may eat [the figs] one at a time and be exempt, but if he gathers them together, he is liable [for tithes].</b>  The opposite is also true if the tree is in the garden but the branches hang over into the courtyard, then he can only eat one fig at a time. Since the branches are in the courtyard, the fruit is liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>If it stands in the land [of Israel] and hangs over [into the territory] outside the land, or if it stands outside the land, and hangs over into the land, [in all these cases the law is] decided according to the position of the root.</b>  Only fruit that is grown on a tree entirely within the land of Israel is liable for tithes. The location of the tree is determined by its trunk. In this case it matters not where the fruit is, but rather, where the tree, i.e. the trunk, is.",
+                    "<b>And as regards houses in walled cities, everything is decided according to the position of the root.</b>  According to Leviticus 25:29-31, houses that are sold within a walled city can be redeemed by the seller for one year. If they are not redeemed within the year then permanent title belongs to the purchaser. According to the rabbis, the same rule applies to trees sold within a walled city. In this case the tree’s location within or outside the walled city is determined by its roots. Again, what is determinant is the location of the tree and not the fruit, as was the case with tithes in sections one and two, and therefore, its location follows its root.",
+                    "<b>But as regards cities of refuge, everything is decided [also] according to the location of the branches.</b>  Accidental murderers are supposed to flee to one of the cities of refuge. Once there the blood avenger can no longer kill them, and if he does so he is liable for murder. In this case, the location of the tree follows that of the branches. If the blood avenger kills him under the branches which are inside the borders of the refuge city, the blood avenger is guilty of murder, but if the branches are outside the city, he is exempt.",
+                    "<b>And in what concerns Jerusalem, everything is decided by the location of the branches.</b>  Second tithe is to be brought to Jerusalem, but if one wants, it is permitted to exchange it for money outside of Jerusalem and then bring the money to Jerusalem and use it to buy food there. It is impossible, however, to redeem food that is already in Jerusalem. In this case the status of the tree is determined by the branches, which is where the fruit is located. If the branches are located within Jerusalem, then the produce cannot be redeemed and it must be eaten in the city. If the trunk is within the walls of the city but the branches are outside, then it is permitted to redeem the produce and use the money to buy food."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with various steps that make, or in some cases do not make, produce liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>If he pickled, stewed, or salted [produce], he is liable [to give tithes].</b>  Cooking food always makes it liable for tithes. Our mishnah teaches that the same holds true for other ways of processing the produce, including pickling, stewing and even salting. Since these all serve to make raw food more edible, the person can now no longer eat from the produce without first tithing.",
+                    "<b>If he stored [produce] in the ground [in order to warm it up] he is exempt.</b>  Sometimes people would store produce in the ground to warm it up a bit. The mishnah determines that this is not considered “cooking” and therefore he may continue to eat this food without first tithing it.",
+                    "<b>If he dipped it [while yet] in the field, he is exempt.</b>  It was normal to eat food by dipping it, much in the way we might dip vegetables in an onion dip. Such eating is not necessarily part of a formal meal and therefore he may continue to eat the produce without tithing it.",
+                    "<b>If he split olives so that the bitter taste may come out of them, he is exempt.</b>  Splitting olives in order to take out some of the bitter taste does not count as processing the olives so he may continue to eat them without tithing.",
+                    "<b>If he squeezed olives against his skin, he is exempt.</b>  Similarly, if he squeezes the olives against his skin to get out some oil which he wants to rub on his dry skin, this is not considered processing the olive in order to eat it and he can eat the olives without tithing.",
+                    "<b>If he squeezed them and put [the oil] into his hand, he is liable.</b>  However, if he squeezes the olive in order to get oil out of it and put it in his hand so that he can eat the oil, he must tithe before he eats this oil. The key here is that he did something to the olive so that he could eat it, and he didn’t just take out the bitter taste or to put some oil on his skin, as was true in the previous sections.",
+                    "<b>One who makes a viscous liquid [from grapes or olives] in order to put it in a dish is exempt.</b>  When he makes this liquid (not yet considered wine or oil) and puts it in the dish which already has food in it, the liquid will disappear in the dish. Although he has put the liquid in food, it can still be eaten without tithing it.",
+                    "<b>But if to put it in an [empty] pot, he is liable for it is like a small vat.</b>  However, if he puts it in an empty pot, it is as if he put it in a vat to store it, thereby completing its processing. He now can no longer use the liquid without first tithing it."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe entrance of Shabbat makes produce liable for tithes. Since Shabbat is important, any eating done on Shabbat is also significant and cannot be considered “chance eating” which is exempt from tithes.\nOur mishnah contains several issues related to this general rule.",
+                    "<b>Children who have hidden figs [in the field] for Shabbat and they forgot to tithe them,   they must not be eaten after Shabbat until they have been tithed.</b>  The children hid the figs with the intention of eating them on Shabbat. The mishnah teaches that the figs that they set aside in order to eat on Shabbat have now become liable for tithes and cannot be eaten, even after Shabbat, without first being tithed. The important principle here is that intending to eat something on Shabbat makes it liable for tithes even if the person who had the intention was only a child. [I find this mishnah kind of cute, kids hiding figs to eat on Shabbat reminds me of hiding candy from the kids so that they won’t eat it on Shabbat].",
+                    "<b>In the case of a basket of fruits for Shabbat: Bet Shammai exempt it from tithes; But Bet Hillel makes it liable.</b>  This basket was set aside so that the fruit would be eaten on Shabbat. Bet Shammai holds that setting the basket aside in order for it to be eaten on Shabbat does not make the fruit liable for tithes. As long as the fruit has not yet been brought into a place that makes it liable for tithes, one can continue to eat from it without tithing. Bet Hillel accords greater power to his intent and makes him liable for tithes as soon as he sets it aside for Shabbat.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: even one who has gathered a basket of fruit to send as a present to his friend, must not eat of them, until they have been tithed.</b>  Rabbi Judah says that gathering fruit together into a basket in order to send it to a friend makes it liable for tithes, even if the basket was not meant for Shabbat. The idea is that making the food into a gift gives it importance, just as Shabbat does. Therefore, he cannot eat until he tithes."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with olives that were put into a vat in order to soften and prepare them for the pressing process.",
+                    "<b>One who took olives from a vat may dip them one at a time in salt, and eat them.</b>  Salting the olives one at a time and eating them without tithing is okay because this individual salting does not make them liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>But if he salted them, and put them in front of him, he is liable [for tithes].</b>  However, if he salts several olives which he took from the vat, then he can’t eat them without tithing. In other words, salting them together makes them liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer said: from a pure vat he is liable but from an impure [vat] he is exempt because can put back the leftovers.</b>  According to Rabbi Eliezer if the vat was pure he cannot eat the olives without tithing them. The reason for this is that these olives have become susceptible to impurities because they came into contact with the olive oil inside the vat. If the purity of the olives in the vat has been preserved then he won’t want to put the olives back because the olives that he touched may have become impure. Since he won’t want to put them back, that which he takes out is be liable for tithes. If, in contrast, the vat was not pure, then he can put the olives back. The olives that he took out are not considered to be gathered together and they can be eaten without tithing."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with a person who wants to drink wine that he drew straight from the winepress.",
+                    "<b>One may drink [wine] out of the winepress, whether [it is mixed] with hot or cold water, and be exempt [from tithes], the words of Rabbi Meir.</b>  In mishnaic times it was customary to mix wine with water before it was drunk. Rabbi Meir rules that mixing wine drawn straight from the winepress with water does not make it liable for tithes, whether it was mixed with hot or cold water.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok says he is liable.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok holds that mixing wine does make it liable for tithes, even in a case where the wine was drawn straight from the winepress.",
+                    "<b>But the sages say: with hot water he is liable [to tithe] but with cold water, he is exempt.</b>  When he mixes the wine with warm water, he won’t pour any left over wine back into the press because that might cause the cool wine in the press to be spoiled. Since he won’t pour any back the sages consider its processing to have been completed and therefore, the wine is liable for tithes. If it was mixed with cold water he might put the left over wine back and hence he can drink it without tithing."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>One who husks barley may husk one at a time and eat [without tithing], but if he husked and put them into his hand, he is liable [to tithe].</b>  Husking barley and eating the ears one at a time is considered “chance” eating and therefore one can do so without tithing. However, as soon as he husks the barley and puts several in his hand at the same time, their processing is considered to be completed and he can’t eat any of them without first tithing.",
+                    "<b>One who rubs [ears of] wheat may blow out [the chaff of the wheat] from hand to hand and eat, but if he blows and puts the grain in his lap he is liable.</b>  Rubbing ears of wheat is a means to remove the chaff from each ear of wheat. If one does so one ear of wheat at a time, he can eat the individual grains without tithing. However, as soon as he starts to accumulate the wheat in his lap, he is liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Coriander which was sown for the sake of the seed, the plant is exempt [from tithes]. If he sowed it for the sake of the plant then both the seed and the plant must be tithed.</b>  The mishnah now begins to discuss various types of plants whose seeds and plant parts are eaten. The part that needs to be tithed is the part that one intends on eating. If coriander (cilantro) was sown in order to eat the seeds then he needs to tithe only the seeds. He can eat the plant parts without tithing because when he sowed the plant, his intention was to throw these parts away. However, if he sows it in order to use the plant parts, then both these parts and the seeds must be tithed before they can be eaten. The assumption seems to be that in all cases one will make use of the coriander seeds because they are the more valuable part. When someone plants coriander in order to use the plant parts, he is really going to use the seeds as well.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer said: as for dill, tithe must be given from the seed and the plant, and the pods.</b>  According to Rabbi Eliezer, one needs to tithe all of the parts of a dill plant, because his intention will be to eat them all.",
+                    "<b>But the sages say: only in the case of cress and eruca are both the seeds and plant tithed.</b>  The sages disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and with the rule at the end of section three. According to the sages one must tithe the seed and the plant parts of only two species of plant: cress and eruca. When it comes to other plants, either the seed or the plant part must be tithed, but not both."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Rabban Gamaliel says: shoots of fenugreek, of mustard, and of white beans are liable [to tithe].<br>Rabbi Eliezer says: as for the caper bush, tithes must be given from the shoots, the berries and the blossoms.<br>Rabbi Akiba says: only the berries are tithed since they [alone] count as fruit.</b><br>In today’s mishnah Rabban Gamaliel, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiba debate which parts of various plants must be tithed. Again, the general principle is that whatever part one is going to preserve in order to eat is the part that is liable for tithes.<br>Section one: According to Rabban Gamaliel one will eat the shoots of these various plants; therefore they are liable for tithes.<br>Section two: Rabbi Eliezer holds that three parts of a caper bush must be tithed, because they all are eaten. Rabbi Akiva says that only the capers must be tithed because they are the most valuable part of the bush, the part that is primarily eaten."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>One who uproots saplings from of his own [property] and plants them [elsewhere] within his own [property] is exempt [from tithes].</b>  The person in our section is uprooting saplings in order to plant them in another place on his own property. The mishnah teaches that even if there are fruits on these plants and even if he gathers the plants temporarily in to his courtyard [the place where produce generally becomes liable for tithes], they are still exempt from tithes because his intent was not to harvest the fruit but rather to replant the saplings.",
+                    "<b>If he bought [saplings] attached to the ground, he is exempt.</b>  We have previously learned that when one buys produce, one cannot eat it until it is tithed. Being involved in a financial transaction causes produce to become liable for tithes. However, this is only true when produce is bought. If saplings are bought when they are still attached to the ground, their produce is not liable for tithes. If they had been bought detached from the ground, then one can not eat the produce until it is tithed.",
+                    "<b>If he gathered them in order to send them to his fellow, he is exempt.</b>  In mishnah 4:2 Rabbi Judah held that if one gathers fruit to send to his friend, the fruit must be tithed before it can be eaten. In our mishnah, we learn that this is only when he gathered produce to send to his friend. When he gathers the saplings and sends them to his friend he is still exempt.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said: if similar ones were being sold in the market, behold they are liable [for tithes].</b>  Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that if the fruit that is hanging on these saplings is similar to fruit being sold in the market, meaning this fruit has ripened enough so that it could be sold in the market, then one cannot eat from it until it has been tithed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>One who uproots turnips and radishes from within his own [property] and plants [them elsewhere] within his own [property] for the purpose of seed, he is liable to tithe, since this is [equivalent to] their threshing floor.</b>  In this case the person must tithe the turnips and radishes before he replants them because as soon as he uprooted them their processing has been completed. The seeds that will subsequently come from the turnips and radishes will be exempt from tithes (we will learn this in mishnah eight). Therefore, before they are replanted they must first be tithed at this early stage.",
+                    "<b>If onions take root in an upper story they become clean from any impurity.</b>  Onions that took root in debris/dirt found in an upper story of a building are treated as if they had been planted in the ground. What this means is that if they had previously been made ritually impure, they now revert to a state of purity, as do all plants when they are planted into the ground. The Tosefta notes that these onions are not liable for tithes because only plants that grow in the field are liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>If some debris fell upon them and they are uncovered, they are regarded as though they were planted in the field.</b>  Albeck explains that this section is not a continuation of the previous section. If the onions were in the field and some debris fell on them and their leaves were exposed, they are treated as if they were planted in the field and they, unlike the onions referred to in section two, are liable for tithes."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first three mishnayot of chapter one taught that fruit is not liable for tithes until it has reached a certain stage of ripening. Our mishnah teaches that after it has reached that stage one may no longer sell it to a person who is suspected of not tithing.",
+                    "<b>One may not sell produce after the season for tithing has arrived to one who is not trusted concerning tithes.</b>  Once produce has ripened enough such that it is liable for tithes, one shouldn’t sell it to an “am haaretz” who is not trusted to tithe the food before he eats it, or gives it to others.",
+                    "<b>Nor in the sabbatical year [may one sell sabbatical year produce] to one suspected of [transgressing] the sabbatical year.</b>  Similarly, while it is permissible to sell produce that grows during the sabbatical year, one shouldn’t sell it to a person who is not trusted to observe the laws of the sabbatical year that apply to that fruit. The most important of these laws is that once that particular fruit can no longer be found in the field, the fruit must also be removed from one’s storehouses. The seller must be concerned lest the person to whom he sells the produce will hold it in his home beyond this date.",
+                    "<b>If only [some] produce ripened, he takes the ripe ones and may sell the remainder.</b>  If some of the fruit has ripened and become liable for tithes, but some of it is still unripe, he can take for himself the ripe fruit and he can sell the unripe fruit to anyone, even one who is not trusted to tithe. The ripe fruit can only be sold to someone who is trusted to tithe."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah continues to deal with selling produce to a person not trusted to tithe.",
+                    "<b>One may not sell his straw, nor his olive peat, or his grape pulp to one who is not to be trusted in [with respect to] tithes, for him to extract the juice from them.</b>  Although straw, olive peat and grape pulp are not truly edible and therefore are not liable for tithes, one shouldn’t sell them to someone who is not trusted to tithe, if the purchaser is intending to squeeze the juice out of the olive peat or grape pulp, or to search for the left-over grains within the straw. These products would be liable for tithes, and since he doesn’t tithe, one cannot sell to him.",
+                    "<b>If he did extract the juice he is liable for tithes, but is exempt from terumah, because when one separates terumah he has in mind the fragments which [is] by the sides, and that which is inside the straw.</b>  If, nevertheless, he did sell these to someone else, the purchaser must take out the tithes. However, he need not take out terumah because when the original seller takes out terumah for the main-product he will intend to separate terumah on behalf of these by-products as well. For instance, one who takes out terumah from grain, intends to exempt the grain that is found in the broken stalks that weren’t threshed properly, as well as the grains that are left among the straw. Since the original owner separates tithes for this grain, the purchaser need not do so. The same is true for olives and grapes. However, the purchaser still needs to separate tithes because the original owner separates tithes based on measurements, and these by-products are not part of that measure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn rabbinic language “Syria” refers to the land that borders Israel to the north and east but is not considered fully part of Israel.  The rules of tithing and terumah do apply to produce grown by a Jew in Syria but one who purchases produce in Syria can assume that it grew on gentile land and is therefore exempt from the laws of tithing and terumah.  Our mishnah deals with a person who is buying land in Syria from a Gentile, and the land has produce growing on it that is in various stages of growth.",
+                    "<b>One who buys a field of vegetables in Syria: If before the season for tithing arrived, then he is liable to tithe. If after the season for tithing he is exempt, and he may go on gathering in his usual manner.   Rabbi Judah says: he may even hire workers and gather.</b>  If he buys a field from a Gentile before the season for tithing the vegetables in the field has arrived, then he is liable to tithe because the vegetables became liable for tithes under his (Jewish) ownership. However, if he buys the field after the season for tithing has already arrived, he need not tithe the vegetables. Furthermore, even if the vegetables continue to grow after this time, he may still collect them and eat without tithing. In contrast, in the land of Israel when one buys a field from a non-Jew he always must tithe the produce, no matter when he buys it.",
+                    "<b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: When does this apply? If he has bought the land. But if, he has not bought the land, even before the season for tithing arrived he is exempt.</b>  Rabbi Judah adds that he may even hire workers to help him collect the added growth from the produce, even though this will cause more people to know that he is not tithing this field.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] says: he must also tithe according to calculation.</b>  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that he is liable to tithe the produce in this field only if he bought the land. If he didn’t buy the land, but was only renting the land, then the produce is always exempt from tithes.",
+                    "Rabbi holds that when he is exempt from tithing, he is still liable to tithe on the percentage of growth that the vegetable experienced after he bought it. Thus if he buys the field after the season for tithing has arrived, he is exempt from tithing on the growth that occurred before this season, but he is liable to tithe for the percentage of growth that took place after he bought the field."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\n“Temed” is a drink made from the grape-skins that have already been pressed to make wine. They would pour water over the grape-skins and they would give some taste to the water. Our mishnah deals with giving tithe from “temed.” These grape-skins would not have been tithed for because the tithe was taken from the wine, after the grape-skins had already been cast aside.",
+                    "<b>One who makes grape-skin wine, and he put water on by measure, and he finds [afterwards] the same quantity, he is exempt from tithe.</b>  If after he pours the water onto the grape-skins and then filters them out he finds that the volume of the temed is the same as the volume of the water he added, then the grape-skins have added color and taste but no volume. Therefore, according to the first opinion he is exempt from tithing the temed.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah makes him liable.</b>  Rabbi Judah holds that the added taste does make him liable to give tithes from the temed.",
+                    "<b>If he found more than the measure, he must give [tithe] for it from another place, in proportion.</b>  If he finds that the grape-pulp did lead to increased volume, then he must give tithes. The mishnah recommends that he give tithes from other untithed produce. When he does so, he gives it according to the proportion of the increase that the grape-pulp caused in the water. For instance, if he found a one liter increase, he must separate tithes for one liter of grapes. He would end up giving 100 ml of tithe from other wine. However, if he gives from the temed itself, he must separate for all of the temed in order to tithe for all of the wine in the temed. Thus if there was 10 liters of water which increased to 11 liters, he would have to give 1.1 liters of the temed as tithe, in order to account for 10 per cent of the wine in the temed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with grain found in anthills, and whether or not such grain must be tithed.",
+                    "<b>Anthills which have remained the whole night near a pile of grain which was liable to tithe,   [the grain found in them] is liable, since it is obvious that they [the ants] have been dragging away the whole night from something [of which the work] had been completed.</b> When grain is found in these anthills next to a pile of grain, and they had been that way all night, we can assume that the grain comes from the adjacent pile and that it must be tithed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Garlic from Balbeck, onions from Rikpa, Cicilician beans and Egyptians lentils, and Rabbi Meir says qirqas, and Rabbi Yose says qotnym are exempt from tithes and may be brought from any man in the seventh year.</b>  The produce mentioned in this section can be assumed to come from outside of the land of Israel. Such produce is exempt from tithes. It also may be bought from anyone during the seventh year, even from a person who is generally suspected of selling seventh year produce (see Sheviit 9:1). The identity of the plants mentioned by Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose is unknown.",
+                    "<b>The seeds of upper arum pods, the seeds of leeks, the seeds of onions, the seeds of turnips and radishes, and other seeds of garden produce which are not eaten, are exempt from tithes, and may be bought from any man in the seventh year; and even though the plants from they grew were terumah, they may still be eaten [by non-priests].</b>  The seeds mentioned here are not eaten and therefore one need not separate tithes from them. Also, one can buy them from a person who is suspected of selling seventh year produce because the sanctity with which one must treat seventh year produce does not apply to these seeds, since they are not generally eaten. The mishnah notes that this is true even if these seeds grew from terumah plants. Although the “father” of the seeds is terumah, the seeds themselves are not even subject to tithes. This would be all the more true if the parent plants were not grown from terumah seeds. Congratulations!  We have finished Maasrot! 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. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Maaser Sheni."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מעשרות",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Maasrot",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Maasrot",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Maasrot/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,295 @@
+{
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Maasrot",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Maasrot",
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "First tithe, the first tenth of one’s produce, are given to the Levites. The only verses in the Torah which deal with this tithe is Numbers 18:21-24:",
+            "21 And to the Levites I hereby give all the tithes in Israel as their share in return for the services that they perform, the services of the Tent of Meeting.  22 Henceforth, Israelites shall not trespass on the Tent of Meeting, and thus incur guilt and die: 23 Only Levites shall perform the services of the Tent of Meeting; others would incur guilt. It is the law for all time throughout the ages. But they shall have no territorial share among the Israelites; 24 For it is the tithes set aside by the Israelites as a gift to the LORD that I give to the Levites as their share. Therefore I have said concerning them: They shall have no territorial share among the Israelites.",
+            "The topic that is discussed throughout most of the tractate is when does produce become liable for tithes? To put this question another way—up until what point can one eat produce without tithing it? There are several potential occurrences that make produce liable for tithing, such as making it into a pile, taking it into one’s courtyard or house or cooking it. Before any of these actions happen, one can eat produce in a non-fixed meal, as a snack, but not as part of a more formal meal. For instance, if one is in the field, one can pick grapes directly off of the vine without tithing them. However, once one brings them into one’s house in order to drink the wine with a meal, he cannot drink it until it has been tithed. ",
+            "The word “maasrot” literally means “tithes,” but it often refers to terumah as well as tithes. The reason is that tithes and terumah would have been typically separated from produce at the same time. So many of these mishnayot deal both with terumah and tithes.",
+            "The mishnayot throughout the tractate assume that tithes are given to the Levite. However, there is ample evidence that in the Second Temple period, tithes were frequently given to priests, either along with Levites, or instead of Levites. Since this issue is not really relevant to our tractate, I am not going to delve further into it. ",
+            "We should also note that unlike terumah, which is strictly prohibited to non-priests, anybody can eat tithes. They are not called “holy” by the Torah. Therefore, there is no discussion about tithes that get mixed up with hullin, a discussion which took up a large portion of Terumot. "
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah teaches two general principles with regard to what foods cannot be eaten before they are tithed.",
+                    "<b>They said a general principle concerning tithes: whatever is food, and is looked after, and grows from the land, is liable for tithes.</b>  This is the same principle we saw with regard to peah in Peah 1:4. Only plants that are food for humans, and are worthy of storing (looking after) and grow from the land (according to the rabbis this excludes mushrooms) are liable for tithes. Foods that don’t fit all three of these categories need not be tithed before they are eaten.",
+                    "<b>And they have further stated another general principle [concerning tithes]: whatever is considered food both at the beginning and at the conclusion [of its growth] even though he holds on to it in order to increase the quantity of food, is liable [to tithe] whether [it is harvested] in its earlier or later stages.</b>  If there is a plant that is generally eaten in its early stage of ripening and in a later stage, it must be tithed no matter when it was harvested. Even though he might generally leave it in the ground in order to give it time to grow bigger, since it is also eaten at the earlier stage, it must be tithed when it is picked earlier. We shall see examples of this below in mishnah four.",
+                    "<b>But whatever is not considered food in the earlier stages [of its growth] but only in its later stages, is not liable [to tithe] until it can be considered food.</b>  However, if the produce is not considered edible at its earlier stage of growth, if it is nevertheless harvested at this earlier stage, it can be eaten without being tithed. An example might be a banana. A banana harvested at an earlier stage is not considered food and therefore one who does eat such a banana need not tithe it. It would only need to be tithed if harvested when ripe."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>When do fruits become liable for tithes?<br>Figs from the time they begin to ripe.<br>Grapes and wild grapes in the early stages of ripening.<br>Sumac and mulberries after they become red; [similarly] all red fruits, after they become red.<br>Pomegranates, when the insides become soft.<br>Dates when they begin to swell.<br>Peaches when [red] veins begin to show.<br>Walnuts when the nuts are separate from the shell.<br>Rabbi Judah says: walnuts and almonds, after their inner skins have been formed.</b><br>This mishnah lists various fruits of the tree and teaches when each of them becomes liable for tithes. The general principle seems to be that they are liable at the earliest point at which they are edible.<br>Since the words are self-explanatory I do not offer any explanation below."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Carobs [are liable to] tithes after they form dark spots; similarly all black fruits after they form dark spots.<br>Pears and crustumenian pears, quinces, and medlars [are liable to tithes] after their surface begins to grow smooth; similarly all white fruits, after their surface begins to grow smooth.<br>Fenugreek [is liable to tithe] when the seeds [can be planted and] will grow.<br>Grain and olives after they are one-third ripe.</b><br>This mishnah continues to teach when various types of produce become liable for tithes. Again, since it is self-explanatory, there are no comments below."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah begins to discuss when vegetables and other fruits that are eaten in early stages of ripening begin to become liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>With regard to when vegetables [are liable to tithes]:<br>Cucumbers, gourds, water-melons, cucumber-melons, apples and etrogs are liable [for tithes], whether gathered in the earlier or later stages of ripening.</b>  All of these vegetables/fruits are eaten at both an early stage in their ripening and a later stage. Hence, even if they are harvested at their earlier stage, they are still liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon exempts the etrog in the earlier stages.</b>  Rabbi Shimon holds that etrogs are only eaten at their later stage of ripening and therefore if they are picked at an earlier stage, they are exempt from tithes.",
+                    "<b>The condition in which bitter almonds are liable [to tithes] is exempt in the case of sweet almonds, and the condition in which sweet almonds are liable [to tithe] is exempt in the case of bitter almonds.</b>  Bitter almonds are eaten in the early stage of their ripening and sweet almonds are eaten in the later stage of their ripening. Therefore, the opposite rules apply to them. If bitter almonds are harvested at the later stage, they are exempt, because this is not when they are typically eaten, and if sweet almonds are harvested in their early stage, they are exempt because that is not when they are typically eaten."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>What is considered a “threshing floor” for tithes [i.e. when does produce become liable for tithes]?<br>Cucumbers and gourds [are liable for tithes] once he removes their fuzz. And if he doesn’t remove it, once he makes a pile.<br>Melons once he removes the fuzz with hot water. And if they he does not remove the fuzz, once he stores them in the muktzeh.<br>Vegetables which are tied in bundles, from the time he ties them up in bundles. If he does not tie them up in bundles, until he fills the vessel with them. And if he does not fill the vessel, after he has gathered all that he wishes to gather.<br>[Produce which is packed in] a basket [is liable for tithes] after he has covered it. If he is not going to cover it, until he fills the vessel with them. And if he does not fill the vessel, after he has gathered all that he wishes to gather.<br>When does this apply? When one brings [the produce] to the market. But when he brings it to his own house, he may make a chance meal of it, until he reaches his house.</b><br>This mishnah begins dealing with the issue of when produce become liable for tithes (see introduction). The mishnah calls this a “threshing floor” because at the threshing floor grain becomes liable for tithes. By extension, all produce is liable for tithes once its processing has been completed. After this point it is prohibited to eat even a chance meal from this produce without tithing it. Before this point one can eat a “chance meal” without tithing, but not a “fixed meal,” one which is more formal.<br>Sections one and two:  The processing of cucumbers, gourds and melons is completed once the owner removes the “fuzz”, some very fine hair, that is on them. After that point, they are liable for tithes. If he doesn’t intend to remove the fuzz, then the processing is complete once he has made them into a pile, or once he has stored them in the “muktzeh” a storage area behind the house.<br>Sections three and four: Vegetables which are usually tied up in bundles in order to be brought to market, are liable for tithes as soon as they are tied up in bundles. Similarly, produce which is usually stored in baskets is liable to be tithed once it is put in a basket. In both cases, these are the final stages in their preparation. If he doesn’t intend to do this stage, either tying up in bundles or covering them in a basket, then they are liable for tithes once he has filled up a vessel with them, a vessel which he will use to bring the vegetables to the market. Finally, if he isn’t going to even put them in a vessel at all, then they are liable for tithes as soon as he has gathered a sufficient amount that it is worth it for him to bring the produce to the market. Note that if the last normal stage is not going to happen, then the previous stage becomes the completing stage.<br>Section five: The rules in the above sections apply only when he is going to take the produce to the market. In such a situation, this processing is relevant. However, if he is intending to take the produce home, then the produce is not liable for tithes until he brings it into his house. He may make a “chance meal” from the produce until he brings it home."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Dried pomegranate seeds, raisins and carobs, [are liable for tithes] after he has made a pile.</b>  These dried fruits are liable for tithes once he has made them into a pile in order to bring them to market. [As an aside, I am eating a delicious pomegranate, fresh not dried, while I write this yummy and healthy! It doesn’t get any better than this.]",
+                    "<b>Onions, once he removes the onion seeds. If he does not remove the onion seeds, after he makes a pile.</b>  Albeck explains that the mishnah refers to removing the “mothers of the onion,” the parts of the onion used to grow new onions. Other interpreters make a slight modification in the spelling of the Hebrew, and interpret the mishnah to read “once he has peeled” the onion, which would refer to the very outer skin. The default point for onions and for other types of produce is “when he has made a pile” which is the first point when it comes to the dried fruits in the previous section.",
+                    "<b>Grain, once he smoothes out the pile. If he does not smooth the pile, after he makes a pile.</b>  Grain is liable for tithes once he smoothes out the pile, but if he doesn’t smooth out the pile, then it is liable from the time he makes a pile.",
+                    "<b>Pulse, after he has sifted it. If he does not sift, after he smoothes out a pile.</b>  Pulse, or legumes, is liable for tithes once it has been sifted in order to remove the “shmutz,” the dirt and pebbles. But if he does not intend to remove the shmutz, then pulse too is liable for tithes once he has smoothed out a pile.",
+                    "<b>Even after he has smoothed out the pile, he may [without tithing] take from the broken ears, from the sides of the piles, and from that which is mixed in with the chaff, and eat.</b>  This section refers to the grain mentioned in section three. Although grain is liable for tithes once he has smoothed out a pile, he may nevertheless continue to “nibble” from certain parts of the grain, such as ears of grain that have not been successfully threshed, without tithing them. He can also eat ears of grain that are on the sides of the pile and not in the pile itself, and he can eat ears of grain that are still mixed in with straw. In other words, he can’t eat from the ears of grain that have been successfully processed and placed in the pile, but he can continue to eat, without tithing, from ears of grain that were not successfully processed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with when wine and oil become liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Wine [is liable for tithes] after it has been skimmed [in the lower part of the winepress]. Even though it has been skimmed, he may take from the upper winepress, or from the duct, and drink [without taking out tithe].</b>  The wine that is found in the lower part of the winepress must be tithed once the stuff (skins and seeds) has been skimmed off the top. However, even after the wine in the lower part of the winepress has been skimmed, he can still drink from the wine remaining in the upper parts of the winepress because its processing has not yet been completed.",
+                    "<b>Oil [is liable for tithes] after it has gone down into the trough. But even after it has gone down into the trough he may still take oil from the pressing bale, or from the press beam, or from the boards between the press [without tithing,]</b>  Oil is liable for tithes once it has drained down into the trough, the lowest part of the olive press.",
+                    "<b>And he may put such oil on a cake, or large plate.</b>  Similar to the case of wine, although some of the oil has drained off into the trough, he may still take oil from other parts of the olive press and use it without tithing.",
+                    "<b>But he should not put the oil in a dish or stewpot, while they are boiling.</b>  There are certain rules as to how he can use oil that didn’t need to be tithed. He can use this oil to put on cakes and he can put it directly on a plate and eat it without tithing it.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: he may put it into anything except that which contains vinegar or brine.</b>  However, he cannot put it into a boiling dish because anything cooked cannot be eaten without being first tithed. Cooking, which by definition is a more formal way of eating, makes things liable for tithes, and therefore he can’t put the oil into a boiling dish. It seems like the mishnah would allow him to put the oil into a dish that has already been cooked because in such a case the oil itself is not being cooked, rather it is just being consumed with cooked food.",
+                    "Rabbi Judah holds that regular cooking, at least of oil, does not make the oil liable with tithes, and therefore he can put the oil into a boiling dish. The only thing he cannot put the oil in is a boiling dish that includes vinegar or brine, because by their sharpness these will hurry the cooking process."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of our chapter deals with figs.",
+                    "<b>A cake of pressed figs [is liable for tithes] from the moment it has been smoothed out [with fruit juice].</b>  The final step in processing a cake of pressed figs was to smooth it out using fruit juice. Once this step has occurred, one cannot eat the figs without tithing them.",
+                    "<b>They may smooth them out with [the juice of] untithed figs or grapes. Rabbi Judah forbids this.</b>  As an aside, the mishnah now discusses several halakhot connected to the smoothing out of fig cakes. First of all, there is the issue of whether the fruit juice itself must come from tithed produce. According to the first opinion, it need not because the juice that comes out from the grapes or figs is not treated like the grapes or figs itself.  Since the untithed figs or grapes do not directly come into contact with the fig cake, using juice from them before they are tithed is not a problem. Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that that the juice that flows from the grapes or figs is treated like the grapes or figs themselves and therefore it must be tithed.",
+                    "<b>If one smoothed with grapes, it is not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Judah says it is susceptible.</b>  A correlated dispute is with regard to whether juice from grapes or figs causes other produce to be susceptible to uncleanness. According to the first opinion, there are only seven liquids that cause other produce to be susceptible to uncleanness (dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk, and bee honey) and juice is not among them (see Terumot 11:2). Rabbi Judah adds fruit juice to this list.",
+                    "<b>Dried figs [are liable to tithe] after they have been pressed [into a jar]. And [figs] stored in a bin [are liable to tithe] after they have been pressed.</b>  Dried figs are liable once they have been pressed into a jar and if they are going to be pressed into a storage bin, then once they have been pressed there into the bin.",
+                    "<b>If one was pressing [the figs] into a jar, or pressing them in a storage bin, and the jar was broken or the storage bin opened, he may not make a chance meal of them. Rabbi Yose permits this.</b>  The issue at stake here is whether something that has already become liable for tithes can go back to a state where one can eat from it without tithing. Once the figs were pressed into the jar or storage bin they became liable for tithes. When the jar or bin breaks, he is going to have to put them in another jar or bin they are now in a state of uncompleted processing. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, once they have become liable for tithes, one cannot go back to eating them without tithing them, no matter what happens. Rabbi Yose holds that they do revert to their previous status because at this point, their processing is no longer completed."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with someone who gets produce from someone else while walking on the street. There are two questions here: 1) can he eat them without tithing? 2) What if they were already tithed?",
+                    "<b>If one was passing through the street, and said “Take for yourself from my figs,” one may eat them and be exempt from tithes. Therefore if they brought them into their houses, they must separate [tithes and terumah] as if they were certainly untithed.</b>  The mishnah deals with a person who is bringing figs into his home and offers some to someone else. One can assume that they have not been tithed because usually produce that one is not bringing to market is not tithed until one brings it home. Had the figs already been tithed, he would have told the person he was giving them to that he could eat them at home. The receiver can eat the figs without tithing them before he brings them home, but once he brings them into his house he must tithe them before he can eat them. The tithes that he separates have to be considered “certain tithes” because we can be quite certain that they were not yet tithed.",
+                    "<b>[If he said], “Take and bring it into your houses,” they may not make a chance meal of them. Therefore if they brought them into their houses, they need tithe them only as demai.</b>  In this case, the person told him that he can eat the figs in their own home. This is taken as a hint at two possible things. First of all, he may be saying that the figs have already been in his home, which would make them liable for tithes, but they have not yet been tithed. Therefore, it is forbidden to make a chance meal of them before he tithes them. The other possibility is that he is telling him that he can eat them even in his own home because they have already been tithed. Therefore, when he brings them into his home he must tithe them as if they are “demai” doubtfully tithed produce. In sum, the mishnah is concerned for two opposite problems while in the street he can’t eat them lest they already were brought into the original person’s house and they were not tithed; once he brings them home, he must be concerned lest they already were tithed and therefore, the tithes that he takes out have the status of demai and not certain tithes."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah continues to deal with people who receive figs from passersby (I’d like to receive figs from passersby, but I guess people aren’t as nice as they used to be) and with the question of whether they can eat the figs before they tithe them.",
+                    "<b>If they were sitting at the gate or a shop, and one said [to them], “Take for yourselves figs,” they may eat and be exempt from tithes, but the owner of the gate, or the owner of the shop, is liable [to give tithe].</b>  Except for the owners, the people sitting at the gate or inside the shop can eat the figs without tithing them because the gate and the shop don’t belong to them. When we learned that once food is brought into one’s home it cannot be eaten before it is tithed, that meant one’s own home. Since these people didn’t own the gate or the shop, the figs are not liable for tithes for them. However, the owners of the gate and the shop have had the tithes brought into their homes (or at least a building owned by them), and therefore they can’t eat until they tithe.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah exempts him unless he turns his face or changes the place where he was sitting [and selling].</b>  Rabbi Judah holds that a gate and a shop do not make food liable for tithes because it wasn’t considered decent to eat in such places. People would be embarrassed to eat there because people generally didn’t eat in public places. So if he nevertheless eats in one of those places, he need not tithe before he eats. However, if he turns around so that they don’t see him eating, or he moves to another place within the gate or shop where he won’t be embarrassed to eat, then he must tithe before he eats the figs."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned that bring one’s produce into another person’s home doesn’t make the produce liable for tithes.  Only bringing it into one’s own home makes it liable for tithes.\nIn today’s mishnah we learn about people traveling on the road and staying at other people’s homes and when their food becomes liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>One who brings produce from the Galilee to Judea, or if he goes up to Jerusalem, he may eat of them until he arrives at the place to which he intends to go, and the same is true when he returns.</b>  When one is traveling on the road for business, or making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and he enters an inn to spend the night while on the way, he can continue to eat the harvested produce without tithing it until he gets to the place, meaning the home that he intended to go to. This is true even if that house is not actually his home. However, bringing the produce into someone else’s home while still on the way does not make it liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Meir says: [he may eat] until he reaches the place where he intends to rest [on Shabbat].</b>  Rabbi Meir says that once he gets to the place where he wants to spend Shabbat he can no longer eat his produce without tithing it, even if he gets to that place at some earlier time during the week. The beginning of Shabbat always means that produce must be tithed before it is eaten, but Rabbi Meir adds that just merely being at the place where one will spend Shabbat already makes the produce liable for tithes even if it is not yet Shabbat.",
+                    "<b>But peddlers who travel from town to town may eat until they reach the place where they intend to stay over night.</b>  Peddlers are constantly on the move, going from one place to another, and they don’t really have one place to which they are going. Therefore, the arrival at any place where they intend to spend the night makes their produce liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: the first house [he reaches] is his house.</b>  Rabbi Judah is even stricter and rules that even if he doesn’t intend to spend the night in a certain place, just entering any house makes his produce liable for tithes. A peddler’s home is whatever place he ends up in, and not just one that he plans on going to beforehand."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with a person who separated terumah from his produce before he finished its processing and before he separated the tithes.",
+                    "<b>Produce from which he separated terumah before its work was finished: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is forbidden to make a chance meal of it, But the sages permit it except when it is a basket of figs.</b>  According to Rabbi Eliezer, once one has separated terumah from produce it can no longer be eaten in a chance fashion until tithes have also been separated. To put it another way, taking out terumah makes the produce liable for tithes. The rabbis generally disagree and hold that separating terumah does not make produce liable for tithes. One can continue to eat chance meals from the produce.  The one exception is a basket of figs. Albeck tentatively explains that it was common to give figs to several people (as we saw above in mishnayot 1-2) and if he took out terumah then he has shown that his intention is to give away the figs while they are in the basket and therefore this is considered the final step in their processing. Furthermore, once he has separated the terumah he won’t put more hullin figs into the basket and therefore, their processing is complete. Therefore, he can no longer eat in a “chance” fashion from these figs.",
+                    "<b>A basket of figs from which one separated terumah: Rabbi Shimon permits it. But the sages forbid it.</b>  Rabbi Shimon does not distinguish between figs and other types of produce even though he separated terumah from the basket, it is still not liable for tithes and he can continue to eat in a chance fashion."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn our mishnah we learn that produce that has been sold and bought cannot be eaten, even in a chance fashion, until it has been tithed.",
+                    "<b>One who says to his friend: “Here is this issar, give me five figs for it”, he may not eat of [them] until he has tithed them, the words of Rabbi Meir.</b>  According to Rabbi Meir, once the figs have been bought, they must be tithed before he can eat from them.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: if he ate them one by one, he is exempt, but if he gathered them [to eat them] together, he is liable [to tithe.]</b>  According to Rabbi Judah, if the seller gives the buyer one fig at a time, he can eat them without tithing them. However, if the seller gathers several together and sells them to him at one time, then he can’t eat them at all until he has tithed them. According to Rabbi Judah, this is the type of sale that makes produce liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah said: it happened in a rose-garden in Jerusalem that there were figs being sold three or four for an issar, and neither terumah nor tithe was ever given from it.</b>  Rabbi Judah relates a story about a rose-garden in Jerusalem in which figs grew and people bought them at the price of three or four for an issar (a coin worth 1/24 of a dinar) and they never had to tithe them, because they ate them one at a time. Evidently, these rose-garden figs were quite delicious. I’ll keep my eye out for them here in the Holy City!"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches ways in which a person can buy produce and yet continue to eat it without tithing.",
+                    "<b>One who says to his friend: “Here is an issar for ten figs which I choose for myself,” he may choose them and eat [one at a time without tithing]. [If he said] “For a cluster of grapes which I choose for myself,” he may pick grapes from the cluster and eat. [If he said], “For a pomegranate which I choose for myself,” he may take apart [the pomegranate] and eat [it one piece at a time]. [If he said] “For a watermelon, which I choose for myself,” he may slice and eat [it one piece at a time].</b>  In all of the cases in this mishnah, the person gives the person money on condition that he chooses which particular piece of fruit he is buying. The fruit is still attached to the ground. The purchase is only completed once he picks the fruit. Therefore, he can eat them without tithing, but only one at a time, as was Rabbi Judah’s opinion in yesterday’s mishnah. The same is true for the grapes, pomegranate and watermelon mentioned in the remainder of this section. Since he doesn’t determine which piece of fruit he is buying until he picks it, this is considered a case of buying produce that is already detached from the ground.",
+                    "<b>But if he said “For these twenty figs,” or “For these two clusters,” or “For these two water-melons,” he may eat them in his usual way and be exempt [from tithe], because he bought them while they were still attached to the ground.</b>  In this case he specifies which of the fruit he wants to eat. In this way, he succeeds in acquiring the fruit while it is still attached to the ground. Buying fruit while it is still attached to the ground does not make it liable for tithes, and therefore, he can eat from it in a chance fashion before it is tithed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAccording to the rabbinic interpretation of Deuteronomy 23:25-26, the Torah allows a worker in a field to eat from the owner’s produce while he is working in the field (see also Bava Metzia 7:2). The produce that he eats is not considered a wage and hence it can be eaten without having been tithed. Our mishnah deals with several ramifications of this law.",
+                    "<b>One who has hired a worker to help him harvest figs, and he [the worker] said to him “On condition that I may eat the figs,” he may eat them and he is exempt [from tithing].</b>  As I explained in the introduction, the worker is allowed to eat while harvesting the grapes, even if he doesn’t stipulate that he may do so. Therefore, the fact that he says, “On condition that I may eat the figs” does not make the figs part of the contract and thereby like wages; rather he is allowed to eat the figs because of the Torah’s laws. Since the figs are not considered part of his wages, he may eat them without tithing.",
+                    "<b>[If he said,] “On condition that I and my son may eat,” or “that my son may eat of them in lieu of my receiving a wage,” he may eat and he is exempt [from tithing], but his son may eat but he is liable [for tithes].</b>  The Torah does not mandate that a worker’s son can eat of the produce while his father is working in the field. Therefore, if the worker makes this stipulation the figs that his son eats are considered wages and must be tithed before the son eats them.",
+                    "<b>[If he said,] “On condition that I may eat of them during the time of the fig harvest, and after the fig harvest,” during the time of the fig harvest he may eat and he is exempt [from tithing], but if he eats after the fig harvest he is liable, since he does not eat of them in the manner mandated by the Torah.</b>  The Torah mandates that he is allowed to eat while he is harvesting but not after the harvest has been completed. Thus, while still harvesting he can eat the figs without tithing them. However, if he eats figs after the harvest has been completed, these are considered to be wages and he must tithe them before he eats.",
+                    "<b>This is the general rule: one who eats in a manner mandated by the Torah is exempt [from tithes], and one who does not eat in the manner mandated by the Torah is liable.</b>  The general rule here is the basis of all the previous section. It is interesting to note that what the Torah mandates that the employer give his employee is not considered a wage, but a right."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to deal with when a worker working in field must tithe his produce. Some of the concepts of this mishnah were already taught in Bava Metzia 7:4.",
+                    "<b>If a man is working [as a hired worker] among cooking figs, he may not eat of white figs, and if among white figs, he may not eat of cooking figs, but he may restrain himself until he reaches the place where there are the better figs, and then he may eat.</b>  While working in the field, a worker may only eat from the type of produce that he is working with. Thus, if he is working with one type of figs, he cannot eat from another type. However, he can wait until he begins to work with the better type of figs and then he may eat from them.",
+                    "<b>If a man exchanges with his friend either [figs] for eating for [figs] for eating, or [figs] to be dried for figs [to be dried], of figs [for eating] for figs [to be dried], then he is liable to give tithes.</b>  According to the opinion in this section, when one exchanges any type of figs, figs that are going to be eaten fresh (what the mishnah calls “for eating) or figs that are going to dried, the exchange is treated like a purchase and neither party can eat of the figs before they are tithed.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: one who exchanges [figs] for [other figs for eating] is liable, but [if for figs] for drying he is exempt.</b>  Rabbi Judah says that if he exchanges his figs for other figs that are going to be dried out, then he can eat the figs he gets without first tithing them, because their work has not yet been completed. Rabbi Judah holds that purchasing makes produce liable for tithes only if its work has been completed. If he exchanges the figs for figs that he intends to eat fresh, then their work has been completed, and he cannot eat of them until they are tithed."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues to deal with when workers can eat their employer’s produce without first tithing it.",
+                    "<b>One who was taking figs through his courtyard to be dried, his children and the other members of his household  may eat [of them] and they are exempt [from tithes].</b>  Once the processing of fruit has been completed and one brings the produce into one’s courtyard, one can no longer eat the produce without first tithing it. In the case in this section, the processing of the figs was not yet complete because he was on his way to dry them. Therefore, he and the rest of the members of his family can continue to eat the figs before they are dried without having to first tithe them.",
+                    "<b>The workers [who work] with him may eat and be exempt so long as he is not obliged to provide for them. If however, he is obligated to provide for them they may not eat.</b>  The workers here are those who work for the owner of the figs, but don’t work with the figs. The Torah does not mandate that they be allowed to eat the figs, because the Torah mandates only that a worker can eat from the type of produce with which he is working, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah. Since these worker’s don’t eat because of the Torah’s mandate, they can eat the figs only if they are receiving them as a gift from the owner, and not as part of their wages. If he has no obligation to feed them, meaning this was not part of their contract, then he has given them the figs as a gift, and they are exempt from tithes. If, however, he was obligated to feed them, then the figs are treated as if they are wages. As we learned in the previous chapter, when produce is involved in a financial transaction it becomes obligated for tithes. Therefore, these workers must tithe before they can eat the figs."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah continues to deal with the issue of when workers may eat of their employer’s produce without tithing.",
+                    "<b>One who brought his workers into the field, when he is not obligated to provide for them, they may eat and be exempt from tithes.</b>  These workers were brought out to the field but not to work with the figs, so again, the Torah does not mandate that they be allowed to eat the figs. If the employer is not obligated to feed them, then the figs that they eat are a present and since they are still out in the field, the workers may eat them without tithing them.",
+                    "<b>If, however, he is obligated to provide for them they may eat of the figs one at a time, but not from the basket, nor from the large basket, nor from the storage yard.</b>  If he is giving the workers figs as part of his obligation to feed them, then they in principle must tithe the figs before eating. However, since these figs have not yet been put into a basket, the workers may eat from them one at a time, because their processing has not yet been completed. Once they have been put into any storage place, be it a type of basket or be it a storage yard, they can no longer be eaten until they have been tithed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAccording to the rabbis’ interpretation of the Torah, a worker may eat from his employer’s produce only if he is working at the end of the processing of the produce. If he is tending to the field, he may not pluck produce that is still attached to the ground and eat it. If the owner allows him to do so, this produce is considered wages, and cannot be eaten without first being tithed.\nOur mishnah deals with a person who is working in a field but not at the time when the produce’s processing is being completed.",
+                    "<b>One who hired a worker to work with olives and he said to him, “On condition that I may eat the olives,” he may eat of them one at a time and be exempt [from tithes]. If, however, he gathered several together he is liable [for tithes].</b>  Since this worker was working with the olives at a time when their processing was not completed, the olives that he does receive are part of his wages and hence cannot be eaten without being tithed. As we saw in yesterday’s mishnah, he can eat one olive at a time, but if he gathers them together, he cannot eat them without first tithing them.",
+                    "<b>[If he had been hired] to weed out onions, and he said to him, “On condition that I may eat the vegetables,” he may pluck leaf by leaf, and eat [without tithing]. If, however, he gathered several together, he is liable [for tithes].</b>  The section teaches basically the same rule with regard to a person hired to work weeding onions. He can pluck the leaves up one at a time and eat them, but he cannot gather them together and eat them without first tithing."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMost of this mishnah deals with fruit that one finds can one eat it without tithing?",
+                    "<b>If one found cut figs on the road, or even beside a field [where cut figs] have been spread [to dry], and similarly, if a fig tree overhangs the road, and he found figs beneath it, they are allowed [with regard to the laws] of robbery, and they are exempt from tithe.</b>  The person who finds these cut figs may keep them, even if it is quite clear from which field they came. Taking them is not considered stealing because it is common for the field owner to make them ownerless, probably because he doesn’t consider it worth his while to pick up the figs that fell by the side of the road. The figs are also exempt from tithes because ownerless produce is always exempt from tithes (see chapter one, mishnah one).",
+                    "<b>But if they were olives and carobs, they are liable.</b>  Olives and carobs are assumed to be of greater value than figs. The owner does not make them ownerless, and therefore, the rules are opposite of those in section one which discussed figs. One who finds olives and carobs near their likely sources may not take them and if he does, he cannot eat them before they are tithed because they are not ownerless.",
+                    "<b>If one found dried figs, then if the majority of people had already trodden [their figs], he must tithe [them], but if not he is exempt.</b>  Figs are liable for tithes once they have been pressed into a jar (see 1:8). The figs that he finds have been dried, but he doesn’t know if they have already been pressed into a jar. In this case the status of the figs is determined by what the majority of people in that area have done. If most people have already pressed their figs, then he must assume that these figs were already pressed and he cannot eat them without first tithing. If most people have not pressed their figs, then he may eat them without tithing.",
+                    "<b>If one found slices of fig-cake he is liable [to tithe] since it is obvious they come from something whose processing had been fully completed.</b>  If he finds pieces of fig cakes, then he can be certain that they were already pressed into a jar and he cannot eat them without tithing.",
+                    "<b>With carobs, if they had not yet been on the top of the roof, he may take some down for his animals and be exempt [from tithe] since he returns that which is left over.</b>  The final step in the processing of carobs, the step that makes them fit for human consumption, is to bring them up to one’s roof to dry them out. Before he has brought them to the roof he can feed them to his cattle without tithing. We don’t say that by feeding them to his cattle he has shown that their processing is complete and therefore he must tithe them. The reason we don’t make such an assumption is that sometimes a person may begin feeding them to his cattle and then bring them back up to his roof to dry them out, so that people could eat them."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nBringing produce into a house causes it to become liable for tithes. Under certain circumstances, bringing the produce into a courtyard can also make it liable for tithes. In our mishnah five (!) tannaim debate what type of courtyard makes produce liable for tithes. The general principle is clear: if the courtyard is protected it makes the food liable for tithes because it is like a house.",
+                    "<b>Which courtyard is it which makes [the produce] liable to tithe?<br>Rabbi Ishmael says: the Tyrian yard for the vessels are protected therein.</b>  Both talmudim explain that a guard sits outside of the Tyrian courtyard and protects it. Since this courtyard is protected, food brought into it is liable for tithes the courtyard is like a house.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Akiva says: any courtyard which one person may open and another may shut is exempt.</b>  If two people share a courtyard, and when one person opens up the courtyard, the other is the one who closes it, then this courtyard is not well protected. Since it is not well-protected, produce that is brought into it is not liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Nehemiah says: any courtyard in which a man is not ashamed to eat is liable.</b>  In mishnaic times it was considered impolite or uncultured to eat in public. If the courtyard into which the produce was brought was closed off enough so that a person would eat in it, then the produce is liable for tithes. But if a person wouldn’t eat there, then the produce is not liable.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: any courtyard into which a person may enter and no one says to him, “what are you looking for” is exempt.</b>  If no one says anything to a stranger who enters into a courtyard, then it is not protected and produced brought into it is not liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: if there are two courtyards one within the other, the inner one makes liable and the outer one is exempt.</b>  In the case of two courtyards, the inner one, the one closer to the house, makes the produce liable to be tithed because it is relatively well-guarded and those from the outer courtyard cannot enter into the inner courtyard. In contrast, the outer courtyard, through which the people who live in the inner courtyard can walk, is less-guarded and food brought into it is not liable for tithes."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with other architectural structures and with whether they, like some courtyards, cause produce to become liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Roofs do not render [produce] liable, even though they belong to a courtyard which renders it liable.</b>  Bringing produce onto a roof does not make it liable for tithes, even if the roof is adjacent to a courtyard that does make the produce liable. While the courtyard does offer protection to the produce, the roof does not and therefore the produce is not liable.",
+                    "<b>A gate house, portico, or balcony, are like the courtyard [to which it belongs]; if [the courtyard] makes the [produce] liable [for tithes] so do they, and if it does not, they do not.</b>  The three structures mentioned here take on the status of the courtyard to which they are attached. The “gate house” is a little house in which a guard would sit to watch over the courtyard. The “portico” is a roofed colonnade, but without closed walls. The “balcony” juts out from the second story of the house. If the courtyard offers protection to the produce, then these structures do as well and the produce brought into them will be liable for tithes."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with huts or “sukkah” like structures and whether they render produce liable for tithes. Part of the issue here is how similar these structures are to houses, which do render produce liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Cone-shaped huts, watchtowers, and sheds in the field do not render [produce] liable.</b>  A cone-shaped hut does not have a roof and the rabbis defined houses as structures with roofs. Hence, it does not render the produce liable for tithes. While people spend time in watchtowers, they do not live in them, and therefore they are not considered houses. Neither do people live in sheds in a field they too do not render produce liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>A sukkah-hut like those used in Ginnosar, even though it contains millstones and poultry, does not render [produce] liable.</b>  Sukkah-like huts all have roofs and therefore, they might render produce liable for tithes. In Ginnosar, which is on the shores of the Galilee, people would dwell in these huts most of the year in order to guard the produce in the field. They would even bring millstones in order to grind wheat and poultry in order to have eggs and perhaps some meat. Nevertheless, since they do not live in these huts all year round, they do not cause produce to become liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>As for the potter’s sukkah-hut, the inner part renders [produce] liable and the outer part does not.</b>  The potter’s sukkah is divided into two parts the inner part, which the potter and his family use for living quarters, and the outer part, where they do their work. The outer part does not count as a house and therefore, it does not make produce liable for tithes, whereas the inner part does.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: anything which is not both a sunny season and rainy season dwelling does not render [produce] liable [to tithes].</b>  Rabbi Yose clarifies that in order for a structure to count as a house it must be a structure in which people would live in both the summer and winter months. Otherwise, the produce that is brought into it does not need to be tithed. I should note that it doesn’t seem that Rabbi Yose is saying that the person must actually live there all year round. Vacation homes, if built like normal homes, would make produce liable for tithes. What he is saying is that if the house is built only to be used in one season, then it is not truly a “house” and it does not make liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>A sukkah used on the Festival [of Sukkot]: Rabbi Judah says: this renders [produce] liable [for tithes] But the sages exempt.</b>  The final section in our mishnah is concerned with the sukkah used during the holiday of Sukkot. According to Rabbi Judah, since during Sukkot the sukkah is perceived, at least by him, as a “permanent dwelling place” it does render produce liable for tithes. Although one lives there only during Sukkot, for that week it is like one’s permanent home and just as one’s home renders liable for tithes, so too does the Sukkah. The rabbis disagree and hold that it is not truly a permanent home, since one lives there for only one week."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with the interesting situation of a tree that is growing in one’s courtyard can one eat from the fruit without tithing? In other words, does this count as “produce brought into the courtyard” which usually means that it can’t be eaten without tithing?",
+                    "<b>A fig tree which stands in a courtyard: one may eat the figs from it one at a time and be exempt [from tithes], but if he gathered some together he is liable.</b>  Since this tree is in the courtyard, the figs must be tithed before they are eaten. However, he can still eat one at a time without tithing as was the rule regarding produce that was purchased (see 3:3).",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: if he has [one in his right hand and one in his left hand and one in his mouth, he is exempt.</b>  Rabbi Shimon adds that it doesn’t count as “gathering together” if all he has is one in each hand and one in his mouth. The status of “gathered” figs means that he has more than one in at least one of his hands.",
+                    "<b>If he ascended to the top [of it], he may fill his bosom and eat.</b>  If he climbs up to the top of the tree to gather the figs, he can put a bunch in his shirt and eat them while he is up in the tree. However, if he brings them down he can no longer eat them until they have been tithed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah continues to deal with plants growing inside a courtyard.",
+                    "<b>A vine which was planted in a courtyard: one may take a whole cluster [and eat it without tithing]. Similarly with a pomegranate, or a melon, the words of Rabbi Tarfon.</b>  According to Rabbi Tarfon, one can eat the whole unit of fruit without tithing in the cases of a grape vine, pomegranate or melon growing in the courtyard. The cluster of grapes is treated as one integral unit, and therefore he can eat the whole thing.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Akiva says: he can pick single berries from the cluster, or split the pomegranate into slices, or cut slices of melon [and eat without tithing].</b>  Rabbi Akiva rules more strictly and says that one can only eat pieces of these fruits without tithing. If he wants to eat the whole cluster of grapes, the whole pomegranate or the whole melon, he must first tithe it because it is already in the courtyard.",
+                    "<b>Coriander which was sown in a courtyard: one may pluck leaf by leaf and eat [without tithing], but if he ate them together he is liable [for tithes].</b>  As was the case with the figs in yesterday’s mishnah, if he gathers several leaves together he must tithe before he eats, but if he plucks and eats them one at a time, he can eat without tithing.",
+                    "<b>Savory and hyssop, and thyme which are in the courtyard, if they are kept watch over, they are liable for tithe.</b>  If a person has grown these plants to be spices for human consumption, and he is watching over them, then the fact that they are in the courtyard makes them immediately liable for tithing. He can’t eat them at all until they are tithed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with the situation in which the trunk of a tree is found in one type of domain but its branches hang over into another.",
+                    "<b>A fig tree which stands in a courtyard, and hangs over into a garden: one may eat in his customary fashion and be exempt [from tithes].</b>  When it comes to tithes, what matters is where the branches are, because that is where the fruit is. So if it stands in the courtyard, but the fruit is on branches hanging over into the garden, then he may eat from the tree without tithing.",
+                    "<b>If it stands in the garden and hangs over into the courtyard, one may eat [the figs] one at a time and be exempt, but if he gathers them together, he is liable [for tithes].</b>  The opposite is also true if the tree is in the garden but the branches hang over into the courtyard, then he can only eat one fig at a time. Since the branches are in the courtyard, the fruit is liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>If it stands in the land [of Israel] and hangs over [into the territory] outside the land, or if it stands outside the land, and hangs over into the land, [in all these cases the law is] decided according to the position of the root.</b>  Only fruit that is grown on a tree entirely within the land of Israel is liable for tithes. The location of the tree is determined by its trunk. In this case it matters not where the fruit is, but rather, where the tree, i.e. the trunk, is.",
+                    "<b>And as regards houses in walled cities, everything is decided according to the position of the root.</b>  According to Leviticus 25:29-31, houses that are sold within a walled city can be redeemed by the seller for one year. If they are not redeemed within the year then permanent title belongs to the purchaser. According to the rabbis, the same rule applies to trees sold within a walled city. In this case the tree’s location within or outside the walled city is determined by its roots. Again, what is determinant is the location of the tree and not the fruit, as was the case with tithes in sections one and two, and therefore, its location follows its root.",
+                    "<b>But as regards cities of refuge, everything is decided [also] according to the location of the branches.</b>  Accidental murderers are supposed to flee to one of the cities of refuge. Once there the blood avenger can no longer kill them, and if he does so he is liable for murder. In this case, the location of the tree follows that of the branches. If the blood avenger kills him under the branches which are inside the borders of the refuge city, the blood avenger is guilty of murder, but if the branches are outside the city, he is exempt.",
+                    "<b>And in what concerns Jerusalem, everything is decided by the location of the branches.</b>  Second tithe is to be brought to Jerusalem, but if one wants, it is permitted to exchange it for money outside of Jerusalem and then bring the money to Jerusalem and use it to buy food there. It is impossible, however, to redeem food that is already in Jerusalem. In this case the status of the tree is determined by the branches, which is where the fruit is located. If the branches are located within Jerusalem, then the produce cannot be redeemed and it must be eaten in the city. If the trunk is within the walls of the city but the branches are outside, then it is permitted to redeem the produce and use the money to buy food."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with various steps that make, or in some cases do not make, produce liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>If he pickled, stewed, or salted [produce], he is liable [to give tithes].</b>  Cooking food always makes it liable for tithes. Our mishnah teaches that the same holds true for other ways of processing the produce, including pickling, stewing and even salting. Since these all serve to make raw food more edible, the person can now no longer eat from the produce without first tithing.",
+                    "<b>If he stored [produce] in the ground [in order to warm it up] he is exempt.</b>  Sometimes people would store produce in the ground to warm it up a bit. The mishnah determines that this is not considered “cooking” and therefore he may continue to eat this food without first tithing it.",
+                    "<b>If he dipped it [while yet] in the field, he is exempt.</b>  It was normal to eat food by dipping it, much in the way we might dip vegetables in an onion dip. Such eating is not necessarily part of a formal meal and therefore he may continue to eat the produce without tithing it.",
+                    "<b>If he split olives so that the bitter taste may come out of them, he is exempt.</b>  Splitting olives in order to take out some of the bitter taste does not count as processing the olives so he may continue to eat them without tithing.",
+                    "<b>If he squeezed olives against his skin, he is exempt.</b>  Similarly, if he squeezes the olives against his skin to get out some oil which he wants to rub on his dry skin, this is not considered processing the olive in order to eat it and he can eat the olives without tithing.",
+                    "<b>If he squeezed them and put [the oil] into his hand, he is liable.</b>  However, if he squeezes the olive in order to get oil out of it and put it in his hand so that he can eat the oil, he must tithe before he eats this oil. The key here is that he did something to the olive so that he could eat it, and he didn’t just take out the bitter taste or to put some oil on his skin, as was true in the previous sections.",
+                    "<b>One who makes a viscous liquid [from grapes or olives] in order to put it in a dish is exempt.</b>  When he makes this liquid (not yet considered wine or oil) and puts it in the dish which already has food in it, the liquid will disappear in the dish. Although he has put the liquid in food, it can still be eaten without tithing it.",
+                    "<b>But if to put it in an [empty] pot, he is liable for it is like a small vat.</b>  However, if he puts it in an empty pot, it is as if he put it in a vat to store it, thereby completing its processing. He now can no longer use the liquid without first tithing it."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe entrance of Shabbat makes produce liable for tithes. Since Shabbat is important, any eating done on Shabbat is also significant and cannot be considered “chance eating” which is exempt from tithes.\nOur mishnah contains several issues related to this general rule.",
+                    "<b>Children who have hidden figs [in the field] for Shabbat and they forgot to tithe them,   they must not be eaten after Shabbat until they have been tithed.</b>  The children hid the figs with the intention of eating them on Shabbat. The mishnah teaches that the figs that they set aside in order to eat on Shabbat have now become liable for tithes and cannot be eaten, even after Shabbat, without first being tithed. The important principle here is that intending to eat something on Shabbat makes it liable for tithes even if the person who had the intention was only a child. [I find this mishnah kind of cute, kids hiding figs to eat on Shabbat reminds me of hiding candy from the kids so that they won’t eat it on Shabbat].",
+                    "<b>In the case of a basket of fruits for Shabbat: Bet Shammai exempt it from tithes; But Bet Hillel makes it liable.</b>  This basket was set aside so that the fruit would be eaten on Shabbat. Bet Shammai holds that setting the basket aside in order for it to be eaten on Shabbat does not make the fruit liable for tithes. As long as the fruit has not yet been brought into a place that makes it liable for tithes, one can continue to eat from it without tithing. Bet Hillel accords greater power to his intent and makes him liable for tithes as soon as he sets it aside for Shabbat.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: even one who has gathered a basket of fruit to send as a present to his friend, must not eat of them, until they have been tithed.</b>  Rabbi Judah says that gathering fruit together into a basket in order to send it to a friend makes it liable for tithes, even if the basket was not meant for Shabbat. The idea is that making the food into a gift gives it importance, just as Shabbat does. Therefore, he cannot eat until he tithes."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with olives that were put into a vat in order to soften and prepare them for the pressing process.",
+                    "<b>One who took olives from a vat may dip them one at a time in salt, and eat them.</b>  Salting the olives one at a time and eating them without tithing is okay because this individual salting does not make them liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>But if he salted them, and put them in front of him, he is liable [for tithes].</b>  However, if he salts several olives which he took from the vat, then he can’t eat them without tithing. In other words, salting them together makes them liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer said: from a pure vat he is liable but from an impure [vat] he is exempt because can put back the leftovers.</b>  According to Rabbi Eliezer if the vat was pure he cannot eat the olives without tithing them. The reason for this is that these olives have become susceptible to impurities because they came into contact with the olive oil inside the vat. If the purity of the olives in the vat has been preserved then he won’t want to put the olives back because the olives that he touched may have become impure. Since he won’t want to put them back, that which he takes out is be liable for tithes. If, in contrast, the vat was not pure, then he can put the olives back. The olives that he took out are not considered to be gathered together and they can be eaten without tithing."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with a person who wants to drink wine that he drew straight from the winepress.",
+                    "<b>One may drink [wine] out of the winepress, whether [it is mixed] with hot or cold water, and be exempt [from tithes], the words of Rabbi Meir.</b>  In mishnaic times it was customary to mix wine with water before it was drunk. Rabbi Meir rules that mixing wine drawn straight from the winepress with water does not make it liable for tithes, whether it was mixed with hot or cold water.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok says he is liable.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer bar Zadok holds that mixing wine does make it liable for tithes, even in a case where the wine was drawn straight from the winepress.",
+                    "<b>But the sages say: with hot water he is liable [to tithe] but with cold water, he is exempt.</b>  When he mixes the wine with warm water, he won’t pour any left over wine back into the press because that might cause the cool wine in the press to be spoiled. Since he won’t pour any back the sages consider its processing to have been completed and therefore, the wine is liable for tithes. If it was mixed with cold water he might put the left over wine back and hence he can drink it without tithing."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>One who husks barley may husk one at a time and eat [without tithing], but if he husked and put them into his hand, he is liable [to tithe].</b>  Husking barley and eating the ears one at a time is considered “chance” eating and therefore one can do so without tithing. However, as soon as he husks the barley and puts several in his hand at the same time, their processing is considered to be completed and he can’t eat any of them without first tithing.",
+                    "<b>One who rubs [ears of] wheat may blow out [the chaff of the wheat] from hand to hand and eat, but if he blows and puts the grain in his lap he is liable.</b>  Rubbing ears of wheat is a means to remove the chaff from each ear of wheat. If one does so one ear of wheat at a time, he can eat the individual grains without tithing. However, as soon as he starts to accumulate the wheat in his lap, he is liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>Coriander which was sown for the sake of the seed, the plant is exempt [from tithes]. If he sowed it for the sake of the plant then both the seed and the plant must be tithed.</b>  The mishnah now begins to discuss various types of plants whose seeds and plant parts are eaten. The part that needs to be tithed is the part that one intends on eating. If coriander (cilantro) was sown in order to eat the seeds then he needs to tithe only the seeds. He can eat the plant parts without tithing because when he sowed the plant, his intention was to throw these parts away. However, if he sows it in order to use the plant parts, then both these parts and the seeds must be tithed before they can be eaten. The assumption seems to be that in all cases one will make use of the coriander seeds because they are the more valuable part. When someone plants coriander in order to use the plant parts, he is really going to use the seeds as well.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer said: as for dill, tithe must be given from the seed and the plant, and the pods.</b>  According to Rabbi Eliezer, one needs to tithe all of the parts of a dill plant, because his intention will be to eat them all.",
+                    "<b>But the sages say: only in the case of cress and eruca are both the seeds and plant tithed.</b>  The sages disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and with the rule at the end of section three. According to the sages one must tithe the seed and the plant parts of only two species of plant: cress and eruca. When it comes to other plants, either the seed or the plant part must be tithed, but not both."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Rabban Gamaliel says: shoots of fenugreek, of mustard, and of white beans are liable [to tithe].<br>Rabbi Eliezer says: as for the caper bush, tithes must be given from the shoots, the berries and the blossoms.<br>Rabbi Akiba says: only the berries are tithed since they [alone] count as fruit.</b><br>In today’s mishnah Rabban Gamaliel, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiba debate which parts of various plants must be tithed. Again, the general principle is that whatever part one is going to preserve in order to eat is the part that is liable for tithes.<br>Section one: According to Rabban Gamaliel one will eat the shoots of these various plants; therefore they are liable for tithes.<br>Section two: Rabbi Eliezer holds that three parts of a caper bush must be tithed, because they all are eaten. Rabbi Akiva says that only the capers must be tithed because they are the most valuable part of the bush, the part that is primarily eaten."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>One who uproots saplings from of his own [property] and plants them [elsewhere] within his own [property] is exempt [from tithes].</b>  The person in our section is uprooting saplings in order to plant them in another place on his own property. The mishnah teaches that even if there are fruits on these plants and even if he gathers the plants temporarily in to his courtyard [the place where produce generally becomes liable for tithes], they are still exempt from tithes because his intent was not to harvest the fruit but rather to replant the saplings.",
+                    "<b>If he bought [saplings] attached to the ground, he is exempt.</b>  We have previously learned that when one buys produce, one cannot eat it until it is tithed. Being involved in a financial transaction causes produce to become liable for tithes. However, this is only true when produce is bought. If saplings are bought when they are still attached to the ground, their produce is not liable for tithes. If they had been bought detached from the ground, then one can not eat the produce until it is tithed.",
+                    "<b>If he gathered them in order to send them to his fellow, he is exempt.</b>  In mishnah 4:2 Rabbi Judah held that if one gathers fruit to send to his friend, the fruit must be tithed before it can be eaten. In our mishnah, we learn that this is only when he gathered produce to send to his friend. When he gathers the saplings and sends them to his friend he is still exempt.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said: if similar ones were being sold in the market, behold they are liable [for tithes].</b>  Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that if the fruit that is hanging on these saplings is similar to fruit being sold in the market, meaning this fruit has ripened enough so that it could be sold in the market, then one cannot eat from it until it has been tithed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>One who uproots turnips and radishes from within his own [property] and plants [them elsewhere] within his own [property] for the purpose of seed, he is liable to tithe, since this is [equivalent to] their threshing floor.</b>  In this case the person must tithe the turnips and radishes before he replants them because as soon as he uprooted them their processing has been completed. The seeds that will subsequently come from the turnips and radishes will be exempt from tithes (we will learn this in mishnah eight). Therefore, before they are replanted they must first be tithed at this early stage.",
+                    "<b>If onions take root in an upper story they become clean from any impurity.</b>  Onions that took root in debris/dirt found in an upper story of a building are treated as if they had been planted in the ground. What this means is that if they had previously been made ritually impure, they now revert to a state of purity, as do all plants when they are planted into the ground. The Tosefta notes that these onions are not liable for tithes because only plants that grow in the field are liable for tithes.",
+                    "<b>If some debris fell upon them and they are uncovered, they are regarded as though they were planted in the field.</b>  Albeck explains that this section is not a continuation of the previous section. If the onions were in the field and some debris fell on them and their leaves were exposed, they are treated as if they were planted in the field and they, unlike the onions referred to in section two, are liable for tithes."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first three mishnayot of chapter one taught that fruit is not liable for tithes until it has reached a certain stage of ripening. Our mishnah teaches that after it has reached that stage one may no longer sell it to a person who is suspected of not tithing.",
+                    "<b>One may not sell produce after the season for tithing has arrived to one who is not trusted concerning tithes.</b>  Once produce has ripened enough such that it is liable for tithes, one shouldn’t sell it to an “am haaretz” who is not trusted to tithe the food before he eats it, or gives it to others.",
+                    "<b>Nor in the sabbatical year [may one sell sabbatical year produce] to one suspected of [transgressing] the sabbatical year.</b>  Similarly, while it is permissible to sell produce that grows during the sabbatical year, one shouldn’t sell it to a person who is not trusted to observe the laws of the sabbatical year that apply to that fruit. The most important of these laws is that once that particular fruit can no longer be found in the field, the fruit must also be removed from one’s storehouses. The seller must be concerned lest the person to whom he sells the produce will hold it in his home beyond this date.",
+                    "<b>If only [some] produce ripened, he takes the ripe ones and may sell the remainder.</b>  If some of the fruit has ripened and become liable for tithes, but some of it is still unripe, he can take for himself the ripe fruit and he can sell the unripe fruit to anyone, even one who is not trusted to tithe. The ripe fruit can only be sold to someone who is trusted to tithe."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah continues to deal with selling produce to a person not trusted to tithe.",
+                    "<b>One may not sell his straw, nor his olive peat, or his grape pulp to one who is not to be trusted in [with respect to] tithes, for him to extract the juice from them.</b>  Although straw, olive peat and grape pulp are not truly edible and therefore are not liable for tithes, one shouldn’t sell them to someone who is not trusted to tithe, if the purchaser is intending to squeeze the juice out of the olive peat or grape pulp, or to search for the left-over grains within the straw. These products would be liable for tithes, and since he doesn’t tithe, one cannot sell to him.",
+                    "<b>If he did extract the juice he is liable for tithes, but is exempt from terumah, because when one separates terumah he has in mind the fragments which [is] by the sides, and that which is inside the straw.</b>  If, nevertheless, he did sell these to someone else, the purchaser must take out the tithes. However, he need not take out terumah because when the original seller takes out terumah for the main-product he will intend to separate terumah on behalf of these by-products as well. For instance, one who takes out terumah from grain, intends to exempt the grain that is found in the broken stalks that weren’t threshed properly, as well as the grains that are left among the straw. Since the original owner separates tithes for this grain, the purchaser need not do so. The same is true for olives and grapes. However, the purchaser still needs to separate tithes because the original owner separates tithes based on measurements, and these by-products are not part of that measure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn rabbinic language “Syria” refers to the land that borders Israel to the north and east but is not considered fully part of Israel.  The rules of tithing and terumah do apply to produce grown by a Jew in Syria but one who purchases produce in Syria can assume that it grew on gentile land and is therefore exempt from the laws of tithing and terumah.  Our mishnah deals with a person who is buying land in Syria from a Gentile, and the land has produce growing on it that is in various stages of growth.",
+                    "<b>One who buys a field of vegetables in Syria: If before the season for tithing arrived, then he is liable to tithe. If after the season for tithing he is exempt, and he may go on gathering in his usual manner.   Rabbi Judah says: he may even hire workers and gather.</b>  If he buys a field from a Gentile before the season for tithing the vegetables in the field has arrived, then he is liable to tithe because the vegetables became liable for tithes under his (Jewish) ownership. However, if he buys the field after the season for tithing has already arrived, he need not tithe the vegetables. Furthermore, even if the vegetables continue to grow after this time, he may still collect them and eat without tithing. In contrast, in the land of Israel when one buys a field from a non-Jew he always must tithe the produce, no matter when he buys it.",
+                    "<b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: When does this apply? If he has bought the land. But if, he has not bought the land, even before the season for tithing arrived he is exempt.</b>  Rabbi Judah adds that he may even hire workers to help him collect the added growth from the produce, even though this will cause more people to know that he is not tithing this field.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] says: he must also tithe according to calculation.</b>  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that he is liable to tithe the produce in this field only if he bought the land. If he didn’t buy the land, but was only renting the land, then the produce is always exempt from tithes.",
+                    "Rabbi holds that when he is exempt from tithing, he is still liable to tithe on the percentage of growth that the vegetable experienced after he bought it. Thus if he buys the field after the season for tithing has arrived, he is exempt from tithing on the growth that occurred before this season, but he is liable to tithe for the percentage of growth that took place after he bought the field."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\n“Temed” is a drink made from the grape-skins that have already been pressed to make wine. They would pour water over the grape-skins and they would give some taste to the water. Our mishnah deals with giving tithe from “temed.” These grape-skins would not have been tithed for because the tithe was taken from the wine, after the grape-skins had already been cast aside.",
+                    "<b>One who makes grape-skin wine, and he put water on by measure, and he finds [afterwards] the same quantity, he is exempt from tithe.</b>  If after he pours the water onto the grape-skins and then filters them out he finds that the volume of the temed is the same as the volume of the water he added, then the grape-skins have added color and taste but no volume. Therefore, according to the first opinion he is exempt from tithing the temed.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah makes him liable.</b>  Rabbi Judah holds that the added taste does make him liable to give tithes from the temed.",
+                    "<b>If he found more than the measure, he must give [tithe] for it from another place, in proportion.</b>  If he finds that the grape-pulp did lead to increased volume, then he must give tithes. The mishnah recommends that he give tithes from other untithed produce. When he does so, he gives it according to the proportion of the increase that the grape-pulp caused in the water. For instance, if he found a one liter increase, he must separate tithes for one liter of grapes. He would end up giving 100 ml of tithe from other wine. However, if he gives from the temed itself, he must separate for all of the temed in order to tithe for all of the wine in the temed. Thus if there was 10 liters of water which increased to 11 liters, he would have to give 1.1 liters of the temed as tithe, in order to account for 10 per cent of the wine in the temed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with grain found in anthills, and whether or not such grain must be tithed.",
+                    "<b>Anthills which have remained the whole night near a pile of grain which was liable to tithe,   [the grain found in them] is liable, since it is obvious that they [the ants] have been dragging away the whole night from something [of which the work] had been completed.</b> When grain is found in these anthills next to a pile of grain, and they had been that way all night, we can assume that the grain comes from the adjacent pile and that it must be tithed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Garlic from Balbeck, onions from Rikpa, Cicilician beans and Egyptians lentils, and Rabbi Meir says qirqas, and Rabbi Yose says qotnym are exempt from tithes and may be brought from any man in the seventh year.</b>  The produce mentioned in this section can be assumed to come from outside of the land of Israel. Such produce is exempt from tithes. It also may be bought from anyone during the seventh year, even from a person who is generally suspected of selling seventh year produce (see Sheviit 9:1). The identity of the plants mentioned by Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yose is unknown.",
+                    "<b>The seeds of upper arum pods, the seeds of leeks, the seeds of onions, the seeds of turnips and radishes, and other seeds of garden produce which are not eaten, are exempt from tithes, and may be bought from any man in the seventh year; and even though the plants from they grew were terumah, they may still be eaten [by non-priests].</b>  The seeds mentioned here are not eaten and therefore one need not separate tithes from them. Also, one can buy them from a person who is suspected of selling seventh year produce because the sanctity with which one must treat seventh year produce does not apply to these seeds, since they are not generally eaten. The mishnah notes that this is true even if these seeds grew from terumah plants. Although the “father” of the seeds is terumah, the seeds themselves are not even subject to tithes. This would be all the more true if the parent plants were not grown from terumah seeds. Congratulations!  We have finished Maasrot! 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. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Maaser Sheni."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+            "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מעשרות",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Zeraim"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מעשרות",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Maasrot",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Maasrot",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Orlah/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json

@@ -0,0 +1,241 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Orlah",
+    "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/",
+    "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "license": "CC-BY",
+    "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ערלה",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Zeraim"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "Tractate Orlah is concerned with fruit that grows on a tree during its first three years of growth. The laws are all based on Leviticus 19:23-24:",
+            "When you enter the land and plant any tree for food, you shall regard its fruit as forbidden (arel). Three years its fruit shall be forbidden (arel) for you, not to be eaten. In the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, (set aside) for jubilation before the Lord; and only in the fifth year may you use its fruit—that its yield to you may be increased. I the Lord am your God.",
+            "According to this verse, fruit which grows on a tree during its first three years is prohibited. The rabbis add that it is prohibited not just to eat this fruit, but also to derive any benefit from it. ",
+            "The years of a tree are counted not by how long ago the tree was actually planted but by the calendar years. The first of Tishrei is the date that is considered the first of the year for orlah (see Rosh Hashanah 1:1) so a tree planted before the first of Tishrei (actually thirty days before the first of Tishrei so that it has time to grow roots), is considered to already be in its second year. ",
+            "In its fourth year the fruit is called “fourth year produce” or “neta revai.” The mishnah dealt with this subject at the end of tractate Maaser Sheni because this fruit is treated similarly to second tithe. ",
+            "Our tractate also deals extensively with the subject of orlah fruit that has become mixed up with other permitted produce. It also deals with mixed seeds and terumah that have become mixed up with other produce, because these halakhot are all similar.  "
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah teaches that if a fruit tree is planted for a reason other than to provide fruit, it is exempt from the laws of orlah and its fruit may be eaten within the first three years of growth. This law is a great example of the strong role intent, in Hebrew, kavvanah, plays in rabbinic law. The intent of the person planting the tree is what determines the status of its fruit, and not the mere physicality of whether the tree is three years or older.",
+                    "<b>One who plants [a fruit tree] as a fence or to provide wood beams, it is exempt from [the law of] orlah.</b>  As stated in the introduction, if the tree was planted for another reason other than for its fruit, its fruit is permitted immediately, without having to wait three years. This law also stems (no pun intended) from Leviticus 19:23, which begins, “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food...” The tree is subject to the laws of orlah only if it is planted for food.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: even if he said “The inward [facing part of the tree] is for food, and the outward [facing part] is for a fence,” the inward [facing part] is subject [to orlah], and the outward [facing part] is exempt.</b>  Rabbi Yose says that one can divide a tree into two parts. If the inward part, the part facing the field, was planted for food and the outer part was planted to serve as a fence to his field, he can eat the fruit of the outside part without waiting three years. But the laws of orlah do apply to the inside part."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with situations in which a tree is exempt from the laws of orlah, or situations in which it is subject, even though one might have thought that it should be exempt.",
+                    "<b>If at the time when our ancestors came into the land and they found [a tree already] planted it was exempt [from the laws of orlah]. If they planted [a tree], even though they had not yet conquered [the land], it was subject [to orlah].</b>  This law is based on the beginning of Leviticus 19:23, “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food.” The laws of orlah do not apply to trees that were planted before the Israelites entered the land of Israel in the times of Joshua. If they planted a tree, the laws would apply even though the land had not yet been conquered. Obviously this law is not of any practical significance. This is a good example of what interests the rabbis. They are interested in practical matters and there are many halakhot in the Mishnah that have practical significance. But they are no less interested in explaining the Torah, even in cases where there is no practical implication to their words. This section of this mishnah is solely meant to explain the verse.",
+                    "<b>If one planted a tree for [the use of] the many, it is subject. But Rabbi Judah makes it exempt.</b>  According to the first opinion, if one plants a tree on his own property for the use of many others, the tree is still subject to the laws of orlah. Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that it is not.",
+                    "<b>If one has planted [a tree] in the public domain, or if a non-Jew has planted, or if a robber has planted, or one who plants on a boat, or [a tree] that has grown of itself, it is subject to orlah.</b>  In all of the cases in this mishnah we might have thought the tree is not subject to the laws of orlah, therefore the mishnah teaches that the tree is subject. The first three categories all seem to say that the status of the planter and the status of the tree do not matter. Thus, although a tree in the public domain does not belong to the one who planted it, it is still subject to orlah. Halakhah does not generally apply to non-Jewish produce, but since the status of the tree is not determined by its owner, the tree planted by a non-Jew is subject to orlah. The robber does not own the field in which he planted the tree. Nevertheless, the tree is subject to the laws of orlah.  All three of these categories serve to distinguish orlah from most of the other agricultural laws. For instance, produce which grows in the public domain is exempt from tithes. A tree that is planted on a boat is also liable, because the boat is treated as if it was land. Finally, a tree that has no owner is also liable, because as we have stated, it is the tree that is determinative, not the owner."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses whether a replanted tree counts as if it was newly planted, such that one would have to wait another three years before its produce could be eaten.",
+                    "<b>If a tree was uprooted and the hard soil together with it, or if a stream swept it away and the hard soil together with it, [then] if it could have lived it is exempt, But if [it could] not, it is subject.</b>  The criterion throughout the mishnah for determining whether the tree is considered to be replanted is whether it could have lived from the amount of soil that was uprooted with it. The test would seem to be placing it in a pot if there was enough soil still stuck to the roots of the tree that the tree could continue to live then it is exempt from the laws of orlah, meaning that this is not considered replanting. But if it could not live from this soil, then the clock is rewound and the fruit of next three years will be prohibited.",
+                    "<b>If the hard soil has been detached from its side, or if a ploughshare shook it, or if someone shook it, and one reset it with earth, [then] if it could have lived, it is exempt, But if not, it is subject.</b>  This same rule applies in situations where the tree lost some of its soil and then a person put more soil back there. If the tree could have lived off of the soil that was left attached to it, then putting new soil on it doesn’t count as replanting. But if it could not have lived off of this soil, then it does count as replanting."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with when a tree is considered to have been uprooted.",
+                    "<b>If a tree was uprooted and one root was left [in the ground], it is exempt.</b>  As long as one root is still attached to the ground, the tree is considered to still be planted and, if the tree is older than three years, it is exempt from the rules of orlah.",
+                    "<b>How much must the [thickness of the] root be? Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said in the name of Rabb Eliezer ben Judah a man of Bartota:  as [thick as] a pin [used for] stretching.</b>  In order for the root to count as still attaching the tree to ground, it must be as thick as a pin that weavers used for stretching the cloth. Others explain that this is a pin used by launderers. In any case, if the root is thinner than that, it would not be sufficient to nourish the tree, so we would have to consider the tree as having been detached and then replanted, which means that for the next three years its fruit will be prohibited."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThere are two agricultural practices mentioned in this mishnah. The first is taking a branch from a vine, bending it down into the ground and then bringing it up again elsewhere. Underground the branch will grow new roots. Our mishnah will ask the question of how to reckon the years of the vine that grows from what it calls a “bent-down and rooted shoot.”\nThe second practice is grafting, whereby one takes a detached branch and grafts into onto an existing vine.",
+                    "<b>A tree which was uprooted and it has a bent-down [and rooted] shoot, and it [the tree] derives sustenance from it [the shoot], the old [tree] is [considered] like the shoot.</b>  In this case the original, old tree (or vine) was uprooted, but a branch that had been bent into the ground still remains in the ground and provides sustenance to the tree. The mishnah rules that the tree is considered to be like the shoot. Shoots that are bent into the ground are not subject to the laws of orlah as long as they are still attached to the older vine/tree, because the Torah says, “When you plant” and the rabbis understand this as excluding bending shoots into the ground. Note that the innovation here is that even though the branch that had been bent and rooted into the ground now looks like a new vine, it still counts as far as attaching the old vine to the ground.",
+                    "<b>If one bends [and roots] from it year after year, and it became detached, one counts from the time it became detached.</b>  If one bends and roots branches into the ground year after year, and at some point the new vines the grow from these shoots become detached from the mother tree, their count as far as orlah goes begins from the time they become detached. Up until that point their count went according to the old vine but once they are detached we have to look at them as if they were just planted.",
+                    "<b>A grafted shoot of vines, and a grafted shoot [growing] on another grafted shoot, even if he rooted them in the soil, they are permitted.</b>  This section deals with grafting vines onto an older tree. If one grafts new vines onto an old tree their orlah count goes according to the older tree. This is true even if he puts grafts onto other grafts, and even if he bends some of those grafts into the ground such that they receive nourishment from the soil. In all of these cases, as long as the new grafts are connected to the old tree, one does not have to start a new count of years for the issue of orlah.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Meir said: in an instance where it is strongly [grafted], it is permitted, but in an instance where it is poorly [grafted], it is prohibited.</b>  Rabbi Meir is referring to a grafted branch which is grafted onto an already existing grafted branch. If the grafted branch onto which the new one is being grafted is strongly attached to the tree, meaning this graft is successful and is producing new fruits, then the new graft is permitted in terms of orlah. The old graft is considered part of the old tree. But if the prior graft is not strongly attached, then the new one is prohibited, because we can’t look at the old graft as if it is attached to the tree.",
+                    "<b>A bent-down [and rooted] shoot that has become detached and is full of fruit, [then] if it increased one two hundredth, it is prohibited.</b>  The final section of our mishnah returns to discuss a branch of a vine that is bent down and rooted into the ground. As we learned above, as long as the branch is attached to the old vine, its fruit is permitted.  In this case, the branch grows fruit while attached and then becomes detached. The question is: does the orlah count restart for the fruit that has already grown? The mishnah rules that if the fruit grew 1/200 in size, then the fruit is prohibited. This is the standard number for cases of orlah mixed with non-orlah. If there is 1/200th orlah, then the mixture is prohibited. This would also be the case here the part that grew when the branch was attached is not orlah, whereas the new growth is orlah. So if the new growth is 1/200th or more of the total volume, then it is prohibited."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with orlah or a vineyard into which seeds had been planted which then become mixed up with non-prohibited plants or produce. The question is: does this mixture become nullified if the prohibited part is less than 1/200 of the permitted part?",
+                    "<b>If a shoot of orlah or a vineyard in which seeds had been planted (, became mixed up with [other] shoots, behold one may not gather [the fruit].</b>  A person has a bunch of plants in his backyard, or a few vineyards. Some of the plants are orlah, or some of the vineyards have seeds of grain planted in them (kilayim). These plants or vineyards are prohibited. However, he doesn’t know which plants are orlah or which vineyards are kilayim (the grain is assumedly gone). If he has not yet gathered the fruit, he cannot gather any of the fruit from any of these plants. While some times prohibited things can become nullified if they are small enough percentages of a mixture, this is the case only if the produce is already detached from the ground. Since this produce is still attached to the ground, he cannot even pick it.",
+                    "<b>But if one has gathered [it], it is neutralized in two hundred-and-one, provided that he did not act deliberately. Rabbi Yose says: even if he acted deliberately, it becomes neutralized in two hundred-and-one.</b>  If he gathered it already without realizing that some of the produce was prohibited, then as long as there is not more than 1/200 part orlah or kilayim, the prohibited stuff is nullified. However, if he deliberately picked the produce, knowing that this would allow it to be nullified, he is penalized and it is prohibited. The rule is that one is not allowed to intentionally nullify a prohibited substance. Rabbi Yose says that this is not really a case of intentionally nullifying a prohibited substance. When he picks the produce he is not yet nullifying the prohibited plants, because the stuff still attached to the ground can’t be nullified. It is only nullified when the produce is picked and it turns out that less than 1/200 of it is prohibited. Therefore, he can deliberately pick the produce so that the prohibited plants will be nullified."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with the subject of what parts of a vine are prohibited because of orlah.",
+                    "<b>Leaves, sprouts, sap of vines, and vine-buds are permitted in respect of orlah and the laws of the fourth year, and to a nazirite, but are prohibited if they come from an Asherah [tree]. Rabbi Yose says: vine-buds are prohibited because they are fruit.</b>  The laws of orlah and fourth year produce do not apply to the non-edible parts of the tree only to the fruit. So if one wants to derive benefit from these parts during the first four years of the tree’s existence, he may do so. When it comes to the vine, these parts are permitted to a nazirite, since he is prohibited from consuming only the grapes and the parts of the grapes (see Numbers 6:3-4). However, when it comes to an Asherah tree, which is a tree used in idolatry, then every part of the tree is prohibited. Rabbi Yose considers the vine-buds to be food, even though most people wouldn’t eat them before they fully ripen. Therefore, the laws of orlah and fourth year produce and the Nazirite prohibitions apply to them.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer said: if one curdles [milk] with the resinous substances of [a tree liable to] orlah, it is prohibited. Rabbi Joshua said: I have received an explicit tradition that if one curdles [milk] with the resinous substance of the leaves, or with the resinous substance of the roots, it is permitted, but with the resinous substance of the unripe berries, it is prohibited, because these are fruit.</b>  This section deals with the resin that comes from the tree and is used to curdle milk and make cheese. Rabbi Eliezer says that the laws of orlah apply to this substance and therefore if one uses it to curdle milk, the cheese will be prohibited. Rabbi Joshua disagrees based on a received oral tradition that the laws of orlah do not apply to the resin that comes from the tree and is used to curdle the milk. This is true as long as the resin comes from the leaves or roots, parts of the tree to which the laws of orlah never apply. However, if he uses the resin that comes from the unripe berries, the cheese is prohibited because these unripe berries are, according to Rabbi Yose, subject to the laws of orlah. And even according to the opinion that disagrees with Rabbi Yose, although the unripe berries are not subject to orlah, when they ripen they will be subject to orlah. Therefore, this cheese will be prohibited."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah continues to deal with what parts of the grape or fruit are subject to the laws of orlah, the asherah (idol-tree), the nazirite prohibitions and fourth-year vineyards.",
+                    "<b>Defective grapes, grape kernels, grape husks, and the temed drink made from them, the peel of a pomegranate and its sprout, nutshells, and fruit-seeds, are all subject to the laws of orlah, asherah and a nazirite, but permitted in respect of a fourth year vineyard.</b>  All of the parts of grapes, fruits and nuts are subject to the laws of orlah, so that one could not use them during the first three years of growth. They are also prohibited if they grow from an asherah tree, for as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, all parts of the asherah tree are prohibited. Finally, they are prohibited to a nazirite because Numbers 6:3-4 states, “no vinegar of (new) wine or vinegar of old wine, nor shall he drink any liquor of grapes…from the kernels even to the husk she shall not eat.” However, the rules of the fourth year vineyard, which must be taken to Jerusalem and eaten there, do not apply to these parts of the grape or fruit, because the laws of maaser sheni and the fourth year vineyard (which are always the same) apply only to the parts of the plant that are normally eaten.",
+                    "<b>Fallen unripe fruit is subject to all of them.</b>  Fallen unripe fruit is subject to all of these prohibitions because it is food, even though it is not yet ready to be eaten."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with planting things that come from an orlah tree which is orlah.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: one may plant a shoot of orlah;</b>  Since the laws of orlah do not apply to the branches or shoots of a tree, one may plant a shoot of orlah. If the laws of orlah did apply, it would be forbidden to derive any benefit from the shoot, including planting it to grow a tree.",
+                    "<b>But one may not plant a nut of orlah, because it is fruit.</b>  The laws of orlah do apply to the nuts of a tree, because they are considered to be fruit. Hence, one cannot plant a nut.",
+                    "<b>And one may not graft early date berries of orlah.</b>  The laws of orlah also apply to the “early date berries”, which according to some commentators are early date-palm branches and according to others, are a certain type of date. In any case, these date berries count as fruit and hence cannot be used in grafting."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe second chapter of orlah deals with mixtures consisting of permitted and forbidden produce. Specifically the issue is, when does the prohibited part of the mixture become nullified by the permitted part of the mixture?",
+                    "<b>Terumah, terumat maaser of demai, hallah and bikkurim, are neutralized in a hundred-and-one mixture.</b>  If terumah, or terumat maaser of demai (demai is produce acquired from an am haaretz, concerning whom we have doubt whether he tithed; terumat maaser is the terumah taken from the tithe), hallah or bikkurim (first fruits) become mixed up with hullin produce, meaning produce that has no status of holiness, then there needs to be 100 parts hullin for every part of holy stuff, in order for the holy stuff to be neutralized. If there is not 100 parts hullin, then we must treat the entire mixture as if it were holy. This will almost always cause a financial loss to the owner.",
+                    "<b>And they are reckoned together [to form the statutory minimum].</b>  If some of these things are mixed in together, for instance terumah is mixed in with bikkurim, then they are counted together to prohibit a larger mixture. Thus if ½ part terumah is mixed in with another ½ part bikkurim, there will need to be 100 parts hullin for the holy stuff to be neutralized.",
+                    "<b>And it is necessary to remove [from the mixture an amount equal to that of the consecrated produce contained in it].</b>  Once the mixture is neutralized, one would need to take out the amount of holy stuff that is in the mixture and treat it as whatever holy stuff it might be. Thus if 100 parts hullin are mixed in with one part terumah, he can take out one part, give it to a kohen, and treat the rest like hullin. The reason that he has to take the equivalent part out is that someone was supposed to receive these things, in the case of terumah, the priest.",
+                    "<b>Orlah and kilayim of the vineyard are neutralized in a two-hundred-and-one mixture.</b>  The necessary ratio to neutralize orlah and kilayim in a vineyard (seeds that were planted in a vineyard) is 200 to 1. The laws are simply stricter with these two types of produce because not only can they not be eaten, one can not even derive benefit from them.",
+                    "<b>And they are reckoned together [to form the statutory minimum].</b>  The same rule as in section two.",
+                    "<b>But it is not necessary to remove [from the mixture an amount equal to that of the consecrated produce contained in it].</b>  Unlike terumah and the other types of produce in section one, orlah and kilayim don’t go to anyone. Since they don’t go to anyone, he need not take a portion out.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: they are not reckoned together.</b>  According to Rabbi Shimon, if orlah and kilayim are mixed together, they are not reckoned together (he disagrees with section five). The reason is that these are completely different prohibitions, unlike terumah, terumat maaser etc. which are all in the same family of halakhot.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: they are reckoned together when they impart flavor, but not to prohibit.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer says that if the two combined prohibited substances, orlah and kilayim, jointly impart their taste to the entire mixture, then they are reckoned together. But if they don’t, then they don’t join together and each will be considered separately. Rabbi Eliezer seems to be a compromise between the two opposite positions found in sections five and seven."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn this mishnah we learn that if terumah and orlah are mixed in together, each counts with regard to creating the necessary ratio for the other to be voided.",
+                    "<b>Terumah can void orlah, and orlah can void terumah.</b>  If terumah and hullin are mixed in together, they can join together to create the necessary 200 to 1 ratio in order to neutralize any orlah or kilayim that are in the mixture. Similarly, orlah can join together with hullin to create the necessary 100 to one ratio to neutralize terumah.",
+                    "<b>How so? [For instance] a seah of terumah fell into one hundred, and afterwards three kavs of orlah or three kavs of mixed-seeds of the vineyard [fell in]. This is [an instance] where terumah goes towards neutralizing orlah, and orlah terumah.</b>  The mishnah now illustrates how this works. If a seah of terumah falls into one hundred (actually ninety-nine) of hullin, and then three kavs, which is half a seah, of orlah or kilayim (mixed-seeds) fall in, the orlah or kilayim is neutralized. If we count the terumah with the hullin then there is a 200 to one ratio to neutralize the orlah or kilayim. Similarly, if a seah of orlah is mixed up with 200 seahs of hullin, and then terumah fell into the mixture, if the orlah and hullin are more than 100 to 1 of the terumah, the terumah is neutralized."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is similar to the previous mishnah, but it talks about orlah and kilayim, instead of orlah and terumah.",
+                    "<b>Orlah can void kilayim, and kilayim [can void] orlah, and orlah [can void] orlah.</b>  Orlah can be combined with hullin to nullify kilayim and likewise, kilayim can join with hullin to nullify orlah, and there is even a case where orlah can combine with hullin to void other orlah.",
+                    "<b>How so? A seah of orlah falls into two hundred [seahs] and afterwards there falls in a seah and a little bit more of orlah, or a seah and a little bit more of kilayim of the vineyard--this is [a case] where orlah can void kilayim, and kilayim [can void] orlah, and orlah [can void] orlah.</b>  As in yesterday’s mishnah, we get an illustration of the aforementioned principle. First, a seah of orlah falls into two hundred seahs of hullin and then becomes void. There are now 201 seahs of hullin in the mixture. If afterwards a seah and a little bit more (1/200th of seah) of orlah fall in, the 201 seahs can nullify the one and 1/200 seahs of orlah that subsequently fall in, even though the 201 seahs is actually 200 seahs of hullin and one seah of orlah. The original seah that fell in counts when it comes to voiding the subsequent seah and a little bit more. The same would be true if a seah and a little bit more of mixed seeds of a vineyard fell in the original seah of orlah counts when it comes to nullifying the subsequent seah and 1/200 of kilayim."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn the above mishnayot we learned that terumah is nullified if it falls into a mixture that is more than a ratio of 100 to 1 and orlah and kilayim are nullified in a ratio of 200 to 1. Today’s mishnah limits this principle.",
+                    "<b>Whatever causes something to ferment, or seasons, or makes medumma with terumah, with orlah or with ‘mixed-seeds’ of the vineyard, is prohibited.</b>  If someone takes starter dough (leaven) made of terumah, orlah or kilayim and uses it to ferment his hullin dough, or seasons a dish with terumah, orlah or kilayim spices, then the whole dish is rendered prohibited. Because the prohibited object caused a substantive change in the entire mixture, either causing it to rise or have flavor, the small prohibited substance cannot be nullified by the larger amount in the mixture, no matter how small a quantity the smaller amount is. The words “or makes medumma” are very difficult to interpret. The Rambam reads not “or makes medumma” but rather “makes medumma” which means that if the starter dough or seasoning is terumah it renders the mixture “medumma” which is terumah mixed in with hullin. Medumma may be eaten by a priest. This reading makes a lot of sense. The problem with this reading is that no other manuscripts read this way.",
+                    "<b>Bet Shammai says: it also renders unclean. But Bet Hillel says: it never renders unclean unless it has the volume of an egg.</b>  According to Bet Shammai, the same rule holds true when it comes to the rules of purity. If ritually clean dough has been fermented with unclean dough, or a clean dish has been spiced with an unclean dish, the dough or dish is impure, no matter how small a quantity of starter dough or seasoning was used. Bet Hillel, however, holds that in order to render impure there needs to be an egg’s worth of impure stuff. It doesn’t matter whether the unclean stuff is a leavening agent, spices or anything if it’s not the volume of an egg, it can’t render impure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Dostai of Kefar Yitmah was one of the disciples of Bet Shammai, and he said, “I received a tradition from Shammai the elder who said: “It never renders unclean unless it contains the volume of an egg.”</b><br>In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that Bet Shammai holds that unclean hametz (leaven) or spices can render a mixture unclean, even if there is only the smallest amount of the unclean leaven or spices. Bet Hillel says that there must be the volume of an egg. In today’s mishnah a member of the house of Bet Shammai says that Shammai himself agreed with Bet Hillel, that there needs to be the volume of an egg."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah begins to explain two rules with regards to when mixtures of prohibited and permitted substances are prohibited.",
+                    "<b>Concerning what did they say: “Anything that causes fermentation or seasons or which renders medumma we rule stringently”? [In the case of] a species [mixed] with its [like] species.</b>  The first general rule is that we rule stringently when a prohibited substance (kilayim, orlah or terumah) which causes fermentation (leavens) or seasons mixes with another similar permitted substance. Such a mixture is prohibited no matter how small the prohibited substance, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>[When did they say] “we rule [sometimes] leniently and [sometimes] stringently”? [In the case of] a species [mixed] with a different kind of species.</b>  The second rule is that when the two substances are of different kind, we sometimes rule leniently and sometimes strictly. This will be illustrated in subsequent mishnayot.",
+                    "<b>How so? If leaven of wheat fell into dough of wheat and there is enough to cause fermentation, [then] whether there is enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, or there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, it is prohibited. If there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, [then] whether there is enough to cause fermentation, or there is not enough to cause fermentation, it is prohibited.</b>  The mishnah now illustrates the principle in section one. If leaven of wheat falls into dough of wheat, we have a mixture of a like substance with another like substance. If the wheat leaven is terumah and there is enough leaven to ferment the entire mixture, then the mixture is prohibited no matter how small of an amount it is in relation to the mixture. If there is not enough wheat leaven to ferment the entire mixture, then the entire mixture can still be prohibited if there is not 100 parts hullin to one part terumah. In such a case the entire mixture is called “medumma,” doubtful terumah. It must be sold to a priest, with a reduction for the amount of terumah that actually fell in. However, if there are 100 parts hullin to one part terumah, then the mixture is not prohibited. The owner may take out one part, give it to a priest and the remainder of the mixture reverts to being hullin."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah illustrates the second principle in yesterday’s mishnah, that when there are different species mixed together, one permitted and one prohibited, sometimes we rule leniently and sometimes we rule stringently.",
+                    "<b>[We rule sometimes] leniently and [sometimes] stringently, [in the case of] a species [mixed] with a different kind of species. How so?</b>  This is the rule that was stated in yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>If crushed beans were boiled together with lentils, and there is enough of them [the crushed beans] to impart flavor, [then] whether there is enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, or there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, it is prohibited.</b>  This section illustrates the stringency. Crushed beans and lentils are considered to be two different species. If crushed beans that are of terumah are boiled with hullin (non-sacred) lentils, and the crushed beans impart their flavor to the entire mixture, then it doesn’t matter how small a percentage of the entire mixture the crushed beans are, the entire mixture is prohibited.",
+                    "<b>[But] if there is not enough to impart flavor, [then] whether there is enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, or there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, [the mixture] is permitted.</b>  However, if the crushed beans do not impart their flavor, then it doesn’t matter if there is not the usually required 100-1 ratio, the mixture is permitted. To summarize, when it comes to unlike species, the one question we need to ask is if the forbidden species imparts flavor to the permitted species. If it does, the entire mixture is prohibited, no matter the percentage; if it does not, the entire mixture is permitted."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with a situation in which two batches of leaven fall into dough one being hullin (non-sacred) and one being terumah or kilayim.",
+                    "<b>If leaven of hullin has fallen into dough, and there was enough of it to cause fermentation, and after that leaven of terumah fell in or leaven of kilayim of the vineyard, and there is enough to cause fermentation, [the dough] is prohibited.</b> In this case, the first piece of leaven to fall into the dough was enough to ferment the entire dough. When the next piece of leaven falls in, and that dough is terumah or kilayim (both would seemingly cause the dough to be prohibited), we might have thought that since the dough could be fermented even without the terumah or kilayim, the dough would be permitted. The mishnah rules that the dough is prohibited even though the prohibited leaven was not needed. The second batch of leaven, although not needed, still sped up the leavening process and therefore it causes the dough to be prohibited."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn yesterday’s mishnah, the terumah leaven fell into already-leavened dough before the dough had begun to ferment, and therefore, since the terumah leaven may have sped up the fermenting process, the dough was prohibited. In today’s mishnah, the leaven falls in after the dough has already been fermented.",
+                    "<b>If leaven of hullin has fallen into dough and caused it to ferment, and after that there fell in leaven of terumah or of kilayim of the vineyard, and there was enough to cause fermentation, [the dough] is prohibited.</b>  According to the first opinion, it doesn’t matter that the terumah leaven fell into the dough after the dough had already been fermented. The forbidden leaven will still increase the fermentation of the dough and therefore, the entire dough becomes prohibited.",
+                    "<b>But Rabbi Shimon permits it.</b>  Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, holds that the dough is permitted. One explanation for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is that he holds that extra leaven will not improve the taste of the dough, but rather make it taste worse. Since this taste is undesirable, it does not cause the dough to be prohibited. In yesterday’s mishnah, the leaven terumah improved the taste of the dough because it had not yet been fermented, therefore, Rabbi Shimon would agree that the dough is prohibited."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with seasonings and when they prohibit a dish into which they fell.",
+                    "<b>Seasonings [consisting] of two or three categories of one species, or [consisting] of three species [of one category], are forbidden and combine.</b>  If two or three categories of one type of seasoning, for instance pepper from terumah, kilayim and orlah, fall into a dish, they combine to forbid the dish if they impart taste. The same is true if there are three different species, for instance, pepper, onion and garlic of one category such as terumah. If together they impart flavor, then the dish is prohibited.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon said: Two or three categories of one species, or two species of one category, do not combine.</b>  Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that different categories of one species and different species of one category do not combine."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah discusses leaven of hullin and terumah that fall into dough and neither is sufficient to cause fermentation alone, but together they do cause fermentation.",
+                    "<b>Leaven of hullin and of terumah fell into dough, and neither this was sufficient to cause fermentation nor was that sufficient to cause fermentation, but together they caused [the dough] to ferment:<br>Rabbi Eliezer says: I go after the last.</b>  According to Rabbi Eliezer, whatever is the last to fall in is determinative because that is the leaven that causes the dough to ferment. If terumah leaven falls in first, and then hullin leaven, the dough is permitted because the hullin leaven is what caused fermentation. If the terumah leaven fell in last, then the dough is prohibited because it was forbidden leaven that caused fermentation.",
+                    "<b>But the sages say: whether the prohibited fell in first or last, it never causes the dough to become prohibited unless there is enough to cause fermentation.</b>  The sages are more lenient, and rule that the dough is permitted unless the forbidden leaven is sufficient to cause fermentation alone. If fermentation depends on the hullin leaven, then the dough is permitted."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Yoezer, master of the temple (Ish Habirah), was one of the disciples of Bet Shammai and he said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel the elder as he was standing at the eastern gate [of the Temple], and he said: it never causes the dough to become prohibited unless there is enough to cause fermentation.</b><br>In this mishnah, a man by the name of Yoezer provides testimony that Rabban Gamaliel the elder, a sage who lived while the Temple still stood, agreed with the sages’ opinion in yesterday’s mishnah, that forbidden leaven never causes dough to become prohibited unless there is enough forbidden leaven to cause fermentation.<br>There are two descriptions of Yoezer provided in this mishnah. First of all, he is “Ish Habirah” which according to one opinion in the Talmud, means that he was “master of the Temple”, since Birah is a name of the entire Temple. Other commentators say that Birah is located near the Temple, but is not actually the Temple itself, while others say that it is a place within the Temple.<br>The second fact is that Yoezer is a student of Bet Shammai. This is the second time in our chapter where a mishnah has stated that a student of Bet Shammai agrees with the sages of the previous mishnah, who can surely be identified with Bet Hillel. Accordingly, Rabbi Eliezer who argued with the sages in the previous mishnah, can be identified as holding a Shammaite position, albeit one that Yoezer seems to dispute. Thus, although we don’t get any new halakhic information in this mishnah, we do learn some valuable historical information about a halakhic battle going on within the House of Shammai. The Mishnah, which is a product of Bet Hillel, considers it worthwhile to let us know that sometimes those of the House of Shammai actually agree with Bet Hillel.<br>The mishnah itself contains the same halakhah as that found in yesterday’s mishnah, so for more information, look there."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is not related to the chapter’s main topic, mixtures of forbidden and permitted produce. Rather the same phrase that appears in mishnah eleven, where Rabbi Eliezer says “I go after the first,” appears here.\nThe mishnah deals with vessels, such as shoes or other leather clothes, which were oiled with unclean and then clean oil, or vice versa.",
+                    "<b>Vessels which were oiled with unclean oil, and [later] he returned and oiled them with clean oil;</b>  The vessels, which in this mishnah refers to clothing, were first oiled with unclean oil in order to soften them. When the unclean oil dried up, they were immersed in a mikveh in order to purify them. Then they were oiled again with clean oil.",
+                    "<b>Or he [first] oiled them with clean oil, and [later] he returned [to them] and oiled them with unclean oil:</b>  Alternatively, they were first oiled with clean oil and then with unclean oil.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: “I go after the first.”</b>  Rabbi Eliezer says that the purity of the clothing goes after the first oiling. When the clothes expel the oil that they have soaked up, they will, according to Rabbi Eliezer, expel the first oil that they absorbed. So if the first oil was impure, then the clothes are impure.",
+                    "<b>And the sages say: after the last.</b>  The rabbis hold that the first oil is absorbed by the clothing and when used the objects will expel the last oil used.  Therefore, their purity goes after the first oiling."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with leaven of terumah and leaven of kilayim which fell into dough. Neither piece of leaven is sufficient to cause fermentation, but together they cause fermentation. According to the rabbis’ opinion found in mishnah ten, the dough is not prohibited to everyone because of the kilayim, since the kilayim leaven was not in and of itself sufficient to cause fermentation. The question asked in our mishnah is: what about the terumah leaven? Does it join with the kilayim leaven to cause the dough to be forbidden to priests?",
+                    "<b>Leaven of terumah and of kilayim of the vineyard which fell into dough, this one is not sufficient to cause fermentation, nor is that one sufficient to cause fermentation, but together they cause fermentation:<br>It [the dough] is prohibited to non-priests and permitted to priests.</b>  The rabbis in mishnah twelve hold that two forbidden substances join together to create a prohibition. Since both terumah and kilayim are prohibited to non-priests, the dough is prohibited to non-priests. However, the dough is not prohibited to priests because priests can eat terumah and the kilayim leaven was not sufficient to cause fermentation on its own.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon permits it to both to non-priests and to priests.</b>  Rabbi Shimon is consistent with his own opinion in mishnah ten, that substances of different categories do not combine. The leaven of terumah and the leaven of kilayim do not combine and since neither is sufficient to cause fermentation, the dough is permitted to everyone."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Seasonings of terumah and of kilayim of the vineyard that fell into a dish, and there is not enough of one to season, nor is there of the other to season, but together they seasoned:<br>It [the dish] is prohibited to non-priests but permitted to priests.<br>Rabbi Shimon declares it permitted to non-priests and to priests.</b><br>This mishnah contains the same debate that was found in yesterday’s mishnah, except yesterday the mishnah dealt with leaven and fermentation, and today the mishnah deals with seasonings. Again the majority view holds that the two forbidden substances, terumah and kilayim, combine to cause the dish to be prohibited to non-priests, whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that the substances do not join together and the dish is permitted even to priests.<br>Since the mishnah is basically exactly the same as yesterday’s mishnah, there is new commentary below just look at yesterday’s commentary."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah contains yet another dispute between the sages and Rabbi Shimon over whether prohibited substances can join together to create a prohibition.",
+                    "<b>A piece of [meat from] one of the most holy [sacrifices] and [a piece] of [meat which is] piggul, or remnant, which were cooked with other pieces, it [the non-sacred meat] is prohibited to non-priests but permitted to priests.</b>  There are three categories of meat in this section: 1) most holy sacrifices; 2) piggul, which is a sacrifice that was offered by a priest with the intent to eat it in either the wrong place or the wrong time; 3) remnant a sacrifice left over beyond the time frame in which it can be eaten. The first category can be eaten by priests but not non-priests, whereas the second and third categories are prohibited to all. In the situation described here a small piece of each of these categories of meat was cooked in a dish with hullin (non-sacred) meat. The hullin meat would be sufficient in quantity to nullify each piece of meat individually, but not if all three combine together. According to the first opinion, the three categories of prohibited meat combine together to forbid the hullin to non-priests, who can’t eat any of them. They do not combine to prohibit the dish to priests because priests can eat the sacrificial meat.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon declares it permitted to non-priests and to priests.</b>  Rabbi Shimon is consistent with his opinion in the previous mishnayot where he said that different categories of forbidden food to not combine together to render hullin prohibited. This dish would be permitted to both priests and non-priests."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of this rather long chapter deals with sacrifices that were cooked together with ordinary meat.",
+                    "<b>Meat of most holy [sacrifices] and meat of less holy [sacrifices] were cooked together with ordinary meat: [the dish] is prohibited to the unclean, but permitted to the clean.</b> Meat of most holy sacrifices (such a sin-offering or a guilt-offering) is permitted only to priests. Meat of less holy sacrifices (such as a thanksgiving offering, or a peace offering) is permitted to non-priests. All sacrifices, no matter their level of holiness, can only be eaten by a person who is ritually clean. These two types of meat were then cooked together with ordinary, non-sacrificial meat, and as in yesterday’s mishnah, the quantity of the hullin meat is sufficient to nullify each type of sacrifice individually but not if we combined them together. This meat is prohibited to the unclean but permitted to the clean. Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is prohibited to the unclean because the category of prohibition of most holy sacrifices and less holy sacrifices is the same both are prohibited to the unclean. In previous mishnayot, the categories were different. The other sages agree that such meat is permitted to the clean because there is not enough of the most holy sacrifice to render the other meat prohibited. In the other cases, all three categories of meat were prohibited to non-priests, therefore they joined together to make the hullin prohibited to non-priests. Here, there is simply not enough meat that is prohibited to non-priests to render the entire dish prohibited. Structurally, we can note that the editors of the Mishnah first bring all of the cases in which the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree. In this way we can tell that in the final case, the two parties agree. Had they first related this mishnah and then the disagreements, we might have thought that Rabbi Shimon would disagree here as well."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe prohibition of orlah extends not only to eating fruit from an orlah tree, but to deriving any benefit from such fruit, or even from the peel of the fruit. The next several mishnayot deal with various objects that can become prohibited by making use of orlah.",
+                    "<b>A garment dyed with peels of orlah [fruit] must be burned.</b>  Dyes would occasionally be made from the peels of pomegranates or from the shells of various types of nuts. If a garment was dyed using dye made from orlah peels, the garment must be burned because it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it.",
+                    "<b>If it became mixed up with other [garments], all of them shall be burned, the words of Rabbi Meir.</b>  If a garment that had been dyed with peels of orlah fruit or shells from orlah nuts becomes mixed up with other garments that had been dyed with permitted dyes, then Rabbi Meir holds that all of the garments must be burned. As we shall see below in mishnah seven, Rabbi Meir holds that important objects are not nullified, as are food items which are nullified in ratios of 100-1 or 200-1, depending upon the prohibition. Since the garment is not nullified, it doesn’t matter how many garments got mixed up with it, they all are prohibited.",
+                    "<b>But the sages say: it becomes neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.</b>  The other rabbis hold that the same ratio that nullifies orlah fruit can also serve to nullify garments dyed with orlah dyes. Thus if there are 200 non-orlah garments, the orlah garment is nullified and they are all permitted."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If one dyed a thread the whole [length] of a sit with orlah peels, and wove it into a garment, and it is not known which [thread] it is:<br>Rabbi Meir says: the garment must be burned;<br>But the sages say: it becomes neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.</b><br>Our mishnah deals with a single thread that was dyed with orlah dye and then woven into a garment. The length of this thread is the length of a sit which is explained by some to mean the distance between one’s thumb and forefinger, while others explain it to be the distance between one’s forefinger and middle finger when they are as spread apart as possible.<br>According to Rabbi Meir, if one thread dyed with shells or peels of orlah becomes woven into a garment and it is not known which thread it was, the entire garment must be burned, even if there is a 200-1 ratio of permitted to prohibited threads. To Rabbi Meir even such a small thread is still considered an “important item” and therefore it doesn’t become nullified in any ratio.<br>The sages say that the prohibited thread is nullified in a ratio of 200-1, as they said with regard to an entire garment dyed with orlah thread in yesterday’s mishnah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with threads that come from various prohibited sources and the consequences of their being woven into garments.",
+                    "<b>If one wove thread the whole [length] of a sit from [the wool of a] first-born animal into a garment, the garment must be burned.</b>  It is forbidden to shear wool from a first-born goat or sheep (see Deuteronomy 15:19), and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from wool that was shorn from such an animal. Any garment that has even a thread from a first-born animal must be burned.",
+                    "<b>[If from] the hair of a nazirite or of the first-born of a donkey into sack-cloth, the sack-cloth must be burned.</b>  Similarly, it is forbidden to derive benefit from the hair of a person who took a nazirite vow. At the end of the term of naziriteship the nazirite is supposed to shave his/her hair and then burn it (see Numbers 6:18). The first-born of a donkey must be redeemed with a sheep (Exodus 13:13) and until this donkey has been redeemed it is prohibited to derive any benefit from it. Hence, if one wove sack-cloth with a sit’s length of the hair of a nazirite or of a first-born donkey that had not yet been redeemed, the sack-cloth must be burned.",
+                    "<b>And if even the smallest amount [from wool or hair of] consecrated [animals], that which it is woven into] is consecrated.</b>  The law regarding wool that comes from consecrated animals, such as animals that have been dedicated to the Temple or set aside to be sacrifices, is stricter. Even if the smallest amount of such wool is used in a garment, the entire garment must be treated as if it was consecrated. This garment cannot be used at all, however, it can be redeemed and therefore it does not necessarily have to be burned."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with a cooked dish that was heated up by burning shells from orlah nuts or peels from orlah fruit.",
+                    "<b>A dish which one cooked with shells of orlah must be burned.</b>  Just as the garment that was dyed with orlah dye must be burned (mishnah one), so too must the dish that was heated up and cooked with orlah kindling. Although this prohibited benefit did not get into the dish, since the dish was cooked with it, it is forbidden.",
+                    "<b>If [the dish] became mixed up with other [dishes], it becomes neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.</b>  If the dish became mixed up with other dishes, then if there are 200 dishes not cooked using orlah kindling for every one cooked using orlah kindling, then the orlah is neutralized. If there is less than such a ratio, then all of the dishes must be burned. Note that in this case, unlike that in mishnah one concerning the garment dyed with orlah dyes, Rabbi Meir agrees that the orlah can be neutralized. This is because a cooked dish or a loaf of bread (see mishnah five below) are not important items, whereas the garment was. Important items cannot, according to Rabbi Meir, be neutralized."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>An oven that was lit with shells of orlah, and then one baked bread in it, the bread must be burned.<br>If it became mixed up with other [loaves] it becomes neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.</b><br>This mishnah is nearly identical to mishnah four, except it deals with bread baked in an oven lit with shells of orlah nuts (or peels of orlah fruit). Like the cooked dish in mishnah four, this bread cannot be eaten and must be burned. If it becomes mixed up with other permitted loaves of bread, it can be neutralized in a 200-1 ratio."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn this mishnah we see another case in which Rabbi Meir says that when one prohibited item becomes mixed in with other items they all must be burned, whereas the other rabbis say that the prohibited item is neutralized in a ratio of 200-1.",
+                    "<b>If one has bundles of fenugreek of kilayim of the vineyard, they must be burned.</b>  If one grows fenugreek in a vineyard it is prohibited to derive any benefit from the fenugreek because this is a case of “kilayim” (mixed seeds) in a vineyard. The bundle of fenugreek must be burned.",
+                    "<b>If they became mixed up with others, all of them must be burned, the words of Rabbi Meir.</b>  If the bundle of kilayim fenugreek becomes mixed up with bundles of permitted fenugreek, Rabbi Meir says that they are all prohibited. According to Rabbi Meir, the fenugreek is considered an “important item” and therefore, no matter what the ratio of permitted fenugreek to prohibited fenugreek, they are all prohibited and they all must be burned.",
+                    "<b>But the sages say they become neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.</b>  The other rabbis again hold that the prohibited fenugreek is neutralized in a ratio of 200-1."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn this mishnah we finally hear the basis for the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the other sages.",
+                    "<b>For Rabbi Meir used to say: anything that is normally [sold] by counting causes [a mixture] to become consecrated [in even the smallest amount].</b>  According to Rabbi Meir anything that is sold by being counted out at the marketplace (as opposed to being sold by weight or volume) is an important item and therefore it prohibits a mixture no matter how little of the prohibited item is in the mixture. This would explain why bundles of orlah fenugreek cause a mixture to be prohibited no matter how small the ratio of prohibited fenugreek to permitted fenugreek. The word “consecrated” in this mishnah is used synonymously with “prohibit” because oftentimes things that are “consecrated” become prohibited from use. This was the same verb used in mishnah three.",
+                    "<b>But the sages say only six things consecrate [a mixture in even the smallest amount], and Rabbi Akiba says seven [things].</b>  The sages agree that some items cause mixtures to be prohibited in even the smallest ratios. However, they limit this to only six items, to which Rabbi Akiva adds a seventh. These items seem to have been more valuable than general items that are sold by count, such as bundles of fenugreek. Since these items are of great significance, the laws are stricter with regard to them.",
+                    "<b>And these are they: Nuts with soft shells; badan pomegranates; stopped-up casks; beet shoots; cabbage-heads; Greek pumpkins.</b>  This is a list of the six items. The stopped up casks contain orlah wine.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Akiba says: also loaves [baked by] a householder.</b>  Rabbi Akiva adds in bread baked by a householder which is more valuable than bread baked by a professional baker.",
+                    "<b>To those to which orlah applies [they prohibit the mixture] as orlah, [to those of which] kilayim of the vineyard apply [they prohibit the mixture as] kilayim of the vineyard.</b>  Orlah applies to only some of the above items, namely pomegranates, nuts, and wine. So if the mixture contains even the smallest amount of one of these items and it is orlah, the whole mixture is prohibited. Kilayim in the vineyard applies to the other items in the list, so if one of them is kilayim and it becomes mixed in with other permitted items it prohibits the mixture even if it is only a very small amount."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah provides an exception to the rule in yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>If the nuts cracked, or if the pomegranates burst open, or the casks became unstopped, or the pumpkins were cut, or the loaves were broken up, they become neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.</b> In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that certain items can not be neutralized in a mixture of two hundred. Here we learn that this is true only if they are whole. This is because they are “important items” only when they are whole. If they are in some way broken up, then they lose their importance and they will be neutralized in a mixture of 200 and one, as is the usual rule when it comes to orlah and kilayim."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah in tractate Orlah is concerned with the status of doubtful orlah and kilayim in the land of Israel and outside of it.",
+                    "<b>Doubtful orlah: in the land of Israel is prohibited, in Syria is permitted, and outside the land one may go down and purchase [from a non-Israelite] as long as he has not seen him gathering it.</b>  If one has some produce and doesn’t know whether it is orlah or not, inside the land of Israel, where the prohibition of orlah is from the Torah (deoraita) the produce is prohibited. In Syria, where some of the agricultural laws apply and some don’t (see Demai 6:11; Sheviit 6:2) the produce is permitted. Outside the land of Israel, meaning outside Syria, the law is even more lenient. One may go into the field of a non-Jew and purchase from him produce that may be orlah, as long as the Jew does not see the non-Jew actually pluck the orlah fruit from the orlah tree. In such a case this would not be “doubtful orlah” but rather “certain orlah” which is prohibited derabanan even outside the land of Israel.",
+                    "<b>A vineyard planted with vegetables [which are kilayim], and they [the vegetables] are sold outside of it: in the land of Israel these are prohibited, and in Syria they are permitted; outside the land one may go down and purchase them as long as he does not gather [them] with [one’s own] hand.</b>  The rules for kilayim are similar. The vegetables that are described here were possibly grown in a vineyard, because we know that the non-Jew has grown vegetables in his vineyard. However, they are not certain kilayim because they are being sold outside of the vineyard. Inside the land of Israel they are prohibited, because the prohibition of kilayim within Israel is deoraita and therefore we are strict even with doubtful kilayim. In Syria these vegetables are permitted. Outside of Israel one can go down to a vineyard and even see the non-Jew harvest these vegetables as long as he doesn’t gather them with his own hands. This law is even more lenient than the law concerning doubtful orlah, for here one can even see the non-Jew harvest the kilayim. Perhaps the reason that the law is more lenient is that the prohibition of kilayim outside of Israel is only an “enactment of the scribes” as we shall learn in section five.",
+                    "<b>New [produce] is prohibited by the Torah in all places.</b>  The end of this mishnah gives three different levels concerning the status of various prohibitions outside of the land of Israel. It is prohibited to eat new produce until the Omer (barley harvest) has begun to be offered on the second day of Pesah (see Hallah 1:1). This prohibition is “deoraita” even outside the land of Israel. This is indeed explicitly stated in Leviticus 23:13.",
+                    "<b>And orlah is a halachah.</b>  The prohibition of orlah is a “halakhah”. There are two opinions in the Talmud as to what this means. Some interpret it to mean “the halakhah/law of the land.” This would give it the status of a custom. Others interpret it to mean a “halakhah to Moses at Sinai.” This would give it the status of ancient oral law.",
+                    "<b>And kilayim are an enactment of the scribes.</b>  Finally, kilayim are prohibited outside the land of Israel by an enactment of the sages. This refers only to mixed seeds in the vineyard, from which it is even prohibited to derive benefit in the land of Israel. The law regarding different types of seeds that were planted together is more lenient in the land of Israel (one can eat such seeds, just not plant them) and therefore the law outside of Israel is more lenient as well. Yoking together two different types of animals (such as a donkey and an ox) and cross-breeding animals and trees is prohibited by the Torah in all places. For more information concerning kilayim look at my introduction to tractate Kilayim. Congratulations! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learn the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearn it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. One of the aspects of Orlah that I found interesting was the chapter on forbidden mixtures. Many of our laws of kashrut stem from sources in this chapter and other places in Zeraim. Interestingly, there is far more information in tannaitic sources concerning prohibited agricultural produce such as orlah, kilayim and terumah then there is about prohibited animals and the prohibition of the mixture of milk and meat. When later rabbis (in the Talmudic and post-Talmudic periods) came to codify when something is not kosher (meaning it is either a mixture of milk and meat or stems from a prohibited animal) they often were forced to rely on sources that are from Seder Zeraim, and many from tractate Orlah. Thus this tractate is actually quite practical. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Bikkurim, the last tractate in Seder Zeraim."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ערלה",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Orlah",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Orlah",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Zeraim/English Explanation of Mishnah Orlah/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,238 @@
+{
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Orlah",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Orlah",
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "Tractate Orlah is concerned with fruit that grows on a tree during its first three years of growth. The laws are all based on Leviticus 19:23-24:",
+            "When you enter the land and plant any tree for food, you shall regard its fruit as forbidden (arel). Three years its fruit shall be forbidden (arel) for you, not to be eaten. In the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, (set aside) for jubilation before the Lord; and only in the fifth year may you use its fruit—that its yield to you may be increased. I the Lord am your God.",
+            "According to this verse, fruit which grows on a tree during its first three years is prohibited. The rabbis add that it is prohibited not just to eat this fruit, but also to derive any benefit from it. ",
+            "The years of a tree are counted not by how long ago the tree was actually planted but by the calendar years. The first of Tishrei is the date that is considered the first of the year for orlah (see Rosh Hashanah 1:1) so a tree planted before the first of Tishrei (actually thirty days before the first of Tishrei so that it has time to grow roots), is considered to already be in its second year. ",
+            "In its fourth year the fruit is called “fourth year produce” or “neta revai.” The mishnah dealt with this subject at the end of tractate Maaser Sheni because this fruit is treated similarly to second tithe. ",
+            "Our tractate also deals extensively with the subject of orlah fruit that has become mixed up with other permitted produce. It also deals with mixed seeds and terumah that have become mixed up with other produce, because these halakhot are all similar.  "
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah teaches that if a fruit tree is planted for a reason other than to provide fruit, it is exempt from the laws of orlah and its fruit may be eaten within the first three years of growth. This law is a great example of the strong role intent, in Hebrew, kavvanah, plays in rabbinic law. The intent of the person planting the tree is what determines the status of its fruit, and not the mere physicality of whether the tree is three years or older.",
+                    "<b>One who plants [a fruit tree] as a fence or to provide wood beams, it is exempt from [the law of] orlah.</b>  As stated in the introduction, if the tree was planted for another reason other than for its fruit, its fruit is permitted immediately, without having to wait three years. This law also stems (no pun intended) from Leviticus 19:23, which begins, “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food...” The tree is subject to the laws of orlah only if it is planted for food.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: even if he said “The inward [facing part of the tree] is for food, and the outward [facing part] is for a fence,” the inward [facing part] is subject [to orlah], and the outward [facing part] is exempt.</b>  Rabbi Yose says that one can divide a tree into two parts. If the inward part, the part facing the field, was planted for food and the outer part was planted to serve as a fence to his field, he can eat the fruit of the outside part without waiting three years. But the laws of orlah do apply to the inside part."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with situations in which a tree is exempt from the laws of orlah, or situations in which it is subject, even though one might have thought that it should be exempt.",
+                    "<b>If at the time when our ancestors came into the land and they found [a tree already] planted it was exempt [from the laws of orlah]. If they planted [a tree], even though they had not yet conquered [the land], it was subject [to orlah].</b>  This law is based on the beginning of Leviticus 19:23, “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food.” The laws of orlah do not apply to trees that were planted before the Israelites entered the land of Israel in the times of Joshua. If they planted a tree, the laws would apply even though the land had not yet been conquered. Obviously this law is not of any practical significance. This is a good example of what interests the rabbis. They are interested in practical matters and there are many halakhot in the Mishnah that have practical significance. But they are no less interested in explaining the Torah, even in cases where there is no practical implication to their words. This section of this mishnah is solely meant to explain the verse.",
+                    "<b>If one planted a tree for [the use of] the many, it is subject. But Rabbi Judah makes it exempt.</b>  According to the first opinion, if one plants a tree on his own property for the use of many others, the tree is still subject to the laws of orlah. Rabbi Judah disagrees and says that it is not.",
+                    "<b>If one has planted [a tree] in the public domain, or if a non-Jew has planted, or if a robber has planted, or one who plants on a boat, or [a tree] that has grown of itself, it is subject to orlah.</b>  In all of the cases in this mishnah we might have thought the tree is not subject to the laws of orlah, therefore the mishnah teaches that the tree is subject. The first three categories all seem to say that the status of the planter and the status of the tree do not matter. Thus, although a tree in the public domain does not belong to the one who planted it, it is still subject to orlah. Halakhah does not generally apply to non-Jewish produce, but since the status of the tree is not determined by its owner, the tree planted by a non-Jew is subject to orlah. The robber does not own the field in which he planted the tree. Nevertheless, the tree is subject to the laws of orlah.  All three of these categories serve to distinguish orlah from most of the other agricultural laws. For instance, produce which grows in the public domain is exempt from tithes. A tree that is planted on a boat is also liable, because the boat is treated as if it was land. Finally, a tree that has no owner is also liable, because as we have stated, it is the tree that is determinative, not the owner."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses whether a replanted tree counts as if it was newly planted, such that one would have to wait another three years before its produce could be eaten.",
+                    "<b>If a tree was uprooted and the hard soil together with it, or if a stream swept it away and the hard soil together with it, [then] if it could have lived it is exempt, But if [it could] not, it is subject.</b>  The criterion throughout the mishnah for determining whether the tree is considered to be replanted is whether it could have lived from the amount of soil that was uprooted with it. The test would seem to be placing it in a pot if there was enough soil still stuck to the roots of the tree that the tree could continue to live then it is exempt from the laws of orlah, meaning that this is not considered replanting. But if it could not live from this soil, then the clock is rewound and the fruit of next three years will be prohibited.",
+                    "<b>If the hard soil has been detached from its side, or if a ploughshare shook it, or if someone shook it, and one reset it with earth, [then] if it could have lived, it is exempt, But if not, it is subject.</b>  This same rule applies in situations where the tree lost some of its soil and then a person put more soil back there. If the tree could have lived off of the soil that was left attached to it, then putting new soil on it doesn’t count as replanting. But if it could not have lived off of this soil, then it does count as replanting."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with when a tree is considered to have been uprooted.",
+                    "<b>If a tree was uprooted and one root was left [in the ground], it is exempt.</b>  As long as one root is still attached to the ground, the tree is considered to still be planted and, if the tree is older than three years, it is exempt from the rules of orlah.",
+                    "<b>How much must the [thickness of the] root be? Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said in the name of Rabb Eliezer ben Judah a man of Bartota:  as [thick as] a pin [used for] stretching.</b>  In order for the root to count as still attaching the tree to ground, it must be as thick as a pin that weavers used for stretching the cloth. Others explain that this is a pin used by launderers. In any case, if the root is thinner than that, it would not be sufficient to nourish the tree, so we would have to consider the tree as having been detached and then replanted, which means that for the next three years its fruit will be prohibited."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThere are two agricultural practices mentioned in this mishnah. The first is taking a branch from a vine, bending it down into the ground and then bringing it up again elsewhere. Underground the branch will grow new roots. Our mishnah will ask the question of how to reckon the years of the vine that grows from what it calls a “bent-down and rooted shoot.”\nThe second practice is grafting, whereby one takes a detached branch and grafts into onto an existing vine.",
+                    "<b>A tree which was uprooted and it has a bent-down [and rooted] shoot, and it [the tree] derives sustenance from it [the shoot], the old [tree] is [considered] like the shoot.</b>  In this case the original, old tree (or vine) was uprooted, but a branch that had been bent into the ground still remains in the ground and provides sustenance to the tree. The mishnah rules that the tree is considered to be like the shoot. Shoots that are bent into the ground are not subject to the laws of orlah as long as they are still attached to the older vine/tree, because the Torah says, “When you plant” and the rabbis understand this as excluding bending shoots into the ground. Note that the innovation here is that even though the branch that had been bent and rooted into the ground now looks like a new vine, it still counts as far as attaching the old vine to the ground.",
+                    "<b>If one bends [and roots] from it year after year, and it became detached, one counts from the time it became detached.</b>  If one bends and roots branches into the ground year after year, and at some point the new vines the grow from these shoots become detached from the mother tree, their count as far as orlah goes begins from the time they become detached. Up until that point their count went according to the old vine but once they are detached we have to look at them as if they were just planted.",
+                    "<b>A grafted shoot of vines, and a grafted shoot [growing] on another grafted shoot, even if he rooted them in the soil, they are permitted.</b>  This section deals with grafting vines onto an older tree. If one grafts new vines onto an old tree their orlah count goes according to the older tree. This is true even if he puts grafts onto other grafts, and even if he bends some of those grafts into the ground such that they receive nourishment from the soil. In all of these cases, as long as the new grafts are connected to the old tree, one does not have to start a new count of years for the issue of orlah.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Meir said: in an instance where it is strongly [grafted], it is permitted, but in an instance where it is poorly [grafted], it is prohibited.</b>  Rabbi Meir is referring to a grafted branch which is grafted onto an already existing grafted branch. If the grafted branch onto which the new one is being grafted is strongly attached to the tree, meaning this graft is successful and is producing new fruits, then the new graft is permitted in terms of orlah. The old graft is considered part of the old tree. But if the prior graft is not strongly attached, then the new one is prohibited, because we can’t look at the old graft as if it is attached to the tree.",
+                    "<b>A bent-down [and rooted] shoot that has become detached and is full of fruit, [then] if it increased one two hundredth, it is prohibited.</b>  The final section of our mishnah returns to discuss a branch of a vine that is bent down and rooted into the ground. As we learned above, as long as the branch is attached to the old vine, its fruit is permitted.  In this case, the branch grows fruit while attached and then becomes detached. The question is: does the orlah count restart for the fruit that has already grown? The mishnah rules that if the fruit grew 1/200 in size, then the fruit is prohibited. This is the standard number for cases of orlah mixed with non-orlah. If there is 1/200th orlah, then the mixture is prohibited. This would also be the case here the part that grew when the branch was attached is not orlah, whereas the new growth is orlah. So if the new growth is 1/200th or more of the total volume, then it is prohibited."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with orlah or a vineyard into which seeds had been planted which then become mixed up with non-prohibited plants or produce. The question is: does this mixture become nullified if the prohibited part is less than 1/200 of the permitted part?",
+                    "<b>If a shoot of orlah or a vineyard in which seeds had been planted (, became mixed up with [other] shoots, behold one may not gather [the fruit].</b>  A person has a bunch of plants in his backyard, or a few vineyards. Some of the plants are orlah, or some of the vineyards have seeds of grain planted in them (kilayim). These plants or vineyards are prohibited. However, he doesn’t know which plants are orlah or which vineyards are kilayim (the grain is assumedly gone). If he has not yet gathered the fruit, he cannot gather any of the fruit from any of these plants. While some times prohibited things can become nullified if they are small enough percentages of a mixture, this is the case only if the produce is already detached from the ground. Since this produce is still attached to the ground, he cannot even pick it.",
+                    "<b>But if one has gathered [it], it is neutralized in two hundred-and-one, provided that he did not act deliberately. Rabbi Yose says: even if he acted deliberately, it becomes neutralized in two hundred-and-one.</b>  If he gathered it already without realizing that some of the produce was prohibited, then as long as there is not more than 1/200 part orlah or kilayim, the prohibited stuff is nullified. However, if he deliberately picked the produce, knowing that this would allow it to be nullified, he is penalized and it is prohibited. The rule is that one is not allowed to intentionally nullify a prohibited substance. Rabbi Yose says that this is not really a case of intentionally nullifying a prohibited substance. When he picks the produce he is not yet nullifying the prohibited plants, because the stuff still attached to the ground can’t be nullified. It is only nullified when the produce is picked and it turns out that less than 1/200 of it is prohibited. Therefore, he can deliberately pick the produce so that the prohibited plants will be nullified."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with the subject of what parts of a vine are prohibited because of orlah.",
+                    "<b>Leaves, sprouts, sap of vines, and vine-buds are permitted in respect of orlah and the laws of the fourth year, and to a nazirite, but are prohibited if they come from an Asherah [tree]. Rabbi Yose says: vine-buds are prohibited because they are fruit.</b>  The laws of orlah and fourth year produce do not apply to the non-edible parts of the tree only to the fruit. So if one wants to derive benefit from these parts during the first four years of the tree’s existence, he may do so. When it comes to the vine, these parts are permitted to a nazirite, since he is prohibited from consuming only the grapes and the parts of the grapes (see Numbers 6:3-4). However, when it comes to an Asherah tree, which is a tree used in idolatry, then every part of the tree is prohibited. Rabbi Yose considers the vine-buds to be food, even though most people wouldn’t eat them before they fully ripen. Therefore, the laws of orlah and fourth year produce and the Nazirite prohibitions apply to them.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer said: if one curdles [milk] with the resinous substances of [a tree liable to] orlah, it is prohibited. Rabbi Joshua said: I have received an explicit tradition that if one curdles [milk] with the resinous substance of the leaves, or with the resinous substance of the roots, it is permitted, but with the resinous substance of the unripe berries, it is prohibited, because these are fruit.</b>  This section deals with the resin that comes from the tree and is used to curdle milk and make cheese. Rabbi Eliezer says that the laws of orlah apply to this substance and therefore if one uses it to curdle milk, the cheese will be prohibited. Rabbi Joshua disagrees based on a received oral tradition that the laws of orlah do not apply to the resin that comes from the tree and is used to curdle the milk. This is true as long as the resin comes from the leaves or roots, parts of the tree to which the laws of orlah never apply. However, if he uses the resin that comes from the unripe berries, the cheese is prohibited because these unripe berries are, according to Rabbi Yose, subject to the laws of orlah. And even according to the opinion that disagrees with Rabbi Yose, although the unripe berries are not subject to orlah, when they ripen they will be subject to orlah. Therefore, this cheese will be prohibited."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah continues to deal with what parts of the grape or fruit are subject to the laws of orlah, the asherah (idol-tree), the nazirite prohibitions and fourth-year vineyards.",
+                    "<b>Defective grapes, grape kernels, grape husks, and the temed drink made from them, the peel of a pomegranate and its sprout, nutshells, and fruit-seeds, are all subject to the laws of orlah, asherah and a nazirite, but permitted in respect of a fourth year vineyard.</b>  All of the parts of grapes, fruits and nuts are subject to the laws of orlah, so that one could not use them during the first three years of growth. They are also prohibited if they grow from an asherah tree, for as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, all parts of the asherah tree are prohibited. Finally, they are prohibited to a nazirite because Numbers 6:3-4 states, “no vinegar of (new) wine or vinegar of old wine, nor shall he drink any liquor of grapes…from the kernels even to the husk she shall not eat.” However, the rules of the fourth year vineyard, which must be taken to Jerusalem and eaten there, do not apply to these parts of the grape or fruit, because the laws of maaser sheni and the fourth year vineyard (which are always the same) apply only to the parts of the plant that are normally eaten.",
+                    "<b>Fallen unripe fruit is subject to all of them.</b>  Fallen unripe fruit is subject to all of these prohibitions because it is food, even though it is not yet ready to be eaten."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with planting things that come from an orlah tree which is orlah.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: one may plant a shoot of orlah;</b>  Since the laws of orlah do not apply to the branches or shoots of a tree, one may plant a shoot of orlah. If the laws of orlah did apply, it would be forbidden to derive any benefit from the shoot, including planting it to grow a tree.",
+                    "<b>But one may not plant a nut of orlah, because it is fruit.</b>  The laws of orlah do apply to the nuts of a tree, because they are considered to be fruit. Hence, one cannot plant a nut.",
+                    "<b>And one may not graft early date berries of orlah.</b>  The laws of orlah also apply to the “early date berries”, which according to some commentators are early date-palm branches and according to others, are a certain type of date. In any case, these date berries count as fruit and hence cannot be used in grafting."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe second chapter of orlah deals with mixtures consisting of permitted and forbidden produce. Specifically the issue is, when does the prohibited part of the mixture become nullified by the permitted part of the mixture?",
+                    "<b>Terumah, terumat maaser of demai, hallah and bikkurim, are neutralized in a hundred-and-one mixture.</b>  If terumah, or terumat maaser of demai (demai is produce acquired from an am haaretz, concerning whom we have doubt whether he tithed; terumat maaser is the terumah taken from the tithe), hallah or bikkurim (first fruits) become mixed up with hullin produce, meaning produce that has no status of holiness, then there needs to be 100 parts hullin for every part of holy stuff, in order for the holy stuff to be neutralized. If there is not 100 parts hullin, then we must treat the entire mixture as if it were holy. This will almost always cause a financial loss to the owner.",
+                    "<b>And they are reckoned together [to form the statutory minimum].</b>  If some of these things are mixed in together, for instance terumah is mixed in with bikkurim, then they are counted together to prohibit a larger mixture. Thus if ½ part terumah is mixed in with another ½ part bikkurim, there will need to be 100 parts hullin for the holy stuff to be neutralized.",
+                    "<b>And it is necessary to remove [from the mixture an amount equal to that of the consecrated produce contained in it].</b>  Once the mixture is neutralized, one would need to take out the amount of holy stuff that is in the mixture and treat it as whatever holy stuff it might be. Thus if 100 parts hullin are mixed in with one part terumah, he can take out one part, give it to a kohen, and treat the rest like hullin. The reason that he has to take the equivalent part out is that someone was supposed to receive these things, in the case of terumah, the priest.",
+                    "<b>Orlah and kilayim of the vineyard are neutralized in a two-hundred-and-one mixture.</b>  The necessary ratio to neutralize orlah and kilayim in a vineyard (seeds that were planted in a vineyard) is 200 to 1. The laws are simply stricter with these two types of produce because not only can they not be eaten, one can not even derive benefit from them.",
+                    "<b>And they are reckoned together [to form the statutory minimum].</b>  The same rule as in section two.",
+                    "<b>But it is not necessary to remove [from the mixture an amount equal to that of the consecrated produce contained in it].</b>  Unlike terumah and the other types of produce in section one, orlah and kilayim don’t go to anyone. Since they don’t go to anyone, he need not take a portion out.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: they are not reckoned together.</b>  According to Rabbi Shimon, if orlah and kilayim are mixed together, they are not reckoned together (he disagrees with section five). The reason is that these are completely different prohibitions, unlike terumah, terumat maaser etc. which are all in the same family of halakhot.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: they are reckoned together when they impart flavor, but not to prohibit.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer says that if the two combined prohibited substances, orlah and kilayim, jointly impart their taste to the entire mixture, then they are reckoned together. But if they don’t, then they don’t join together and each will be considered separately. Rabbi Eliezer seems to be a compromise between the two opposite positions found in sections five and seven."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn this mishnah we learn that if terumah and orlah are mixed in together, each counts with regard to creating the necessary ratio for the other to be voided.",
+                    "<b>Terumah can void orlah, and orlah can void terumah.</b>  If terumah and hullin are mixed in together, they can join together to create the necessary 200 to 1 ratio in order to neutralize any orlah or kilayim that are in the mixture. Similarly, orlah can join together with hullin to create the necessary 100 to one ratio to neutralize terumah.",
+                    "<b>How so? [For instance] a seah of terumah fell into one hundred, and afterwards three kavs of orlah or three kavs of mixed-seeds of the vineyard [fell in]. This is [an instance] where terumah goes towards neutralizing orlah, and orlah terumah.</b>  The mishnah now illustrates how this works. If a seah of terumah falls into one hundred (actually ninety-nine) of hullin, and then three kavs, which is half a seah, of orlah or kilayim (mixed-seeds) fall in, the orlah or kilayim is neutralized. If we count the terumah with the hullin then there is a 200 to one ratio to neutralize the orlah or kilayim. Similarly, if a seah of orlah is mixed up with 200 seahs of hullin, and then terumah fell into the mixture, if the orlah and hullin are more than 100 to 1 of the terumah, the terumah is neutralized."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is similar to the previous mishnah, but it talks about orlah and kilayim, instead of orlah and terumah.",
+                    "<b>Orlah can void kilayim, and kilayim [can void] orlah, and orlah [can void] orlah.</b>  Orlah can be combined with hullin to nullify kilayim and likewise, kilayim can join with hullin to nullify orlah, and there is even a case where orlah can combine with hullin to void other orlah.",
+                    "<b>How so? A seah of orlah falls into two hundred [seahs] and afterwards there falls in a seah and a little bit more of orlah, or a seah and a little bit more of kilayim of the vineyard--this is [a case] where orlah can void kilayim, and kilayim [can void] orlah, and orlah [can void] orlah.</b>  As in yesterday’s mishnah, we get an illustration of the aforementioned principle. First, a seah of orlah falls into two hundred seahs of hullin and then becomes void. There are now 201 seahs of hullin in the mixture. If afterwards a seah and a little bit more (1/200th of seah) of orlah fall in, the 201 seahs can nullify the one and 1/200 seahs of orlah that subsequently fall in, even though the 201 seahs is actually 200 seahs of hullin and one seah of orlah. The original seah that fell in counts when it comes to voiding the subsequent seah and a little bit more. The same would be true if a seah and a little bit more of mixed seeds of a vineyard fell in the original seah of orlah counts when it comes to nullifying the subsequent seah and 1/200 of kilayim."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn the above mishnayot we learned that terumah is nullified if it falls into a mixture that is more than a ratio of 100 to 1 and orlah and kilayim are nullified in a ratio of 200 to 1. Today’s mishnah limits this principle.",
+                    "<b>Whatever causes something to ferment, or seasons, or makes medumma with terumah, with orlah or with ‘mixed-seeds’ of the vineyard, is prohibited.</b>  If someone takes starter dough (leaven) made of terumah, orlah or kilayim and uses it to ferment his hullin dough, or seasons a dish with terumah, orlah or kilayim spices, then the whole dish is rendered prohibited. Because the prohibited object caused a substantive change in the entire mixture, either causing it to rise or have flavor, the small prohibited substance cannot be nullified by the larger amount in the mixture, no matter how small a quantity the smaller amount is. The words “or makes medumma” are very difficult to interpret. The Rambam reads not “or makes medumma” but rather “makes medumma” which means that if the starter dough or seasoning is terumah it renders the mixture “medumma” which is terumah mixed in with hullin. Medumma may be eaten by a priest. This reading makes a lot of sense. The problem with this reading is that no other manuscripts read this way.",
+                    "<b>Bet Shammai says: it also renders unclean. But Bet Hillel says: it never renders unclean unless it has the volume of an egg.</b>  According to Bet Shammai, the same rule holds true when it comes to the rules of purity. If ritually clean dough has been fermented with unclean dough, or a clean dish has been spiced with an unclean dish, the dough or dish is impure, no matter how small a quantity of starter dough or seasoning was used. Bet Hillel, however, holds that in order to render impure there needs to be an egg’s worth of impure stuff. It doesn’t matter whether the unclean stuff is a leavening agent, spices or anything if it’s not the volume of an egg, it can’t render impure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Dostai of Kefar Yitmah was one of the disciples of Bet Shammai, and he said, “I received a tradition from Shammai the elder who said: “It never renders unclean unless it contains the volume of an egg.”</b><br>In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that Bet Shammai holds that unclean hametz (leaven) or spices can render a mixture unclean, even if there is only the smallest amount of the unclean leaven or spices. Bet Hillel says that there must be the volume of an egg. In today’s mishnah a member of the house of Bet Shammai says that Shammai himself agreed with Bet Hillel, that there needs to be the volume of an egg."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah begins to explain two rules with regards to when mixtures of prohibited and permitted substances are prohibited.",
+                    "<b>Concerning what did they say: “Anything that causes fermentation or seasons or which renders medumma we rule stringently”? [In the case of] a species [mixed] with its [like] species.</b>  The first general rule is that we rule stringently when a prohibited substance (kilayim, orlah or terumah) which causes fermentation (leavens) or seasons mixes with another similar permitted substance. Such a mixture is prohibited no matter how small the prohibited substance, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>[When did they say] “we rule [sometimes] leniently and [sometimes] stringently”? [In the case of] a species [mixed] with a different kind of species.</b>  The second rule is that when the two substances are of different kind, we sometimes rule leniently and sometimes strictly. This will be illustrated in subsequent mishnayot.",
+                    "<b>How so? If leaven of wheat fell into dough of wheat and there is enough to cause fermentation, [then] whether there is enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, or there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, it is prohibited. If there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, [then] whether there is enough to cause fermentation, or there is not enough to cause fermentation, it is prohibited.</b>  The mishnah now illustrates the principle in section one. If leaven of wheat falls into dough of wheat, we have a mixture of a like substance with another like substance. If the wheat leaven is terumah and there is enough leaven to ferment the entire mixture, then the mixture is prohibited no matter how small of an amount it is in relation to the mixture. If there is not enough wheat leaven to ferment the entire mixture, then the entire mixture can still be prohibited if there is not 100 parts hullin to one part terumah. In such a case the entire mixture is called “medumma,” doubtful terumah. It must be sold to a priest, with a reduction for the amount of terumah that actually fell in. However, if there are 100 parts hullin to one part terumah, then the mixture is not prohibited. The owner may take out one part, give it to a priest and the remainder of the mixture reverts to being hullin."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah illustrates the second principle in yesterday’s mishnah, that when there are different species mixed together, one permitted and one prohibited, sometimes we rule leniently and sometimes we rule stringently.",
+                    "<b>[We rule sometimes] leniently and [sometimes] stringently, [in the case of] a species [mixed] with a different kind of species. How so?</b>  This is the rule that was stated in yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>If crushed beans were boiled together with lentils, and there is enough of them [the crushed beans] to impart flavor, [then] whether there is enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, or there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, it is prohibited.</b>  This section illustrates the stringency. Crushed beans and lentils are considered to be two different species. If crushed beans that are of terumah are boiled with hullin (non-sacred) lentils, and the crushed beans impart their flavor to the entire mixture, then it doesn’t matter how small a percentage of the entire mixture the crushed beans are, the entire mixture is prohibited.",
+                    "<b>[But] if there is not enough to impart flavor, [then] whether there is enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, or there is not enough to become neutralized in one-hundred-and-one, [the mixture] is permitted.</b>  However, if the crushed beans do not impart their flavor, then it doesn’t matter if there is not the usually required 100-1 ratio, the mixture is permitted. To summarize, when it comes to unlike species, the one question we need to ask is if the forbidden species imparts flavor to the permitted species. If it does, the entire mixture is prohibited, no matter the percentage; if it does not, the entire mixture is permitted."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with a situation in which two batches of leaven fall into dough one being hullin (non-sacred) and one being terumah or kilayim.",
+                    "<b>If leaven of hullin has fallen into dough, and there was enough of it to cause fermentation, and after that leaven of terumah fell in or leaven of kilayim of the vineyard, and there is enough to cause fermentation, [the dough] is prohibited.</b> In this case, the first piece of leaven to fall into the dough was enough to ferment the entire dough. When the next piece of leaven falls in, and that dough is terumah or kilayim (both would seemingly cause the dough to be prohibited), we might have thought that since the dough could be fermented even without the terumah or kilayim, the dough would be permitted. The mishnah rules that the dough is prohibited even though the prohibited leaven was not needed. The second batch of leaven, although not needed, still sped up the leavening process and therefore it causes the dough to be prohibited."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn yesterday’s mishnah, the terumah leaven fell into already-leavened dough before the dough had begun to ferment, and therefore, since the terumah leaven may have sped up the fermenting process, the dough was prohibited. In today’s mishnah, the leaven falls in after the dough has already been fermented.",
+                    "<b>If leaven of hullin has fallen into dough and caused it to ferment, and after that there fell in leaven of terumah or of kilayim of the vineyard, and there was enough to cause fermentation, [the dough] is prohibited.</b>  According to the first opinion, it doesn’t matter that the terumah leaven fell into the dough after the dough had already been fermented. The forbidden leaven will still increase the fermentation of the dough and therefore, the entire dough becomes prohibited.",
+                    "<b>But Rabbi Shimon permits it.</b>  Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, holds that the dough is permitted. One explanation for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is that he holds that extra leaven will not improve the taste of the dough, but rather make it taste worse. Since this taste is undesirable, it does not cause the dough to be prohibited. In yesterday’s mishnah, the leaven terumah improved the taste of the dough because it had not yet been fermented, therefore, Rabbi Shimon would agree that the dough is prohibited."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with seasonings and when they prohibit a dish into which they fell.",
+                    "<b>Seasonings [consisting] of two or three categories of one species, or [consisting] of three species [of one category], are forbidden and combine.</b>  If two or three categories of one type of seasoning, for instance pepper from terumah, kilayim and orlah, fall into a dish, they combine to forbid the dish if they impart taste. The same is true if there are three different species, for instance, pepper, onion and garlic of one category such as terumah. If together they impart flavor, then the dish is prohibited.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon said: Two or three categories of one species, or two species of one category, do not combine.</b>  Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that different categories of one species and different species of one category do not combine."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday’s mishnah discusses leaven of hullin and terumah that fall into dough and neither is sufficient to cause fermentation alone, but together they do cause fermentation.",
+                    "<b>Leaven of hullin and of terumah fell into dough, and neither this was sufficient to cause fermentation nor was that sufficient to cause fermentation, but together they caused [the dough] to ferment:<br>Rabbi Eliezer says: I go after the last.</b>  According to Rabbi Eliezer, whatever is the last to fall in is determinative because that is the leaven that causes the dough to ferment. If terumah leaven falls in first, and then hullin leaven, the dough is permitted because the hullin leaven is what caused fermentation. If the terumah leaven fell in last, then the dough is prohibited because it was forbidden leaven that caused fermentation.",
+                    "<b>But the sages say: whether the prohibited fell in first or last, it never causes the dough to become prohibited unless there is enough to cause fermentation.</b>  The sages are more lenient, and rule that the dough is permitted unless the forbidden leaven is sufficient to cause fermentation alone. If fermentation depends on the hullin leaven, then the dough is permitted."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Yoezer, master of the temple (Ish Habirah), was one of the disciples of Bet Shammai and he said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel the elder as he was standing at the eastern gate [of the Temple], and he said: it never causes the dough to become prohibited unless there is enough to cause fermentation.</b><br>In this mishnah, a man by the name of Yoezer provides testimony that Rabban Gamaliel the elder, a sage who lived while the Temple still stood, agreed with the sages’ opinion in yesterday’s mishnah, that forbidden leaven never causes dough to become prohibited unless there is enough forbidden leaven to cause fermentation.<br>There are two descriptions of Yoezer provided in this mishnah. First of all, he is “Ish Habirah” which according to one opinion in the Talmud, means that he was “master of the Temple”, since Birah is a name of the entire Temple. Other commentators say that Birah is located near the Temple, but is not actually the Temple itself, while others say that it is a place within the Temple.<br>The second fact is that Yoezer is a student of Bet Shammai. This is the second time in our chapter where a mishnah has stated that a student of Bet Shammai agrees with the sages of the previous mishnah, who can surely be identified with Bet Hillel. Accordingly, Rabbi Eliezer who argued with the sages in the previous mishnah, can be identified as holding a Shammaite position, albeit one that Yoezer seems to dispute. Thus, although we don’t get any new halakhic information in this mishnah, we do learn some valuable historical information about a halakhic battle going on within the House of Shammai. The Mishnah, which is a product of Bet Hillel, considers it worthwhile to let us know that sometimes those of the House of Shammai actually agree with Bet Hillel.<br>The mishnah itself contains the same halakhah as that found in yesterday’s mishnah, so for more information, look there."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is not related to the chapter’s main topic, mixtures of forbidden and permitted produce. Rather the same phrase that appears in mishnah eleven, where Rabbi Eliezer says “I go after the first,” appears here.\nThe mishnah deals with vessels, such as shoes or other leather clothes, which were oiled with unclean and then clean oil, or vice versa.",
+                    "<b>Vessels which were oiled with unclean oil, and [later] he returned and oiled them with clean oil;</b>  The vessels, which in this mishnah refers to clothing, were first oiled with unclean oil in order to soften them. When the unclean oil dried up, they were immersed in a mikveh in order to purify them. Then they were oiled again with clean oil.",
+                    "<b>Or he [first] oiled them with clean oil, and [later] he returned [to them] and oiled them with unclean oil:</b>  Alternatively, they were first oiled with clean oil and then with unclean oil.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: “I go after the first.”</b>  Rabbi Eliezer says that the purity of the clothing goes after the first oiling. When the clothes expel the oil that they have soaked up, they will, according to Rabbi Eliezer, expel the first oil that they absorbed. So if the first oil was impure, then the clothes are impure.",
+                    "<b>And the sages say: after the last.</b>  The rabbis hold that the first oil is absorbed by the clothing and when used the objects will expel the last oil used.  Therefore, their purity goes after the first oiling."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with leaven of terumah and leaven of kilayim which fell into dough. Neither piece of leaven is sufficient to cause fermentation, but together they cause fermentation. According to the rabbis’ opinion found in mishnah ten, the dough is not prohibited to everyone because of the kilayim, since the kilayim leaven was not in and of itself sufficient to cause fermentation. The question asked in our mishnah is: what about the terumah leaven? Does it join with the kilayim leaven to cause the dough to be forbidden to priests?",
+                    "<b>Leaven of terumah and of kilayim of the vineyard which fell into dough, this one is not sufficient to cause fermentation, nor is that one sufficient to cause fermentation, but together they cause fermentation:<br>It [the dough] is prohibited to non-priests and permitted to priests.</b>  The rabbis in mishnah twelve hold that two forbidden substances join together to create a prohibition. Since both terumah and kilayim are prohibited to non-priests, the dough is prohibited to non-priests. However, the dough is not prohibited to priests because priests can eat terumah and the kilayim leaven was not sufficient to cause fermentation on its own.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon permits it to both to non-priests and to priests.</b>  Rabbi Shimon is consistent with his own opinion in mishnah ten, that substances of different categories do not combine. The leaven of terumah and the leaven of kilayim do not combine and since neither is sufficient to cause fermentation, the dough is permitted to everyone."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Seasonings of terumah and of kilayim of the vineyard that fell into a dish, and there is not enough of one to season, nor is there of the other to season, but together they seasoned:<br>It [the dish] is prohibited to non-priests but permitted to priests.<br>Rabbi Shimon declares it permitted to non-priests and to priests.</b><br>This mishnah contains the same debate that was found in yesterday’s mishnah, except yesterday the mishnah dealt with leaven and fermentation, and today the mishnah deals with seasonings. Again the majority view holds that the two forbidden substances, terumah and kilayim, combine to cause the dish to be prohibited to non-priests, whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that the substances do not join together and the dish is permitted even to priests.<br>Since the mishnah is basically exactly the same as yesterday’s mishnah, there is new commentary below just look at yesterday’s commentary."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah contains yet another dispute between the sages and Rabbi Shimon over whether prohibited substances can join together to create a prohibition.",
+                    "<b>A piece of [meat from] one of the most holy [sacrifices] and [a piece] of [meat which is] piggul, or remnant, which were cooked with other pieces, it [the non-sacred meat] is prohibited to non-priests but permitted to priests.</b>  There are three categories of meat in this section: 1) most holy sacrifices; 2) piggul, which is a sacrifice that was offered by a priest with the intent to eat it in either the wrong place or the wrong time; 3) remnant a sacrifice left over beyond the time frame in which it can be eaten. The first category can be eaten by priests but not non-priests, whereas the second and third categories are prohibited to all. In the situation described here a small piece of each of these categories of meat was cooked in a dish with hullin (non-sacred) meat. The hullin meat would be sufficient in quantity to nullify each piece of meat individually, but not if all three combine together. According to the first opinion, the three categories of prohibited meat combine together to forbid the hullin to non-priests, who can’t eat any of them. They do not combine to prohibit the dish to priests because priests can eat the sacrificial meat.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon declares it permitted to non-priests and to priests.</b>  Rabbi Shimon is consistent with his opinion in the previous mishnayot where he said that different categories of forbidden food to not combine together to render hullin prohibited. This dish would be permitted to both priests and non-priests."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of this rather long chapter deals with sacrifices that were cooked together with ordinary meat.",
+                    "<b>Meat of most holy [sacrifices] and meat of less holy [sacrifices] were cooked together with ordinary meat: [the dish] is prohibited to the unclean, but permitted to the clean.</b> Meat of most holy sacrifices (such a sin-offering or a guilt-offering) is permitted only to priests. Meat of less holy sacrifices (such as a thanksgiving offering, or a peace offering) is permitted to non-priests. All sacrifices, no matter their level of holiness, can only be eaten by a person who is ritually clean. These two types of meat were then cooked together with ordinary, non-sacrificial meat, and as in yesterday’s mishnah, the quantity of the hullin meat is sufficient to nullify each type of sacrifice individually but not if we combined them together. This meat is prohibited to the unclean but permitted to the clean. Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is prohibited to the unclean because the category of prohibition of most holy sacrifices and less holy sacrifices is the same both are prohibited to the unclean. In previous mishnayot, the categories were different. The other sages agree that such meat is permitted to the clean because there is not enough of the most holy sacrifice to render the other meat prohibited. In the other cases, all three categories of meat were prohibited to non-priests, therefore they joined together to make the hullin prohibited to non-priests. Here, there is simply not enough meat that is prohibited to non-priests to render the entire dish prohibited. Structurally, we can note that the editors of the Mishnah first bring all of the cases in which the rabbis and Rabbi Shimon disagree. In this way we can tell that in the final case, the two parties agree. Had they first related this mishnah and then the disagreements, we might have thought that Rabbi Shimon would disagree here as well."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe prohibition of orlah extends not only to eating fruit from an orlah tree, but to deriving any benefit from such fruit, or even from the peel of the fruit. The next several mishnayot deal with various objects that can become prohibited by making use of orlah.",
+                    "<b>A garment dyed with peels of orlah [fruit] must be burned.</b>  Dyes would occasionally be made from the peels of pomegranates or from the shells of various types of nuts. If a garment was dyed using dye made from orlah peels, the garment must be burned because it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it.",
+                    "<b>If it became mixed up with other [garments], all of them shall be burned, the words of Rabbi Meir.</b>  If a garment that had been dyed with peels of orlah fruit or shells from orlah nuts becomes mixed up with other garments that had been dyed with permitted dyes, then Rabbi Meir holds that all of the garments must be burned. As we shall see below in mishnah seven, Rabbi Meir holds that important objects are not nullified, as are food items which are nullified in ratios of 100-1 or 200-1, depending upon the prohibition. Since the garment is not nullified, it doesn’t matter how many garments got mixed up with it, they all are prohibited.",
+                    "<b>But the sages say: it becomes neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.</b>  The other rabbis hold that the same ratio that nullifies orlah fruit can also serve to nullify garments dyed with orlah dyes. Thus if there are 200 non-orlah garments, the orlah garment is nullified and they are all permitted."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If one dyed a thread the whole [length] of a sit with orlah peels, and wove it into a garment, and it is not known which [thread] it is:<br>Rabbi Meir says: the garment must be burned;<br>But the sages say: it becomes neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.</b><br>Our mishnah deals with a single thread that was dyed with orlah dye and then woven into a garment. The length of this thread is the length of a sit which is explained by some to mean the distance between one’s thumb and forefinger, while others explain it to be the distance between one’s forefinger and middle finger when they are as spread apart as possible.<br>According to Rabbi Meir, if one thread dyed with shells or peels of orlah becomes woven into a garment and it is not known which thread it was, the entire garment must be burned, even if there is a 200-1 ratio of permitted to prohibited threads. To Rabbi Meir even such a small thread is still considered an “important item” and therefore it doesn’t become nullified in any ratio.<br>The sages say that the prohibited thread is nullified in a ratio of 200-1, as they said with regard to an entire garment dyed with orlah thread in yesterday’s mishnah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with threads that come from various prohibited sources and the consequences of their being woven into garments.",
+                    "<b>If one wove thread the whole [length] of a sit from [the wool of a] first-born animal into a garment, the garment must be burned.</b>  It is forbidden to shear wool from a first-born goat or sheep (see Deuteronomy 15:19), and it is forbidden to derive any benefit from wool that was shorn from such an animal. Any garment that has even a thread from a first-born animal must be burned.",
+                    "<b>[If from] the hair of a nazirite or of the first-born of a donkey into sack-cloth, the sack-cloth must be burned.</b>  Similarly, it is forbidden to derive benefit from the hair of a person who took a nazirite vow. At the end of the term of naziriteship the nazirite is supposed to shave his/her hair and then burn it (see Numbers 6:18). The first-born of a donkey must be redeemed with a sheep (Exodus 13:13) and until this donkey has been redeemed it is prohibited to derive any benefit from it. Hence, if one wove sack-cloth with a sit’s length of the hair of a nazirite or of a first-born donkey that had not yet been redeemed, the sack-cloth must be burned.",
+                    "<b>And if even the smallest amount [from wool or hair of] consecrated [animals], that which it is woven into] is consecrated.</b>  The law regarding wool that comes from consecrated animals, such as animals that have been dedicated to the Temple or set aside to be sacrifices, is stricter. Even if the smallest amount of such wool is used in a garment, the entire garment must be treated as if it was consecrated. This garment cannot be used at all, however, it can be redeemed and therefore it does not necessarily have to be burned."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with a cooked dish that was heated up by burning shells from orlah nuts or peels from orlah fruit.",
+                    "<b>A dish which one cooked with shells of orlah must be burned.</b>  Just as the garment that was dyed with orlah dye must be burned (mishnah one), so too must the dish that was heated up and cooked with orlah kindling. Although this prohibited benefit did not get into the dish, since the dish was cooked with it, it is forbidden.",
+                    "<b>If [the dish] became mixed up with other [dishes], it becomes neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.</b>  If the dish became mixed up with other dishes, then if there are 200 dishes not cooked using orlah kindling for every one cooked using orlah kindling, then the orlah is neutralized. If there is less than such a ratio, then all of the dishes must be burned. Note that in this case, unlike that in mishnah one concerning the garment dyed with orlah dyes, Rabbi Meir agrees that the orlah can be neutralized. This is because a cooked dish or a loaf of bread (see mishnah five below) are not important items, whereas the garment was. Important items cannot, according to Rabbi Meir, be neutralized."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>An oven that was lit with shells of orlah, and then one baked bread in it, the bread must be burned.<br>If it became mixed up with other [loaves] it becomes neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.</b><br>This mishnah is nearly identical to mishnah four, except it deals with bread baked in an oven lit with shells of orlah nuts (or peels of orlah fruit). Like the cooked dish in mishnah four, this bread cannot be eaten and must be burned. If it becomes mixed up with other permitted loaves of bread, it can be neutralized in a 200-1 ratio."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn this mishnah we see another case in which Rabbi Meir says that when one prohibited item becomes mixed in with other items they all must be burned, whereas the other rabbis say that the prohibited item is neutralized in a ratio of 200-1.",
+                    "<b>If one has bundles of fenugreek of kilayim of the vineyard, they must be burned.</b>  If one grows fenugreek in a vineyard it is prohibited to derive any benefit from the fenugreek because this is a case of “kilayim” (mixed seeds) in a vineyard. The bundle of fenugreek must be burned.",
+                    "<b>If they became mixed up with others, all of them must be burned, the words of Rabbi Meir.</b>  If the bundle of kilayim fenugreek becomes mixed up with bundles of permitted fenugreek, Rabbi Meir says that they are all prohibited. According to Rabbi Meir, the fenugreek is considered an “important item” and therefore, no matter what the ratio of permitted fenugreek to prohibited fenugreek, they are all prohibited and they all must be burned.",
+                    "<b>But the sages say they become neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.</b>  The other rabbis again hold that the prohibited fenugreek is neutralized in a ratio of 200-1."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn this mishnah we finally hear the basis for the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the other sages.",
+                    "<b>For Rabbi Meir used to say: anything that is normally [sold] by counting causes [a mixture] to become consecrated [in even the smallest amount].</b>  According to Rabbi Meir anything that is sold by being counted out at the marketplace (as opposed to being sold by weight or volume) is an important item and therefore it prohibits a mixture no matter how little of the prohibited item is in the mixture. This would explain why bundles of orlah fenugreek cause a mixture to be prohibited no matter how small the ratio of prohibited fenugreek to permitted fenugreek. The word “consecrated” in this mishnah is used synonymously with “prohibit” because oftentimes things that are “consecrated” become prohibited from use. This was the same verb used in mishnah three.",
+                    "<b>But the sages say only six things consecrate [a mixture in even the smallest amount], and Rabbi Akiba says seven [things].</b>  The sages agree that some items cause mixtures to be prohibited in even the smallest ratios. However, they limit this to only six items, to which Rabbi Akiva adds a seventh. These items seem to have been more valuable than general items that are sold by count, such as bundles of fenugreek. Since these items are of great significance, the laws are stricter with regard to them.",
+                    "<b>And these are they: Nuts with soft shells; badan pomegranates; stopped-up casks; beet shoots; cabbage-heads; Greek pumpkins.</b>  This is a list of the six items. The stopped up casks contain orlah wine.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Akiba says: also loaves [baked by] a householder.</b>  Rabbi Akiva adds in bread baked by a householder which is more valuable than bread baked by a professional baker.",
+                    "<b>To those to which orlah applies [they prohibit the mixture] as orlah, [to those of which] kilayim of the vineyard apply [they prohibit the mixture as] kilayim of the vineyard.</b>  Orlah applies to only some of the above items, namely pomegranates, nuts, and wine. So if the mixture contains even the smallest amount of one of these items and it is orlah, the whole mixture is prohibited. Kilayim in the vineyard applies to the other items in the list, so if one of them is kilayim and it becomes mixed in with other permitted items it prohibits the mixture even if it is only a very small amount."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah provides an exception to the rule in yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>If the nuts cracked, or if the pomegranates burst open, or the casks became unstopped, or the pumpkins were cut, or the loaves were broken up, they become neutralized in two-hundred-and-one.</b> In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that certain items can not be neutralized in a mixture of two hundred. Here we learn that this is true only if they are whole. This is because they are “important items” only when they are whole. If they are in some way broken up, then they lose their importance and they will be neutralized in a mixture of 200 and one, as is the usual rule when it comes to orlah and kilayim."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah in tractate Orlah is concerned with the status of doubtful orlah and kilayim in the land of Israel and outside of it.",
+                    "<b>Doubtful orlah: in the land of Israel is prohibited, in Syria is permitted, and outside the land one may go down and purchase [from a non-Israelite] as long as he has not seen him gathering it.</b>  If one has some produce and doesn’t know whether it is orlah or not, inside the land of Israel, where the prohibition of orlah is from the Torah (deoraita) the produce is prohibited. In Syria, where some of the agricultural laws apply and some don’t (see Demai 6:11; Sheviit 6:2) the produce is permitted. Outside the land of Israel, meaning outside Syria, the law is even more lenient. One may go into the field of a non-Jew and purchase from him produce that may be orlah, as long as the Jew does not see the non-Jew actually pluck the orlah fruit from the orlah tree. In such a case this would not be “doubtful orlah” but rather “certain orlah” which is prohibited derabanan even outside the land of Israel.",
+                    "<b>A vineyard planted with vegetables [which are kilayim], and they [the vegetables] are sold outside of it: in the land of Israel these are prohibited, and in Syria they are permitted; outside the land one may go down and purchase them as long as he does not gather [them] with [one’s own] hand.</b>  The rules for kilayim are similar. The vegetables that are described here were possibly grown in a vineyard, because we know that the non-Jew has grown vegetables in his vineyard. However, they are not certain kilayim because they are being sold outside of the vineyard. Inside the land of Israel they are prohibited, because the prohibition of kilayim within Israel is deoraita and therefore we are strict even with doubtful kilayim. In Syria these vegetables are permitted. Outside of Israel one can go down to a vineyard and even see the non-Jew harvest these vegetables as long as he doesn’t gather them with his own hands. This law is even more lenient than the law concerning doubtful orlah, for here one can even see the non-Jew harvest the kilayim. Perhaps the reason that the law is more lenient is that the prohibition of kilayim outside of Israel is only an “enactment of the scribes” as we shall learn in section five.",
+                    "<b>New [produce] is prohibited by the Torah in all places.</b>  The end of this mishnah gives three different levels concerning the status of various prohibitions outside of the land of Israel. It is prohibited to eat new produce until the Omer (barley harvest) has begun to be offered on the second day of Pesah (see Hallah 1:1). This prohibition is “deoraita” even outside the land of Israel. This is indeed explicitly stated in Leviticus 23:13.",
+                    "<b>And orlah is a halachah.</b>  The prohibition of orlah is a “halakhah”. There are two opinions in the Talmud as to what this means. Some interpret it to mean “the halakhah/law of the land.” This would give it the status of a custom. Others interpret it to mean a “halakhah to Moses at Sinai.” This would give it the status of ancient oral law.",
+                    "<b>And kilayim are an enactment of the scribes.</b>  Finally, kilayim are prohibited outside the land of Israel by an enactment of the sages. This refers only to mixed seeds in the vineyard, from which it is even prohibited to derive benefit in the land of Israel. The law regarding different types of seeds that were planted together is more lenient in the land of Israel (one can eat such seeds, just not plant them) and therefore the law outside of Israel is more lenient as well. Yoking together two different types of animals (such as a donkey and an ox) and cross-breeding animals and trees is prohibited by the Torah in all places. For more information concerning kilayim look at my introduction to tractate Kilayim. Congratulations! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learn the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearn it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. One of the aspects of Orlah that I found interesting was the chapter on forbidden mixtures. Many of our laws of kashrut stem from sources in this chapter and other places in Zeraim. Interestingly, there is far more information in tannaitic sources concerning prohibited agricultural produce such as orlah, kilayim and terumah then there is about prohibited animals and the prohibition of the mixture of milk and meat. When later rabbis (in the Talmudic and post-Talmudic periods) came to codify when something is not kosher (meaning it is either a mixture of milk and meat or stems from a prohibited animal) they often were forced to rely on sources that are from Seder Zeraim, and many from tractate Orlah. Thus this tractate is actually quite practical. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Bikkurim, the last tractate in Seder Zeraim."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+            "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ערלה",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Zeraim"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ערלה",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Orlah",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Orlah",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/Notes by Rabbi Yehoshua Hartman on Derekh Chayim/Hebrew/Derech Chaim, with footnotes and annotations by Rabbi Yehoshua D. Hartman, Machon Yerushalyim, 2005-2010.json

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:4393c28414c68bb390369fb935eeedc7c02f5f63dfc98841eb958b33047f6ed8
+size 13904228

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/Notes by Rabbi Yehoshua Hartman on Derekh Chayim/Hebrew/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:df81b5eefcf3dae78115f4f9e995fa5199672236e99d22c2a41d28bff9e2dff6
+size 13903684

json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Shekalim/English/Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr].json

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Mishnah Shekalim",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002182155/NLI",
+    "versionTitle": "Le Talmud de Jérusalem, traduit par Moise Schwab, 1878-1890 [fr]",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "license": "Public Domain",
+    "actualLanguage": "fr",
+    "languageFamilyName": "french",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "משנה שקלים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [
+            "Dès le premier jour du mois d’Adar, le tribunal donne partout l’avis d’avoir à verser la contribution annuelle d’un sicle par tête<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> Cf. B. Megila 13b et 29a, Moed Qatan 6a.</i>, d’observer la loi des hétérogènes aux champs (en annulant la semence étrangère). Le 15 de ce mois, on lit le rouleau de l’histoire d’Esther (dont c’est la fête) dans les villes antiques. On répare les routes (défoncées par les pluies d’hivers), et les voies publiques, ainsi que les emplacements des bains officiels (dont l’accès a pu être engorgé par la vase durant l’hiver); on procède à tous les travaux publics (en vue d’une plus grande fréquentation des gens en voyage); on renouvelle la démarcation des tombes par une ligne de chaux (effacée par les pluies). Enfin, des messagers du tribunal vont examiner si l’avis sur les hétérogènes a été suivi (et arracher, au besoin, les plants étrangers).",
+            "R. Juda dit: en principe, les inspecteurs des champs arrachaient les plants hétérogènes et les jetaient devant les propriétaires (pour leur faire honte). Lorsque le nombre des transgresseurs de ce précepte augmenta (qu’ils tirèrent profit de cet acte), les inspecteurs jetèrent d’abord les plants étrangers sur la grande route, et plus tard ils déclarèrent le champ abandonné à tout venant.",
+            "A partir du 15 de ce mois, il y avait des receveurs (ou changeurs) dans les diverses provinces pour recueillir les sicles, qui, depuis le 15 du même mois, se tenaient à Jérusalem. Une fois établis là, ces fonctionnaires commençaient à contraindre ceux qui n’avaient pas payé jusque là leur contribution de plein gré. On contraignait à cet effet les lévites, les simples israélites, les néophytes, les serviteurs affranchis, non les femmes, ni les esclaves, ni les enfants. Lorsque pour son jeune fils un père a commencé à verser le sicle, il ne pourra plus cesser aux années suivantes. On ne contraint pas les prêtres à verser ce sicle, sous peine de leur manquer d’égards.",
+            "R. Juda dit : Ben-Bôcri à Yabneh affirme que si un cohen a de plein gré versé ce sicle, il n’y a pas de mal. R. Yohanan b. Zaccaï allant plus loin, s’exprime ainsi : en réalité, tout cohen qui ne paie pas ce sicle serait coupable; seulement, ils ont interprété en leur faveur ce verset (Lv 6, 16) : toute offrande sacerdotale devra être entièrement brûlée; elle ne sera pas mangée. Or, si nous offrions (pour notre part) l’omer, ou les deux pains de présentation à la Pentecôte, ou les 12 pains de proposition, il nous serait interdit d’en manger.",
+            "Bien qu’il soit dit de ne pas contraindre à ce paiement les femmes, les esclaves, ni les enfants, si pourtant ils versent le sicle de contribution, le trésor sacré l’acceptera. On ne l’acceptera ni d’un païen, ni d’un samaritain, pas plus que les offrandes des nids d’oiseaux apportés au temple par les gonorrhéens, hommes ou femmes, après leur guérison, ou en sortant de couches, ni leurs sacrifices expiatoires, ou sacrifices de péchés. Voici la règle générale (établissant une distinction entre païens et samaritains): tout ce qui est considéré comme don et offrande pourra être accueilli, mais non ce qui n’est pas considéré comme tel (et constitue un sacrifice). C’est expliqué ainsi dans Esdras (lors du refus d’admettre les Samaritains à la réédification du temple), en disant (Esd 4, 3): ce n’est pas à vous, mais à nous de reconstruire la maison de notre Dieu.",
+            "Voici les personnes soumises au droit de change (collybum): les lévites, les simples israélites, les néophytes, les serviteurs libres; mais ni les cohanim, ni les femmes, ni les esclaves, ni les enfants. Si l’on verse le sicle dû, par l’entremise d’un cohen, ou d’une femme, ou d’un esclave, ou d’un enfant, on est dispensé du droit de change (qui ne leur incombe pas). Si l’on paie ensemble sa propre contribution et celle de son prochain (en un sicle entier, au lieu de deux demis), on est soumis à un seul droit pour les deux; selon R. Meir, on en doit deux. Si quelqu’un remet au changeur un sela (sicle entier) et se fait restituer un demi-sicle, il doit un double droit de change.",
+            "Si quelqu’un paie sa contribution par l’entremise d’un pauvre, ou par celle de son voisin, ou par un habitant quelconque de la même ville, il n’a pas de droit à payer; mais s’il leur prête le sicle, ce droit est dû. Des frères associés, quoique soumis au droit de change, sont dispensés parfois de la dîme des animaux (Lv 27, 32); mais lorsqu’ils doivent payer cette dernière, ils sont dispensés du droit de change. De combien est ce droit? D’un maa<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">23</sup><i class=\"footnote\">C'est 1/6 de dinar. Voir t. 2, p. 3, n. 2.</i> d’argent, selon R. Meir; les autres sages assignent seulement un demi-maa."
+        ],
+        [
+            "Il est loisible de joindre plusieurs sicles (au dehors) et de les échanger contre des darik<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> \"Monnaie persane, citée dans (Esd 8, 27); B. Bekhorot 21.\"</i> d’or, pour alléger le poids du transport. Comme il y avait des troncs à Jérusalem, il y en avait en province. Si des sicles qu’ont envoyés des habitants d’une ville éloignée, par un émissaire, ont été volés ou perdus, on observera les procédés suivants: si le prélèvement du trésor sacré pour les besoins du culte a déjà eu lieu, l’émissaire (responsable) devra affirmer par serment aux trésoriers sacrés que cette perte est indépendante de sa volonté; si c’est avant le prélèvement, ce serment devra être prêté aux habitants (dont c’était encore le bien); et ceux-ci seront tenus de payer ces sicles une seconde fois. Si, plus tard, on retrouve cet argent, ou si les voleurs le rendent, les deux sommes restent acquises au trésor comme sicles de contribution, et aucune d’elles ne pourra servir à payer l’annuité suivante.",
+            "Si quelqu’un charge son voisin de payer pour lui le sicle dû et que celui-ci en use pour remplir son propre devoir du paiement qu’il doit, si c’est postérieur au prélèvement, le prochain commet une prévarication<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> Puisque pour remplir un devoir, il use d'un sicle déjà consacré.</i>. Si l’on paie le sicle dû en le prenant sur de l’argent déjà consacré, à partir du moment où le prélèvement a été opéré et l’acquisition faite d’un sacrifice, il y a prévarication (ayant usé du sacré). Si c’est de l’argent de seconde dîme, ou du montant de la 7e année (sainte), il faudra consommer l’équivalent à Jérusalem (pour remplacer la valeur).",
+            "Si quelqu’un amasse de la menue monnaie en vue du sicle à payer et s’aperçoit, au moment de verser, qu’il en a davantage, selon Shammaï, ce reliquat devra être versé au Temple comme offrande; selon Hillel, il restera profane. —Mais s’il a dit qu’il en prendra de quoi payer le sicle dû, tous s’accordent à dire que le reliquat reste profane (comme la condition en a été déterminée dès le principe). Si quelqu’un amasse de l’argent en indiquant qu’il le destine à un sacrifice expiatoire, Hillel reconnaît aussi que le reliquat devra être versé aux offrandes (le montant de la victime n’étant pas fixe). Mais s’il a dit que sur cet argent il prendra le montant nécessaire à l’achat de la victime expiatoire, tous reconnaissent que le reliquat reste profane (la condition ayant été formulée d’avance).",
+            "R. Simon explique à quoi tient cette distinction entre les sicles (pour lesquels le reliquat de la mise de côté reste profane) et le sacrifice expiatoire (dont l’excédent devra être offert): pour les sicles, la prestation due est déterminée; elle ne l’est pas pour le prix des victimes. Selon R. Juda, le montant de la somme à payer pour le demi-sicle n’est pas non plus fixe; car, au retour de la captivité de Babylone, les Israélites donnèrent des Darik d’or en paiement de ce droit; puis, ils versèrent des selà: ensuite, ils se contentèrent de payer des Tabéin (1/2 sela); et enfin, ils ne voulurent remettre qu’un dinar (ou 1/4 de sela); ce que les trésoriers du fisc sacré n’acceptèrent pas. Même en ce cas, observa R. Simon, la mesure à payer est uniforme pour tous (riches ou pauvres), tandis que le prix du sacrifice expiatoire variera, et l’un l’acquerra pour un sela, un autre pour deux sela, et un troisième pour trois sela.",
+            "L’excédent d’une poignée d’argent prise pour le sicle reste profane<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> B., Menahot 105.</i>; mais le reliquat d’une poignée de farine sur la dîme d’épha (offerte par un pauvre) sera versé aux dons, ainsi que le reste de la somme ayant servi à acheter soit des nids d’oiseaux offerts (après guérison) par les gonorrhéens, hommes ou femmes, ou par celles-ci en sortant de couches, soit des sacrifices expiatoires ou de péché. Voici quelle est à cet égard la règle générale: l’excédent de la somme destinée à acheter un sacrifice expiatoire ou de péché devra être versé à la caisse des dons; l’excédent de l’achat d’un holocauste servira à un autre holocauste; celui d’une offrande de farine, à une autre semblable; l’excédent des sacrifices pacifiques, aux mêmes; l’excédent d’un agneau pascal servira à acheter un sacrifice pacifique; l’excédent en argent des sacrifices de naziréens servira à d’autres semblables (plus tard); enfin, l’excédent de la somme mise de côté par un naziréen isolé pour ses sacrifices à offrir sera versé à la caisse des dons. Le reliquat de l’argent ramassé pour racheter des captifs servira à racheter d’autres; mais le reste d’une somme réunie en vue d’un seul lui sera remis. Le reliquat des aumônes en général reste acquis à la caisse de bienfaisance; mais le reste d’une somme réunie pour un seul lui sera remis. Le reliquat d’une somme réunie pour enterrer des morts servira plus tard à d’autres<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> B., Sanhedrin 48a.</i>; mais s’il s’agit d’un seul, le reliquat sera remis aux héritiers. Selon R. Meir, ce dernier reste sera mis de côté jusqu’à l’arrivée du prophète Elie (qui décidera). Selon R. Nathan, ce reliquat servira à l’érection d’un monument funèbre."
+        ],
+        [
+            "A trois périodes de l’année on opère le prélèvement du trésor sacré (pour les achats à faire): au milieu du mois qui précède Pâques (le 1er Nissan), avant Pentecôte (1er Siwan), et avant la fêtes des Tabernacles (au commencement de Tishri). Ce sont aussi les époques fixées pour prendre la dîme des animaux<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> B. Bekhorot 27b.</i>. Tel est l’avis de R. aqiba. Selon Ben-Azaï, les trois époques choisies sont: le 29 Adar, le 1er Siwan et le 29 Ab. R. Eliézer et R. Simon adoptent pour dates le 1er Nissan, le 1er Siwan, et le 29 Eloul, fixant ce dernier jour et non le suivant ou 1er Tishri, parce que c’est un jour de fête (le nouvel an), jour auquel on ne doit pas rédimer<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> B., Hagiga 8a.</i>. Voilà pourquoi on l’a avancé au 29 Eloul.",
+            "A l’aide de trois caisses<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> \"B., Yoma 62; Megila 21 b.\"</i>, ayant chacune une contenance de trois saas, on prélève du trésor sacré (amassé dans de grand coffres) l’argent nécessaire aux dépenses du culte. Sur ces petites caisses, il y avait 3 lettres distinctes: a b g; selon R. Ismaël, il y avait les 3 équivalents grecs: A, B, G. Celui qui était chargé de cette opération<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> B., Yebamot 102b.</i> ne devait pas avoir un vêtement (paragauda)<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> V. t. 2, p. 12.</i> au bord relevé (ourlé), ni des chaussures, ni des sandales, ni des phylactères, ni même une amulette; car s’il devenait pauvre, on l’accuserait d’avoir commis un péché à l’égard du trésor (et d’avoir été puni); et s’il devenait riche, on pourrait supposer qu’il s’est enrichi aux dépens du trésor. Or, il faut aussi bien être exempt de tous reproches devant les hommes comme envers Dieu. Aussi, il est dit (Nb 32, 22): vous serez purs (exempts de fautes) devant l’Eternel et devant Israël; et il est dit encore (Pr 3, 4): trouve de la grâce et un bon esprit aux yeux de Dieu et des hommes.",
+            "Chez R. Gamliel, on avait pris l’habitude d’entrer auprès du trésorier en ayant le demi-sicle à la main; on le déposait devant le préposé au trésor, et celui-ci avait soin de le faire glisser (en présence du déposant) dans le tronc (servant aussitôt après à l’achat des victimes pour les sacrifices publics). Lorsque l’homme chargé d’opérer le prélèvement voulait procéder à cet acte, il prévenait les assistants de ce qu’il allait faire, et ceux-ci l’approuvaient en disant: “prélève”. Ce procédé était renouvelé trois fois avant la mise en action<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> Michna, 6 partie, tr. (Para 3, 10).</i>.",
+            "Après avoir prélevé de la première caisse, on la recouvrait d’une serviette, et de même après avoir prélevé de la seconde; mais en opérant sur la troisième caisse, on ne la couvrait pas, afin de ne pas s’exposer par oubli à prélever de nouveau d’une caisse d’où le prélèvement a déjà été opéré. Le premier prélèvement était effectué pour les habitants de la Palestine, (qui, étant les plus proches ont versé les premiers); le deuxième, pour ceux des provinces limitrophes; enfin le troisième, pour ceux de Babylone, ou de la Médie, ou d’autres provinces lointaines."
+        ],
+        [
+            "A quoi employait-on le montant de ces prélèvements? Il servait à acheter les victimes des sacrifices quotidiens et des suppléments (particuliers aux divers jours de fête), à leurs libations, à l’acquisition de l’omer, des deux pains nouveaux présents à la Pentecôte, aux 12 Mains de proposition hebdomadaires, enfin à tous les sacrifices publics. Les gardiens des pousses spontanées<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> \"B., Baba Metsia 118a; Menahot 84a.\"</i> en la septième année (du repos agraire), chargés de veiller sur cette production de l’année pour ces dernières offrandes nécessaires au culte, étaient payés de ce soin par l’argent du trésor de la cellule. Selon R. Yossé, si quelqu’un s’offre de garder ces produits gratis, on l’accepte (cette offre, quoique particulière, deviendra publique). C’est impossible, dirent les autres sages, car tu reconnais aussi que les sacrifices doivent être acquis seulement par les derniers publics. (Or, s’il y a un gardien gratuit, il est censé acquérir ces produits d’abandon, qu’il rétrocède ensuite au Temple).",
+            "Le montant de la vache rousse, du bouc émissaire (expédié vers le désert le jour du Kippour), et de la langue écarlate de laine (attachée au parvis le même jour), était payé par le trésor sacré. Par le pont de la vache rousse (ou viaduc menant du Temple au mont des Oliviers), le passage construit pour mener au dehors<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> Tr. (Yoma 6, 4).</i> le bouc émissaire (au jour du Kippour), la langue de laine entre ses cornes, le canal d'eau au Temple, l’enceinte de la ville, les tours, enfin pour tous les besoins publics de la ville<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> Cf. (Nedarim 5, 5).</i>, on avait recours au reliquat de compte prélevé du trésor sacré dans la cellule. Selon Aba Saül, les frais de construction (ou d’entretien) du pont de la vache rousse étaient payés par les pontifes personnellement.",
+            "Que faisait-on avec le reste du reliquat de compte (en dehors de ces derniers frais énoncés)? on achetait du vin, de l’huile, de la farine, pour les revendre à ceux qui venaient offrir des sacrifices, et le bénéfice résultant de cette vente était acquis au trésor sacré, selon R. Ismaël. R. aqiba dit: on ne doit pas se livrer au commerce avec cet argent, ni avec celui des pauvres.",
+            "On employait l’excédent des prélèvements d’argent (opérés au commencement de l’année) à acquérir des plaques d’or pour couvrir le sommet du saint des saints. Selon R. Ismaël, le bénéfice opéré sur la vente (précitée) servait à alimenter l’autel lorsqu’il était vide, et de l’excédent des prélèvements, on achetait les ustensiles nécessaires au culte. Selon R. aqiba, l’excédent des prélèvements servait à l’entretien de l’autel vide, et le surplus des libations servait à acheter les ustensiles sacrés. Selon R. Hanania chez des cohanim, le surplus des libations servait à alimenter l’autel vide, et l’excédent des prélèvements à acheter des vases sacrés. Ni l’un ni l’autre (R. aqiba et R. Hanania) n’admettaient qu’il soit permis de trafiquer des saintetés pour en tirer profit.",
+            "Que faisait-on du reliquat d’encens, au bout de chaque année (après les poignées prises par le pontife), pour l’utiliser de nouveau? On commençait par payer les ouvriers de l’encens avec de l’argent prélevé de la cellule; on échangeait ensuite le reste d’encens contre le salaire remis aux ouvriers, en le leur laissant, et on le rachetait d’eux plus tard, lors du nouveau versement. A défaut de nouveaux fonds déjà entrés au trésor par ce fait, on prend de l’ancien fond, en opérant de même.",
+            "Si parmi les biens consacrés par quelqu’un il se trouve quelque objet susceptible de servir aux sacrifices publics (p. ex. de l’encens, ou l’un de ses éléments), on pourra l’utiliser à payer le salaire des ouvriers (et le rendre ainsi profane). Tel est l’avis de R. aqiba. Ce n’est pas là le procédé observé plus haut, remarque Ben-Azaï; il faudra mettre de côté l’équivalent du salaire des ouvriers, le racheter contre leur argent profane, le remettre aux ouvriers en paiement, puis le leur racheter lors du nouveau versement des sicles (avant Pâques).",
+            "Si parmi les biens consacrés il se trouve des animaux susceptibles de servir aux sacrifices à offrir à l’autel, soit des mâles, soit des femelles, il faudra, selon R. Eliézer, vendre les mâles, pour employer le montant à acheter des holocaustes, et les femelles, pour acheter des sacrifices pacifiques; puis, la somme ainsi acquise sera versée avec le reste des biens à la caisse de l’entretien du Temple. Selon R. Josué, les mâles eux-mêmes serviront à offrir des holocaustes, et l’on vendra les femelles pour les besoins des sacrifices de paix, en employant le montant ainsi acquis à l’achat d’holocaustes; le reste des biens consacrés échoira à la caisse de l’entretien du temple. R. aqiba dit: je préfère l’opinion de R. Eliézer à celle de R. Josué, parce que le premier adopte une mesure uniforme et assigne à la caisse du temple tous les biens consacrés, tandis que le second établit une distinction entre les animaux et les autres biens. R. Papias dit avoir entendu que l’on peut justifier chacune de ces deux opinions: si lors de la consécration on a parlé spécialement d’animaux et de biens (sans les assigner à l’autel), tout est destiné (après vente) à la caisse d’entretien, comme le veut R. Eliézer; mais si l’on n’a rien spécifié, chaque objet aura sa destination naturelle, conforme à R. Josué.",
+            "Si parmi les biens que l’on a consacrés il se trouve de même des objets pouvant servir aux offrandes destinées à l’autel, tels que du vin, de l’huile, ou des tourterelles, il faudra, selon R. Eliézer, les vendre en vue de servir au même objet, pour le montant être employé à l’achat d’holocaustes; le reste des biens sera versé à la caisse de l’entretien du temple.",
+            "Une fois par mois, on fixe le prix des fournitures sacrées à livrer au Temple, payables par le trésor de la cellule. Si quelqu’un entreprenant le fermage s’est chargé de fournir la farine de 4 saas (pour un sela), et qu’ensuite celle-ci renchérit au point que trois saa valent le même prix, l’entrepreneur sera tenu de fournir le 4e saa de ses deniers; mais s’il s’était engagé à fournir la farine lorsque 3 saa coûtaient un sela, et qu’ensuite l’on peut en avoir quatre à ce prix, il est aussi tenu de fournir le tout. En tous cas, le trésor sacré doit bénéficier du maximum. Si des vers sont survenus dans cette fine farine (si elle se trouve gâtée), la perte incombe au fournisseur, et il en est de même si le vin s’est aigri. Aussi, le fournisseur ne recevait de paiement qu’après satisfaction de l’autel (après l’emploi valable des livraisons faites)."
+        ],
+        [
+            "Voici les noms et l’objet de ceux qui remplissaient des fonctions spéciales au Temple: Yohanan b. Pinhas était garde des sceaux<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> Tossefta à ce tr., ch. 2.</i>; Ahia était préposé aux libations; b. Samuel, aux tirages des sorts; Petahia présidait aux nids d’oiseaux à offrir<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> B., Menahot 65a.</i>. Celui-ci n’est autre que Mardochée (Balsan), et il est nommé ainsi parce qu’il ouvre (patah) les paroles par ses explications exégétiques et sa connaissance de 70 langues. Ben-Ahia était consulté pour les maux d’intestins; Nehonia creusait les citernes; Gabini faisait les appels; Ben Gaber surveillait la fermeture des portes. Ben-Babi était proposé au luminaire<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> Jér., (Yoma 2, 2) -ci-dessus, p. 280.</i>. Ben-Arza avait dans ses attributions les cymbales (l’orchestre), et Hogros ben Lévi dirigeait le chant. Bet-Garmo était préposé à la confection des pains de proposition, et la famille d’Eutinos à celle de l’encens; Eléazar surveillait les réparations aux rideaux, et Pinhas les costumes.",
+            "On ne doit pas (en administration) nommer moins de trois trésoriers et de 7 préposés<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> B. Tamid 26.</i>. En fait de questions financières, on ne nommera pas mois de deux fonctionnaires<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> Baba Batra 8b.</i>, sauf Ben-Ahiya (précité) chargé de veiller aux cas de maladie d’intestins et Eléazar surveillant la confection des rideaux de tabernacle; car ces personnages avaient été acceptés comme tels par la communauté.",
+            "Il y avait quatre cachets (servant de marque des diverses mesures) au Temple, désignés par les inscriptions suivantes: Veau, mâle (bélier), chevreau, pécheur (lépreux). Selon Ben-Azaï, il y en avait cinq, portant écrit en araméen (langage vulgaire) ces mots: veau, mâle, chevreau, pécheur, pauvre, pécheur riche (ce dernier offrant davantage). La mesure désignée par le terme “veau” indique<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> B. Menahot 92a.</i> la qualité à employer pour les libations accompagnant le gros bétail, soit grands, soit petits, mâles ou femelles. Le terme “chevreau” est applicable aux libations qui accompagnent le menu bétail, grands ou petits, mâles ou femelles, à l’exception des béliers. Le terme “bélier” s’applique aux seules libations des sacrifices de béliers. Enfin, la mesure désignée par le mot “pécheur” s’applique aux libations qui accompagnent les 3 sacrifices offerts par le lépreux guéri.",
+            "Si quelqu’un cherchait des libations à offrir, il se rendait auprès de Yohanan, le préposé aux cachets, lui remettait la somme d’argent nécessaire à cet achat, et recevait de lui un cachet. Puis, il se rendait auprès de Ahia le proposé aux libations, lui présentait le cachet, et recevait de lui des libations en nature. Le soir, l’un se rendait auprès de l’autre; Ahia présentait ses comptes par les cachets reçus, et il recevait en équivalence autant de sommes d’argent: s’il y avait un déficit, c’était aux dépens du préposé, de sorte que Yohanan était tenu de payer de sa bourse la différence constatée; si au contraire, il y avait un excédent, c’était au bénéfice du trésor sacré, car en tous cas le trésor doit avoir la haute main (le profit).",
+            "Si quelqu’un après avoir acquis un cachet le perd, on attend jusqu’au soir (jusqu’à l’entrevue des 2 préposés, pour régler ce compte): si l’on trouve alors parmi l’argent en espèces l’équivalent de ce cachet, on rembourse le montant à celui qui l’a perdu; au cas contraire, on ne lui rend rien. De plus, on inscrivait la date sur les cachets, pour éviter toute fraude (si l’on en trouvait).",
+            "Il y avait deux cellules au Temple pour les dons divers; l’une était secrète, et l’autre réservée aux ustensiles. Dans la première, les gens pieux remettaient leurs dons en secret, et les pauvres honteux, fils de gens généreux, trouvaient là de quoi se subvenir sans rougir. Tout donateur d’un vase le remettait dans la cellule affectée à cet objet; une fois par mois, les trésoriers l’ouvraient, triaient les dons, laissant pour les besoins du culte tout objet pouvant y être utilisé, et ils vendaient le reste au profit de la caisse d’entretien du Temple<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> Presque toute la guemara de ce § est reproduit du tr. (Pea 8, 9), traduite t. 2, pp. 117-9.</i>."
+        ],
+        [
+            "Il y avait au sanctuaire 13 boîtes en forme de tuyaux, ou cornes, et 13 tables; de même, 14 génuflexions y étaient usitées<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> (Midot 2, 3).</i>. Dans la famille de R. Gamliel et dans celle de R. Hanania, le président des cohanim, on se prosternait 14 fois. Où avait lieu cette dernière génuflexion supplémentaire? En face de la cellule au bois; car il était de tradition paternelle chez eux qu’en cet endroit l’arche de l’alliance était enfouie<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> Depuis la destruction du 1er Temple.</i>.",
+            "En effet, un cohen étant un jour occupé là, remarqua que le dallage n’avait pas le même aspect que les autres pièces. Il vint raconter le fait à son compagnon; mais, avant qu’il eût achevé son récit, il rendit l’âme. On en conclut dès lors avec certitude que l’arche s’y trouvait sous terre.",
+            "Vers quelles places se prosternait-on? 4 fois vers le nord, 4 fois au midi, 3 fois à l’est, 2 fois à l’est (= 13), soit en face des 13 portes<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> (Midot 2, 1).</i>. Les portes du sud approchaient de l’ouest, savoir la porte supérieure, celle de feu, celle des premiers-nés<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> Ib., 1, 4.</i>, celle de l’eau. Cette dernière dénomination rappelait l’introduction d’une bouteille d’eau effectuée aux libations de la fête des tabernacles à l’autel. R. Eliézer b. Jacob dit: à cette porte, l’eau arrivant du sanctuaire commence à tomber en forte pente, jusqu’à ce qu’elle surgit de nouveau sous le pas du linteau du Temple. Les portes sises vis-à-vis au nord, penchant à l’ouest, étaient: la porte de Yokonia, celle du sacrifice, celle des femmes<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> Cf. (Sota 1, 5).</i>, celle du chant. La 1re avant le nom de Yokonia, parce que c’est de là qu’il partit, en exil. A l’est était la porte de Nicanor, accompagnée ou percée de 2 poternes, l’une à droite, l’autre à gauche. Enfin, à l’ouest, il y avait 2 portes, sans dénomination particulière.",
+            "Il y avait 13 tables au Temple<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> B., Menahot 99b.</i>: 8 en marbre à l’abattoir, pour y laver les intestins, 2 à l’ouest de la rampe d’autel, l’une en marbre, l’autre d’argent<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> \"Rabba sur Genèse, ch. 5; sur Deutéronome, ch. 23.\"</i>; sur celle de marbre, on déposait les membres épars des sacrifices (pour que la fraîcheur les préserve de la putréfaction), et sur celle d’argent, on mettait les ustensiles du service divin. Il y en avait 2 au parvis, à l’intérieur, à la porte du Temple, l’une de marbre, l’autre d’or. Sur celle de marbre, on posait le pain à son arrivée du four (pour qu’à la suite d’un long séjour il ne moisisse pas, grâce au froid); sur celle d’or, on le mettait en l’enlevant de là, car, en fait de saintetés, on doit toujours s’élever, non déchoir. Enfin, il y avait une table d’or à l’intérieur, sur laquelle le pain d’exposition se trouvait à séjour.",
+            "Il y avait 13 caisses au temple<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> B., Temoura 23b.</i>, portant les mentions suivantes: 1° sicles nouveaux, 2° sicles anciens (de l’an passé), 3° montant des nids d’oiseaux (à acheter), 4° tourtereaux d’holocaustes, 5° bois, 6° encens, 7° de l’or pour le propitiatoire (vases sacrés), outres six autres pour les dons divers<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> B., Menahot 104b.</i>. Par “sicles nouveaux”, on entend ceux de l’année courante et par “anciens” les sommes arriérées dues par ceux qui ne les ont pas versées en l’année précédente. Par “nids d’oiseaux”, on entend les offrandes de pigeons, et par “tourtereaux d’holocauste” ceux que l’on fera consumer en entier. Tel est l’avis de R. Juda. Selon les autres sages, le terme “nid” comprend aussi bien les sacrifices de péchés que les holocaustes, et le terme suivant s’applique seulement aux holocaustes.",
+            "Si quelqu’un s’engage par vœu à faire un don de bois, il ne devra pas offrir moins de deux bûches. S’il s’engage à donner de l’encens, il offrira au moins une poignée. Le minimum d’un don en or est un dinar. Quant aux six autres caisses de dons divers, voici quel en était l’emploi: on achetait avec les dons des holocaustes à consumer sur l’autel, mais en réservant la peau à l’usage des Cohanim. C’est l’interprétation que donna Joïada, le grand pontife<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> B., Zevahim 103a.</i>, au sujet de ce verset (Lv 5, 19): c’est un sacrifice de péché pour s’être rendu coupable envers l’Eternel. Or, cette contradiction apparente<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> La 1re partie du verset parle d'un sacrifice paraissant devoir être consommé par le cohen, tandis que la 2e partie semble désigner un holocauste.</i> a pour but de nous enseigner une règle générale: lorsqu’une victime est due tant pour sacrifice expiatoire que pour sacrifice de péché, on devra apporter une offrande dont toute la chair sera brûlée, sauf la peau, réservée aux officiants. De cette façon, on peut justifier les deux termes (explétifs) de ce verset; le premier désigne l’offrande à Dieu (sur l’autel); le deuxième, celle au cohen (la peau). De même, il est dit (2R12, 14): Ni l’argent du sacrifice de péché, ni celui du sacrifice expiatoire, ne sera apporté au Temple; il appartiendra aux Cohanim."
+        ],
+        [
+            "Lorsqu’au milieu des sicles (de la capitation) on trouve de l’argent qui doit être versé à la caisse des dons, si c’est près des sicles, cet argent échoit à la caisse; s’il est plus près des dons, il incombe à ces derniers. Si cet argent se trouve juste au milieu, il échoit à la part des dons. Si l’on trouve de l’argent entre les sommes destinées à l’achat du bois et celles de l’encens, lorsqu’il est plus près du bois, il incombe à ce dernier; s’il est plus près de l’encens, il échoit à celui-ci; lorsqu’il se trouve juste au milieu, on l’attribue à l’encens. Lorsqu’on en trouve entre le montant des nids d’oiseaux et celui des tourtereaux d’holocauste, si c’est près des premières sommes, on leur assigne cet argent; s’il est près des secondes, on l’attribue à ces dernières; s’il se trouve juste au milieu, on l’attribue aussi à ces dernières. Lorsqu’on trouve de l’argent entre des sommes profanes et d’autres provenant de la 2e dîme, s’il est plus près du profane, on l’assigne à ce dernier; s’il est plus près des dernières, on l’attribue à ces dernières; s’il est enfin juste au milieu, on l’attribue aussi à ces dernières. Voici la règle générale: on se règle d’après l’objet le plus proche, si même il en résulte une plus grande latitude (à l’égard de l’emploi du montant); mais si l’argent est juste au milieu (et qu’il y a doute), on suit le procédé le plus sévère.",
+            "Lorsqu’à Jérusalem on trouve de l’argent devant les marchands de bestiaux<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> \"B., Baba Metsia 26a; Pessahim 26a.\"</i>, à toute époque de l’année, cet argent doit provenir de la 2e dîme (pour l’achat des victimes).",
+            "Ce que l’on trouve sur le Mont du Temple est supposé profane (provenant d’un achat du trésor sacré). Quant aux autres emplacements de Jérusalem (en dehors du marché), l’argent trouvé aux jours ordinaires de l’année sera profane; pendant les grandes fêtes, il sera tenu pour de l’argent de 2e dîme (en raison du grand nombre de gens arrivant de dehors et consommant là leur 2e dîme). Si l’on trouve de la chair sans destination précise au parvis du Temple, lorsque ce sont des membres entiers, il est présumable qu’ils proviennent d’holocaustes (qu’il est d’usage de dépecer ainsi); si ce sont des morceaux découpés, il est à supposer que ce sont des sacrifices expiatoires (dont les prêtres mangent). Si on les trouve à toute autre place de Jérusalem, ce sont, sans doute, des sacrifices pacifiques (constituant la majeure part des consommations dans cette ville). Dans tous les cas, il faudra attendre qu’il soit survenu un défaut ultérieur (que cette chair soit devenue impropre par le retard), puis on la brûlera. Quant à la chair trouvée dans toute autre localité de la Palestine, si elle se compose de membres épars, il est à supposer que c’est de la charogne (qu’il est d’usage de jeter en cet état); si elle se compose de morceaux découpés, il est présumable que ce sont des viandes d’un usage permis (pour elles seules, on prend la peine de les découper ainsi). Au moment des grandes fêtes, où en raison du grand nombre de visiteurs la chair est abondante, même les membres dépecés sont admis comme chair permise.",
+            "Les bestiaux que l’on trouvera depuis Jérusalem jusqu’à Migdal-Eder<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> Neubauer, Géographie, p. 152.</i>, et aux mêmes distances vers les autres points cardinaux, devront être employés comme sacrifices, les mâles comme holocaustes, les femelles comme sacrifices de paix. Selon R. Juda, ce qui peut servir au sacrifice pascal (un agneau d’un an) pourra être adopté à cet usage par celui qui le trouve pendant le mois qui précède la Pâques (à ce moment, on détermine déjà la victime destinée à cet objet).",
+            "En principe, on gardait en gage l’animal, jusqu’à ce que celui qui l’avait trouvé offre les libations afférentes au sacrifice. Plus tard, en raison de cette obligation, on avait soin de laisser sur place les animaux trouvés et de les fuir; le tribunal institua en conséquence la règle que les libations seraient jointes à la victime aux frais de la caisse publique.",
+            "R. Simon dit: 7 règles ont été établies par le tribunal, et voici l’une d’elles: Si un païen des bords de la mer envoie un animal pour qu’on le sacrifie au Temple en holocauste<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> \"Il résulte de ceci, remarque le Dr Rabbinowicz (Législation civile, etc. t. 1, p. 46, n. 1), que les sacrifices des païens étaient admis au Temple, et l'on y ajoutait parfois des libations. Cf. B. Menahot 51b; Rabba sur Lévitique, ch. 1.\"</i>, en y joignant le vin nécessaire aux libations, on offrira l’envoi complet: si ce dernier détail a été omis, on l’ajoute aux frais de la caisse commune. – De même, si un prosélyte meurt et laisse par de vers lui des sacrifices à offrir au Temple, lorsqu’il a laissé aussi les libations, on les joindra à l’offrande; si elles sont omises, on les ajoutera aux frais de la caisse commune. De même, c’est une convention juridique qu’en cas de décès du grand prêtre (jusqu’à la nomination de son successeur), l’offrande quotidienne de la dîme d’Epha aura lieu aux frais de la caisse commune; selon R. Juda, elle sera offerte aux frais des héritiers, et en tous cas elle sera présentée d’un coup en entier (et non en deux fois, par moitiés).",
+            "Il a été convenu aussi que les prêtres pourront jouir du sel et du bois qui accompagnent les sacrifices pour manger leur part de consécrations, et ce ne serait pas une prévarication d’user des cendres de la vache rousse. Quant aux nids reconnus impropres après leur achat au compte de l’offrant, on les remplacera aux frais de la caisse publique; selon R. Yossé, c’est au fournisseur général de ces victimes qu’incombe la charge de les remplacer s’ils sont impropres."
+        ],
+        [
+            "Toute salive trouvée à Jérusalem est présumée provenir d’un homme pur<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> \"Contrairement à ce qui est admis pour l'extérieur. Cf. tr. Toharot 4, 5; B., Pessahim 19b.\"</i>, sauf au marché supérieur (lieu isolé, où se rendaient parfois les blennorragiques). Tel est l’avis de R. Meir. R. Yossé dit: dans le cours ordinaire de l’année, ceux qui sont au milieu sont supposés impurs, et ceux qui se tiennent aux abords sont supposé purs. Au moment des grandes fêtes, au contraire, où il y a beaucoup d’Israélites présents, tous ceux qui vont au milieu sont purs, et ceux de côtés sont impurs, car alors le petit nombre marche sur les côtés.",
+            "Pour tout vase trouvé à Jérusalem, s’il est trouvé sur la voie descendant au bain, on le suppose impur; si au contraire il est sur la voie ascendante, il est pur, car la descente ne ressemble pas à la montée. Tel est l’avis de R. Meir. Selon R. Yossé, tout est pur (sans tenir compte du doute), sauf les paniers, pelles et râteaux, destinés spécialement à ramasser des ossements de morts (pour les transports).",
+            "Si le 14 Nissan on trouve un couteau (quoique douteux), on peut s’en servir de suite pour égorger l’agneau pascal; si c’est le 13 (il reste le temps de pourvoir au doute), on renouvellera l’action de le tremper au bain. Pour la hache, quelque soit le jour, il faudra la retremper. Si le 14 Nissan se trouve être un samedi (jour où la purification est interdite), on peut l’employer de suite à l’égorgement, et il en est de même si c’est le 15 Nissan. Si la hache se trouve attachée au couteau, on observera à son égard juste la même règle que le couteau.",
+            "Si un rideau est devenu impur par une dérivation de l’impureté, il pourra être trempé à l’eau dans l’intérieur du Temple (sans être porté hors du camp); et aussitôt après, on le remettra en place. S’il est devenu impur au contact d’une impureté capitale (charogne ou ver), il faudra le baigner au dehors et l’étendre pour le sécher au vestibule extérieur, où il faudra attendre le coucher du soleil (avant de la considérer pur et le rentrer). S’il est neuf, on l’étendra au sommet de la galerie externe (stoa), pour laisser admirer au peuple la beauté du travail.",
+            "R. Simon b. Gamliel dit<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> B., Tamid 29a.</i>, au nom de R. Simon fils du Segan (chef de service): le rideau avait une épaisseur d’un palme par 72 points (lisses) composés chacun de 24 fils qui avaient été tissés. La longueur était de 40 coudées et la largeur de 20. Il avait une valeur de 82 myriades (infinie). On en confectionnait ainsi deux par an. Enfin, il fallait le concours de 300 prêtres pour le porter au bain –<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> \"Midrash Rabba sur Exode, n° 50; sur Nombres, n° 4.\"</i>.",
+            "Si de la chair de sainteté supérieure est devenue impure au contact d’une impureté capitale, ou d’une impureté dérivée, soit à l’intérieur du Temple, soit au dehors, dans tous ces cas, selon l’école de Shammaï, il faudra brûler la chair à l’intérieur (à sa place spéciale), sauf au cas d’impureté capitale survenue au dehors. Selon Hillel, on devra, en tous ces cas, la brûler au dehors, sauf s’il s’agit d’une impureté dérivée (secondaire), survenue à l’intérieur<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\"> A cause de la double raison, de l'intérieur et de l'infériorité de l'impureté.</i>.",
+            "R. Eliézer dit: si l’impureté capitale est survenu soit à l’intérieur, soit au dehors, il faut la brûler au dehors; si l’impureté a eu lieu par le contact d’une impureté secondaire, soit au dehors, soit au dedans, on la brûlera à l’intérieur. R. aqiba dit: on la brûlera à l’endroit même où elle est devenue impure."
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Chapter",
+        "Mishnah"
+    ]
+}

json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Shekalim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Mishnah Shekalim",
+    "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/",
+    "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "priority": 1.0,
+    "license": "CC-BY",
+    "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "משנה שקלים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [
+            "On the first of Adar they make a public announcement about the shekels and concerning kilayim. On the fifteenth: they read the Megillah [Esther] in walled cities, and they fix the roads and the streets and the ritual water baths, and they perform all public duties, and they mark the graves, and [messengers] go forth also concerning kilayim.",
+            "Rabbi Judah said: at first they used to uproot [the kilayim], and throw them down before them. [But] when transgressors increased in number, they used to uproot them and throw them on the roads. [Finally], they decreed that they should make the whole field ownerless.",
+            "On the fifteenth of [Adar] they would set up tables [of money changers] in the provinces. On the twenty-fifth they set them up in the Temple. When [the tables] were set up in the Temple, they began to exact pledges [from those who had not paid]. From whom did they exact pledges? From Levites and Israelites, converts and freed slaves, but not women or slaves or minors. Any minor on whose behalf his father has begun to pay the shekel, may not discontinue it again. But they did not exact pledges from the priests, because of the ways of peace.",
+            "Rabbi Judah said: Ben Bukri testified at Yavneh that a priest who paid the shekel is not a sinner. But Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said to him: not so, but rather a priest who did not pay the shekel was guilty of a sin, only the priests expounded this verse for their own benefit: “And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt, it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16), since the omer and the two loaves and the showbread are [brought] from our [contributions], how can they be eaten?",
+            "Even though they said, “they don’t exact pledges from women, slaves or minors, [yet] if they paid the shekel it is accepted from them. If a non-Jew or a Samaritan paid the shekel they do not accept it from them. And they do not accept from them the bird-offerings of zavin or bird-offerings of zavot or bird-offerings of women after childbirth, Or sin-offerings or guilt-offerings. But vow-offerings and freewill-offerings they do accept from them. This is the general rule: all offerings which can be made as a vow-offering or a freewill-offering they do accept from them, but offerings which cannot be made as a vow-offering or a freewill-offering they do not accept from them. And thus it is explicitly stated by Ezra, as it is said: “You have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God” (Ezra 4:3).",
+            "The following are liable [to pay] the kalbon (surcharge): Levites and Israelites and converts and freed slaves; but not priests or women or slaves or minors. If a man paid the shekel on behalf of a priest, or on behalf of a woman, or on behalf of a slave, or on behalf of a minor, he is exempt. If a man paid the shekel on his own behalf and on behalf of his fellow he is liable for one kalbon. Rabbi Meir says: two kalbons. If one gave a sela and received a shekel, he is liable to pay two kalbons.",
+            "If one paid the shekel on behalf of a poor man or on behalf of his neighbor or on behalf of his fellow-townsman, he is exempt [from the kalbon]. But if he loaned [it] to them he is liable. Brothers who are partners who are obligated for the kalbon are exempt from the tithe of beasts. But when they are liable to the tithe of beasts they are exempt from the surcharge. And how much is the kalbon? A silver ma'ah, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: half a ma'ah."
+        ],
+        [
+            "They may change shekels into darics because of the load of the journey. Just as there were shofar-shaped chests in the Temple so there were shofar-shaped chests in the provinces. The townspeople who had sent their shekels and they were stolen or lost: If the appropriation had already been made [the messengers] swear an oath to the treasurers; But if the appropriation had not yet been made they swear to the townspeople, and the townspeople must pay [new] shekels in the place of the [lost] shekels. [If the lost shekels] were found, or if the thieves restored them, then both [the first shekels and their substitutes] are [sacred] shekels and they cannot be credited [to the account] of the coming year.",
+            "One who gave his shekel to his fellow to pay it on his behalf, but [his fellow] paid it on behalf of himself: if the appropriation had already been made [his fellow] is guilty of sacrilege. One who paid his shekel out of money belonging to the sanctuary: If the appropriation had already been made and an animal [bought out of the appropriation] had already been offered, he is guilty of sacrilege. [If he paid his shekel with] money that had been used to redeem the second tithe or the value of seventh year produce, he must eat food equal to its value.",
+            "One who gathered some coins and said: “Behold, these are for my shekel.” Bet Shammai say: the surplus [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings. But Bet Hillel say: the surplus is non-sacral property. [If he said:] “From them I shall bring my shekel,” they agree that the surplus is non-sacral property. [If he said]: “These [coins] are for a sin-offering, they agree that the surplus [goes to the chests of] freewill-offerings. [If he said]: “From these I shall bring a sin-offering, they agree that the surplus is non-sacral property.",
+            "Rabbi Shimon says: what is the difference between shekels and a sin-offering? Shekels have a fixed value, but a sin-offering has no fixed value. Rabbi Judah says: shekels also have no fixed value. For when the Israelites came up out of the diaspora they used to pay the shekel in darics, then they paid the shekel in selas, then they paid it in tibs, and finally they wanted to pay it in dinars. But Rabbi Shimon said: nevertheless they are all of the same value for everyone, whereas [in the case of] a sin-offering one man may bring it of the value of one sela, another may bring it of the value of two selas, and another in the value of three selas.",
+            "The surplus of [money set aside for] shekels is non-sacred property. The surplus of [money set aside for the] tenth of the ephah, and the surplus of [money set aside for] bird-offerings of zavim, for bird-offerings of zavot, for bird-offerings of women after childbirth, and sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, their surplus [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings. This is the general rule: all [money set aside] for a sin-offering or for a guilt-offering, the surplus [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings. The surplus of [money set aside for] a burnt-offering [must be used] for a burnt-offering. The surplus of [money set aside for] a meal-offering [must be used] for a meal-offering. The surplus of [money set aside for] a peace-offering [must be used] for a peace-offering. The surplus of [money set aside for] a pesach [must be used] for a wellbeing offering. The surplus of [money set aside for] the offerings of nazirites [must be used] for the offerings of other nazirites. The surplus of [money set aside for] the offerings of a [particular] nazirite [is used to purchase] freewill-offerings. The surplus of [money raised for] the poor [must be used] for other poor. The surplus of [money raised for] a [particular] poor person [must be given] to that [poor person]. The surplus of [money raised for the ransom of] captives [must be used] for [the ransom of other] captives. The surplus of [money raised for the ransom of] a [particular] captive [must be given] to that captive. The surplus of [the money raised for the burial of] the dead [must be used] for [the burial of other] dead. The surplus of [the money raised for the burial of] a [particular] dead person [must be given] to his heirs. Rabbi Meir says: the surplus of [money raised for the burial of] a [particular] dead person must be laid aside until Elijah comes. Rabbi Natan says: the surplus of [money raised for the burial of] a [particular] dead person [must be used] for building a monument for him over his grave."
+        ],
+        [
+            "At three periods of the year the appropriation is made [from the shekels] in the chamber: Half a month before Pesah, half a month before Shavuot, and half a month before Sukkot, and these are also the threshing floors [the seasons] for the tithe of beasts, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai says: on the twenty-ninth of Adar, and on the first of Sivan, and on the twenty-ninth of Av. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: on the first of Nisan, on the first of Sivan, and on the twenty-ninth of Elul. Why did they say, “On the twenty-ninth of Elul and not on the first of Tishre? Because the first of Tishre is a holy day, and it is not permitted to tithe on a festival, therefore they moved it up to the twenty-ninth of Elul.",
+            "In three baskets each of [the capacity of] three seahs they make the appropriation [of shekels] from the chamber. And on them was inscribed: Aleph, Beth, Gimmel. Rabbi Ishmael says: Greek was inscribed on them, alpha, beta, gamla. The one who made the appropriation did not enter the chamber wearing either a bordered cloak or shoes or sandals or tefillin or an amulet, lest if he became poor people might say that he became poor because of a sin committed in the chamber, or if he became rich people might say that he became rich from the appropriation in the chamber. For it is one’s duty to be free of blame before others as before God, as it is said: “And you shall be guiltless before the Lord and before Israel” (Numbers 32:22), and it says: “And you will find favor and good understanding in the eyes of God and man” (Proverbs 3:4).",
+            "[The members] of Rabban Gamaliel’s household used to enter [the chamber] with their shekel between their fingers, and throw it in front of him who made the appropriation, while he who made the appropriation purposely pressed it into the basket. He who made the appropriation did not make it until he first said to them: “Should I make the appropriation?” And they say to him three times: “Make the appropriation! Make the appropriation! Make the appropriation!”",
+            "[After] he made the first appropriation, he covers [what is left] with leather covers. [After he made the] second appropriation, he covers [what is left] with leather covers. [But after] the third appropriation he would not cover [what was left]. [And why would he cover?] Lest he should forget and make a [fresh] appropriation from shekels from which had already been appropriated. He would make the first appropriation on behalf of the Land of Israel, and the second on behalf of the surrounding cities, and the third on behalf of Babylon and on behalf of Medea and on behalf of [other] distant countries."
+        ],
+        [
+            "What did they do with the appropriation? They bring with it the daily burnt-offerings (tamidim) and the additional burnt-offerings (musafim) and their libations, the omer and the two loaves and the showbread and all the other public offerings. Those who guard the aftergrowths of the seventh year take their wages out of the appropriation from the chamber. Rabbi Yose says: [if a man wished] he could volunteer to watch without payment. But they said to him: you too admit that they can only be offered out of public funds.",
+            "The [red] heifer and the scapegoat and the strip of scarlet came out of the appropriation of the chamber. The ramp for the [red] heifer and the ramp for the scapegoat and the strip of scarlet which was between its horns, and [the maintenance of] the pool of water and the wall of the city and its towers and all the needs of the city came out of the remainder in the chamber. Abba Shaul says: the ramp for the [red] cow the high priests made out of their own [means].",
+            "What did they do with the surplus of the remainder in the chamber?They would buy with it wines, oils and fine flours, and the profit belonged to the Temple, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: one may not make a profit with the property of the Temple, nor with the property of the poor.",
+            "What was done with the surplus of the appropriation?[They would buy] plates of gold for covering the interior of the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Ishmael says: the surplus [from the sale] of the produce was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the appropriation was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Akiva says: the surplus of the appropriation was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the libations was used for the ministering vessels. Rabbi Hananiah the chief of the priests says: the surplus of the libations was used for the altar’s ‘dessert’, and the surplus of the appropriation was used for the ministering vessels. Neither of these [two sages] allowed [a profit from the sale of] the produce.",
+            "What was done with the surplus of the incense? They would separate from it the wages of the craftsmen, and they would exchange it for the wages of the craftsmen, and they would give it to the craftsmen as their wages, and then they would buy it back again out of a new appropriation. If the new month had arrived in time they would bring it with the new appropriation, but if not, they from the old one.",
+            "If one dedicated his possessions to the Temple, and there was among them things which was fit for public offerings, they should be given to the craftsmen as their wages; the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him: this method is not correct. Rather, they separate from them the wages of the craftsmen, and then they exchange them for the money due to the craftsmen, and then they give them to the craftsmen as their wages, and then they buy them back again out of a new appropriation.",
+            "One who dedicated his possessions to the Temple and there was among them an animal fit for the altar, males or females,Rabbi Eliezer says: males should be sold for the use of burnt-offerings and females should be sold for the use of offerings of wellbeing, and the proceeds should be lumped together with the rest of the possessions for the repair of the temple. Rabbi Joshua says: the males themselves should be offered as burnt-offerings and the females should be sold for the use of offerings of wellbeing, and with the proceeds burnt offerings should be brought, and the other possessions should go to the repair of the temple. Rabbi Akiva says: I prefer the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer over the opinion of Rabbi Joshua, for Rabbi Eliezer applied a uniform rule, but Rabbi Joshua differentiated. Rabbi Papias said: I have heard [a tradition in accordance] with both of their opinions: that one who dedicates to the Temple with explicitness, it is according to the words of Rabbi Eliezer, but one who dedicates to the Temple without specifying it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Joshua.",
+            "One who dedicated his possessions to the Temple and there were among them things fit for the altar, [such as] wines, oils, and birds: Rabbi Elazar says: they should be sold for the use of [offerings of] each particular kind, and they should bring with the proceeds burnt offerings, and the other possessions should go to the repair of the Temple.",
+            "Once in thirty days prices were fixed [on behalf of] the chamber. Anyone who had accepted upon himself to supply fine flours at four [se'ahs for a sela] and they now stood at three [se'ahs for a sela] he must [still] supply four. [If he had accepted to supply fine flours] at three [se'ahs for a sela] and they now stood at four, he must [also] supply at four, for the sanctified property has the upper hand. If the fine flour became worm-eaten the loss is his; if the wine became sour the loss is his. For he is not entitled to his money until the altar has accepted [the offering]."
+        ],
+        [
+            "These were the officers in the Temple: Yohanan the son of Pinchas was over the seals. Ahiyah over the libations. Mattityah the son of Shmuel over the lots. Petahiah over the bird-offering. (Petahiah was Mordecai. Why was his name called Petahiah? Because he ‘opened’ matters and expounded them, and he understood the seventy tongues). The son of Ahijah over the sickness of the bowels. Nehuniah, the digger of ditches. Gevini, the crier. The son of Gever over the locking of the gates. The son of Bevai over the strips [for lighting the menorah]. The son of Arza over the cymbal. Hugras the son of Levi over the song. The house of Garmu over the making of the showbread. The house of Avtinas over the preparing of the frankincense. Elazar over the curtains. And Pinchas over the priestly vestments.",
+            "They did not have less than three treasurers. Or less than seven superintendents. Nor create positions of authority over the public in matters of money [with] less than two [officers], except [in the case] of the son of Ahiyah who was over the sickness of the bowels and Elazar who was over the veil, for these had been accepted by the majority of the public.",
+            "There were four seals in the Temple, and on them was inscribed [respectively]: ‘calf’, ‘ram’, ‘kid’, ‘sinner’. Ben Azzai says: there were five and on them was inscribed in Aramaic [respectively]” ‘calf’, ‘ram’, ‘kid’, ‘poor sinner’, and ‘rich sinner’. [The seal inscribed] ‘calf’ served for the libations of cattle, both large and small, male and female. [The seal inscribed] ‘kid’ served for the libations of flock animals, both large and small, male and female, with the exception of rams. [The one inscribed] ‘ram’ served for the libations of rams alone. [The one inscribed] ‘sinner’ served for the libations of the three animals [offered] by lepers.",
+            "If one required libations he would go to Yohanan who was the officer over the seals, and give him money and receive from him a seal. Then he would go to Ahiyah who was the officer over the libations, and give him the seal, and receive from him the libations. And in the evening these two [officers] would come together, and Ahiyah would bring out the seals and receive money for their value. And if there was more [than their value] the surplus belonged to the sanctuary, but if there was less [than their value] Yohanan would pay [the loss] out of his own pocket; for the Temple has the upper hand.",
+            "If one lost his seal his case they wait [to deal] with him until the evening. If they found [money left over] to the value of his lost seal, they give [it] to him and if not he gets nothing. On the seals was inscribed the name of the day because of the defrauders.",
+            "There were two chambers in the Temple, one the chamber of secret gifts and the other the chamber of the vessels. The chamber of secret gifts: sin-fearing persons used to put their gifts there in secret, and the poor who were descended of the virtuous were secretly supported from them. The chamber of the vessels: whoever offered a vessel as a gift would throw it in, and once in thirty days the treasurers opened it; and any vessel they found in it that was of use for the repair of the temple they left there, but the others were sold and their price went to the chamber of the repair of the temple."
+        ],
+        [
+            "There were in the Temple thirteen chests, thirteen tables and thirteen prostrations. [Members] of the household of Rabban Gamaliel and of Rabbi Hananiah the chief of the priests used would prostrate fourteen [times. And where was the additional [prostration]? In front of the wood storage yard, for they had a tradition from their forefathers that the Ark was hidden there.",
+            "It once happened that a priest who was busy [there] noticed that the floor [of the wood storage area] was different from the others. He went and told it to his friend but before he had time to finish his words his soul departed. Then they knew for certain that there the Ark was hidden.",
+            "And where did they make the prostrations? Four [times] in the north, four [times] in the south, three [times] in the east, and twice in the west, in front of the thirteen gates. The southern gates close to the west [side were]: the Upper Gate, the Fuel Gate, the Gate of the Firstborn [Animals], and the Water Gate. Why was it called the Water Gate? Because through it was brought in the flask of water for the libation on Sukkot. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: through it the waters trickle forth and in the time to come “they will come forth from under the threshold of the Temple” (Ezekiel 47:1). On the opposite side in the north close to the west were: Jechoniah’ Gate, the Gate of the Offerings, the Gate of the Women, and the Gate of Song. And why was it called the Jechoniah’ Gate? Because through it Jechoniah went out into his captivity. In the east was the Nicanor’s Gate, and it had two small gates, one to the right and one to the left. There were also two gates in the west which had no name.",
+            "There were thirteen tables in the Temple:Eight of marble in the place of slaughtering and on them they would rinse the entrails. And two to the west of the ramp [which ascends the altar], one of marble and one of silver; on that of marble they would place the limbs [of the offerings], and on that of silver the ministering vessels. And there were two tables in the Porch on the inside of the entrance to the Temple, one of marble and the other of gold; on that of marble they would place the showbread placed when it was brought in, and on that of gold [they would place the showbread] when it was taken out, because things sacred may be raised [in honor] but not lowered. And there was one [table] of gold on the inside of the Sanctuary on which the showbread lay continually.",
+            "There were thirteen chests in the Temple and on them was inscribed [respectively]:“new shekels”;“New shekels” those for each year; “old shekels”;“Old shekels” whoever has not paid his shekel in the past year may pay it in the coming year; “bird-offerings”;“Bird-offerings” these are turtle-doves; “young pigeons for burnt-offerings”;“Young pigeons for burnt-offerings” these are young pigeons. “wood”; “frankincense”; “gold for the kapporet”; and on six, “freewill offerings”. Both [these two chests] are for burnt-offerings, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: “bird-offerings” one [half] is for sin-offerings and the other [half] for burnt-offerings, but “young pigeons for burnt-offerings” all goes to burnt-offerings.",
+            "One who says: “Behold, I am obligated to bring wood”, he may not bring less than two logs. [If he says: “Behold, I am obligated to bring] frankincense”, he may not bring less than a handful of it. [If he says: “Behold, I am obligated to bring] gold”, he may not bring less than a gold denar. “On six [was inscribed] “for freewill-offerings”: What was done with the freewill-offerings? They would buy with them burnt-offerings, the flesh [of which] was for the name [of God] and the hides for the priests. The following is the midrash which was expounded by Yehoyada the high priest: “It is a guilt-offering; it is a guilt offering, it goes to the Lord” (Leviticus 5:19). This is the general rule: anything which is brought because of a sin or because of guilt, they should purchase with it burnt offerings, the flesh [of which] was for the name [of God] and the hides for the priests. Thus the two verses are fulfilled: a guilt offering for the Lord and a guilt offering for the priests, and it says: “Money brought as a guilt offering or as a sin offering was not deposited in the House of the Lord; it went to the priests” (II Kings 12:17)."
+        ],
+        [
+            "Coins which were found between the [chest inscribed] “shekels” and the [chests inscribed] “freewill-offerings: Nearer to [the chest inscribed] “shekels”, they go to the shekels; [Nearer to the chests inscribed] “freewill-offerings”, they go to freewill-offerings; Half way in between, they go to freewill-offerings. [Coins which were found] between [the chest inscribed] “wood” and [the chest inscribed] “frankincense”: Nearer to [the chest inscribed] “wood”, they go to the wood; [Nearer to the chest inscribed] “frankincense”, they go to frankincense; Half way in between, they go to frankincense. [Coins which were found] between [the chest inscribed] “bird-offerings” and [the chest inscribed] “young pigeons for burnt-offerings”: Nearer to [the chest inscribed] “bird-offerings” they go to bird-offerings; [Nearer to the chest inscribed] “young pigeons for burnt-offerings”, they go to young pigeons for burnt-offerings; Half way in between, they go to young pigeons for burnt-offerings. [Coins which were found] between non-sacred [money] and [second] tithes [money]: Nearer to the non-sacred [money], they go to common [money]; Nearer to the [second] tithes [money], they go to [second] tithes; Half way in between, they are considered [second] tithes. This is the general rule: the go to that which is nearer [even if this] is lenient; but if half way in between, [they must go] to that which is the more stringent.",
+            "Money which was found in front of animal dealers [in Jerusalem], it is always [second] tithes [money]; [If it was found] on the Temple Mount it is non-sacred [money]. [If it was found] in Jerusalem during the time of a festival, it is [second] tithes [money]. But all the rest of the year it is non-sacred [money].",
+            "Meat which was found in the Temple courtyard: Limbs: [they must be treated as belonging to] whole burnt-offerings; Pieces: [they must be treated as belonging to] sin-offerings. [Meat which was found] in Jerusalem, [must be treated as belonging to] wellbeing-offerings. In both cases it must be left to become disqualified and must then go out to the place of burning. [Meat which was] found within the borders [of Israel but outside of Jerusalem]: Limbs: [they must be treated as] carrion; Pieces: they are permitted. But [if found] during the time of a festival, when meat is abundant, it is permitted [to eat it] even when cut up in limbs.",
+            "Beasts which were found in Jerusalem as far as Migdal Eder and within the same distance in any direction: Males are [considered as] burnt-offerings; Females are [considered as] peace-offerings. Rabbi Judah says: that which is fit for a pesach offering, is [considered as] a pesach-offerings [when found] within thirty days before the pilgrimage [of Pesach].",
+            "In olden times they used to take a pledge from any one who had found such a [stray] animal, until he brought its libation-offerings. Then people would leave the animal and run away. So the court decreed that its libation-offerings should come from public funds.",
+            "Rabbi Shimon said: there were seven things that the court decree and that was one of them. [The others were the following:]A non-Jew who sent a burnt-offering from overseas and he sent with it its libation-offerings, they are offered out of his own; But if [he did] not [send its libation-offerings], they should be offered out of public funds. So too [in the case of] a convert who had died and left sacrifices, if he had also left its libation-offerings they are offered out of his own; But if not, they should be offered out of public funds. It was also a condition laid down by the court in the case of a high priest who had died that his minhah should be offered out of public funds. Rabbi Judah says: [it was offered out] of the property of his heirs, And had to be offered of the whole [tenth].",
+            "[They further decreed] concerning the salt and the wood that the priests may benefit from them. And concerning the [red] heifer that using its ashes is not considered sacrilege. And concerning bird-offerings which had become unfit [for sacrifice], that [others] should be offered [in their place] out of public funds. Rabbi Yose says: the one who supplied the bird-offerings was bound to supply [those which had to be offered in the place of] those which had become unfit."
+        ],
+        [
+            "Any spit found in Jerusalem is clean except that which is [found] in the upper market, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: at other times of the year [spit found] in the middle [of the road] is unclean but [spit found] at the sides [of the road] is clean; but at festivals time [spit found] in the middle [of the road] is clean, while [that which is found] at the sides [of the road] is unclean, since they are few in number, they remove themselves to the sides of the road.",
+            "All vessels found in Jerusalem on the way going down to the place of immersion are unclean, [but those found] on the way going up [from the place of immersion] are clean; for the way down is not the same as the way up, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: they are all clean, except the basket and the shovel or pick which are specially connected with [work in] cemeteries.",
+            "A [slaughtering] knife which was found on the fourteenth [of Nisan] he may slaughter with it immediately. [If it was found] on the thirteenth [of Nisan] he must immerse it again. But a chopping knife whether [found] on the fourteenth or on the thirteenth, he must immerse it again. If the fourteenth fell on Shabbat, he may slaughter with it immediately. [If found] on the fifteenth, he may slaughter with it immediately. If [the chopping knife] was found tied to a [slaughtering] knife it may be treated as the knife.",
+            "If the curtain [separating the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple] was defiled by a derived uncleanness, they immerse it within [the precincts of the Temple] and they bring it back in again. But if it was defiled by a principal uncleanness, they immerse it outside and spread out in the Hel. If it was new it was spread out on the roof of the colonnade, so that the people might behold its workmanship which is beautiful.",
+            "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon the son of the chief [of the priests]: the curtain was a handbreadth in thickness and was woven on seventy-two cords, and on each cord there were twenty-four threads. It was forty cubits long and twenty cubits broad, and was made by eighty-two young girls. Two curtains were made every year, and three hundred priests were needed to immerse it.",
+            "Meat of most holy things which was defiled, whether by a principal uncleanness or by a derived uncleanness, whether inside or outside [the precincts of the temple]:Bet Shammai say: it must all be burnt within, except when defiled outside by a principal uncleanness. But Bet Hillel say: it must all be burnt outside, except that which was defiled by a derived uncleanness within.",
+            "Rabbi Eliezer says: [Sacrificial meat] which was defiled by a principal uncleanness, whether inside or outside [the Temple precincts], must be burned outside [the Temple]. [Sacrificial meat] which was defiled with a derived uncleanness whether inside or outside the Temple, is burned inside the Temple. Rabbi Akiva says: where it was defiled there it is burned.",
+            "The limbs of the daily burnt-offering were placed on the half of the ramp [to the altar] downwards on the west side. Those of the additional offering (musaf) were placed on the half of the ramp downwards on the east side. While those of the new moon offerings were placed on top of the rim of the altar. [The laws of] the shekels and of the first-fruit are in force only when the Temple stands, but [the laws of] the tithe of grain and of the tithe of cattle and of the firstborn are in force both when the Temple exists and when the Temple does not exist. One who dedicates shekels or first-fruits [when the Temple does not exist], they are holy. Rabbi Shimon says: one who says “the first-fruit be holy,” they are not holy."
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Chapter",
+        "Mishnah"
+    ]
+}

json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Shekalim/English/Sefaria Community Translation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Mishnah Shekalim",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org",
+    "versionTitle": "Sefaria Community Translation",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "license": "CC0",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "תרגום קהילת ספריא",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "משנה שקלים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [
+            "On the first of the month of Adar a proclamation is made about the [giving of the] <i> shekalim </i> and about <i> kilayim </i> [forbidden mixed plantings]. On the 15th of the month the Book of Esther is read in cities. Additionally, they repair the roads between cities, the roads within cities, the <i> mikvaot </i> [pools for ritual immersion], take care of all public needs, mark graves and remove the <i> kilayim </i> [from the fields].",
+            "Rabbi Yehuda said: At first they used to uproot [<em>kilayim</em>] and would throw it away before them. When sinners began to multiply [i.e. when people did not remove the <em>kilayim</em>] they would uproot it and throw it on the roads. [Eventually,] they decreed that the entire field should be declared ownerless [and anyone can take food from these fields - because the owners did not remove their <i> kilayim </i> at all].",
+            "On the 15th [of Adar] tables would be set up [in order to exchange money] throughout the land. On the 25th they would set up in the Temple. When they moved to the Temple they began to mortgage [property and other valuables for coins]. Who did they take mortgages from? Levites, Israelites, converts and freed slaves. They did not take mortgages from women, slaves and children. Any child whose father has begun to pay the shekel for him, [the father] cannot stop paying the half-shekel on his behalf. They did not take mortgages from priests for the sake of peace. ",
+            "Rabbi Yehuda said: Ben Bukhrei testified in Yavneh saying that a priest that contributes the half-shekel is not sinning. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai said to him: This is not true. In fact, any priest who does not give a half-shekel is sinning. Rather, the priests interpreted the verse for their own benefit, \"And every meal-offering of a priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten\" (Leviticus 6:16): If the <i>omer</i> [barley measure] offering and the <i>lechem hapanim </i> [showbread, displayed in the Temple] offering are ours, how can they be eaten?",
+            "Despite the fact that it was taught that we do not accept mortgages from women, slaves and children - if they gave a half-shekel it was accepted. The half-shekel of non-Jew or the Cuthite is not accepted. We also do not accept from a non-Jew or a Cuthite the bird offering of a man who was a <i> zav </i> [had an unusual genital flow] or a woman who was a <i> zavah </i> [had an unusual genital flow], the bird offering of a woman who has given birth, sin offerings or guilt offerings, but we do accept from them vowed offerings. This is the rule: Any vowed or donated offering is accepted from them; any offering that is not vowed or donated is not accepted from them. Accordingly it was explained by Ezra who said, \"It is not for you and for us to build a house for our God.\" (Ezra 4:3)",
+            "The following people have to pay a surcharge when buying the half-shekel coin: Levites, Israelites, converts and freed slaves. However, priests, women, slaves and children do not have to pay the surcharge. One who pays the half-shekel on behalf of a priest, a woman, a slave or child is exempt [from paying the surcharge]. If he pays the half-shekel on his own behalf and on behalf of his fellow, he must only pay the surcharge once. Rabbi Meir said: He must pay it twice. One who gives a <i> sela </i> [which is worth two shekels] and receives one shekel in return must pay the surcharge twice.",
+            "One who pays the half-shekel on behalf of a poor person, or his neighbor, or a resident of his city, is exempt from the surcharge. However, if he loaned them [the half-shekel] he must pay it. Brothers and partners who must pay the surcharge are exempt from tithes on animals, and in cases where they are required to give tithes on animals, they are exempt from the surcharge. How much is the surcharge? Rabbi Meir said: 1 silver <i> meah </i> [1/12 of a shekel]. The Sages said: 1/2 of a silver <i> meah </i> [1/24 of a shekel]."
+        ],
+        [
+            "One can exchange shekels for <em>darkonot</em> [coins of large denomination] in order [to lighten] the load of the journey. Just as there were shofar-shaped chests in the Temple, so too were there shofar-shaped chests in the provinces. If people of a city had sent their shekels and they were stolen or lost, if the <em>terumah</em> [portion for offerings] had already been appropriated, [the messengers] take an oath to the treasurers [that the money was stolen or lost]; if it hadn't [been appropriated yet], they take an oath to the people of the city, and the people of the city must pay [new] shekels in their stead. If they are found, or if the thieves returned them, then both [the new payment and the original payment] are part of the <em>shekalim</em>, but it does not count for them the following year.",
+            "One who gives his shekel to his fellow to donate on his behalf, and [his fellow] donates it for himself: if the <em>terumah</em> was set aside, he [has committed the sin of] misappropriation. One who donates his shekel from <em>hekdesh</em> [consecrated funds]: if the <em>terumah</em> was set aside, and an animal [bought from the funds] was already sacrificed,  he [has committed the sin of] misappropriation. If [he drew his shekel donation] from <em>ma'aser sheni</em> [second-tithe] funds or <em>shevi'it</em> [seventh-year] funds, he must [redeem that money] and eat that amount.",
+            "One who is accumulating coins and says, these are for my shekel, Beit Shammai says, the extra must be used as a free-will offering. Beit Hillel says that the extra is not consecrated [as a free-will offering]. [If one were to say that] I will bring from these for my shekel, they both agree that the extra is <em>chullin</em> [not consecrated]. [If one were to say that] these are for a <em>chattat</em> [sin-offering], they both agree that the extra must be used as a free-will offering. [If one were to say that] I will bring from these for a <em>chattat</em>, they both agree that the extra is <em>chullin</em>. ",
+            "Rabbi Shimon said, what is the difference between <em>shekalim</em> and the <em>chattat</em> offering? <em>Shekalim</em> have a fixed amount, while a <em>chattat</em> does not have a fixed amount. Rabbi Yehuda said, even <em>shekalim</em> don't have a fixed amount because when the Jews ascended [to Israel] from the [Babylonian] exile they would pay the shekel in <em>darkonot</em> [equivalent to 4 shekels]; then they paid in <em>selaim</em> [equivalent to 2 shekels]; then they paid in <em>selaim</em> [equivalent to 1 Mishnaic shekel or half a Toraitic shekel] and they sought to pay in <em>dinarim</em> [equivalent to 1/2 of a Mishnaic shekel]. Said Rabbi Shimon, even so, everyone would give an equal amount [at any given time period]. But [for a] <em>chattat</em>, this one brings [an offering worth] a <em>sela</em>, this one brings [an offering worth] two, and this one brings [an offering worth] three.",
+            "The excess funds of [money set aside for] the <em>shekalim</em> is not sanctified. The excess funds [of money set aside for] the tenth of an <em>eifah</em> [of flour brought with a <em>chattat</em> offering], the excess funds of the offerings of <em>zavim</em> [males with abnormal genital discharge], the offerings of <em>zavot</em> [females with abnormal genital discharge], the offerings of women who gave birth, <em>chattat</em> offerings and <em>asham</em> [guilt] offerings, their excess funds must be given as a free-will offering. This is the general rule, everything that comes for the sake of a <em>chattat</em> or <em>asham</em> offering, their excess funds must be given as a free-will offering. The excess funds of an <em>olah</em> [burnt offering] is for an <em>olah</em>. The excess funds of a <em>minchah</em> [meal offering] is for a <em>minchah</em>. The excess funds of a <em>shelamim</em> [peace offering] is for a <em>shelamim</em>. The excess funds of the <em>pesach</em> offering is for a <em>shelamim</em>. The excess funds for a nazirite's offering is for a nazirite's offering. The remainder for an individual nazirite must be given as a free-will offering. The excess funds [given] for the poor is for the poor. The excess funds [given] for an individual poor person is for that poor person. The excess funds [given] for captives is for captives. The excess funds [given] for a specific captive is for that specific captive. The excess funds [given] for the dead is for the dead. The excess funds for a specific dead person is for his inheritors. Rabbi Meir said, the excess funds for a specific dead person is set aside until Eliyahu comes. Rabbi Natan said, the excess funds for a specific dead person is used to build a gravestone on his grave. "
+        ],
+        [
+            "At three periods during the year the appropriation is made [from the shekels] in the chamber [of the Temple treasury]:  Half a month before Pesah, half a month before Shavuot, and half a month before Sukkot, and these are also the proper times for the tithe of beasts, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai says: on the twenty-ninth of Adar, and on the first of Sivan, and on the twenty-ninth of Av.   Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: on the first of Nisan, on the first of Sivan, [and] on the twenty-ninth of Elul.  Why did they say on the twenty-ninth of Elul and not on the first of Tishrei?  Because it is a festival day, and it is not permitted to tithe on a festival day, therefore they moved it up to the twenty-ninth of Elul. ",
+            "In three baskets each of [the capacity of] three <i>seim</i> they make the appropriation [of shekels] from the chamber.  And on them was written:  <em>alef</em>, <em>beit</em>, <em>gimmel</em>.  Rabbi Ishmael says: Greek was written on them, <em>alpha</em>, <em>beta</em>, <em>gamla</em>.    The one who made the appropriation did not enter the chamber wearing a bordered cloak, or shoes, or sandals, or tefillin, or an amulet, lest he become poor and [people] say that he became poor because of a sin committed in the chamber, or lest he become rich and [people] say that he became rich from the appropriation in the chamber. For one must be free of blame before others as he must be free of blame before God, as it is said: “And you shall be guiltless before the Lord and before Israel” (Numbers 32:22), and it says: “And you will find favor and good understanding in the eyes of God and man” (Proverbs 3:4).  ",
+            "[The emissary from] Rabban Gamliel’s household would enter [the chamber] with his shekel between his fingers, and would throw it in front of the one who made the appropriation, while he who made the appropriation would direct his attention to it and place it into the basket. The one who made the appropriation would not make it until he first said to them [the witnesses]:  “Should I make the appropriation?” And they would say to him three times:  “Make the appropriation! Make the appropriation! Make the appropriation!” ",
+            "He made the first appropriation and covered it with leather covers. The second and covered it with leather covers. The third was not covered in case he forgot and appropriated from that which had already been appropriated from. He made the first appropriation on behalf of  the land of Israel, the second on behalf of the cities nearby, the third was on behalf of Babylon, on behalf of Medea and on behalf of the distant countries."
+        ],
+        [
+            "What did they do with the appropriation funds? They purchased the <em>tamid</em> [twice-daily] sacrifices, the <em>musaf</em> [additional] sacrifices and their libations, the <em>omer</em> [barley offerings], the two loaves and the <em>lechem hapanim</em> [showbread], and all the communal sacrifices. The guards of the after-growth during the <em>shemittah</em> [sabbatical] year take their wage from the appropriation funds in the chamber. Rabbi Yose says one who wishes may volunteer as an unpaid guard. They said to him, you yourself said, that they may not come except from communal assets.",
+            "The red heifer, the scapegoat, and the strip of red wool come from the funds appropriated in the chamber. The ramp for the red heifer, and the ramp for the scapegoat and the strip between its horns, the water channel, and the walls of the city [of Jerusalem] and its towers, and requirements for the city, come from the remainder of the [appropriation funds in the] chamber. Abba Shaul says the High Priests built the ramp for the red heifer from their own funds.",
+            "What was done with the surplus of the appropriation [remaining in the treasury chamber]? They would buy with it wine, oil, and fine flour, and the profit was <em>hekdesh</em> [belonged to the Temple]; these are the words of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: We do not extract profit from funds of <em>hekdesh</em> or the poor. ",
+            "What was done with the surplus appropriation funds? Gold sheets to cover the Holy of Holies. Rabbi Yishmael says, the surplus profits became the <em>keitz hamizbeach</em> [burnt offerings to be brought when the altar was otherwise idle] for the altar, and the surplus appropriation went to service utensils. Rabbi Akiva said, the surplus appropriation funds were for the <em>keitz hamizbeach</em> and the surplus libations were for service utensils. Rabbi Chanania, Deputy of the Priests, said, the surplus libations were for the <em>keitz hamizbeach</em> and the surplus appropriation funds were for the service vessels. Neither agreed [with Rabbi Yishmael as to] what was to be done with surplus profits.",
+            "What was done with the surplus of the incense? They set aside the wages of the artisans from it, and deconsecrated [its value] onto [coins for] the wages for the artisans, and would give it to the artisans as their wages, and they would then purchase it [incense] with the new appropriation funds. If the month [of Nisan] came at its expected time [Adar 30], they would purchase it from the new appropriation funds. If not, from the old.",
+            "[If] one consecrates his property to the Temple, if there are among it objects that are fit for public sacrifices, they should be given to the temple craftsmen as their payment: these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him, this is not the proper way; rather they set aside from them the workers wages and then deconsecrates them onto the workers' money. They were given to the workers as their salary, and then repurchased using the new appropriation funds.",
+            "[If] one consecrates his property to the Temple, and there is among it an animal suitable to go onto the altar, male or female, Rabbi Eliezer says: males should be sold for use as <em>olot</em> [burnt-offerings], and the females for use as <em>shelamim</em> [peace-offerings], and the proceeds together with the rest of the possessions should go for the upkeep of the Temple. Rabbi Yehoshua says: the males should be brought themselves as burnt-offerings, and the females should be sold for use as peace-offerings, and the other possessions should go to the upkeep of the Temple. Rabbi Akiva says, I agree with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, above the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, because Rabbi Eliezer applied a uniform rule, while Rabbi Yehoshua differentiates. Rabbi Papyas says: I have learned that both opinions are correct: that for one who dedicates each item explicitly, we follow the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, but for one who did not dedicate each item explicitly, we follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. ",
+            "[If] one consecrates his property to the Temple and among them are items fit for the altar: wine, oil, and birds, Rabbi Eliezer says, these items should be sold for their usual [Temple] use, and the proceeds go to purchase burnt-offerings, and the rest of the possessions go to the upkeep of the Temple. ",
+            "Once in thirty days, they would set the price paid by the treasury chamber. If one undertook to supply fine flour at four [<i>se'ah</i> per <i>sela</i>], and subsequently, the price rose to three [<i>se'ah</i>per <i>sela</i>], he must supply four [<i>se'ah</i> of flour]. But, if he undertook to supply three, and the price dropped to four, he supplies four, because the Temple has the upper hand. If the fine flour became infested with worms, the loss is his, and if the wine became sour, the loss is his. He does not receive his money until the altar atones. "
+        ],
+        [
+            "These are the supervisors who were in the Temple: Yohanan the son of Pinhas oversaw the seals; Ahiya oversaw the libations; Matityah the son of Shemuel oversaw the lots, Petachya oversaw the bird-offerings. Petachya is Mordekhai. Why was he called 'Petachya'? Because he would open [<em>poteach</em>] with words and interpret them, and he knew seventy languages. The son of Achya oversaw stomach illnesses. Nechunia dug pits. Gevini announced. The son of Gever oversaw the locking of the gates. The son of Beibi oversaw [the preparation of] wicks. The son of Arza oversaw the cymbal. Hugras the Levite oversaw the songs. The House of Garmo oversaw the making of the showbreads. The House of Avtinas oversaw the making of the incense. Eleazar oversaw the curtain. And Pinhas oversaw the [priestly] clothing.",
+            "We do not have less than three treasurers or less than seven officers [supervising the cashiers], and we do not have any office for communal monetary affairs with less than two [officers], except the son of Achya who oversaw [tending to Kohanim with] stomach illnesses and Eleazar for the curtain, because they were accepted by the majority of the public.",
+            "There were four tokens in the Temple, and on them were inscribed: calf, ram, kid, and sinner. Ben Azzai says, there were five, and on them were inscribed in Aramaic: calf, ram, kid, poor sinner, and rich sinner. The calf token served for [claiming accompanying] libations of cattle, large or small, male or female. The kid token served for for libations of the flock, large or small, male or female, with the exception of adult rams. The ram token served for the libations of rams only. The sinner token served for the libations of the three animals offered by lepers. ",
+            "Whoever required libations would go to Yochanan, who was the officer for the token, give him money, and receive from him a token. He would then go to Achyah, who was in charge of the libations, give him the token, and receive the libations from him. In the evening, they would meet and Achyah would take out the tokens and receive money for them. If there was a surplus, the surplus would go to <em>hekdesh</em> [be dedicated to the Temple treasury], but if there was a deficit, Yochanan would pay from his own funds, for the Temple has the upper hand. ",
+            "If one lost his token [with which to offer sacrifices], we have him wait until evening. If they found [excess at the day's accounting] equivalent to [payment for] his token, they would give it to him.  If not, he would not get it. And the date was written on the token because of the liars.",
+            "There were two chambers in the Temple: one, the chamber of secret [donations], and one, the chamber of vessels. Those who feared sin would deposit within [the chamber of secret donations] in secret, and poor people of good background would be supported from there in secret. Anyone who donated a vessel, that vessel would be thrown into the chamber of vessels. Every thirty days, the treasurer would open it. Every vessel they found that was useful for maintaining the Temple, they would leave it. The rest were sold, and their proceeds fell to the chamber for Temple maintenance."
+        ],
+        [
+            "There were thirteen<em> shofarot</em> [horn-shaped collection chests], thirteen tables, and thirteen places of prostration in the Temple. The house of Rabban Gamliel and the house of Rabbi Chanania, deputy of the priests, used to prostrate themselves in fourteen places. And where was this additional place of prostration? Opposite the wood storage chamber, for they had a tradition from their ancestors that the Ark was hidden there. ",
+            "It once happened that a priest was preoccupied, and he saw that the [part of the] floor was different from its neighbors. He came and told his fellow. He did not finish telling his fellow before he died, and they knew for certain that the Ark was hidden there.",
+            "Where were these places of prostration? Four in the north, four in the south, three in the east, and two in the west, opposite the thirteen gates. The southern gates which were close to the west side were the Upper Gate, the Gate of the Fuel, the Gate of the Firstborn Animals, and the Water Gate. And why was it called the Water Gate? Because through this gate, they would bring the flask of water for libations on Sukkot. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov says: Because through this gate, the water trickles forth, and in the future, the water will issue forth from beneath the threshold of the Temple. Opposite [these gates], on the north side, close to the west, was the gate of Yekhoniah, the offering gate, the women's gate, and the music gate. And why was it called the gate of Yekhoniah? Because through it, Yekhoniah went out to exile. In the east was the gate of Nikanor, which had two smaller openings, one to the right, and one to the left. And there were two gates in the west which were nameless. ",
+            "There were thirteen tables in the Temple, eight of marble in the slaughtering area, upon which they rinsed the innards. Two to the west of the ramp, one of marble and one of silver. On the marble one they placed the limbs, on the silver one they placed the tools of service. Two were inside the hall near the entrance of the Temple, one of marble and one of gold. On the marble one they placed the showbread when it was brought in, and on the gold one they placed [the showbread] in its exiting, because we increase in holiness, and do not decrease. And one [table] of gold inside, upon which the showbread continually rested.",
+            "There were thirteen <em>shofarot</em> [horn-shaped collection chests] in the Temple, and on them was written: \"New half-Shekels,\" \"old half-Shekels,\" \"nests,\" \"young birds for <em>olah</em> [burnt] offerings,\" \"wood,\" \"frankincense,\" \"gold for vessels.\" On six [was written] \"free-will offerings.\" New half-Shekels - [this was for the shekels of] every [current] year. Old half-Shekels - whoever did not pay would pay, and pay for next year. Nests - they are [pairs of] turtledoves. Young birds for <em>olah</em> offerings - they are pigeons. They are all for <em>olah</em> offerings, according to Rabbi Yehuda. The Sages said: Pairs of turtledoves could be used for <em>olah</em> or <em>chattat</em> [sin] offerings. And the young birds for <em>olah</em> offerings were all for <em>olah</em> offerings.",
+            "If one says, \"I take upon myself [the duty of offering] wood,\" he may not bring less than two logs. [If he says he takes upon himself the duty of offering] frankincense, he may not offer less than three fingers-full [of frankincense]. [If he says he takes upon himself the duty of offering] gold, he may not bring less than a gold dinar. What was done with funds in the six [<em>shofarot</em>] for free-will offerings? They bought with them burnt-offerings, the flesh of which was for the Divine and the hides were for the priests. The following exposition was offered by Yehoyada, the High Priest: \"It is a guilt offering; he is surely guilty before the Lord\" (Leviticus 5:19). This is the rule: Whatever comes because of sin or guilt shall be used to purchase burnt-offerings, of which the meat was for the  Divine, and the hides for the priests, thus two verses are fulfilled, as it is a guilt-offering (asham) for the Divine, and a guilt-offering for the priests. And it also states: “The money for guilt-offerings and the money for the sin-offerings was not brought to the House of the Lord; it was for the priests” (II Kings 12:17). "
+        ],
+        [
+            "Money which is found between [the chests for] shekalim and free-will offerings, if it is closer to the [chest for] shekalim, it falls to the shekalim, if closer to the [chest for] free-will offerings, it falls to the free-will offerings, if it is in the middle, it falls to the free-will offerings. If it is found between the [chest for] wood and the [chest for] frankincense, if it is closer to the [chest for] wood, it falls to wood, if it is closer to the [chest for] frankincense it falls to frankincense, if it is in the middle it falls to frankincense. If it is found between the [chest for] nest offerings and the [chest for] young bird offerings, if it is closer to the [chest for] nest offerings, it falls to the nest offerings, if it is closer to the [chest for] young bird offerings it falls to the young bird offering, if it is in the middle it falls to the young bird offerings. If it is found between unconsecrated money and <em>maaser sheini</em> [in a person's possession], if it is closer to the unconsecrated money, it falls to the unconsecrated money, if it is closer to the <em>maaser sheini</em> it falls to the maaser sheini, if it is in the middle it falls to the <em>maaser sheini</em>. This is the general rule, the money goes to what is closer even to be more lenient. When it is in the middle, it goes to the more stringent.",
+            "Money that is found in front of animal dealers, it is always considered <em>maaser [sheini]</em>. On the Temple Mount, it is considered unconsecrated. In Jerusalem during a festival, it is <em>maaser [sheini]</em>. During the rest of the days of the year, it is unconsecrated.",
+            "If flesh was found in the Temple courtyard, and if it was [cut into] limbs, [they are assumed to be] burnt-offerings, but if it was [cut into] pieces [of flesh], they are assumed to be sin offerings. If found in  Jerusalem, [they are assumed to be] peace-offerings. In either case, it must be left until its appearance changes [i.e., it becomes absolutely disqualified as an offering] and is then taken to the place of burning. If it was found in outlying areas, in limbs, [they are assumed to be] <em>neveilah</em> [improperly slaughtered]. If they are in pieces, they are permitted [to be eaten]. At the time of the [three pilgrimage] festivals, when meat is abundant, it is permitted, even when [cut into] limbs. ",
+            "An animal that was found between Jerusalem and Migdal Eder, or a similar distance in any direction, the males are [considered] burnt offerings. The females are [considered] peace offerings. Rabbi Yehuda says, those which are fitting as a Pesach offering are [considered] Pesach offerings if it is thirty days before the festival.",
+            "Originally they would take a pledge from the finder [of an animal], until he would bring its libation offering [i.e., wine that accompanies all offerings]. [The finders] began to leave [the animal] and flee. The [high] court decreed that its libation offering would come from the community.",
+            "Rabbi Shimon says:  The [high] court decreed seven things and this was one of them:  a non-Jew who sends an offering [to be brought for him] from far away, and he sends its libations with it, they are brought from his [libation or money sent for it].  If he did not [send any libations], they are brought from public [funds].  Similarly, a convert who died and left behind [designated] offerings, if he has libations [to accompany them] they are brought from his [funds], but if not, they are brought from public [funds].  It is also a stipulation of the court that if the High Priest died, that his daily flour offering be brought from the public funds.  Rabbi Yehudah says [the High Priest's offering] is brought from the funds of his heirs and it was brought in its entirety [at its next offering time]. ",
+            "The [high] court  decreed: Concerning the salt and wood, the priests may make use of them,  and concerning the red heifer, that the use of its ashes is exempt from the laws of misappropriation. And concerning nest offerings [bird-offerings], which became disqualified for sacrifice, that [their replacements] come from public funds. Rabbi Yosi says: The supplier of the nest offerings [bird-offerings] was bound to supply [replacements for] those found to be disqualified. "
+        ],
+        [
+            "Any saliva found in Jerusalem is pure [i.e. assumed to not be from a <em>zav</em>, whose saliva defiles people or vessels], except that which is found in the upper market [since defiled persons would congregate there]; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosi says: During other times of the year, whatever saliva is found in the middle of the road is deemed [to be from] impure [persons], while saliva found at the sides of the road is deemed [to be from] pure [persons]. But in the season of the festivals, the saliva found in the middle of the road is assumed to be pure, whereas the saliva found on the sides of the road is assumed to be impure, since impure persons are in the minority at festival time, and because they are in the minority, they move over to the sides of the road. ",
+            "All vessels found in Jerusalem on the path leading down to the house of immersion are [assumed to be] impure, but those found on the path up are [deemed] pure. For the path leading down is not the same path leading up; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.  Rabbi Yosi says: All vessels are [deemed to be] pure, except for the basket, shovel, and crusher which are reserved for use in burial-places. ",
+            "A knife which was found on the 14th [day of Nissan] can be used to slaughter [animals] immediately.  If it were found on the 13th [day of Nissan] one must immerse it [in a mikvah] again.  A cleaver, on either day [the 13th or 14th days of Nissan] must be immersed [in a mikvah] again.  If the 14th [day of Nissan] fell on Shabbat, one may use [the cleaver] for slaughtering right away.  If [the cleaver] were found on the 15th [day of Nissan], one could use it to slaughter right away.  If it [the cleaver] were found tied to a knife, its status is the same as that of the knife.  ",
+            "If the curtain [which separates the Holy from the Holy of Holies] became impure from a <em>vlad hatumah</em> [something rendered impure on a  derivative level, by contact ultimately with an original source of impurity], it can be immersed [in a mikvah] inside [the Temple courtyard] and rehung immediately.  If however it became impure from an <em>av hatumah</em> it is immersed outside the Temple and was spread out in the <i>cheil</i> [a low fence around the Temple, which served as a boundary, beyond which entry to those impure was prohibited].  If it was a new curtain it was spread out on the roof of the Colonnade so that the masses could see its workmanship, since it was beautiful. ",
+            "Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben haSegan [secondary High Priest]:  The curtain [which separated the Holy and the Holy of Holies, was a <em>tefach</em> [handsbreadth] thick and woven from 72 threads, each comprised of 24 filaments.  Its length was 40 cubits and its height 20 cubits and it was made of 820,000 [individual filaments].  Two curtains were made every year and it took 300 priests to immerse it.",
+            " Flesh of the holiest sacrifices [such as an <em>olah</em>, <em>chattat</em> or <em>asham</em> offering] which became impure, whether it was made impure by an <em>av hatumah</em> or a <em>vlad hatumah</em>, either within [the Temple] or outside [the Temple], Beit Shammai says they are all burned within except for meat [that was made impure by] an <em>av hatumah</em> outside [the Temple].  Beit Hillel says everything should be burned outside, except meat [that which was] made impure by a <em>vlad hatumah</em> inside [the Temple].  ",
+            "Rabbi Eliezer says: [meat which was] made impure by an <em>av hatumah</em>, whether it was inside or outside [the Temple], should be burned outside.  That which was made impure by a <em>vlad hatumah</em>, whether it was inside or outside [the Temple] should be burned inside.  Rabbi Akiva says, the place where it became impure is where it should be burned.",
+            "The limbs from the <em>tamid</em> offering [daily burnt-offering] were placed on the lower half of the ramp on the eastern side, those of the <em>musaf</em> [additional] offerings were placed on the lower half of the ramp on the western side, and those of the Rosh Chodesh [new moon] <em>musaf</em> offering were placed on top of the rim of the altar. The laws of <em>shekalim</em> and first fruits apply only when the Temple is standing, but the laws of tithing grain, the laws of tithing animals, and  the laws of firstborn animals apply whether or not the Temple is standing. If one consecrated <em>shekalim</em> or first fruits, they are consecrated. Rabbi Shimon says: if one consecrates first fruits they are not consecrated. "
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Chapter",
+        "Mishnah"
+    ]
+}

json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Shekalim/English/Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de].json

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Mishnah Shekalim",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001042448/NLI",
+    "versionTitle": "Talmud Bavli. German. Lazarus Goldschmidt. 1929 [de]",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "priority": 0.25,
+    "license": "Public Domain",
+    "versionNotes": "",
+    "digitizedBySefaria": true,
+    "shortVersionTitle": "Lazarus Goldschmidt, 1929 ",
+    "actualLanguage": "de",
+    "languageFamilyName": "german",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "משנה שקלים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [
+            "<b>A</b><small>M ERSTEN</small> A<small>DAR ERLÄSST MAN EINE</small> K<small>UNDMACHUNG INBETREFF DER</small> T<small>EMPELSTEUER</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Wörtl. Šeqalim, da diese Münze als Tempelsteuer entrichtet wurde.</i> <small>UND DER</small> M<small>ISCHFRUCHT</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Da dann mit der Feldarbeit begonnen wird.</i>; <small>AM FÜNFZEHNTEN DESSELBEN LIEST MAN IN DEN</small> G<small>ROSSSTÄDTEN DIE</small> E<small>STERROLLE, BESSERT DIE</small> W<small>EGE</small>, S<small>TADTPLÄTZE UND</small> T<small>AUCHBÄDER AUS, ERLEDIGT ALLE ÖFFENTLICHEN</small> A<small>NGELEGENHEITEN, BEZEICHNET DIE</small> G<small>RÄBER</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mit Kalk (cf. Mš. V, 1), damit Priester sie nicht betreten.</i> <small>UND SENDET</small> [L<small>EUTE</small>] <small>WEGEN DER</small> M<small>ISCHFRUCHT AUS</small>.",
+            "R. J<small>EHUDA SAGTE:</small> F<small>RÜHER PFLEGTEN SIE [DIE</small> M<small>ISCHPFLANZEN</small>] <small>HERAUSZUREISSEN UND VOR SIE HINZUWERFEN; ALS ABER DIE</small> Ü<small>BERTRETER SICH MEHRTEN, RISS MAN SIE AUS UND WARF SIE AUF DIE</small> S<small>TRASSE</small>; <small>ENDLICH ORDNETE MAN AN, DAS GANZE</small> F<small>ELD ALS</small> F<small>REIGUT ZU ERKLÄREN</small>.",
+            "A<small>M FÜNFZEHNTEN DESSELBEN WURDEN</small> W<small>ECHSELTISCHE IN DER</small> P<small>ROVINZ UND AM FÜNFUNDZWANZIGSTEN IM</small> T<small>EMPEL ERRICHTET, UND SOBALD SIE IM</small> T<small>EMPEL ERRICHTET WAREN, FING MAN AN, [DIE</small> S<small>ÄUMIGEN] ZU PFÄNDEN</small>. W<small>EN PFÄNDETE MAN</small>? L<small>EVITEN</small>, J<small>ISRAÉLITEN</small>, P<small>ROSELYTEN UND FREIGELASSENE</small> S<small>KLAVEN, NICHT ABER</small> F<small>RAUEN</small>, S<small>KLAVEN UND</small> M<small>INDERJÄHRIGE</small>. W<small>ER FÜR SEINEN MINDERJÄHRIGEN</small> S<small>OHN ZU ENTRICHTEN ANGEFANGEN HAT, DARF NICHT MEHR AUFHÖREN</small>. M<small>AN PFÄNDET KEINE</small> P<small>RIESTER, DES</small> F<small>RIEDENS</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Dh. aus Billigkeitsgründen, weil sie den Tempeldienst verrichten.</i> <small>WEGEN</small>.",
+            "R. J<small>EHUDA ERZÄHLTE:</small> B<small>EN</small>-B<small>OKHRI BEKUNDETE IN</small> J<small>ABNE, DASS EIN</small> P<small>RIESTER, DER DEN</small> Š<small>EQEL ENTRICHTET, KEINE</small> S<small>ÜNDE BEGEHE</small>. R. J<small>OḤANAN B</small>. Z<small>AKKAJ SPRACH ZU IHM:</small> N<small>ICHT SO, VIELMEHR SÜNDIGT DER</small> P<small>RIESTER, DER DEN</small> Š<small>EQEL NICHT ENTRICHTET, NUR LEGEN DIE</small> P<small>RIESTER FOLGENDEN</small> S<small>CHRIFTVERS ZU IHREN</small> G<small>UNSTEN AUS</small>:<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lev. 6,16.</i><i>Alle Speisopfer der Priester sollen Ganzopfer sein, sie dürfen nicht gegessen werden</i>; <small>WIE DÜRFTEN WIR DENN DIE</small> S<small>CHWINGEGARBE, DIE ZWEI</small> B<small>ROTE</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. Lev. 23,17.</i> <small>UND DIE</small> S<small>CHAUBROTE</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. Ex. 25,30.</i> <small>ESSEN, WENN SIE UNSER</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Dh. wenn wir dazu beitragen würden.</i><small>WÄREN</small>!?",
+            "O<small>BGLEICH SIE GESAGT HABEN, DASS MAN</small> F<small>RAUEN</small>, S<small>KLAVEN UND</small> M<small>INDERJÄHRIGE NICHT PFÄNDE, SO NIMMT MAN DENNOCH, WENN SIE DEN</small> Š<small>EQEL ENTRICHTEN, VON IHNEN AN</small>. W<small>ENN EIN</small> N<small>ICHTJUDE ODER EIN</small> S<small>AMARITANER DEN</small> Š<small>EQEL ENTRICHTET, SO NIMMT MAN VON IHM NICHT AN</small>. F<small>ERNER NIMMT MAN VON IHNEN WEDER</small> G<small>EFLÜGELOPFER FÜR MÄNNLICHE ODER WEIBLICHE</small> F<small>LUSSBEHAFTETE ODER</small> W<small>ÖCHNERINNEN, NOCH</small> S<small>ÜND- ODER</small> S<small>CHULDOPFER AN, WOHL ABER GELOBTE UND FREIWILLIGE</small> S<small>PENDEN</small>. D<small>IE</small> R<small>EGEL IST</small>: W<small>AS GELOBT UND GESPENDET WIRD, NIMMT MAN VON IHNEN AN, WAS ABER NICHT GELOBT UND GESPENDET WIRD, NIMMT MAN VON IHNEN NICHT AN</small>. D<small>IES WURDE DURCH</small> E͑<small>ZRA DEUTLICH ERKLÄRT, DENN ES HEISST</small>:<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ezr. 4,3.</i><i>wir haben nichts mit euch zu schaffen, daß wir mit euch zusammen unserem Gott einen Tempel bauen sollen.</i>",
+            "F<small>OLGENDE SIND AUCH ZUM</small> A<small>UFGELD</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\"><i>Kόλλνβος</i>; Agio, kleine Münze, die zum Šeqel der Tempelsteuer als Wechselgebühr hinzuzufügen ist.</i><small>VERPFLICHTET:</small> L<small>EVITEN</small>, J<small>ISRAÉLITEN</small>, P<small>ROSELYTEN UND FREIGELASSENE</small> S<small>KLAVEN, NICHT ABER</small> P<small>RIESTER</small>, F<small>RAUEN</small>, S<small>KLAVEN UND</small> M<small>INDERJÄHRIGE</small>. W<small>ER FÜR EINEN</small> P<small>RIESTER, EINE</small> F<small>RAU, EINEN</small> S<small>KLAVEN ODER EINEN</small> M<small>INDERJÄHRIGEN DEN</small> Š<small>EQEL ENTRICHTET, IST</small> [<small>VOM</small> A<small>UFGELD</small>] <small>FREI</small>. W<small>ER FÜR SICH UND FÜR SEINEN</small> N<small>ÄCHSTEN DEN</small> Š<small>EQEL ENTRICHTET, IST ZU EINEM</small> A<small>UFGELD VERPFLICHTET</small>. R. M<small>EÍR SAGT, ZU ZWEI</small>. W<small>ER EINEN</small> S<small>ELA͑</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Der bibl. Šeqel hat den Wert eines Sela͑; der Š. in unserem Traktate hat die Hälfte des biblisehen.</i><small>ZAHLT UND EINEN</small> Š<small>EQEL HERAUSBEKOMMT, IST ZU EINEM DOPPELTEN</small> A<small>UFGELD VERPFLICHTET</small>.",
+            "W<small>ER FÜR EINEN</small> A<small>RMEN, SEINEN</small> N<small>ACHBARN ODER</small> M<small>ITBÜRGER DEN</small> Š<small>EQEL ENTRICHTET, IST</small> [<small>VOM</small> A<small>UFGELD</small>] <small>FREI; TUT ER ES FÜR SIE LEIHWEISE, SO IST ER VERPFLICHTET</small>. B<small>RÜDER, DIE</small> G<small>ESELLSCHAFTER SIND, SIND, WENN SIE ZUM</small> A<small>UFGELD VERPFLICHTET</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Gesellschaften sind vom Viehzehnten frei (cf. Bek. 56b), Brüder dagegen als Nachfolger eines Einzelnen verpflichtet; wenn letztere die Erbschaft teilen u. sich nachher assoziieren, so sind sie Gesellschafter.</i><small>SIND, VOM</small> V<small>IEHZEHNTEN FREI, UND WENN SIE ZUM</small> V<small>IEHZEHNTEN VERPFLICHTET SIND, VOM</small> A<small>UFGELD FREI</small>. W<small>IEVIEL BETRÄGT DAS</small> A<small>UFGELD</small>? E<small>INE</small> S<small>ILBERMAA͑ – SO</small> R. M<small>EÉR; DIE</small> W<small>EISEN SAGEN, EINE HALBE</small> M<small>AA͑</small>."
+        ],
+        [
+            "<b>M</b><small>AN DARF WEGEN DER</small> L<small>AST DES</small> T<small>RANSPORTES DIE</small> S͑<small>EQALIM</small> IN D<small>ARIKEN</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Darikus od. Dareikos, altpersische Goldmünze.</i> <small>EINWECHSELN</small>. W<small>IE</small> S<small>AMMELBÜCHSEN IM</small> T<small>EMPEL WAREN, SO WAREN</small> S<small>AMMELBÜCHSEN IN DER</small> P<small>ROVINZ</small>. W<small>ENN DIE</small> B<small>EWOHNER EINER</small> S<small>TADT IHRE</small> Š<small>EQALIM</small> [<small>DURCH</small> B<small>OTEN</small>] <small>SANDTEN UND SIE IHNEN GESTOHLEN WORDEN ODER ABHANDEN GEKOMMEN SIND, SO LEISTEN DIESE, FALLS BEREITS DIE</small> H<small>EBE</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. infra III,1.</i> <small>ENTNOMMEN WURDE, DEN</small> S<small>CHATZMEISTERN</small><small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Das Geld war bereits Eigentum des Heiligtums.</i> EINEN</small> E<small>ID</small>; <small>WENN ABER NIGHT, SO LEISTEN SIE DEN</small> B<small>EWOHNERN DER</small> S<small>TADT EINEN</small> E<small>ID, UND DIESE MÜSSEN ANDERE</small> Š<small>EQALIM ENTRICHTEN</small>. F<small>INDEN SIE SICH SPÄTER EIN, ODER BRINGEN DIE</small> D<small>IEBE SIE ZURÜCK,SO SIND DIESE UND JENE</small> Š<small>EQALIMSTEUER, OHNE IHNEN IM NÄCHSTEN</small> J<small>AHRE ANGERECHNET ZU WERDEN</small>.",
+            "W<small>ENN JEMAND SEINEM</small> N<small>ÄCHSTEN EINEN</small> Š<small>EQEL GIBT, UM IHN FÜR IHN ZU ENTRICHTEN, DIESER ABER IHN FÜR SICH SELBST ENTRICHTET, SO HAT ER, FALLS BEREITS DIE</small> H<small>EBE</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. infra III,1.</i> <small>ENTNOMMEN WURDE, EINE</small> V<small>ERUNTREUUNG</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Am Eigentume des Heiligturns od. am Geheiligten; cf. Lev. 5,14 ff.</i> <small>BEGANGEN</small>. W<small>ENN JEMAND SEINEN</small> Š<small>EQEL MIT DEM</small> G<small>ELDE VON</small> G<small>EHEILIGTEM ENTRICHTET, SO HAT ER, WENN BEREITS DIE</small> H<small>EBE ENTNOMMEN UND[DAFÜR] EIN</small> O<small>PFER DARGEBRACHT WURDE, EINE</small> V<small>ERUNTREUUNG BEGANGEN, WENN MIT DEM</small> E<small>RLÖSE VOM ZWEITEN</small> Z<small>EHNTEN ODER VON</small> S<small>IEBENTJAHRSFRÜCHTEN, SO MUSS ER DEN ENTSPRECHENDEN</small> B<small>ETRAG</small> [<small>IN</small> J<small>ERUŠALEM</small>] <small>VERZEHREN</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Die Heiligkeit des 2. Zehnten wird auf diesen Betrag übertragen.</i>.",
+            "W<small>ENN JEMAND EINZELNE</small> M<small>ÜNZEN SAMMELT UND SPRICHT</small>: ‘D<small>IES SEI FÜR MEINEN</small> Š<small>EQEL’, SO IST DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS, WIE DIE</small> S<small>CHULE</small> Š<small>AMMAJS SAGT, FREIWILLIGE</small> S<small>PENDE, UND WIE DIE</small> S<small>CHULE</small> H<small>ILLELS SAGT</small>, P<small>ROFANES; WENN ABER</small>: ‘<small>DAVON ENTRICHTE ICH MEINEN</small> Š<small>EQEL</small>’, <small>SO STIMMEN SIE ÜBEREIN, DASS DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS</small> P<small>ROFANES IST</small>. S<small>AGT ER</small>: ‘D<small>IES SEI FÜR MEIN</small> S<small>ÜNDOPFER’</small>, <small>SO STIMMEN SIE ÜBEREIN,DASS DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS FREIWILLIGE</small> S<small>PENDE IST; WENN ABER</small>: ‘<small>DAVON BRINGE ICH MEIN</small> S<small>ÜNDOPFER’, SO STIMMEN SIE ÜBEREIN, DASS DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS</small> P<small>ROFANES IST</small>.",
+            "R. Š<small>IMO͑N SAGTE:</small> W<small>ELCHEN</small> U<small>NTERSCHIED GIBT ES ZWISCHEN DER</small> T<small>EMPELSTEUER UND EINEM</small> S<small>ÜNDOPFER?</small> F<small>ÜR DIE</small> T<small>EMPELSTEUER IST EIN</small> B<small>ETRAG FESTGESETZT, FÜR DAS</small> S<small>ÜNDOPFER ABER IST KEIN</small> B<small>ETRAG FESTGESETZT</small>. R.J<small>EHUDA SAGT</small>: A<small>UCH FÜR DIE</small> T<small>EMPELSTEUER IST KEIN</small> B<small>ETRAG FESTGESETZT, DENN ALS DIE</small> J<small>ISRAÉLITEN AUS DEM</small> E<small>XIL HERAUFZOGEN, ENTRICHTETEN SIE</small> D<small>ARIKEN, SPÄTER ENTRICHTETEN SIE</small> S<small>ELAI͑M</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. Abschn. 1, Anm. 11.</i>, <small>DARAUF ENTRICHTETEN SIE</small> T<small>ABAI͑M</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Eigentl. Geprägtes, Münze, Benennung des gebräuchlichsten Šeqel.</i>, <small>UND SPÄTER WOLLTEN SIE SOGAR</small> D<small>ENARE ENTRICHTEN</small>. R.Š<small>IMO͑N ENTGEGNETE:</small> I<small>MMERHIN WAR DER</small> A<small>NTEIL ALLER GLEICHMÄSSIG, WÄHREND DAS</small> S<small>ÜNDOPFER DIESER FÜR EINEN</small> S<small>ELA͑, JENER FÜR ZWEI UND EIN DRITTER FÜR DREI DARBRINGT</small>.",
+            "D<small>ER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DER</small> T<small>EMPELSTEUER IST</small> P<small>ROFANES, DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DES</small> Z<small>EHNTELS</small> E<small>PHA</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Speise-Sündopfer eines Armen; cf. Lev. 5,11 ff.<br>44 Talmud II</i>, <small>DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DER</small> G<small>EFLÜGELOPFER FÜR MÄNNLICHE ODER WEIBLICHE</small> F<small>LUSSBEHAFTETE UND</small> W<small>ÖCHNERINNEN UND DER DER</small> S<small>ÜNDUND</small> S<small>CHULDOPFER IST FREIWILLIGE</small> S<small>PENDE</small>. D<small>IE</small> R<small>EGEL IST</small>: D<small>ER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS VON DEM, WAS ALS</small> S<small>ÜND</small>- <small>ODER</small> S<small>CHULDOPFER DARGEBRACHT WIRD, IST FREIWILLIGE</small> S<small>PENDE</small>. D<small>ER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DES</small> B<small>RANDOPFERS IST FÜR</small> B<small>RANDOPFER ZU VERWENDEN</small>; DER Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DES</small> S<small>PEISOPFERS IST FÜR</small> S<small>PEISOPFER ZU VERWENDEN; DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DES HEILSOPFERS IST FÜR</small> H<small>EILSOPFER ZU VERWENDEN; DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DES</small> P<small>ESAḤOPFERS IST FÜR</small> H<small>EILSOPFER ZU VERWENDEN; DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DES</small> [F<small>ONDS’ FÜR</small>] N<small>AZIRÄEROPFER IST FÜR</small> [<small>ANDERE</small>] N<small>AZIRÄEROPFER ZU VERWENDEN; DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DES [EINZELNEN]</small> N<small>AZIRÄERS IST FREIWILLIGE</small> S<small>PENDE; DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS VON</small> A<small>RMENGELDERN GEHÖRT DEN</small> A<small>RMEN; DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DES FÜR EINEN</small> A<small>RMEN</small>[<small>BESTIMMTEN</small> G<small>ELDES</small>] <small>GEHÖRT DIESEM</small> A<small>RMEN; DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DES</small> L<small>ÖSEGELDES FÜR</small> G<small>EFANGENE IST FÜR</small> [<small>ANDERE</small>] G<small>EFANGENE ZU VERWENDEN; DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DES</small> L<small>ÖSEGELDES FÜR EINEN</small> G<small>EFANGENEN GEHÖRT DIESEM</small> G<small>EFANGENEN; DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DES</small> [B<small>EGRÄBNISGELDES FÜR</small>] T<small>OTE IST FÜR</small> [<small>ANDERE</small>] T<small>OTE ZU VERWENDEN; DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DES</small> [B<small>EGRÄBNISGELDES FÜR</small>] <small>EINEN</small> T<small>OTEN GEHÖRT SEINEN</small> E<small>RBEN</small>. R.M<small>EÍR SAGT, DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DES</small> [B<small>EGRÄBNISGELDES FÜR</small>] <small>EINEN</small> T<small>OTEN BLEIBE UNBERÜHRT LIEGEN, BIS</small> E<small>LIJAHU KOMMT;</small> R.N<small>ATHAN SAGT, FÜR DEN</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DES</small> [B<small>EGRÄBNISGELDES FÜR</small>] <small>EINEN</small> T<small>OTEN ERRICHTE MAN DEM</small> T<small>OTEN EIN</small> D<small>ENKMAL AUF SEINEM</small> G<small>RABE</small>."
+        ],
+        [
+            "<b>A</b><small>N DREI</small> Z<small>EITEN IM</small> J<small>AHRE HEBT MAN [DAS</small> G<small>ELD] IN DER</small> S<small>CHATZKAMMER AB: IN DER</small> M<small>ONATSMITTE DES</small> P<small>ESAḤFESTES, IN DER</small> M<small>ONATSMITTE DES</small> W<small>OCHENFESTES UND IN DER</small> M<small>ONATSMITTE DES</small> H<small>ÜTTENFESTES</small>. D<small>IESE SIND AUCH</small> F<small>ÄLLIGKEITSFRISTEN FÜR DEN</small> V<small>IEHZEHNTEN – SO</small> R. A͑<small>QIBA;</small> B<small>EN</small>-A͑<small>ZAJ SAGT, AM NEUNUNDZWANZIGSTEN</small> A<small>DAR, AM ERSTEN</small> S<small>IVAN</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Neunter Monat des jüd. Kalenders, ungefähr Juni.</i> <small>UND AM NEUNUNDZWANZIGSTEN</small> A<small>B</small>; R.E<small>LIE͑ZER UND</small> R. Š<small>IMO͑N SAGEN, AM ERSTEN</small> N<small>ISAN, AM ERSTEN</small> S<small>IVAN UND AM NEUNUNDZWANZIGSTEN</small> E<small>LUL</small>. W<small>ESHALB SAGTEN SIE, AM NEUNUNDZWANZIGSTEN</small> E<small>LUL, UND SAGTEN NICHT, AM ERSTEN</small> T<small>IŠRI</small>? W<small>EIL DIESER EIN</small> F<small>EIERTAG IST UND MAN AN EINEM</small> F<small>EIERTAGE DEN</small> Z<small>EHNTEN NICHT ENTRICHTEN DARF; DAHER HABEN SIE ES AUF DEN NEUNUNDZWANZIGSTEN</small> E<small>LUL VERLEGT</small>.",
+            "I<small>N DREI</small> K<small>ÖRBEN VON JE DREI</small> S<small>EÁ HEBT MAN [DAS</small> G<small>ELD</small>] <small>IN DER</small> S<small>CHATZKAMMER AB; DIESE WAREN MIT [DEN</small> B<small>UCHSTABEN</small>] A<small>LEPH</small>, G<small>IMEL GEZEICHNET;</small> R.J<small>IŠMA͑ÉL SAGT, SIE WAREN MIT GRIECHISCHEN</small> [B<small>UCHSTABEN</small>] <small>GEZEICHNET</small>, A<small>LPHA</small>, B<small>ETA</small>, G<small>AMMA</small>. D<small>ER</small> A<small>BHEBENDE DARF NICHT MIT AUFGEKREMPELTEM</small> G<small>EWANDE, MIT</small> S<small>CHUHEN, MIT</small> S<small>ANDALEN, MIT</small> T<small>EPHILLIN ODER MIT EINEM</small> A<small>MULETT</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Wahrscheinl. Beutel od. Sack, in dem solche getragen wurden.</i> <small>EINTRETEN, DAMIT MAN, WENN ER VERARMT, NICHT SAGE, ER HABE SICH AM</small> T<small>EMPELSCHATZ</small> [<small>VERGRIFFEN</small>], <small>UND WENN ER REICH WIRD, NICHT SAGE, ER HABE SICH AM</small> T<small>EMPELSCHATZ BEREICHERT</small>. D<small>ER</small> M<small>ENSCH MUSS NÄMLICH SEINEN</small> M<small>ITMENSCHEN GERECHT WERDEN., WIE ER</small> G<small>OTT GERECHT WERDEN MUSS, DENN ES HEISST</small>:<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Num. 32,22.</i><i>ihr sollt vor dem Herrn und Jisraél rein sein</i>; <small>FERNER</small>: <sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Pr. 3,4.</i><i>finde Gunst und Wohlgefallen in den Augen Gottes und der Menschen</i>.",
+            "D<small>IE</small> A<small>NGEHÖRIGEN DER</small> F<small>AMILIE</small> R.G<small>AMLIÉLS PFLEGTEN MIT DEM</small> Š<small>EQEL ZWISCHEN DEN</small> F<small>INGERN EINZUTRETEN UND IHN VOR DEM</small> A<small>BHEBENDEN HINZUWERFEN, UND DIESER PFLEGTE ES ZIELEND</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Damit das Geldstück zu den Opfern verwandt werde u. nicht als Überschuß zurückbleibe.</i> <small>IN DEN</small> K<small>ORB ZU WERFEN</small>. D<small>ER</small> A<small>BHEBENDE HEBT NICHT EHER AB, ALS BIS ER GEFRAGT HAT, OB ER ABHEBEN SOLLE, UND MAN IHM ERWIDERT HAT</small>: H<small>EBE AB, HEBE AB, DREIMAL</small>.",
+            "N<small>ACH DER ERSTEN</small> A<small>BHEBUNG DECKTE ER DARÜBER EINE</small> L<small>EDERDECKE, NACH DER ZWEITEN DECKTE ER DARÜBER EINE</small> L<small>EDERDECKE, NACH DER DRITTEN DECKTE ER DARÜBER KEINE MEHR</small>. D<small>AMIT ER NICHT VERGESSE, WAS ER BEREITS ABGEHOBEN UND DARAUS WIEDER ABHEBE</small>. D<small>IE ERSTE</small> A<small>BHEBUNG ERFOLGTE AUF DEN</small> N<small>AMEN DES GANZEN</small> J<small>ISRAÉLLANDES, DIE ZWEITE AUF DEN</small> N<small>AMEN DER ANGRENZENDEN</small> S<small>TÄDTE UND DIE DRITTE AUF DEN</small> N<small>AMEN DER</small> [D<small>IASPORA IN</small>] B<small>ABYLONIEN</small>, M<small>EDIEN UND DEN FERNEN</small> L<small>ÄNDERN</small>."
+        ],
+        [
+            "<b>W</b><small>OFÜR VERWENDETE MAN DIE</small> H<small>EBE</small>? M<small>AN KAUFT DAFÜR DAS BESTÄNDIGE</small> O<small>PFER, DIE</small> Z<small>USATZOPFER NEBST IHREN</small> G<small>USSOPFERN, DIE</small> S<small>CHWINGEGARBE, DIE ZWEI</small> B<small>ROTE</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. Lev. 23,15 ff.</i>, <small>DIE</small> S<small>CHAUBROTE UND ALLE</small> G<small>EMEINDEOPFER</small>. D<small>IE</small> W<small>ÄCHTER, DIE DEN</small> N<small>ACHWUCHS</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Aus dem die Schwingegarbe u.die zwei Brote dargebracht wurden.</i> <small>IM</small> S<small>IEBENTJAHR BEWACHEN, ERHALTEN IHREN</small> L<small>OHN VON DER</small> H<small>EBE DER</small> S<small>CHATZKAMMER</small>. R. J<small>OSE SPRACH:</small> D<small>IES KANN JA JEDER UNENTGELTLICH ÜBERNEHMEN</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Demnach kann die Schwingegarbe Spende eines Privaten sein.</i>! J<small>ENE ERWIDERTEN IHM:</small> A<small>UCH DU MUSST JA ZUGEBEN, DASS SIE NUR VOM</small> G<small>EMEINDEGUT DARGEBRACHT WERDEN MÜSSEN</small>.",
+            "D<small>IE</small> [<small>ROTE</small>] K<small>UH</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. Num. 19,2ff.</i>, <small>DER</small> S<small>ÜNDENBOCK</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Wörtl. der zu verschickende Bock; cf. Lev. 16,8ff.</i> <small>UND DER SCHARLACHROTE</small> S<small>TREIFEN</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Der an den Sündenbock gebunden wurde.</i> <small>WERDEN VON DER HEBE DER</small> S<small>CHATZKAMMER BESTRITTEN, DIE</small> B<small>RÜCKE</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Über die man die rote Kuh und den Sündenbock führte, um sie von jeder Verunreinigung fern zu halten.</i> <small>FÜR DIE</small> [<small>ROTE</small>] K<small>UH, DIE</small> B<small>RÜCKE</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Über die man die rote Kuh und den Sündenbock führte, um sie von jeder Verunreinigung fern zu halten.</i> <small>FÜR DEN</small> S<small>ÜNDENBOCK, DER</small> S<small>TREIFEN ZWISCHEN DESSEN</small> H<small>ÖRNERN, DER</small> W<small>ASSERKANAL</small>[<small>AM</small> T<small>EMPEL</small>], <small>DIE</small> S<small>TADTMAUER NEBST IHREN</small> T<small>ÜRMEN UND SÄMTLICHE</small> B<small>EDÜRFNISSE DER</small> S<small>TADT WERDEN VOM</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DER</small> S<small>CHATZKAMMER BESTRITTEN</small>. A<small>BBA</small> Š<small>AÚL SAGTE</small>: <small>DIE</small> B<small>RÜCKE FÜR DIE [ROTE]</small> K<small>UH ERRICHTETEN DIE</small> H<small>OCHPRIESTER AUS EIGENEN</small> M<small>ITTELN</small>.",
+            "W<small>OFÜR VERWENDETE MAN DEN</small> R<small>EST DES ÜBERSCHUSSES DER</small> S<small>CHATZKAMMER?</small> M<small>AN KAUFTE DAFÜR</small> W<small>EIN, ÖL UND FEINES</small> M<small>EHL<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Zum Wiederverkaufe an solche, die Speisopfer darzubringen hatten.</i>, UND DER</small> G<small>EWINN GEHÖRTE DEM</small> H<small>EILIGTUME – SO</small> R.<small>JIŠMA͑ÉL</small>; R.<small>A͑QIBA SAGT, MAN DÜRFE WEDER MIT</small> H<small>EILIGENGELDERN NOCH MIT</small> A<small>RMENGELDERN</small> G<small>ESCHÄFTE MACHEN</small>.",
+            "W<small>OFÜR VERWENDETE MAN DEN</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DER</small> H<small>EBE?</small> F<small>ÜR DIE</small> G<small>OLDPLATTEN ZUR</small> V<small>ERKLEIDUNG DES</small> A<small>LLERHEILIGSTEN</small>. R.J<small>IŠMA͑ÉL SAGTE:</small> D<small>ER ÜBERSCHUSS DES</small> G<small>EWINNES</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Vom Verkaufe der Zutaten des Speisopfers.</i> <small>WURDE FÜR DIE</small> Z<small>EHRUNG DES</small> A<small>LTARS UND DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DER</small> H<small>EBE FÜR</small> D<small>IENSTGERÄTE VERWENDET</small>. R.A͑<small>QIBA SAGTE:</small> D<small>ER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DER</small> H<small>EBE WURDE FÜR DIE</small> Z<small>EHRUNG DES</small> A<small>LTARS</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">10</sup><i class=\"footnote\">So sinngemäß; zur Unterhaltung des Opferdienstes mit Gemeindeopfern (wenn keine privaten vorhanden sind) außer den beständigen Opfern. Wahrscheinl. v. syr. <span dir=\"rtl\">ק׳םא</span>, Holz, Brennmaterial.</i><small>UND DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS VON DEN</small> G<small>USSOPFERN WURDE FÜR</small> D<small>IENSTGERÄTE VERWENDET</small>. R.Ḥ<small>ANINA DER</small> P<small>RIESTERPRÄSES SAGTE:</small> D<small>ER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS VON DEN</small> G<small>USSOPFERN WURDE FÜR DIE</small> Z<small>EHRUNG DES ALTARS UND DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS> DER</small> H<small>EBE FÜR</small> D<small>IENSTGERÄTE VERWENDET</small>. D<small>IESER UND JENER GIBT EINEN</small> [H<small>ANDEL MIT DEM</small>] G<small>EWINNE NICHT ZU</small>.",
+            "W<small>OFÜR VERWENDETE MAN DEN</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DES</small> R<small>ÄUCHERWERKES<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">11</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Das Räucherwerk wurde für das ganze Jahr im Voraus reserviert.</i>?</small> M<small>AN SONDERTE IHN ZUR</small> L<small>ÖHNUNG FÜR DIE</small> V<small>ERFERTIGER AUS</small>. M<small>AN WEIHTE IHN DURCH DEN FÜR DIE VERFERTIGER BESTIMMTEN LOHN AUS, DEN MAN IHNEN ALS</small> L<small>ÖHNUNG GAB, UND KAUFTE IHN FÜR [GELD AUS DER] NEUEN</small> H<small>EBE ZURÜCK</small>. G<small>EHT DIE NEUE RECHTZEITIG EIN, SO KAUFT MAN ES AUS DER NEUEN</small> H<small>EBE, WENN ABER NICHT, AUS DER ALTEN</small> H<small>EBE</small>.",
+            "W<small>ENN JEMAND SEIN</small> V<small>ERMÖGEN, IN DEM</small> D<small>INGE SICH BEFINDEN, DIE ZU DEN</small> G<small>EMEINDEOPFERN VERWENDBAR<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">12</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Spezereien zum Räucherwerke.</i>SIND, DEM</small> H<small>EILIGTUME WEIHT, SO DÜRFEN SIE DEN</small> V<small>ERFERTIGERN IN</small> Z<small>AHLUNG GEGEBEN WERDEN –SO</small> R.A͑<small>QIBA</small>. B<small>EN</small> A͑<small>ZAJ SPRACH ZU IHM:</small> D<small>IES IST NICHT DAS</small> R<small>ICHTIGE; VIELMEHR SONDERE MAN VORHER DEN LOHN FÜR DIE VERFERTIGER AB UND WEIHE SIE DURCH DAS FÜR DIE</small> V<small>ERFERTIGER BESTIMMTE</small> G<small>ELD AUS, DAS MAN IHNEN ALS</small> L<small>OHN GEBE, SODANN KAUFE MAN SIE VON IHNEN FÜR GELD VON DER HEBE DER</small> S<small>CHATZKAMMER ZURÜCK</small>.",
+            "W<small>ENN JEMAND SEIN</small> V<small>ERMÖGEN, IN DEM SICH FÜR DEN</small> A<small>LTAR GEEIGNETES MÄNNLICHES UND WEIBLICHES</small> V<small>IEH BEFINDET, DEM</small> H<small>EILIGTUME WEIHT</small>, <small>SO SIND, WIE</small> R.E<small>LIE͑ZER SAGT, DIE</small> M<small>ÄNNCHEN ALS</small> B<small>RANDOPFER UND DIE</small> W<small>EIBCHEN ALS</small> H<small>EILSOPFER ZU VERKAUFEN, UND DER</small> E<small>RLÖS FÄLLT MIT DEM ÜBRIGEN</small> V<small>ERMÖGEN DEM</small> T<small>EMPELREPARATURFONDS ZU</small>; R.J<small>EHOŠUA͑ SAGT, DIE</small> M<small>ÄNNCHEN SIND ALS</small> B<small>RANDOPFER DARZUBRINGEN UND DIE</small> W<small>EIBCHEN ALS</small> H<small>EILSOPFER ZU VERKAUFEN, UND FÜR DEN</small> E<small>RLÖS</small> B<small>RANDOPFER</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">13</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Da nur solche vollständig auf dem Altar dargebracht werden.</i> <small>DARZUBRINGEN, WÄHREND DAS ÜBRIGE</small> V<small>ERMÖGEN DEM</small> T<small>EMPELREPARATURFONDS ZUFÄLLT</small>. R.A͑<small>QIBA SPRACH:</small> D<small>IE</small> A<small>NSICHT</small> R.E<small>LIE͑ZERS LEUCHTET MIR MEHR EIN ALS DIE</small> A<small>NSICHT</small> R.J<small>EHOŠUA͑S:</small> R.E<small>LIE͑ZER EMPFIEHLT EIN GLEICHARTIGES</small> V<small>ERFAHREN</small>, R.J<small>EHOŠUA͑ ABER EIN GETEILTES</small>. R.P<small>APIAS SPRACH:</small> I<small>CH HÖRTE NACH BEIDER</small> A<small>NSICHT: WENN ER [DAS</small> V<small>IEH</small>] <small>AUSDRÜCKLICH GENANNT</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">14</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Das er trotzdem nicht zur Opferung bestimmt hat.</i><small>UND GEWEIHT HAT</small>, [<small>SO VERFAHRE MAN</small>] <small>NACH DER</small> A<small>NSICHT</small> R.E<small>LIEZERS,> WENN ER ABER</small> [A<small>LLES</small>] <small>SCHLECHTHIN GEWEIHT HAT, NACH DER</small> A<small>NSICHT</small> R.J<small>EHOŠUA͑S</small>.",
+            "W<small>ENN JEMAND SEIN</small> V<small>ERMÖGEN, IN DEM SICH FÜR DEN</small> A<small>LTAR GEEIGNETE</small> D<small>INGE BEFINDEN</small>, W<small>EIN</small>, Ö<small>L</small>, G<small>EFLÜGEL, DEM</small> H<small>EILIGTUME WEIHT, SO SIND SIE, WIE</small> R.E<small>LIE͑ZER SAGT, ALS ENTSPRECHENDE</small> O<small>PFER ZU VERKAUFEN, UND FÜR DEN</small> E<small>RLÖS SIND</small> B<small>RANDOPFER DARZUBRINGEN</small>, W<small>ÄHREND DAS ÜBRIGE</small> V<small>ERMÖGEN DEM</small> T<small>EMPELREPARATURFONDS ZUFÄLLT</small>.",
+            "E<small>INMAL IN DREISSIG</small> T<small>AGEN WERDEN DIE</small> P<small>REISE</small> [<small>FÜR DIE</small> B<small>EDÜRFNISSE</small>] <small>DES</small> T<small>EMPELS VEREINBART</small>. W<small>ER ÜBERNOMMEN HAT</small>, M<small>EHL ZU VIER</small> [S<small>EA FÜR DEN</small> S<small>ELA͑</small>] <small>ZU LIEFERN, MUSS, WENN ES AUF DREI KOMMT, VIER LIEFERN; WENN DREI [VEREINBART WURDEN] UND ES AUF VIER KOMMT, SO MUSS ER VIER LIEFERN; DAS</small> H<small>EILIGTUM HAT IMMER DIE</small> O<small>BERHAND</small>. I<small>ST DAS</small> M<small>EHL MADIG GEWORDEN, SO IST ES [DEM</small> L<small>IEFERANTEN</small>] <small>MADIG GEWORDEN; IST DER</small> W<small>EIN SAUER GEWORDEN, SO IST ER IHM SAUER GEWORDEN</small>. E<small>R ERHÄLT DAS</small> G<small>ELD ERST DANN, WENN DER</small> A<small>LTAR BEFRIEDIGT IST</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">15</sup><i class=\"footnote\">So nach der Lesart mancher Codices; nach den kursierenden Ausgaben: bis der Altar [das Opfer] wohlgefällig macht.</i>."
+        ],
+        [
+            "<b>F</b><small>OLGENDE</small> A<small>MTSVORSTEHER</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Die Aufzählung der Ämter erfolgt durch Nennung der bekanntesten Träger derselben, die nicht zu einer Zeit lebten.</i> <small>WAREN IM</small> T<small>EMPEL:</small> J<small>OḤANAN B</small>. P<small>INḤAS VERWALTETE DIE</small> S<small>IEGELMARKEN</small>, A<small>ḤIJA DIE</small> G<small>USSOPFER</small>, M<small>ATITHJAHU B</small>. Š<small>EMUÉL DIE</small> L<small>OSE</small>, P<small>ETHAḤJA DIE</small> V<small>OGELOPFER</small>. P<small>ETHAḤJA IST</small> M<small>ORDEKAJ, NUR DESHALB HEISST ER</small> P<small>ETHAḤJA, WEIL ER DIE</small> S<small>CHRIFTWORTE ZU ERÖFFNEN [PATAḤ] UND SIE AUSZULEGEN PFLEGTE; ER WAR AUCH IN DEN SIEBZIG</small> S<small>PRACHEN</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Nach dem T. gibt es (in Anlehnung an die Völkertafel der Genesis) 70 Völker mit 70 Sprachen.</i> <small>KUNDIG</small>. B<small>EN</small>-A<small>ḤIJA VERWALTETE</small> [<small>DAS</small> H<small>EILAMT DER</small>] U<small>NTERLEIBSKRANKHEITEN</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Unter den Priestern sehr verbreitet, da sie viel Fleisch zu essen u. viel Wasser zu trinken, auch barfuß auf dem kalten Pflaster umherzugehen pflegten.</i>, N<small>EḤUNJA WAR</small> B<small>RUNNENMEISTER</small>, G<small>ABINAJ WAR</small> A<small>USRUFER</small>, B<small>EN</small> G<small>EBER BEAUFSICHTIGTE DIE</small> S<small>CHLIESSUNG DER</small> P<small>FORTEN</small>, B<small>EN</small> B<small>EBAJ VERWALTETE DIE</small> D<small>OCHTE</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">So nach dem jer. T.; nach anderer Erklärung: über die Prügel, wegen Vernachlässigung der Obliegenheilen.</i>, B<small>EN</small> A<small>RZA DIE</small> Z<small>YMBEL</small>, H<small>YGROS B</small>. L<small>EVI WAR</small> M<small>USIKLEITER, DIE</small> F<small>AMILIE</small> G<small>ARMO BEAUFSICHTIGTE DIE</small> Z<small>UBEREITUNG DER</small> S<small>CHAUBROTE, DIE</small> F<small>AMILIE</small> E<small>VTINOS DIE</small> Z<small>UBEREITUNG DES</small> R<small>ÄUCHERWERKES</small>, E<small>LEA͑ZAR VERWALTETE DIE</small> V<small>ORHÄNGE UND</small> P<small>INḤAS DIE</small> G<small>ARDEROBE</small>.",
+            "E<small>S WERDEN NICHT WENIGER ALS DREI</small> S<small>CHATZMEISTER UND SIEBEN</small> T<small>EMPELHERREN EINGESTELLT; FERNER WERDEN NICHT WENIGER ALS ZWEI</small> B<small>EAMTE ÜBER DIE</small> V<small>ERWALTUNG VON</small> G<small>EMEINDEGELDERN GESETZT</small>. E<small>INE</small> A<small>USNAHME BILDETEN</small> B<small>EN</small> A<small>ḤIJA, DER</small>[<small>DAS</small> H<small>EILAMT DER</small>] U<small>NTERLEIBSKRANKHEITEN VERWALTETE, UND</small> E<small>LEA͑ZAR, DER DIE</small> V<small>ORHÄNGE VERWALTETE, DIE DIE</small> M<small>EHRHEIT DER</small> G<small>EMEINDE ANERKANNTE</small>.",
+            "V<small>IER</small> S<small>IEGELMARKEN GAB ES IM</small> T<small>EMPEL, WORAUF GESCHRIEBEN WAR:</small> K<small>ALB</small>, W<small>IDDER</small>, Z<small>IEGE</small>, S<small>ÜNDER</small>. B<small>EN</small> Â<small>ZAJ SAGT</small>: E<small>S WAREN FÜNF, WORAUF ARAMÄISCH</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Weil das Volk im Hebräischen nicht kundig war.</i> <small>GESCHRIEBEN WAR</small>: K<small>ALB</small>, W<small>IDDER</small> Z<small>IEGE</small>, A<small>RMER</small> S<small>ÜNDER</small>, R<small>EICHER</small> S<small>ÜNDER</small>. ‘K<small>ALB</small>’ <small>WURDE FÜR</small> G<small>USSOPFER ZUM</small> R<small>INDVIEH VERWENDET, OB GROSS ODER KLEIN, OB MÄNNLICH ODER WEIBLICH</small>. ‘Z<small>IEGE</small>’ <small>WURDE FÜR</small> T<small>RANKOPFER ZUM</small> K<small>LEINVIEH VERWENDET, OB GROSS ODER KLEIN, OB MÄNNLICH ODER WEIBLICH, AUSGENOMMEN</small> W<small>IDDER</small>. ‘W<small>IDDER</small>’ <small>WURDE NUR FÜR</small> G<small>USSOPFER ZU</small> W<small>IDDERN VERWENDET</small>. ‘S<small>ÜNDER</small>’ <small>WURDE FÜR DIE</small> G<small>USSOPFER DER DREI</small> O<small>PFERTIERE DER</small> A<small>USSÄTZIGEN VERWENDET</small>.",
+            "W<small>ER EIN</small> G<small>USSOPFER WÜNSCHT, GEHT ZU</small> J<small>OḤANAN, DER DIE</small> S<small>IEGELMARKEN VERWALTET, ZAHLT IHM DAS</small> G<small>ELD UND</small> E<small>RHÄLT EINE</small> S<small>IEGELMARKE</small>. S<small>ODANN GEHT ER ZU</small> A<small>ḤIJA, DER DIE</small> G<small>USSOPFER VERWALTET, GIBT IHM DIE</small> S<small>IEGELMARKE UND ERHÄLT EIN</small> G<small>USSOPFER</small>. A<small>BENDS KOMMEN [DIE</small> B<small>EAMTEN</small>] <small>ZUSAMMEN</small>, A<small>ḤIJA LIEFERT DIE</small> S<small>IEGELMARKEN AB UND ERHÄLT DAFÜR DAS</small> G<small>ELD; IST ES MEHR, SO GEHÖRT DER</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS DEM</small> H<small>EILIGTUME, FEHLT ETWAS, SO ERSETZT ES</small> J<small>OḤANAN AUS SEINER</small> T<small>ASCHE</small>. D<small>AS</small> H<small>EILIGTUM HAT DIE</small> O<small>BERHAND</small>.",
+            "V<small>ERLIERT JEMAND SEINE</small> S<small>IEGELMARKE, SO WARTET MAN BIS ZUM</small> A<small>BEND; FINDET MAN</small> [<small>IN DER</small> K<small>ASSE</small>] <small>EINEN</small> Ü<small>BERSCHUSS IM</small> B<small>ETRAGE SEINER</small> S<small>IEGELMARKE, SO GIBT MAN IHM [DAS</small> G<small>USSOPFER</small>], <small>WENN ABER NICHT, SO ERHÄLT ER NICHTS</small>. [D<small>IE</small> S<small>IEGELMARKEN</small>] <small>WAREN MIT DEM</small> T<small>AGESDATUM VERSEHEN, WEGEN DER</small> B<small>ETRÜGER</small>.",
+            "I<small>M</small> T<small>EMPEL WAREN ZWEI</small> K<small>AMMERN, EINE [HIESS]</small> ‘K<small>AMMER DER</small> V<small>ERSCHWIEGENEN’ UND EINE</small> [<small>HIESS</small>] ‘K<small>AMMER DER GERÄTE’</small>. I<small>N DIE</small> ‘K<small>AMMER DER</small> V<small>ERSCHWIEGENEN</small>’ <small>BRACHTEN SÜNDENSCHEUE</small> L<small>EUTE HEIMLICH [IHRE</small> S<small>PENDEN], AUS DENEN</small> A<small>RME AUS GUTER</small> H<small>ERKUNFT HEIMLICH UNTERHALTEN WURDEN; IN DIE</small> ‘K<small>AMMER DER</small> G<small>ERÄTE’ BRACHTE JEDER DAS VON IHM GESPENDETE</small> G<small>ERÄT</small>. D<small>IESE WURDE EINMAL IN DREISSIG</small> T<small>AGEN VON DEN</small> S<small>CHATZMEISTERN</small> G<small>EÖFFNET, UND JEDES</small> G<small>ERÄT, DAS FÜR DIE</small> T<small>EMPELREPARATUR GEEIGNET WAR, WURDE AUFBEWAHRT, WÄHREND DIEÜBRIGEN VERKAUFT WURDEN, UND IHR</small> E<small>RLÖS DEM</small> T<small>EMPELREPARATURFONDS ZUFIEL</small>."
+        ],
+        [
+            "<b>D</b><small>REIZEHN</small> S<small>AMMELBÜCHSEN, DREIZEHN</small> T<small>ISCHE UND DREIZEHN</small> V<small>ERBEUGUNGEN GAB ES IM</small> T<small>EMPEL</small>. D<small>IE</small> F<small>AMILIEN</small> R.G<small>AMLIÉLS UND</small> R. Ḥ<small>ANINAS DES</small> P<small>RIESTERPRÄSES MACHTEN VIERZEHN</small> V<small>ERBEUGUNGEN</small>. W<small>OHIN DIESE ÜBERZÄHLIGE?</small> G<small>EGEN DIE</small> H<small>OLZKAMMER, DENN SIE HATTEN EINE</small> Ü<small>BERLIEFERUNG VON IHREN</small> V<small>ORFAHREN, DASS DA DIE</small> B<small>UNDESLADE VERBORGEN WORDEN SEI</small>.",
+            "E<small>INST BESCHÄFTIGTE SICH DA EIN</small> P<small>RIESTER UND BEMERKTE, DASS DA EIN</small> P<small>FLASTERSTEIN ANDERS WAR ALS DIE ANDEREN; DA GING ER UND ERZÄHLTE ES EINEM</small> K<small>OLLEGEN</small>. B<small>EVOR ER ABER MIT SEINER</small> M<small>ITTEILUNG ZUENDE WAR, GAB ER SEINEN</small> G<small>EIST AUF</small>. N<small>UN WUSSTE MAN MIT</small> B<small>ESTIMMTHEIT, DASS DA DIE</small> B<small>UNDESLADE VERBORGEN WORDEN SEI</small>.",
+            "W<small>OHIN VERBEUGTEN SIE SICH?</small> V<small>IERMAL GEGEN</small> N<small>ORDEN, VIERMAL GEGEN</small> S<small>ÜDEN, DREIMAL GEGEN</small> O<small>STEN UND ZWEIMAL GEGEN</small> W<small>ESTEN, GEGEN DIE DREIZEHN</small> T<small>ORE</small>. I<small>M</small> S<small>ÜDEN, MEHR WESTLICH! DAS OBERE</small> T<small>OR, DAS</small> B<small>RANDTOR, DAS</small> E<small>RSTGEBORENENTOR UND DAS</small> W<small>ASSERTOR</small>. W<small>ESHALB HIESS ES</small> W<small>ASSERTOR?</small> W<small>EIL MAN DA DEN</small> W<small>ASSERKRUG FÜR DIE</small> W<small>ASSERPROZESSION AM</small> H<small>ÜTTENFESTE</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. Suk. Fol. 48a.</i> <small>HINZUSTELLEN PFLEGTE</small>. R.E<small>LIE͑ZER B</small>. J<small>A͑QOB ERKLÄRTE:</small> A<small>N DIESEM ERGOSS SICH DAS</small> W<small>ASSER, UM DEREINST UNTER DER</small> S<small>CHWELLE DES</small> T<small>EMPELS HERVORZUKOMMEN</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. Ez. 47,1 ff. u. hierzu Jom. 77 b.</i>. G<small>EGENÜBER IM</small> N<small>ORDEN, MEHR WESTLICH: DAS</small> J<small>EKHONJATOR, DAS</small> O<small>PFERTOR, DAS</small> F<small>RAUENTOR UND DAS</small> L<small>IEDERTOR</small>. W<small>ESHALB HIESS ES</small> J<small>EKHONJATOR</small>? W<small>EIL DURCH DIESES</small> J<small>EKHONJA IN DIE</small> G<small>EFANGENSCHAFT GING</small>. I<small>M</small> O<small>STEN</small>: <small>DAS</small> N<small>IKANORTOR, DAS ZWEI</small> P<small>FORTEN HATTE, EINE RECHTS UND EINE LINKS</small>. Z<small>WEI IM</small> W<small>ESTEN, DIE KEINE</small> N<small>AMEN HATTEN</small>.",
+            "D<small>REIZEHN</small> T<small>ISCHE WAREN IM</small> T<small>EMPEL</small>: <small>ACHT AUS</small> M<small>ARMOR IM</small> S<small>CHLACHTHAUSE, AUF DENEN MAN DIE</small> E<small>LNGEWEIDE ABSPÜLTE</small>, <small>ZWEI WESTLICH DER</small> A<small>LTARRAMPE, EINER AUS</small> M<small>ARMOR UND EINER AUS</small> S<small>ILBER</small> – <small>AUF DEN MARMORNEN LEGTE MAN DIE OPFERSTÜCKE UND AUF DEN SILBERNEN DIE</small> D<small>LENSTGERÄTE – ZWEI IN DER</small> V<small>ORHALLE, AUSSEN</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Mišna separata u. andere Texte: innen.<br>4. Wörtl. ich [nehme] auf mich, so zu spenden.</i> <small>AN DER</small> T<small>EMPELTÜR, EINER AUS</small> M<small>ARMOR UND EINER AUS</small> G<small>OLD – AUF DEN MARMORNEN LEGTE MAN DAS</small> S<small>CHAUBROT BEIM</small> H<small>INEINBRINGEN UND AUF DEN GOLDENEN BEIM</small> H<small>INAUSBRINGEN, WEIL BEIM</small> H<small>EILIGEN [DIE</small> E<small>HRUNG] ZU STEIGERN UND NICHT ZU VERRINGERN IST – UND EINER AUS</small> G<small>OLD INNERHALB DES</small> T<small>EMPELS, AUF DEM DAS</small> S<small>CHAUBROT DAUERND LAG</small>.",
+            "D<small>REIZEHN</small> S<small>AMMELBÜCHSEN WAREN IM</small> T<small>EMPEL, DIE MIT</small> A<small>UFSCHRIFTEN VERSEHEN WAREN</small>: N<small>EUE</small> Š<small>EQALIM</small>, A<small>LTE</small> Š<small>EQALIM</small>, V<small>OGELOPFER</small>, B<small>RANDOPFERTAUBEN</small>, H<small>OLZ</small>, W<small>EIHRAUCH</small>, G<small>OLD ZU</small> B<small>ECKEN UND SECHS FÜR FREIWILLIGE</small> S<small>PENDEN</small>. N<small>EUE</small> Š<small>EQALIM: DIE JÄHRLICHEN</small> B<small>EITRÄGE; ALTE</small> Š<small>EQALIM: WER IM VERGANGENEN</small> J<small>AHRE NICHT ENTRICHTET HAT, ENTRICHTET IM LAUFENDEN</small> J<small>AHRE</small>; V<small>OGELOPFER, DAS SIND</small> T<small>URTELTAUBEN</small>; B<small>RANDOPFERTAUBEN</small>, <small>DAS SIND JUNGE</small> T<small>AUBEN</small>. A<small>LLES</small> B<small>RANDOPFER – SO</small> R.J<small>EHUDA; DIE</small> W<small>EISEN SAGEN, DIE</small> V<small>OGELOPFER WAREN EINES</small> S<small>ÜNDOPFER UND EINES</small> B<small>RANDOPFER, DIE JUNGEN</small> T<small>AUBEN NUR</small> B<small>RANDOPFER</small>.",
+            "S<small>AGT JEMAND:</small> ‘I<small>CH GELOBE</small> H<small>OLZ</small>’, <small>SO</small> [<small>GEBE ER</small>] <small>NICHT WENIGER ALS ZWEI</small> S<small>CHEITE</small>; ‘W<small>EIHRAUCH</small>’, <small>NICHT WENIGER ALS EINEN</small> H<small>AUFEN</small>; ‘G<small>OLD</small>’, <small>NICHT WENIGER ALS EINEN</small> G<small>OLDDENAR</small>. S<small>ECHS FÜR FREIWILLIGE</small> S<small>PENDEN</small>. W<small>OFÜR WURDEN DIESE</small> S<small>PENDEN VERWENDET?</small> M<small>AN KAUFTE DAFÜR</small> B<small>RANDOPFER, DAS</small> F<small>LEISCH FÜR</small> G<small>OTT UND DIE</small> F<small>ELLE FÜR DIE</small> P<small>RIESTER</small>. D<small>IESE</small> S<small>CHRIFTAUSLEGUNG TRUG DER</small> H<small>OCHPRIESTER</small> J<small>EHOJADA͑ VOR</small>:<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Lev. 5,19.</i><i>Es ist ein Schuldopfer, ein Schuldopfer für den Herrn</i>. E<small>S GILT ALS</small> R<small>EGEL:</small> F<small>ÜR ALLES, WAS WEGEN EINER</small> S<small>ÜNDE ODER EINER</small> S<small>CHULD DARGEBRACHT WIRD, SIND</small> B<small>RANDOPFER ZU KAUFEN, DAS</small> F<small>LEISCH FÜR</small> G<small>OTT UND DIE</small> F<small>ELLE FÜR DIE</small> P<small>RIESTER</small>. S<small>OMIT STIMMEN BEIDE</small> A<small>USDRÜCKE ÜBEREIN: EIN</small> S<small>CHULDOPFER FÜR DEN</small> H<small>ERRN UND EIN</small> S<small>CHULDOPFER FÜR DIE</small> P<small>RIESTER</small>. F<small>ERNER HEISST ES</small>:<sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">iiReg. 12,17.</i><i>geld für Schuldopfer und Geld für Sündopfer sollen nicht in das Haus des Herrn gebracht werden, es gehört den Priestern</i>."
+        ],
+        [
+            "<b>G</b><small>ELD, DAS ZWISCHEN DER</small> Š<small>EQALIM- UND DER</small> S<small>PENDENBUCHSE GEFUNDEN WIRD, FÄLLT, WENN NÄHER ZU DEN</small> Š<small>EQALIM, DIESEN ZU, UND WENN NÄHER ZUR</small> S<small>PENDENBÜCHSE, DIESER ZU; WENN IN DER</small> M<small>ITTE, SO FÄLLT ES DER</small> S<small>PENDENBÜCHSE ZU</small>. W<small>ENN ZWISCHEN DER</small> H<small>OLZ</small>[<small>BÜCHSE</small>] <small>UND DER</small> W<small>EIHRAUCH</small>[<small>BÜCHSE</small>], <small>SO FÄLLT ES, WENN NÄHER ZUR</small> H<small>OLZBÜCHSE, DIESER ZU, UND WENN NÄHER ZUR</small> W<small>EIHRAUCHBÜCHSE, DIESER ZU; WENN IN DER</small> M<small>ITTE, SO FÄLLT ES DER</small> W<small>EIHRAUCHBÜCHSE ZU</small>. W<small>ENN ZWISCHEN DER</small> V<small>OGEL</small> [<small>BÜCHSE</small>] <small>UND DER</small> T<small>AUBENBRANDOPFER</small> [<small>BÜCHSE</small>], <small>SO FÄLLT ES, WENN NÄHER ZUR</small> V<small>OGEL</small>[<small>BÜCHSE</small>], <small>DIESER ZU, UND WENN NÄHER ZUR</small> T<small>AUBENBRANDOPFER</small>[<small>BÜCHSE</small>], <small>DIESER ZU; WENN IN DER</small> M<small>ITTE, SO FÄLLT ES DER</small> T<small>AUBENBRANDOPFERBÜCHSE ZU</small>. W<small>ENN ZWISCHEN</small> P<small>ROFANEM UND ZWEITEM</small> Z<small>EHNTEN, SO FÄLLT ES, WENN NÄHER ZUM</small> P<small>ROFANEN, DIESEM ZU, UND WENN NÄHER ZUM ZWEITEN</small> Z<small>EHNTEN, DIESEM ZU; WENN IN DER</small> M<small>ITTE, SO FÄLLT ES DEM ZWEITEN</small> Z<small>EHNTEN ZU</small>. D<small>LE</small> R<small>EGEL IST</small>: M<small>AN RICHTE SICH NACH DEM</small> N<small>ÄHEREN; WENN IN DER</small> M<small>ITTE, ERSCHWEREND</small>.",
+            "G<small>ELD, DAS</small> [<small>IN</small> J<small>ERUŠALEM] VOR DEN</small> V<small>IEHHÄNDLERN GEFUNDEN WIRD, IST IMMER</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Auch außerhalb der Festzeit, da ein Wallfahrer es jemand zum Ankäufe von Heilsopfern zurückgelassen haben kann.</i> [<small>ZWEITER</small>] Z<small>EHNT; WENN AUF DEM</small> T<small>EMPELBERGE, SO IST ES</small> P<small>ROFANES</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Da man den Tempelberg nicht mit seinem Geldbeutel betreten darf (cf. Ber. Fol. 54a), so wird es wohl ein da beschäftigter Handwerker od. ein Lieferant verloren haben.</i>. W<small>AS MAN SONST IN</small> J<small>ERUŠALEM FINDET, IST ZUR</small> F<small>ESTZEIT</small> [<small>ZWEITER</small>] Z<small>EHNT UND WÄHREND DES GANZEN</small> J<small>AHRES</small> P<small>ROFANES</small>.",
+            "F<small>LEISCH, DAS IM</small> T<small>EMPELHOFE GEFUNDEN WIRD, IST, WENN IN GANZEN</small> G<small>LIEDERN</small>, B<small>RANDOPFER, UND WENN IN ZERSCHNITTENEN</small> S<small>TÜCKEN</small>, S<small>ÜNDOPFER; WAS MAN IN</small> J<small>ERU��ALEM FINDET, IST</small> H<small>EILSOPFER</small>. S<small>OWOHL DIES ALS AUCH JENES LASSE MAN DIE</small> F<small>RISCHE VERLIEREN UND SCHAFFE ES IN DEN</small> V<small>ERBRENNUNGSRAUM</small>. [F<small>LEISCH</small>,] <small>DAS IN DER</small> P<small>ROVINZ GEFUNDEN WIRD, IST, WENN IN GANZEN</small> G<small>LIEDERN</small>, A<small>AS, UND WENN IN ZERSCHNITTENEN</small> S<small>TÜKKEN, SO DARF MAN ES ESSEN</small>. Z<small>UR</small> F<small>ESTZEIT, WO VIEL</small> F<small>LEISCH VORHANDEN IST, SIND AUCH GANZE</small> G<small>LIEDER ERLAUBT</small>.",
+            "E<small>IN</small> V<small>IEH, DAS ZWISCHEN</small> J<small>ERUŠALEM UND</small> M<small>IGDAL</small>-E͑<small>DER GEFUNDEN WIRD, UND IN DERSELBEN</small> E<small>NTFERNUNG IM GANZEN</small> U<small>MKREISE [VON</small> J<small>ERUŠALEM], IST, WENN EIN MÄNNLICHES, EIN</small> B<small>RANDOPFER, UND WENN EIN WEIBLICHES, EIN</small> H<small>EILSOPFER</small>. R.J<small>EHUDA SAGT, WAS ALS</small> P<small>ESAḤOPFER GEEIGNET IST, IST, WENN INNERHALB DER DREISSIG</small> T<small>AGE VOR DEM</small> F<small>ESTE, ALS</small> P<small>ESAḤOPFER DARZUBRINGEN</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Wenn sich später der Eigentümer meldet, so hat er ihm den Wert zu ersetzen.</i>.",
+            "F<small>RÜHER PFLEGTE MAN DEN</small> F<small>INDER</small> [<small>SOLCHER</small> T<small>IERE</small>] <small>ZU PFÄNDEN, BIS ER DIE DAZU ERFORDERLICHEN</small> G<small>USSOPFER DARGEBRACHT HAT, ALS MAN ABER DAS</small> V<small>IEH STEHEN ZU LASSEN UND FORTZULAUFEN BEGANN, ORDNETEN SIE AN, DIE</small> G<small>USSOPFER AUS</small> G<small>EMEINDEMITTELN DARZUBRINGEN</small>.",
+            "R.Š<small>IMO͑N SAGTE</small>: S<small>IEBEN</small> V<small>ERORDNUNGEN TRAF DAS</small> G<small>ERICHT, ZU DENEN AUCH DIESE GEHÖRT</small>. W<small>ENN EIN</small> N<small>ICHTJUDE, DER AUS ÜBERSEEISCHEM</small> L<small>ANDE SEIN</small> B<small>RANDOPFER SENDET, DIE DAZU ERFORDERLICHEN</small> G<small>USSOPFER MITSENDET, SO SIND DIESE DARZUBRINGEN, WENN ABER NICHT, SO SIND SIE AUS</small> G<small>EMEINDEMITTELN DARZUBRINGEN</small>. E<small>BENSO AUCH, WENN EIN</small> P<small>ROSELYT GESTORBEN IST UND</small> S<small>CHLACHTOPFER HINTERLASSEN HAT: HAT ER AUCH</small> G<small>USSOPFER HINTERLASSEN, SO SIND DIESE DARZUBRINGEN, WENN ABER NICHT, SO SIND SIE AUS</small> G<small>EMEINDEMITTELN DARZUBRINGEN</small>. F<small>ERNER IST ES</small> G<small>ERICHTSBESCHLUSS, DASS, WENN DER</small> H<small>OCHPRIESTER STIRBT, SEIN</small> S<small>PEISOPFER</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Cf. Lev. 6,13.</i> <small>AUS</small> G<small>EMEINDEMITTELN DARGEBRACHT WERDE;</small> R.J<small>EHUDA SAGT AUF</small> K<small>OSTEN DER</small> E<small>RBEN</small>. E<small>S WURDE GANZ</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Ein ganzes I͑saron, nicht geteilt, wie zum täglichen Opfer.</i> <small>DARGEBRACHT</small>.",
+            "F<small>ERNER AUCH, DASS DIE</small> P<small>RIESTER VOM</small> S<small>ALZ UND VOM</small> H<small>OLZ GEBRAUCHEN DÜRFEN, DASS DIE</small> P<small>RIESTER AN DER</small> A<small>SCHE DER</small> [<small>ROTEN</small>] K<small>UH KEINE</small> V<small>ERUNTREUUNG BEGEHEN</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Wenn sie davon nießbrauchen.</i>, <small>UND DASS UNTAUGLICH GEWORDENE</small> V<small>OGELOPFER AUS</small> G<small>EMEINDEMITTELN ZU ERSETZEN SIND</small>. R.J<small>OSE SAGT, DER</small> L<small>IEFERANT DER</small> V<small>OGELOPFER MÜSSE DIE UNTAUGLICH GEWORDENEN ERSETZEN</small>."
+        ],
+        [
+            "<b>J</b><small>EDER</small> S<small>PEICHEL, DER IN</small> J<small>ERUŠALEM GEFUNDEN WIRD, MIT</small> A<small>USNAHME DES OBEREN</small> M<small>ARKTPLATZES, GILT ALS REIN</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">1</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Außerhalb J.s gilt jeder Speichel als levitisch unrein; cf. Tah. IV,5.</i> – <small>SO</small> R.M<small>EÍR</small>. R.J<small>OSE SAGT, AN ALLEN ÜBRIGEN</small> T<small>AGEN DES</small> J<small>AHRES SEIEN DIE IN DER</small> M<small>ITTE</small> [<small>DER</small> S<small>TRASSE GEFUNDENEN</small>] <small>UNREIN UND DIE AUF DEN</small> S<small>EITEN REIN</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">2</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Weil viele Flußbehaftete auf der Straße umhergehen u. die Reinen sich vorsichtshalber nach den Seiten zurückziehen.</i>, <small>UND ZUR</small> F<small>ESTZEIT SEIEN DIE IN DER</small> M<small>ITTE</small> [<small>GEFUNDENEN</small>] <small>REIN UND DIE AN DEN</small> S<small>EITEN UNREIN, WEIL DANN</small> [<small>DIE</small> U<small>NREINEN</small>] <small>WENIGER SIND UND SICH NACH DEN</small> S<small>EITEN ZURÜCKZIEHEN</small>.",
+            "A<small>LLE</small> G<small>ERÄTE, DIE IN</small> J<small>ERUŠALEM GEFUNDEN WERDEN, SIND, WENN AUF DEM ZUM</small> T<small>AÜCHBADE HINABFÜHRENDEN</small> W<small>EGE, UNREIN, UND WENN AUF DEM HERAUFFÜHRENDEN</small> W<small>EGE, REIN</small>; <small>DENN NICHT WIE SIE HINABSTEIGEN</small>, <small>KOMMEN SIE HERAUF</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">3</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Die unrein hinabsteigen, kommen rein herauf; es waren getrennte Wege.</i> – <small>SO</small> R.M<small>EÍR;</small> R.J<small>OSE SAGT, ALLE SEIEN REIN, AUSGENOMMEN</small> K<small>ORB</small>, S<small>CHAUFEL UND</small> A<small>XT, DIE ZUM</small> B<small>EGRÄBNIS BESTIMMT SIND</small>.",
+            "F<small>INDET MAN AM VIERZEHNTEN</small> [N<small>ISAN</small>] <small>EIN</small> S<small>CHLACHTMESSER, SO DARF MAN DAMIT SOFORT</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">4</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Das Pesahopfer; zur Erklärung vergl. Pes. Fol. 70 a.</i> <small>SCHLACHTEN, WENN ABER AM DREIZEHNTEN, SO MUSS MAN ES WIEDERUM</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">5</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Es wird vorausgesetzt, daß der Verlierende es bereits zur Benutzung untergetaucht hat.</i> <small>UNTERTAUCHEN; DAS</small> H<small>ACKMESSER MUSS MAN SOWOHL AN DIESEM ALS AUCH AN JENEM WIEDERUM UNTERTAUCHEN; FÄLLT DER VIERZEHNTE AUF EINEN</small> Š<small>ABBATH, SO DARF MAN DAMIT SOFORT SCHLACHTEN</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">6</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Weil der Verlierende es wahrscheinl. am 13. unter getaucht hat.</i>. F<small>INDETMAN ES AM FÜNFZEHNTEN, SO DARF MAN DAMIT SOFORT SCHLACHTEN; IST ES MIT EINEM</small> S<small>CHLACHTMESSER ZUSAMMENGEBUNDEN, SO GLEICHT ES DIESEM</small>.",
+            "W<small>IRD DER</small> V<small>ORHANG [DES</small> H<small>EILIGTUMS</small>] <small>DURCH EINE</small> [<small>ERSTGRADIG</small>] <small>ÜBERTRAGENE</small> U<small>NREINHEIT UNREIN, SO TAUCHE MAN IHN INNERHALB [DES</small> V<small>ORHOFES] UNTER UND BRINGE IHN SOFORT [AUF SEINEN</small> P<small>LATZ]; WENN ER ABER DURCH EINE</small> U<small>RUNREINHEIT UNREIN WIRD, SO TAUCHE MAN IHN AUSSERHALB UNTER UND BREITE IHN IM</small> Ḥ<small>EL</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">7</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Eigentl. Zwinger, Platz vor der Tempelmauer.</i> <small>AUS, WEIL ER DES</small> S<small>ONNENUNTERGANGES</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">8</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Zur Erlangung völliger Reinheit.</i> <small>BENÖTIGT</small>. I<small>ST ES EIN NEUER, SO BREITE MAN IHN AUF DEM</small> D<small>ACHE DES</small> S<small>ÄULENGANGES AUS, DAMIT DAS</small> V<small>OLK DIE SCHÖNE</small> A<small>RBEIT SEHEN KÖNNE</small>.",
+            "R.Š<small>IMO͑N B</small>. G<small>AMLIÉL SAGTE IM</small> N<small>AMEN</small> R.Š<small>IMO͑NS</small>, S<small>OHNES DES</small> P<small>RIESTERPRÄSES</small>: D<small>ER</small> V<small>ORHANG WAR EINE</small> H<small>ANDBREITE DICK UND AUF ZWEIUNDSIEBZIG</small> K<small>ETTENSCHNÜREN GEWEBT, JEDE AUS VIERUNDZWANZIG</small> F<small>ÄDEN</small> [<small>GEDREHT</small>]; <small>ER WAR VIERZIG</small> E<small>LLEN LANG UND ZWANZIG</small> E<small>LLEN BREIT UND VON ZWEIUNDACHTZIG</small> M<small>YRIADEN</small><sup class=\"footnote-marker\">9</sup><i class=\"footnote\">Wohl Fäden; die Lesart <span dir=\"rtl\">ריבות</span>, Mädchen, ist gegen die Konstruktion.</i> <small>HERGESTELLT</small>. J<small>EDES</small> J<small>AHR WURDEN ZWEI ANGEFERTIGT, UND DREIHUNDERT</small> P<small>RIESTER TAUCHTEN SIE UNTER</small>.",
+            "W<small>ENN</small> F<small>LEISCH VON HOCHHEILIGEN</small> O<small>PFERN UNREIN WURDE, OB DURCH EINE</small> U<small>RUNREINHEIT ODER DURCH EINE ÜBERTRAGENE</small> U<small>NREINHEIT, OB INNERHALB [DES</small> V<small>ORHOFES] ODER AUSSERHALB, SO IST, WIE DIE</small> S<small>CHULE</small> Š<small>AMMAJS SAGT, ALLES INNERHALB ZU VERBRENNEN, AUSSER WAS AUSSERHALB DURCH EINE</small> U<small>RUNREINHEIT UNREIN WURDE; DIE</small> S<small>CHULE</small> H<small>ILLELS SAGT, ALLES SEI AUSSERHALB ZU VERBRENNEN, AUSSER WAS DURCH EINE ÜBERTRAGENE</small> U<small>NREINHEIT INNERHALB UNREIN WURDE</small>.",
+            "R.E<small>LIE͑ZER SAGT, WAS DURCH EINE</small> U<small>RUNREINHEIT UNREIN WURDE, OB INNERHALB ODER AUSSERHALB, SEI AUSSERHALB ZU VERBRENNEN, UND WAS DURCH EINE ÜBERTRAGENE</small> U<small>NREINHEIT UNREIN WURDE, OB INNERHALB ODER AUSSERHALB</small>, SEI INNERHALB ZU VERBRENNEN. R.A͑<small>QIBA SAGT, WO DIE</small> V<small>ERUNREINIGUNG, DA AUCH DIE</small> V<small>ERBRENNUNG</small>.",
+            "D<small>IE</small> G<small>LIEDER DES BESTÄNDIGEN</small> O<small>PFERS WERDEN AUF DIE UNTERE</small> H<small>ÄLFTE DER</small> A<small>LTARRAMPE, ÖSTLICH, GELEGT, DIE DES</small> Z<small>USATZOPFERS AUF DIE UNTERE</small> H<small>ÄLFTE DER</small> A<small>LTARRAMPE, WESTLICH, UND DIE DES</small> N<small>EÜMOND</small>[<small>OPFERS</small>] <small>UNTERHALB DES</small> A<small>LTARSIMSES</small>. [D<small>IE</small> G<small>ESETZE VON</small>] <small>DER</small> T<small>EMPELSTEUER UND DEN</small> E<small>RSTLINGEN GELTEN NUR ZUR</small> Z<small>EIT, WENN DER</small> T<small>EMPEL BESTEHT</small>; [<small>DIE</small> G<small>ESETZE</small>] <small>VOM</small> G<small>ETREIDEZEHNTEN, VOM</small> V<small>IEHZEHNTEN UND VON DEN</small> E<small>RSTGEBURTEN ABER GELTEN SOWOHL ZUR</small> Z<small>EIT, WENN DER</small> T<small>EMPEL BESTEHT, ALS AUCH ZUR</small> Z<small>EIT, WENN ER NICHT BESTEHT</small>. W<small>ENN JEMAND</small> T<small>EMPELSTEUER ODER</small> E<small>RSTLINGE WEIHT, SO SIND SIE</small> G<small>EHEILIGTES</small>. R.Š<small>IMO͑N SAGTE:</small> W<small>ENN JEMAND</small> E<small>RSTLINGE WEIHT, SO SIND SIE NICHT</small> G<small>EHEILIGTES</small>."
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Chapter",
+        "Mishnah"
+    ]
+}

json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Shekalim/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Mishnah Shekalim",
+    "versionSource": "http://www.sefaria.org/shraga-silverstein",
+    "versionTitle": "The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "license": "CC-BY",
+    "versionNotes": "To enhance the quality of this text, obvious translation errors were corrected in accordance with the Hebrew source",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "המשנה עם פירושי רבי עובדיה מברטנורא, רבי שרגא זילברשטיין",
+    "versionNotesInHebrew": "כדי לשפר את איכות הטקסט הזה, שונו שגיאות תרגום ברורות בהתאם למקור העברי",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "משנה שקלים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [
+            "\tOn the first of Adar, proclamations are made for shekalim (the head-tax for the Temple). [Beth-din send throughout the cities of Israel and proclaim that they must bring their shekalim. For on the first of Nissan communal offerings must be brought from the new levy, viz. (Numbers 28:14): \"This is the burnt-offering of the month in its month for the months of the year\" — Renew the bringing of offerings from the new (half-shekel) levy (the root of \"month\" and \"new\" being the same in Hebrew). And \"the months of the year\" here (as referring to Nissan) is derived from (Exodus 12:2): \"It (Nissan) is first for you of the months of the year.\" Therefore, the proclamation for the bringing of shekalim is advanced thirty days to the first of Adar.] and (proclamations are made) for kilayim (interdicted mixed sowing) [i.e., They proclaim that the other variety must be diminished until there not remain of it a rova of a kav to a sa'ah, as stated (Kilayim 2:1): Every sa'ah which contains a rova of a kav of a different variety must be diminished. Our rabbis explained that after the seeds are already grown even one in a thousand must be uprooted. For any two varieties, each of which by itself is permitted, but which are interdicted in admixture, do not lend themselves to bitul (\"canceling out\"). It is only when they are intermixed in sowing that diminution suffices, bitul obtaining with one in two by Torah law, so that it is not called a sowing of kilayim, and (the prescribed) diminution is required only because of \"appearances\" (marith ayin). But after they have grown, bitul does not obtain and everything must be uprooted so that only one of the varieties remains.] On the fifteenth (of Adar) the Megillah is read in the towns [surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua the son of Nun. Because of the teaching (1:3): \"On the fifteenth of Adar money-changers sat in the province,\" everything else that they did on that day was included.], and repairs are made on roads, streets [and marketplaces that were damaged by rains in the wintertime. They are repaired for the festival pilgrims. Some explain (that they are repaired) for the benefit of those who slew unwittingly, so that they can flee the blood avenger, as it is written (Deuteronomy 19:3): \"Prepare the way for yourself.\"], and (repairs are made on) ritual baths. [If sediment accumulated in them, they are cleaned, and if the mikveh fell below the required amount, they would add drawn water to it and bring it up to that amount (the majority of the required forty sa'ah being kasher)], and all community needs are attended to [such as monetary litigations, capital cases, cases of stripes, the redemption of assessments, devotions, and dedications, the administration of the sotah's draught, the burning of the red heifer, the boring of (the ear of) the Hebrew bondsman, and the cleansing of the leper. And they would send (messengers) to open cisterns of stored water, so that the people could drink from them in the summertime, all these being community needs.] And graves are marked [so that Cohanim and bearers of taharoth (consecrated foods) not \"tent\" over them. They \"marked\" by crumbling lime and spilling it around the grave. In the rainy season the lime would dissolve so that it was necessary to repeat the process.] And they [deputies of beth-din] would also go out for (i.e., to root out) kilayim. [Even though they had already made proclamation in this regard on the first of Adar (see above), they did not rely upon it, fearing that the owners might not have uprooted it, and they went out and did so themselves.]",
+            "\tR. Yehudah said: In the beginning, they (the deputies of beth-din would root out (the kilayim) and throw it down before them [the field owners, to shame them.] When transgressors increased, they would uproot it and throw it on the roads. [The owners rejoiced in that their fields were being weeded by others. What is more, they would place it before their animals (to eat), whereupon they instituted that they cast it upon the roads. But they still rejoiced in that their fields were being weeded,] whereupon they instituted that the entire field be declared ownerless (hefker), [for hefker beth-din hefker (a \"hefker\" pronouncement of beth-din is valid.)]",
+            "\tOn the fifteenth (of Adar) money-changers sat in the province (medinah) [Jerusalem, and they made change for the half-shekel for those who brought the currency of their province and were unacquainted with the conversion rate.] On the twenty-fifth, they would sit in the Temple. [Since the time was drawing near, they would sit in the Temple, so that they (the people) would hasten to bring (their shekalim). Rambam explains that all the cities of Israel were called \"medinah,\" and that on the twenty-fifth they sat in the Temple in Jerusalem.] From the time they sat in the Temple, they began to take pledges [from those who had not brought their shekalim.] Whom would pledges be taken from? Levites, it being written (Exodus 30:14): \"All who pass to be numbered, from twenty years and above.\" And the Levites were not counted from twenty years.], Israelites, proselytes, and freed bondsmen; but not women, [it being written (Exodus 30:12): \"Then each man shall give the ransom of his soul\" — a man, and not a woman], nor bondsmen [bondsmen being obligated only in the mitzvoth that women are obligated in], nor minors [even one who showed two hairs, if he were less than twenty]. Any father who has begun to give the shekel for his minor son cannot leave off doing so. [And if his father dies, he must give the shekel for himself.] And pledges are not taken from the Cohanim [ even though they are obligated in the half-shekel] because of \"the ways of peace.\" [Because they perform the sacrificial service, honor was accorded them, and they were depended upon not to defer their shekalim. And even if they did defer and not give them, beth-din stipulated that the shekalim be theirs in exchange for their service, just as allocations are made from the Temple treasury to others engaged in Temple work, as explained below.]",
+            "\tR. Yehudah said: Ben Buchri testified in Yavneh: Any Cohein who gives the shekel does not sin thereby [even though he is not obligated to give it. The assumption (that he would be sinning) is that if he does give it, (what should be) a communal offering would be found to be coming (to a certain extent) from (the gift of) an individual. We are, therefore, apprised that he does not sin, in that he gives that half-shekel entirely to the congregation and we do not fear that there might be some reservation on his part in this regard.] R. Yochanan b. Zakkai said to him: To the contrary, any Cohein who does not give the shekel is a sinner [And the verse: \"All who pass to be numbered\" is to be expounded thus: \"All who pass\" through the Red Sea (for all of them passed through the Red Sea) \"to be numbered\" (both those who were numbered by themselves and those who were numbered with the rest of Israel) \"shall give the terumah of the L rd.\" And even though it is written (Exodus 38:25): \"And the silver of the numbered of the congregation was one hundred talents … for six hundred thousand and three thousand, etc.\", that is written in respect to the terumah for the sockets, in which the tribe of Levi did not participate; but Cohanim, Levites, and Israelites participated equally in the terumah for the offerings.]; but the Cohanim expounded this verse for themselves [i.e., to their advantage], viz. (Leviticus 6:16): \"And every meal-offering of a priest shall be entirely burnt; it shall not be eaten.\" (They said:) If the omer and the double loaves were ours (as they would be if the Cohanim contributed to their purchase with the shekalim) how could they be eaten! [The fallacy: It is only in respect to the meal-offering of an individual Cohein that it is written: \"it shall be entirely burnt,\" and not in respect to an offering that he has a share in together with the congregation. And the halachah is that Cohanim are obligated to give the half-shekel, and pledges are not taken from them because of \"the ways of peace.\"]",
+            "\tEven though they said that pledges are not taken from women, bondsmen, or minors, if they give the shekel it is taken from them [on condition that they give it to the congregation entirely, so that a communal offering not come from an individual (gift)]. If idolators and Cuthites wish to give the shekel, it is not taken from them. Nor are the bird-offerings of zavim and zavoth [the turtle-doves and young pigeons brought by zavim and zavoth. This refers to \"Cuthites\" alone, zavim and zavoth not obtaining with idolators], (nor are the bird-offerings of) yoldoth (women who have just given birth), nor sin-offerings nor guilt-offerings taken from them; but vow and gift-offerings are taken from them. This is the rule: Everything which is vowed or donated (for the altar) is taken from them; anything which is not vowed or donated is not taken from them. [As we learned (Menachoth 73b) (Leviticus 22:18): \"A man, a man\" — to include gentiles who vow vows and gift-offerings as an Israelite. This tells me only of a burnt-offering, viz. (Ibid.): \"which they will present to the L rd as a burnt-offering.\" Whence do I derive (the same for) peace-offerings? From (Ibid.): \"Of all of their vows.\" Whence do I derive for inclusion birds and meal-offerings, wine, frankincense, and wood? From (Ibid.): \"of all of their vows and all of their free-will offerings.] And thus is it stated by Ezra, [when the Cuthites desired to help them and sent to them (Ezra 4:2): \"Let us build (the Temple) with you, for as you, will we seek out G d, etc.\" What did they answer?] (Ibid. 4): \"It is not for you and us to build a house to our G d\" [in partnership. You have no portion or grant or remembrance in Jerusalem. ]",
+            "\tThese are obligated to give a kolbon [kal-bon, i.e., something \"light and small,\" which is added to the half-shekel]: Levites, Israelites, proselytes, and freed bondsmen; but not Cohanim, women, bondsmen, and minors. If one gives the shekel for a Cohein, a woman, a bondsman, or a minor, he is exempt (from the kolbon) [as when he lent them. For since they are exempt (from the half-shekel), they are not liable for the kolbon. And if he did not lend them, but paid for them, even if he gave the shekel for one who is obligated, he is exempt from the kolbon, as explained below.] And if one gives the shekel for himself and for his friend [(This, in an instance where he lends him. He gives one shekel: a half-shekel for himself, and a half-shekel that he lends his friend)], he is liable for one kolbon. [For this tanna holds that one who gives the half-shekel specified in the Torah is exempt from the kolbon, it being written (Exodus 30:13): \"This shall they give\" — Exactly as this shall they give and not more, so that with two who give one shekel, only one kolbon is given.] R. Meir says: Two kolbonoth. [R. Meir holds that one who gives a half-shekel is liable for one kolbon, so that if two give one shekel, they are liable for two kolbonoth. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir.] If one gives a sela [a whole shekel, to the Temple money-changer], and he takes a shekel [\"a shekel\" here is a half-shekel, i.e., he gets back half of what he gave], he is liable for two kolbonoth. [Here the first tanna concedes that he gives two kolbonoth: one to compensate for the half-shekel that he receives from the Temple, and one because he did not give the (exact) half-shekel specified in the Torah.]",
+            "\tIf one gives the shekel for a poor man, for his neighbor, or for a man of his city, he is exempt (from the kolbon) [having given it to them as a gift.] If he lent it to them, he is liable. Brothers who are partners, [who divided (the inheritance) and then became partners], who are liable for the kolbon, [as any other two who gave a sela for their shekalim], are exempt from the beast-tithe. [They need not tithe all the beasts born to them all the days of their partnership, it being expounded (Bechoroth 56b) (Exodus 13:12): \"…which shall be yours,\" and not that of partners, the verse being understood as referring to the tithe, though it speaks of the first-born.] And when they are liable for the beast-tithe [That is, when they did not divide, in which instance they are liable for the tithe, as expounded: I might think (that they are not liable for the tithe) even when they acquired it (the beast) as part of the estate (i.e., before division); it is, therefore, written: \"shall be\" — (there is liability) in any event], they are exempt from the kolbon. [For their father's property retains its status and it is as if the father gave the shekel for his sons or for his neighbors, in which instance he is exempt.] How much is a kolbon? A ma'ah of silver [one twenty-fourth of a sela, weighing sixteen se'oroth.] These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: A half, [one forty-eighth of a sela, eight se'oroth. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]"
+        ],
+        [
+            "\tShekalim may be exchanged for darkonoth because of the burden of the way. [The men of the city, who collected their shekalim, may exchange them for darkonoth, gold coin, viz. (Ezra 2:69): \"gold darkemonim,\" to lighten the burden of the way (to Jerusalem)]. Just as there were shofroth in the Temple, [(\"shofroth\":) chests, whose mouths were narrow on top, like a shofar, whose mouth is narrow on top, and which \"broadens out\" (this, so that nothing could be taken from them), viz. (II Kings 12:10): \"And Yehoyada the priest took a chest and bored a hole in its lid, etc.\" They stood in the azarah and they would all bring their shekalim and deposit them there], so there were shofroth in the medinah [Jerusalem. (According to Rambam, the other cities of Israel)]. If the men of the city sent their shekalim[with a messenger to take them to the lishkah (the Temple treasury)] and they were stolen or lost — if the contribution had already been taken [(It was the practice to contribute from the (money) chests for the offerings. They would contribute from what had been collected and on account of what would be collected, so that even those who had not yet given their shekalim would have a portion in the offerings.)], they [the messengers] would swear to the (Temple) treasurers. [For since the contribution had been made on account of these monies before they had been lost, it is as if they had been in the possession of the treasurers from the time the contribution had been made — so that when they were stolen or lost, it is from the possession of the treasurers that they were stolen or lost, for which reason the messengers swear (that they were not remiss) and they exempt themselves. And even though oaths are not administered for hekdeshoth (Temple dedications), this oath was instituted by the sages so that hekdeshoth not be treated lightly.] And if not [i.e., If at the time they were lost, the contribution had not yet been made and monies had not been taken from the chests on account of what would be collected, then they had gone lost from the possession of the owners (and not from the Temple treasurers). Therefore,] they [the messengers] swear to the men of the city [and exempt themselves]. And the men of the city give [other] shekalim in their stead, [for the first shekalim that were lost are not accredited them.] If they were found or the thieves returned them, both are shekalim and they are not accredited them for the following year.",
+            "\tIf one gave his shekel for his friend to give for him, and he went and gave it for himself — if the contribution (for offerings) had been made [before the shekel were given to the treasurer], he [the messenger, who gave it for himself] has profaned (Temple property). [For as soon as the contribution was made on account of what would be collected, this shekel that his friend had given him to give for him, was in the possession of the Temple, so that when he gave it for himself, he benefited from Temple property. For had he not given it, they would have taken a pledge from him, as we learned above (1:3): \"From the time they sat in the Temple, they began to take pledges. He is found, then, to be benefitting from Temple property and he is liable for a me’ilah (profanation) offering.] If one gave his shekel from the monies of hekdesh (Temple property) [If he had in his hand monies dedicated to Temple maintenance, and, thinking that they were chullin (non-consecrated), he gave his shekel from them], and the contribution were made and a beast [bought from that contribution and] sacrificed — then he [who gave the shekel] is liable for a me’ilah offering, [but not before. For this hekdesh remained hekdesh as it was wherever it was without changing. And when the beast was sacrificed and he (the Temple treasurer) intended that it be from the money of all who had given the shekel to the lishkah (the fund for sacrifices), it is as if he (the giver) acquired the beast with those monies of hekdesh and sacrificed it. He benefits, then, in that they did not take a pledge from him for his shekel and he is liable for a me’ilah offering. And in the first instance, too, where his friend gave him the shekel to give for him and he gave it for himself, and he is liable for a me’ilah offering, this, too, is when the beast has been sacrificed after the contribution has been made. The reason this was not stated in the first instance is that it was anticipated for the latter instance, in which the me’ilah in both instances is explicated. The reason there is no me’ilah immediately even though he already benefits (by not having a pledge exacted of him) is that me’ilah obtains only when one converts hekdesh to chullin; but if he converts (one variety of) hekdesh to (a different variety of) hekdesh, even though he benefits thereby, there is me’ilah only after an act is performed in the second hekdesh. This is borne out in the Yerushalmi.] If (one gave his shekel) from the monies of ma’aser sheni or from the monies of shevi’ith, he eats against them. [He brings a shekel and says: \"Wherever the ma’aser sheni or shevi’ith are, they are to be redeemed against this shekel. For shevi’ith \"takes\" in its monies as hekdesh does. And he eats fruits bought with that money in Jerusalem against ma’aser sheni; or he eats them in the sanctity of shevi’ith if the fruits redeemed were those of shevi’ith.]",
+            "\tIf one puts away money [little by little, p’rutah after p'rutah, for his shekel ], saying, [ when he begins doing so:] \"This is for my shekel,\" [and when he counts it, he finds that he has more than his shekel], Beth Shammai say: The surplus is a gift. [It goes to the shofroth in the Temple, whose monies are used for \"summer burnt-offerings\" for the altar. Beth Shammai here is consistent with his view that \"hekdesh in error is hekdesh.\"] And Beth Hillel say: The surplus is chullin, [his intent having been to dedicate only the amount of his shekel]. (If he said:) \"I shall take from them for my shekel,\" [which is like saying explicitly: \"If I find more than a shekel, I will take the shekel from them and the rest will be chullin\"], they agree that the surplus is chullin. [If he put away money and said:] \"This is for my sin-offering,\" they agree [i.e., Beth Hillel concede] that the surplus is a gift (to hekdesh). (If he said:) \"I shall take from them for my sin-offering,\" they agree that the surplus is chullin.",
+            "\tR. Shimon said: What is the difference between shekalim and a sin-offering? [Why do Beth Hillel say that if one puts money away, saying: \"This is for my shekel,\" the surplus is chullin, whereas if he says: \"This is for my sin-offering,\" they concede to Beth Shammai that it is a gift (to hekdesh)?] Shekalim have a fixed amount, [it being written (Exodus 30:15): \"The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less.\" Therefore, he must have intended only a shekel, and the rest is \"hekdesh in error\"], but a sin-offering has no fixed amount. [If he wishes, he can bring a sin-offering for a ma’ah of silver, and if he wishes he can bring one for a large sum. Therefore, the monies \"take,\" and the surplus is a gift.] R. Yehudah says: Even shekalim have no fixed amount! When Israel went up from the exile, they would give darkonoth as the shekel. [The darkon was a coin of the Medean kingdom. It was of gold and worth two selaim and it was the standard coin of trade. And just as in the time of the first Temple, when their coin was a shekel, they would give a half-shekel; now, too, when it was a darkon, they would give a half-darkon.] Then they reverted to selaim. [After the Medean reign, the darkon was voided and they reverted to trading with selaim, their original currency minted at the time of the first Temple, and they gave a half-shekel as in the beginning.] Then they reverted to tevain. [The standard currency became tevain, i.e., a half-shekel.] They desired to give dinars [i.e., they desired to give half of that coin, one dinar, (the sela being two dinars); but this was not accepted from them. For it is permitted to add to the shekel of Scripture according to the difference in the currency minted at the time, but not to detract from it. We see, then, that shekalim, too, have no fixed amount, sometimes being more, sometimes less, their giving always the half-shekel of that time.] R. Shimon rejoined: In spite of that, each gave equally [i.e., Shekalim still cannot be compared to a sin-offering. For at all times, the half-shekel was equal for all — each gave the half-shekel of that time.] But (the amount for) the sin-offering [is never equal for all:] This one brings (a sin-offering) for a sela; that one, for two (selaim) and that one, for three. [And here we conclude that the rationale of Beth Hillel is as per R. Shimon.]",
+            "\tThe surplus of shekalim is chullin. [If one puts away money, saying: \"This is for my shekel,\" and then, when he counts it, finds he has a surplus, that surplus is chullin. This anonymous Mishnah is as per Beth Hillel.] The surplus of the tenth of an ephah, the birds of zavin, the birds of zavoth, the birds of yoldoth, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings (the surplus is) a gift (to hekdesh). [(\"the tenth of an ephah,\") which is offered (in a state of) abject poverty. If money was laid aside for this, and there was a surplus, that surplus is a gift. For all surpluses of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings are gifts towards the acquisition of \"summer burnt-offerings\" for the altar, as per the medrash of Yehoyada Hakohen (6:6); and the tenth of the ephah is in place of a sin-offering.] This is the rule: The surplus of all that comes as a sin-offering or as a guilt-offering is a gift (for burnt-offerings). The surplus of a burnt-offering is a burnt-offering. [If he set aside money with which to buy a burnt-offering and there was a surplus, he purchases another burnt-offering with it.] The surplus of a meal-offering is a meal-offering. The surplus of a peace-offering is a peace-offering. The surplus of a Pesach is a peace-offering, [it being written (Deuteronomy 16:2): \"And you shall sacrifice a Pesach to the L rd your G d, sheep and cattle.\" Now does the Pesach come from cattle? The meaning, then, is that the surplus of the Pesach is for what comes from sheep and cattle, namely, peace-offerings.] The surplus of Nazirites is for Nazirites. [If they collected money for Nazirite offerings and there was a surplus, the moneys are kept for the acquisition of offerings for other Nazirites. The surplus of a Nazirite is a gift. [If an individual Nazirite laid aside money for his offerings and there was a surplus, the surplus is a gift for summer burnt-offerings for the altar.] The surplus of (monies collected for) the poor is for the poor. The surplus of a poor man is for that poor man. [If they collected money to buy him clothing and there was a surplus, that surplus is given him.] The surplus of captives is for captives. The surplus of a captive is for that captive. [If they collected charity for the redemption of captives and there was a surplus, it is kept for the redemption of other captives. But if the monies were expressly given for a particular captive, the surplus goes to that captive.] The surplus of the dead is for the dead. [If they collected for the burial of the dead, in general, the surplus goes towards the burial of others.] The surplus of a (particular) dead man is for his heirs, [the assumption being that one waives his \"cheapening\" after death in favor of his heirs.] R. Meir says: The surplus of a (particular) dead man is to be put aside until Eliyahu comes. [R. Meir is in doubt as to whether or not he waives his \"cheapening\" in favor of his heirs, for which reason it is put aside until the advent of Eliyahu.]  R. Nathan says: The surplus of a (particular) dead man is used for building a monument over his grave. [It is obvious to R. Nathan that he does not waive his \"cheapening,\" for which reason a monument is built over his grave with the surplus, which had already reverted to him. The halachah is in accordance with the first tanna. In an instance where they collected for the (burial) requirements of a particular dead person, thinking he was without means, and then they discovered that this was not the case, we do not say that the surplus goes to the heirs, since the collection was in error. This is borne out in the Yerushalmi. And it also follows from the Yerushalmi and from our gemara that where there are seven city caretakers or where there is one, in charge of all community affairs, he may allocate the surplus of captives or of the poor or of the dead as he sees dictated by the exigencies of the time and he is not to be interfered with. And this is always the ruling in practice.]"
+        ],
+        [
+            "\tThree times a year they would remove (shekalim from) the lishkah. [They would deposit all the shekalim in one lishkah (compartment) in the Temple. And three times a year they would take from it and place (the shekalim) into three large baskets of three sa'ah for the purchase of communal offerings. The whole was not taken at one time for the needs of the entire year, for those in distant places had not yet brought all of their shekalim]: at the pross of Pesach [Fifteen days before the festival is referred to as the \"pross\" of the festival. For thirty days before the festival the halachoth of the festival are reviewed. (\"pross,\" as in \"prussah,\" i.e., half)], at the pross of Shavuoth, and at the pross of Succoth. And they (these time periods) are granoth (\"threshing floors\") for the beast-tithe. [These three times are three granoth for the beast-tithe, the sages having designated these times for the tithing of beasts that had been born. And just as (bringing the grain to) the threshing floor makes the grain subject to the tithe, so beasts that have been born may not be eaten after the arrival of these times until they are tithed. But before these times they may be eaten even if they have not been tithed. The sages designated these three times for the beast-tithe so that beasts be available for the festival pilgrims. For even though it is permitted to sell and slaughter and eat as long as the time of the \"goren\" has not yet arrived, still, people would not slaughter their beasts until they had tithed them. For one prefers doing a mitzvah with his property if he loses nothing thereby, as with the beast-tithe, the owner eating the tithed animal itself as a peace-offering. And if they did not tithe in these three periods, many would refrain from selling their beasts, not having tithed them, and beasts would not be available for the festival pilgrims.] These are the words of R. Akiva. Ben Azzai says: On the twenty-ninth of Adar, the first of Sivan, and the twenty-ninth of Av. R. Elazar and R. Shimon say: On the first of Nissan, the first of Sivan, and the twenty-ninth of Elul. [The reasons of all these tannaim, and (the bases of) their differences are explicated in the last chapter of Bechoroth.] Why did they say the twenty-ninth (of Elul) instead of the first of Tishrei? For it is a festival (Rosh Hashanah), and one cannot tithe on a festival, for which reason they moved it up to the twenty-ninth of Elul.",
+            "\tWith three baskets of three sa'ah each (shekalim) are removed from the lishkah. [The shekalim were placed there (in the lishkah) and they were taken out in three baskets of three sa'ah each. Rambam writes that first three large baskets of twenty-seven sa'ah each are filled and from these, three baskets of nine sa'ah each are filled. This is an unnecessary, forced explanation.] And they were marked \"aleph,\" \"beth,\" \"gimmel\" [to know which had been filled first, to buy the communal offerings from that first; then, from the second; then, from the third.] R. Gamliel says: It was written in Greek: \"alpha,\" \"beta,\" \"gamla.\" [They would write it in Greek because of (Genesis 9:27): \"G d will beautify Yefeth and he will dwell in the tents of Shem\" — the beauty of Yefeth will dwell in the tents of Shem; and there is no language among the sons of Yefeth more beautiful than the Greek language. The torem (the one who removes shekalim from the lishkah) may enter neither with: a bordered garment, (pargod chafuth) [When the garment is long and doubled from the bottom, that doubled fold is called \"pargod chafuth.\" The torem may not enter thus attired so that he not be suspected of concealing lishkah monies in it.], (nor may he enter with) a shoe, a sandal, tefillin or an amulet [lest they say he undid the thread and placed money inside], lest he grow poor and people say: \"Because of the sin of (stealing from) the lishkah, he has become impoverished\"; or lest he grow rich and they say: \"From the proceeds of the lishkah he has grown wealthy.\" For one must be upright in the eyes of men just as he must be upright in the eyes of the L rd, as it is written (Numbers 32:22): \"And you shall be clean of the L rd and of Israel,\" and (Proverbs 3:4): \"And you shall find grace and goodly understanding in the eyes of G d and man.\"",
+            "\tThose of the house of R. Gamliel would enter with their shekel between their fingers and fling it before the torem [They directed their shekalim at the basket, so that they would go towards the purchase of communal offerings and not be left in the lishkah.] and the torem would, likewise, press it to the basket. The torem does not remove (the shekalim) until he asks them: \"Shall I remove them?\" And they answer: \"Remove, remove, remove\" — three times [This three-fold expression is characteristic of the sages. Similarly, in respect to the omer: \"Magal zo, magal zo, magal zo\" - Ektzor, ektzor, ektzor,\" and, in respect to chalitzah: \"chalutz hana'al, chalutz hana'al, chalutz hana'al\" — three times.]",
+            "\tHe removes the first [terumah of the pross of Pesach] and [after removing it] he covers [all the shekalim remaining in the lishkah] with ketavlaoth [boiled leather, so that they place upon it the shekalim yet to come from the lands around Eretz Yisrael, which could not be brought before Pesach. These are brought from Pesach until Shavuoth and placed on top of the ketavla, so that the terumah is taken from them at the pross of Shavuoth and so that he does not take from what has already been removed at the pross of Pesach.] (He removes) the second and covers with ketavlaoth. [After he removes at the pross of Shavuoth, he again covers with ketavlaoth all the monies in the lishkah and there is placed upon them all the shekalim brought from Bavel, Madai, and the distant lands.] [(He removes) the third and he does not cover. The terumah is taken from them at the pross of Succoth, and he does not cover it again, for there is no terumah after that.] (He covers the first and the second) lest he forget and remove from what has already been removed. He removed the first for Eretz Yisrael, [who sent their shekalim first, the others not yet having brought them]; the second, for the cities near it (mukafim lah) [such as Ammon and Moav. \"mukafim\" = \"near,\" as in (Gittin 30b): \"litrom shelo min hamukaf\"; (Chullin 46b): \"Ein makifin bebuei\"]; the third, for Bavel, Madai, and the distant lands. [In any event, every time they would remove it for all of Israel, for what had been collected, and for what would be collected. The tanna mentions these different places only to apprise us that they instituted these three times so that by then all the shekalim of Israel would have been collected.]"
+        ],
+        [
+            "\tThe terumah [i.e., what they put into the baskets] — what did they do with it? They bought temidin (the daily burnt-offerings), mussafin (the additional offerings), their libations, the omer, the two loaves, the show-bread, and all the communal offerings [including the incense]. The watchers of after-growths on shevi'ith (the sabbatical year) take their pay from the terumah of the lishkah. [The \"aftergrowths\" are what grow of themselves from what was left of the harvest. Watchmen are paid to see to it that the poor do not pick them on the shevi'ith, and they are brought for the omer on Pesach and for the two loaves on Shavuoth, which come only from the new produce and from Eretz Yisrael. The watchmen may be paid from the terumah, for what is needed for the offering is as the offering itself in this regard.] R. Yossi says: If one wishes, he may donate his services as an unpaid watchman. [And even though he acquires the after-growths from hefker (renounced property) by watching them gratis and bringing them, so that they are his — R. Yossi holds that an individual offering can be converted to a communal one.] They said to him: Do you not agree that they (these offerings) may come only from the congregation? [And if he watched the after-growths gratis and brought them and acquired them, they are found not to come from the congregation (the rabbis holding that an individual offering cannot be converted to a communal one.) The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
+            "\tThe red heifer and the goat that is sent [to Azazel] and the tongue of crimson come from the terumah of the lishkah. [Even though the red heifer is not slaughtered in the azarah, it comes from the terumah of the lishkah, Scripture calling it a \"sin-offering.\" And the goat that is sent to Azazal (also comes from the terumah of the lishkah), for two goats must be taken and it is not known on which of them will fall \"the lot to the L rd.\" The \"tongue of crimson\" here is the one thrown into the pyre of the red heifer. The same is true for the cedar-wood and the hyssop, but the tongue of crimson alone is adduced to distinguish it from the tongue of crimson of the sent-away goat.] The following come from what is left over in the lishkah: the bridge of the red heifer [They would make two bridges, one on top of the other, because of the (uncleanliness of) \"the grave of the depth,\" from the Temple Mount to the Mount of Olives, over which they would conduct the red heifer], the bridge of the sent-away goat [They would make a kind of bridge leading outside of the city, over which the \"sender\" would take out the goat. This, because of the Babylonians, who would tear his hair, saying: \"Take it and go (fast), and do not keep our sins here!\"], the tongue between its horns [to ascertain if it whitened and the sins of Israel had been forgiven. Since the above are not prerequisites for offerings, they do not come from the terumah which had been separated for offerings, but from what remained in the lishkah after the terumoth had been separated], the water-duct, [which passed through the azarah, if it required repair], the city wall, its towers, and all the needs of the city [the digging of wells, pits, and caves, road repair, the setting up of markets, and the guarding of the city.] Abba Shaul says: The high-priests make the bridge of the red heifer from their own (resources). [The halachah is not in accordance with Abba Shaul.]",
+            "\tThe surplus of the left-overs of the lishkah [i.e., what is left over after the city needs have been satisfied] — What is done with it? Wine, oil, and meal is bought for it [and sold to those who need them for meal-offerings], and the profit goes to hekdesh. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: One does not trade in hekdesh, [(for \"there is no poverty in the place of wealth\"; such trade is demeaning to hekdesh)], nor with what is designated for the poor, [lest a poor man come and there be nothing (on hand) to give him. The halachah is in accordance with Abba Shaul.]",
+            "\tThe surplus of terumah [i.e., what is left over in the baskets on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, when offerings are brought from the new terumah] — What is done with it? Gold plate overlay (is bought) for the holy of holies [for the floor and the walls.] R. Yishmael says: The surplus of fruits is for the \"summertime of the altar.\" [R. Yishmael is consistent with his view, above, that with the left-overs of the lishkah, wine, oil, and meal are bought. The profit from their sale is called \"the surplus of the fruits,\" that is, their gain from the fruits that they bought. (\"the summertime of the altar\":) When the altar is idle, burnt-offerings are bought from this surplus. Just as sweet things are put on the table after the meal, so, after the obligatory offerings of the day, these burnt-offerings are brought (when there are no vow and gift offerings and the altar is idle)] and the surplus of the terumah is for ministering vessels. [R. Yishmael expounds (II Chronicles 24:14): \"…what was left over of the silver, and they made of it vessels fro the house of the L rd.\" Which silver has left-overs? The terumah of the lishkah.] R. Akiva says: The surplus of the terumah is for the \"summertime of the altar,\" [it (the terumah of the lishkah) having been separated for the purpose of offerings], and the surplus of libations is for ministering vessels. [The Temple treasurers would provide monies to the wine, oil and meal merchants to supply them with the requirements of the meal-offerings and libations of the entire year. If a merchant agreed to supply three sa'ah for a sela and the market price became four sa'ah for a sela, he must give four sa'ah, and that (additional) sa'ah is called \"the surplus of libations.\" Also, when they \"measured out\" to hekdesh, they would do so amply, (and the treasurer would measure frugally.) The ample measure is called \"the surplus of libations.\" It would be used for ministering vessels, the libations being consecrated in ministering vessels.] R. Chananiah, the adjutant high-priest, says: The surplus of libations is for the \"summertime of the altar\" [for both the libations and the burnt-offerings are thoroughly consumed], and the surplus of the terumah is for the ministering vessels. Both [R. Akiva and R. Chanina] did not concede in respect of \"fruits\" [as R. Akiva says above: \"One does not trade in hekdesh.\" The conclusion is that by condition of beth-din all of the surpluses go towards burnt-offerings; and this is the halachah.]",
+            "\tThe surplus of the incense [i.e., what is left over every year] — What is done with it [in order to burn it (in the sacrificial service) the following year? For there is no year where there is no surplus. For there were 368 portions of incense and three portions of which the high-priest would fill his hands on Yom Kippur. And not all of it could be contained in his hands (so that there was a surplus). What is more, there was a surplus every regular year (as opposed to a leap year), there being 354 days in the regular year.] They separate from it [i.e., from the lishkah], the wage of the artisans [the spice mixers. They (the Temple functionaries) take their (the artisans') wage from the terumah of the lishkah, have one of the treasurers acquire it on behalf of the artisans, and it (the money) becomes chullin. And even though hekdesh does not become chullin unless something becomes hekdesh in its stead, the terumah of the lishkah is different, beth-din being empowered to allocate it for several purposes. And after they acquire the money on behalf of the artisans], they redeem it (the incense) for the wage of the artisans. [The money is thus consecrated for the old terumah (that of the previous year)], it (the incense) is given to the artisans as their wage, and it is then re-purchased from them with (the money of) the new terumah. [This procedure is more \"modest\" (i.e., in keeping with the nature of hekdesh) than simply selling it and re-purchasing it.] If it came in its time, it is taken from the new terumah. [If the new shekalim were brought before Rosh Chodesh Nissan, which is the time for the new terumah, the surplus of the incense is bought from the new terumah through redemption, as explained above.] And if not, from the old. [If the new shekalim had not yet been brought, it (the surplus of the incense) is bought from the old terumah, if it had already been redeemed. And if it had not yet been redeemed, it is burnt (in the sacrificial service), for the new, not having arrived, the old must be used.]",
+            "\tIf one makes his property hekdesh [(\"hekdesh,\" unqualified, reverting to Temple maintenance)] and it includes things appropriate for communal offerings [such as incense, or wine, oil, and meal], they may be given to (Temple) workmen as their wage. [And they become chullin, even though nothing becomes hekdesh in their stead, R. Akiva holding that hekdesh may be redeemed for labor, viz. (Exodus 25:8): \"And let them make for Me a sanctuary, and I shall dwell in their midst\" — the labor may be \"financed\" by hekdesh.] These are the words of R. Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him: \"This is not of the measure.\" [That is, this \"measure\" that you prescribe is not the same as that prescribed above relative to the incense, and you should be consistent in your measures.] Rather, they separate from it the wage of the artisans, redeem it for the wage of the artisans, give it to the artisans as their wage, and then repurchase it with the new terumah (see 4:5), [hekdesh not being redeemed for labor. The halachah is in accordance with Ben Azzai.]",
+            "\tIf one makes his property hekdesh, and it includes beasts fit for the altar, male and female — R. Eliezer says: The males are sold to those who need burnt-offerings and the females to those who need peace-offerings and the monies revert with the rest of the property to Temple maintenance. [He holds that \"hekdesh,\" unqualified, reverts to Temple maintenance, even with things that are fit for the altar. But what is fit for the altar does not \"evade\" the altar. For if one dedicates whole (i.e., unblemished) animals for bedek habayith (Temple maintenance), they are redeemed only for the altar and the monies revert to bedek habayith.] R. Yehoshua says: The males themselves are sacrificed as burnt-offerings and the females are sold to those who need peace-offerings, and burnt-offerings are bought with their monies and the rest of the property reverts to bedek habayith. [He holds that what is fit for the altar may be assumed to have been dedicated to the altar. Therefore, the males themselves are sacrificed as burnt-offerings and the females are sold to those who need peace-offerings, and burnt-offerings are bought with their monies. But they themselves are not sacrificed as peace-offerings. For if one dedicates his property, he wishes it all to go to \"on High.\" Therefore, beasts which are fit to be sacrificed as burnt-offerings are sacrificed as burnt-offerings and females are sold to those who need peace-offerings, and burnt-offerings are bought for their monies. For since they are fit for the altar, the sanctity of the altar attaches to them. And even the females, whose bodies are not fit for what he wishes to dedicate them for (i.e., burnt-offerings), still, since they are fit for offerings, in general, the sanctity of bedek habayith does not attach to them and burnt-offerings are bought for their monies.] R. Akiva says: I see (i.e., I prefer) the words of R. Eliezer to those of R. Yehoshua. For R. Eliezer \"equalized his measure\" (everything going to bedek habayith) and R. Yehoshua divided it (the animals to the altar; the rest, to bedek habayith)]. R. Papyas said: I heard (the ruling given) according to the words of both: that if one dedicates explicitly, [saying: \"My animals and (the rest of) my property to hekdesh\"], (the halachah is) in accordance with R. Eliezer. [For since he explicitly distinguished between them and yet did not say: \"The animals to the altar and the property to bedek habayith,\" it is clear that he intended both to go to the same place (i.e., bedek habayith)]; but if one dedicates [all of his property] unexplicitly, (the halachah is) in accordance with R. Yehoshua. [For it may be assumed that his intent is to dedicate each thing for what it is fit. The halachah is in accordance with R. Akiva.]",
+            "\tIf one makes his property hekdesh, and it includes things fit for the altar — wine, oil, flour, [which are fit for meal-offerings and libations], and birds [turtle-doves and young pigeons], R. Elazar [(This is the correct version, and not \"R. Eliezer\")] says: They are sold to those who need those things and burnt-offerings are bought with their monies and the rest of the property reverts to bedek habayith. [The rationale of R. Elazar is given in the Yerushalmi: It is written (Leviticus 22:18: \"…of all of their vows and all of their free-will offerings, which they will present to the L rd as a burnt-offering\" — All that they vow and give as gifts of the things that are presented to the L rd — even wine, oil, and flour — is to be a burnt-offering. I might think that he can offer for their monies a bird burnt-offering, or that if he dedicated a bird, he can offer it as a burnt-offering; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 19): \"…of the cattle, of the sheep, and of the goats.\" He can sacrifice of all that he donated, the burnt-offering of a beast alone.]",
+            "\tOnce every thirty days, the market price is established for the lishkah. [The price is established for wine, oil, and flour, to stand for thirty days. And they (the Temple buyers) buy what they need every day from the sellers of wine, oil, and meal for the stipulated sum. If the price rises, they do not give more, and if it falls, they give less.] All who take upon themselves to supply meal at four — if it stood at three, they must supply at four. If (they take upon themselves to supply flour) at three, and it stood at four, they must supply at four. For hekdesh always has the upper hand. [In the days of the grain, wine, and olive harvest, the treasurers would advance money to the merchant, who would take it upon himself to supply wine, oil, and flour for the entire year. And if at that time the market price were four sa'ah for a sela and it rose to three sa'ah for a sela, he must give it at four sa'ah for a sela. For hekdesh acquires (the purchase) with money, viz. (as per Leviticus 27:19): \"And he shall give the money and it shall be his.\" And if he undertook to supply three sa'ah for a sela and the price fell to four sa'ah for a sela, he gives four sa'ah for a sela. For hekdesh is not inferior in this regard to hedyot (non-hekdesh), which acquires only at (the time of) meshichah (\"drawing forth\" the purchased object)]. And if the meal became wormy, it became wormy for him (the supplier). [Even if the Temple treasurer effected meshichah and paid for it, the responsibility is the merchant's.] And if the wine turned sour, it turned sour for him. And he does not receive his money until it (the meal or the wine) is accepted upon the altar. [Therefore, if the wine turns sour or the flour becomes wormy, the responsibility is the merchant's.]"
+        ],
+        [
+            "\tThese are the appointees that were designated in the Temple [The fifteen varieties of appointment and station mentioned in our Mishnah always obtained in the Temple. The men mentioned here did not all live at the same time; the saintliest and the best of all the generations are mentioned. Our rabbis explained that because the first appointees were thus called, all who came after them were called by their name]: Yochanan b. Pinchas over the seals and over the flour [to be explained below in the Mishnah], Achiyah over the libations, Matitya b. Shmuel over the lots [to teach the order of the lots; who performs this service, who the other, as explained in Yoma], Petachyah over the kinin (birds), — [Those lacking atonement, who bring obligatory bird-offerings, turtle-doves and young pigeons, put their money into the shofroth in the Temple, and the appointees over the shofroth take the money and buy kinin for it. The one appointed over the kinin had to be a great sage and expert, as stated in Avoth (3:18): \"Kinin and the (determination of) the onset of niddah (the menstrual period) are the essentials of halachah.\"] Petachyah is Mordecai. Why was he called \"Petachyah\"? Because he would \"open\" words and expound them and was fluent in seventy languages. [This is \"Mordecai Bilshan\" (Ezra 2:2), who went up from the exile. He was thus called (\"Bilshan\") because he assimilated (balal) many languages (leshonoth)], Ben Achiyah over those suffering intestinal disorders [Because the Cohanim walked barefoot on the floor and ate much meat and drank water, they were subject to intestinal disorder and they were always in need of a doctor to prescribe for them.], Nechuniah over the pits [He was appointed over the digging of pits and caves to provide drinking water for the festival pilgrims], Gevini over the proclamations [Gevini would proclaim every morning in the Temple: \"Arise, Cohanim, for your service,\" and his voice could be heard from Jericho.] Ben Gever over the closing of the doors [closing them in the evening and opening them in the morning], Ben Bevai over the pekia [a strap with which to lash Cohanim and Levites found sleeping on their Temple watches at night, as stated in Middoth 1: \"Whoever was found sleeping would be lashed and his garment burned. The Yerushalmi explains \"pekia\" as wicks for the altar and beth hashoevah, as stated (Succah 5:3): \"From the worn-out breeches of the Cohanim and from their sashes they made wicks (mafki'im pethiloth)\"], Ben Arzah over the tziltzal (cymbal) [as in (I Samuel 3:11): \"His two ears shall 'tingle'\" (tetzilenah). When the Levites heard it sounding, they would begin their song.], Hugras b. Levi over the song [to begin the song; and when he would conclude, they all would conclude], Beth Garmo over the preparation of the show-bread, [which was in the form of an open chest. They were artists in its preparation and its baking, (expert in) removing it from the oven without breaking it and processing it so that it not mould.], Beth Avtinas over the preparation of the incense [They were expert in the compounding of the incense and were privy to an herb called \"ma'aleh ashan\" (\"the smoke raiser\"), which, when added to the spices of the incense would cause the smoke to rise in a column.], Elazar over the parocheth (the Temple curtains) [to make new curtains when the need arose], and Pinchas over the wardrobe [He was appointed to attire the Cohanim for the service and to remove the priestly garments after the service and secure them in the compartments assigned to them.]",
+            "\tThere are not to be fewer than ten gizbarin (treasurers) [They are in charge of the monies of hekdesh. They redeem assessments, and devotions and dedications; and all the work of hekdesh is done through them] and (there are not to be fewer than) seven amarkalin (trustees) [above the gizbarin. The targum of (Numbers 3:32): \"And the chief over the princes of the Levites\" is \"Va'amarkala dememana, etc.\" The acronymic of \"amarkal\" is \"amar al kol\" (\"saying above all\"). And in Arabic, one of high station is called \"emir.\" What was the function of the seven amarkalin? The seven keys of the azarah were in their hands. If one of them wished to open (a door), he could not do so until all of them came together, and the gizbarin would go in after them and take out what they needed. And there was a level higher than that of the amarkalin, not mentioned in the Mishnah, but in the Tosefta, viz.: \"two katolikin\" (controllers). So that all together there were five levels: high-priest, adjutant high-priest, katolikin, amarkalin, gizbarin.] And authority is not asserted over the populace in monetary matters with fewer than two, [it being written (Exodus 28:5): \"And they shall take the gold, etc.\" The minimum of \"they\" is two.]",
+            "\tThere were four seals in the Temple, inscribed (respectively): \"calf,\" \"male,\" \"goat,\" \"sinner.\" [There were three seals for the three distinct libations for beasts: the first seal for the libations of cattle (three esronim of flour mixed with a half hin of oil, and wine for the libation, half a hin), sealed by \"calf.\" The second \"male,\" for the libations of a ram (the targum of ram being \"dichra\" - \"male.\" Its libations are two esronim of flour mixed with a third of a hin of oil and a third of a hin of wine for the libation). The third, \"goat,\" for the libations of a lamb in its first year (an issaron of flour mixed with a quarter of a hin of oil and a quarter of a hin of wine for the libation). The fourth, \"sinner,\" the libation of a rich leper, who brings three beasts and requires ten logs of oil: nine (three each) for the three lambs and one for placing upon lobe and thumbs. It is called \"sinner\" as per (Erchin 16a): \"For seven things (i.e., sins) (leprous) plague-spots come.\"] Ben Azzai says: There were five [(two seals for the leper)], and they were inscribed in Aramaic [most of their converse being in Aramaic]: \"calf,\" \"male,\" \"goat,\" \"poor sinner,\" \"rich sinner.\" [For a poor leper brings only one beast, and if there were only one seal for a leper, a poor leper would be given three esronoth. And the first tanna holds that the poor leper is given the \"goat\" seal. The halachah is in accordance with the first tanna]. \"calf\" is used for the libations of large and small cattle, male and female [both for the libations of burnt-offerings, which come only from males, and for the libations of peace-offerings, which come from males or females, (burnt-offerings and peace-offerings requiring libations, viz. (Numbers 15:3): \"…a burnt-offering or a sacrifice (zevach = peace-offering)\"]. \"goat\" is used for the libations of sheep: Large and small, male and female — except for rams. \"male\" is used for the libations of rams alone. \"Sinner\" is used for the libations of the three beasts of the leper.",
+            "\tOne who needs libations goes to Yochanan, who was appointed over the seals. He gives him money [according to the libations that he needs] and receives the (appropriate) seal from him. He then goes to Achiyah, who was appointed over the libations [to buy libations: wine, oil, and flour, so that all who bring offerings not be required to seek out libations prepared in the requisite purity.] He gives him the seal and receives the libations from him. In the evening, they (Yochanan and Achiyah) meet. Achiyah produces the seals and receives money for them. If there is a surplus, the surplus goes to hekdesh [and we do not say that it might be the money of Yochanan that got mixed up with the libation monies], and if there is a deficit, Yochanan makes it up from his pocket, for hekdesh always has the upper hand.",
+            "\tIf one lost his seal, he is asked to wait until the evening, [when Yochanan and Achiyah meet.] If he (Yochanan) has [a surplus] corresponding to the (sum of the) seal [he claims to have lost], it is given to him, and if not, he receives nothing. The date [the day and the month] was written on them [the seals] because of the deceivers [lest one of them find a seal that has fallen from his neighbor, or from Achiyah, or from Yochanan and come now to claim (libations). (But on the day that he found it, he would not come to claim them, realizing that the loser would be looking for it.) It is also to be feared (if there were no date) that one bought the seal at the \"cheap rate\" and held onto it until the price rose.]",
+            "\tThere were two leshachoth (compartments) in the Temple: one, lishkath chashaim (\"the compartment of the secret ones\") [so-called because those who put money into it did so secretly, and those who were sustained by it, took from it in secret]; the other, lishkath hakelim (\"the compartment of the vessels\"). Lishkath chashaim — the fearers of sin would put (money) into it in secret, and the poor of good family would sustain themselves from it in secret. Lishkath hakelim — whoever donated a vessel would cast it there. After thirty days, the treasurers would open it. Whatever vessel they found useful for bedek habayith (Temple maintenance) they would leave there. The others would be sold and their monies would go to the lishkah of [all the dedications for] bedek habayith."
+        ],
+        [
+            "\tIn the Temple there were thirteen shofroth [receptacles, narrow on top and broad on the bottom and bent like a shofar, because of the deceivers, that they not be able to put their hand in, seeming to be giving — and taking], and thirteen tables [Later it is explained why thirteen shofroth and thirteen tables and where they were placed], and thirteen bowings [Later it is explained where]. Those of the house of R. Gamliel and the house of R. Chaninah, the adjutant high-priest, performed fourteen bowings. And where was the additional one? Towards the woodshed [a lishkah where they stored all the wood for the (altar) wood pile, in the northeast corner of the ezrath nashim]; for they had a tradition from their forefathers that the ark was secreted there. [King Yoshiyahu instructed that it be secreted in the circuitous subterranean vaults that King Solomon constructed when he built the Temple, knowing that it would be destroyed, viz. (II Chronicles 35:3): \"And he said to the Levites who instructed all of Israel … Place the holy ark in the house that Solomon built, etc.\" And with it were secreted the staff of Aaron, the jar of manna, and the flask of anointing oil.]",
+            "\tOnce, a certain priest was engaged in his work [removing worms from wood. He had a blemish, and the work of blemished priests was to prepare wood for the (altar) wood pile (for all wood in which worms are found is unfit for the altar)] when he perceived one of the floor tiles to be different from the others. [It was not aligned with the other tiles and he realized that it had been removed and replaced.] He went to inform his friend of this, but could not finish what he had to say before his soul departed — and they knew for a certainty that the ark was secreted there.",
+            "\tAnd where did they bow? [The thirteen bowings mentioned above (6:1) — Where were they performed?] Four in the north, four in the south, three in the east, and two in the west, corresponding to thirteen gates. The southern gates, extending to the west: the Upper Gate [The Temple Mount rose in a slant from east to west. The gate near the west is the Upper Gate. After it came ] the Gate of Kindling [the gate of the wood lishkah, in the south of the azarah, so-called because they brought through it the wood for the altar wood pile], the Gate of the Bechoroth [through which they brought the bechoroth (the firstlings) slaughtered in the south], and the Water Gate. Why is it called \"the Water Gate?\" For through it is brought the flask of water for the festival (Succoth) libation. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: For from it water oozed and was destined to issue forth from under the threshold of the Temple [viz. (Ezekiel 47:2): \"And, behold, water oozing (mefakim) from the right side,\" i.e., from the south, which is called right, as in (Psalms 89:13): \"North and right.\" Ezekiel saw it (the water) in a prophetic vision issuing forth from the holy of holies, spreading apart like the proboscides of locusts, and, when reaching this gate, gathering strength, attaining to the fullness of the mouth of a flask (pach), for which reason it is called \"mayim mefakim.\"] Corresponding to them in the north, extending west: the Gate of Yechanyah, the Gate of the Offering, [through which holy of holies are brought, which are slaughtered in the south], the Gate of the Women, [through which the women enter to place their hands upon their offerings (This, according to R. Yossi, who says that women may do so; and, according to R. Yehudah and R. Shimon, to stand by their offering], the Gate of the Song, [through which musical instruments were brought]. Why was it called \"the Gate of Yechanyah\"? For through it Yechanyah went to his exile [when he went to the Temple to bow down and to be granted leave in going to exile in Bavel; and he went out through that gate.] In the east, the Gate of Nikanor [(see Yoma 38a)]. There were two wickets in it, one on the right, one on the left, and two in the west, without names. [There were small gates within the large gates, which are also included in the thirteen. And even though the Gate of the Hearth also had a wicket, it is not reckoned, having been very small, whereas these were larger. This Mishnah of the thirteen gates is stated in the Yerushalmi to be in accordance with Abba Yossi b. Chanan; but the sages say that there were seven gates to the azarah and they hold these thirteen bowings to correspond to the thirteen breaches made by the Greek kings in the azarah. When the Hasmonean kings gained the upper hand and defeated them and closed the breaches, they instituted thirteen bowings, one for each closed breach.]",
+            "\tThere were thirteen tables in the Temple: eight of marble in the slaughterhouse, where the entrails were rinsed; (there were) two on the west of the ramp — one of marble, the other of silver. On the marble table the limbs were placed. [After they had been cut, they were arranged on the table until the Cohanim offered them up. They were not made of silver or gold (though \"there is no poverty in a place of wealth\") for gold and silver heat and spoil (the flesh) whereas marble cools and keeps it from spoiling. (They did not rely upon the miracle of flesh never having spoiled in the Temple.)] On the silver table, they kept the ministering vessels [that they took out every morning, ninety-three ministering vessels, as explained in Tamid)]. And there were two in the ulam (the hall) inside, at the entrance of the Temple, one of marble and one of silver. On the marble table they would place the show-bread upon entering [i.e., after it was baked, before it was arranged on the (inner) table.] And on the gold table they would place it upon leaving [and it remained there until it was distributed (to the Cohanim)]. For \"we raise in holiness and do not lower.\" [Since it was removed from the (inner) table of gold, we do not \"lower\" it to one of silver.] And there was one of gold within on which the show-bread constantly sat.",
+            "\tThere were thirteen shofroth in the Temple (see 6:1). Upon them there was written (respectively): \"new shekalim\" [as explained in our Mishnah, the shekalim of the current year being placed there. When the time for the terumah arrived, the treasurer would take out all the shekalim in the shofar and place them in the lishkah for the terumah to be taken from them.], \"old shekalim\" [One who did not bring his shekel that year brings it the following year and places it in that shofar and the treasurer takes it and places it with the left-overs of the lishkah.], \"kinin\" [large turtle-doves], \"burnt-offering fledglings\" [small pigeons, all burnt-offerings. But those who bring obligatory kinin place the money or the birds in the hand of the Cohein and do not put money into the shofar. The Yerushalmi gives the reason as ta'arovoth (\"admixture\"), i.e., lest one of the givers of the kinin dies, so that there will be found to be mixed up with them (the other monies) the monies of a sin-offering whose giver has died and which must itself die (and not be offered as a sacrifice). The rabbis do not fear this, however, and they hold that in the shofar of \"kinin\" the monies of obligatory kinin are placed, and with all the monies found there, there are offered up one as a sin-offering; another, as a burnt-offering. And the second (\"burnt-offering fledglings\") is all donative, and they are all offered up as burnt-offerings. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.], \"wood\" [wherein one who donates for the wood pile places his money], \"frankincense\" [wherein one who donates frankincense places his money. The treasurers take the money from the shofar and buy frankincense for it, which is burnt upon the altar.], \"gold for the kaporeth\" [One who donates gold places it or its corresponding monies there, and it goes for the kaporeth, i.e., ministering vessels. For the sprinkling bowls are called \"keforei (wipers) zahav (of gold)\" (Ezra 1:10), I Chronicles 28:17), the Cohein wiping his finger on them between sprinklings and (blood) placings of the sin-offering, (what is left on the finger being unfit)]; and six (shofroth) were for gifts. [On the first was written \"the surplus of a sin-offering\"; on the second, \"the surplus of a guilt-offering; on the third, the surplus of kinei zavim, zavoth, and yoldoth\"; on the fourth, \"the surplus of Nazirite offerings\"; on the fifth, \"the surplus of the guilt-offering of a leper\"; on the sixth, \"gift,\" unqualified. If one separated money for a sin-offering and bought a sin-offering, and he had money left over, he casts the surplus into the shofar inscribed \"the surplus of a sin-offering.\" The surplus of a guilt-offering is cast into the shofar so inscribed, and thus with all. And whoever donates anything to the altar places his money in the shofar marked gift.\"] (In the shofar inscribed) \"new shekalim,\" (there were placed) the shekalim of every (current) year. (In the shofar inscribed) \"old shekalim,\" one who had not given the shekel the preceding year deposits it the following year. \"Kinin\" are turtle-doves and \"burnt-offering fledglings\" are young pigeons. And they are all burnt-offerings. These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: \"Kinin\" — one a sin-offering; another, a burnt-offering; \"burnt-offering fledgling\" — all burnt-offerings.",
+            "\tIf one says: \"I shall give wood\" [i.e., if he vows to give wood (for the Temple)], he may not give less than two pieces of wood [of the type that is arranged on the wood pile (of the altar). (Its size was known.) This is the case for one who vows to give wood; but if he wishes to give wood, he may give even one piece.], \"frankincense\" — he may not give less than a fistful, [this being the amount of frankincense coming with the meal-offering, viz. (Leviticus 6:8): \"And he shall lift up from it with his fistful from the flour of the meal-offering and from its oil and all the frankincense\" — Just as the lifting of the meal-offering is with a fistful, so the (amount for) the frankincense is a fistful. This is the case for one who vows; but if he wishes to give, he may give even a grain of frankincense.], \"gold\" — he may not give less than a dinar of gold. [This, if he specifies \"coin\"; but if he just says \"gold,\" unqualified, he may bring even a tzinora, a kind of small fork.] Six (shofroth) were for gifts. What did they do with it? They would buy burnt-offerings — the flesh to the L rd and the skin to the Cohanim. This medrash was adduced by Yehoyada the high-priest (Leviticus 5:19): \"It is a guilt-offering; he was guilty; a guilt-offering to the L rd.\" [The beginning of the verse seems to contradict the end. For \" a guilt-offering\" connotes the status and halachah of a gift-offering, i.e., that it is eaten by the Cohanim. And \"a guilt-offering to the L rd\" implies that it is all for the L rd. And Yehoyada expounded it thus: Whatever comes because of sin and guilt (as when he separated money for a sin-offering or a guilt-offering and there was a surplus), burnt-offerings are bought for that surplus — the flesh to the L rd and the skin to the Cohanim.] This is the rule: Burnt-offerings are to be bought for whatever comes because of sin or guilt. The flesh, for the L rd; the skin for the Cohanim. So that the two verses are satisfied: \"a guilt-offering to the L rd\" [— the flesh]; \"a guilt-offering\" to the Cohanim [— the skin]. And it is written [i.e., Where do we find this medrash of Yehoyada?] (II Kings 12:17): \"The money for a guilt-offering and the money for sin-offerings shall not be brought into the house of the L rd. It shall be for the Cohanim.\" [This cannot mean that the Cohanim are to benefit from the monies dedicated for sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. The meaning must perforce be that the proceeds should go for something from which Cohanim do benefit, i.e., burnt-offerings, the skins belonging to the Cohanim.]"
+        ],
+        [
+            "\tIf money was found between (the shofar for) shekalim and (the shofar for) gifts — if it were nearer to \"shekalim,\" it goes to \"shekalim\"; (if it were nearer) to \"gifts,\" it goes to \"gifts.\" [For it is written (Deuteronomy 21:3): \"And it shall be, the city closest to the slain one, etc.\" And, according to the view that where \"majority\" points in one direction, and \"nearness\" in another, we follow \"majority,\" the instance in our Mishnah is (understood to be) one in which the amounts in \"shekalim\" and \"gifts\" are equal.] If it were equi-distant, it goes to \"gifts,\" [which are of a higher order than shekalim, all of it going for burnt-offerings, whereas with \"shekalim,\" sometimes sin-offerings are brought, which are eaten by the Cohanim. Moreover, the left-overs of shekalim go for repair of the walls and its towers.] Between \"wood\" and \"frankincense\" — if nearer to \"wood,\" it goes to \"wood\"; if nearer to \"frankincense,\" it goes to \"frankincense.\" If equi-distant, it goes to \"frankincense.\" [For frankincense is itself an offering, whereas wood is merely ancillary to an offering.] Between \"kinin\" and burnt-offering fledglings\" — if nearer to \"kinin,\" it goes to \"kinin\"; if nearer to 'burnt-offering fledglings,\" it goes to \"burnt-offering fledglings.\" If equi-distant, it goes to \"burnt-offering fledglings.\" [The Yerushalmi queries: It stands to reason that if found near \"burnt-offering fledglings\" it goes for that; for since by Torah law nearness is a criterion, it is as if it certainly came from that (shofar). But if it is found equi-distant from both, where, being uncertain, we rule for the higher-order \"burnt-offering fledglings\" — with what will a woman who brought this money find atonement? It might have fallen from obligatory kinin, and if burnt-offering fledglings are sacrificed for it, how is she atoned for? And they answer: Beth-din, who are appointed over the kinin take from the congregation the amount of money that was found, bequeath it to the owner of the money that was found and sacrifice kinin for it on the possibility (that it was intended for that), and the sin-offering is not eaten.] Between chullin and ma'aser sheni — if nearer to chullin, it goes to chullin; if nearer to ma'aser sheni, it goes to ma'aser sheni. If equi-distant, it goes to ma'aser sheni. This is the rule: We follow nearness (even) for the lenient ruling and equi-distance for the stringent ruling.",
+            "\tMoney found before (i.e., in the marketplace of) animal sellers is always ma'aser [i.e., even the entire year (and not only on the festival). For the festival pilgrims do not manage to spend all of their ma'aser sheni money on the festival and they leave it with their relatives or close friends to eat the entire year in Jerusalem. And the essential mitzvah of eating ma'aser sheni is (through) peace-offerings. Therefore, most of the beasts sold in Jerusalem all the days of the year are bought with ma'aser money. And even though the money might have fallen from the sellers and already been redeemed, still, since the buyers are in the majority, many people buying from one merchant, we say that it is the buyers' money and was not redeemed, and, therefore, ma'aser.] (If it were found) in the Temple Mount, it is chullin. [Even on the festival, when most of the money that men carry is ma'aser money, still, it is ruled to be chullin, for we rule according to the majority of the year and assume that it fell before the festival.] In Jerusalem [not in the animal market], during the festival, it is ma'aser. [We do not rule according to the majority of the year, for the streets of Jerusalem were swept every day, and if it had fallen before then, it would have been found.] The other days of the year it is chullin. [But the Temple Mount was not swept. For, being high, the wind swept it and removed all of the dust. (Also, it was forbidden to enter the Temple Mount with dust on one's feet, so that dust did not abound there.)]",
+            "\tIf meat were found in the azarah, limbs are (ruled to be) burnt-offerings [Since they are cut in the manner specified for burnt-offerings, it is evident that they are burnt-offerings]; pieces are sin-offerings, [for only sin-offerings and guilt-offerings are eaten in the azarah.] In Jerusalem, they are peace-offerings, [most of the meat eaten in Jerusalem being peace-offerings]. Both [whether they are found in the azarah or in Jerusalem] must undergo \"transformation of form\" and be burned. [For they became unfit by removal of attention and may not be eaten. But they may not be \"cheapened\" and burned until they are unfit of a certainty. Therefore, they must undergo \"transformation of form\" by becoming unfit through nothar (remaining beyond the permitted period of eating), which, in the instance of peace-offerings, is until the third day (after sacrifice)]. If it were found in the borders [the cities of Israel], limbs are carrion, [which is generally cut into limbs which are thrown into the streets for the dogs], and pieces are permitted, [it not being the practice to cut carrion into pieces. But it was the practice to cut kosher meat into small pieces to sell them to Jews or to place them into a pot. (This, in a city where all are Jews. But in a city where there are gentiles, even pieces are forbidden.)] And during the festival, when meat is plentiful [and the limbs are not cut into small pieces but cooked as they are], even limbs are permitted.",
+            "\tIf a beast were found between Jerusalem and Migdal Eder, or a similar distance on all sides, the males are burnt-offerings, [for we assume that it came from Jerusalem, and most of the males in Jerusalem are burnt-offerings]; the females are peace-offerings, [for most of the females (in Jerusalem) are peace-offerings]. R. Yehudah says: What is fit for a Pesach offering [a one-year-old male from lambs or goats] is a Pesach offering, [and the finder may sacrifice it as his Pesach offering. If the owner comes afterwards, the finder compensates him for it ] (this,) before the festival thirty days [i.e., from the time they begin to review the halachoth of Pesach and people separate their Pesach offerings. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
+            "\tIn the beginning, they would take pledges from its finder until he brought its libations. [They would take a pledge from one who found a burnt-offering or a peace-offering until he brought its libations at his own expense — three esronim for a bullock, two esronim for a ram, one issaron for a lamb] — whereupon he would leave it and run, [so as not to be liable for its libations] — whereupon beth-din instituted that its libations come from the congregation.",
+            "\tR. Shimon said: Seven things [(following)] were instituted by beth-din. And this (above, 7:5) is one of them. (The others follow:) If a gentile sent his burnt-offering from abroad, [it being expounded (Leviticus 22:18): \"A man, a man, etc.\", whereby we are taught that gentiles bring vow and gift-offerings as Jews do] — if he sent (money for) libations along with it, we offer his (libations); if not, we offer (libations) from the congregation. Likewise, if a proselyte died and left offerings, if he has libations, we offer his; if not, we offer from the congregation. And it is a condition of beth-din concerning a high-priest that died that his meal-offering be offered from the congregation. [This refers to the tenth of the ephah that the high-priest offers up every day, half in the morning, half in the evening. It is offered from the congregation, it being written (Leviticus 6:15): \"chak olam\" — This chak (provision) shall be from the olam; that is, from the congregation — from the terumah of the lishkah.] R. Yehudah says: From the heirs, [it being written (Ibid.): \"And the anointed priest, in his place, of his sons,\" the connotation being: \"And the anointed priest, if he died — in his place, one of his sons should offer it.\"] And it was offered complete. [When it came from the congregation, according to R. Shimon, or from the heirs, according to R. Yehudah, it was offered up as a complete issaron and not as a half issaron. R. Shimon derives it from (Ibid.): \"It shall be entirely smoked\" — that it not be smoked by halves, but entirely, when it comes from the congregation. R. Yehudah derives it from: \"…of his sons shall offer it,\" i.e., When one of his sons, his heir, offers it after his father's death, he shall offer it and not its half. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah that it comes from the heirs. As to its being stated in our Mishnah that it is a \"condition of beth-din,\" (rather than Torah law), according to R. Shimon, that it comes from the congregation, the gemara explains that there were two ordinances. In the beginning, it was offered by Torah law from the congregation, it being written \"chak olam.\" When they saw that the lishkah was being \"pressed,\" they instituted that it be collected from the heirs. When they saw the heirs offending (i.e., not providing it), it was re-established as Torah law. So that now it is offered by the congregation on condition of beth-din that it be re-established as Torah law.]",
+            "\t(Beth-din instituted) that the Cohanim may make use of the salt and the wood (of hekdesh) [only for the eating of offerings. But as far as chullin is concerned, they may not make use of it even for the salting of chullin eaten in the azarah together with the offerings so that the offerings be eaten in satiety.], and (they instituted) that the ashes of the red heifer not be subject to me'ilah (abuse of consecrated property). [For by Torah law its ashes are not subject to me'ilah, it being written (Numbers 19:9) \"it is a sin-offering\" — it (the red heifer) is subject to me'ilah, but its ashes are not subject to me'ilah. When they saw people \"cheapening\" the ashes, they decreed that they (the ashes) be subject to me'ilah. When they saw them shunning sprinklings of doubtful (instances of dead body uncleanliness), they re-established it as Torah law (that the ashes not be subject to me'ilah)], and (they instituted) that unfit kinin be replaced by the congregation. [Those who are obligated to offer kinin bring money and place it in the shofar. Beth-din take the money and buy kinin and the owners leave and rely upon beth-din to sacrifice their kinin. If the kinin fly away or are found to be unfit, it is a condition of beth-din that they buy others from the money of the lishkah and bequeath them to the owners so that they thereby fulfill their obligation.] R. Yossi says: He who supplies the kinin replaces the unfit ones. [The one who regularly supplies the kinin (i.e., the one who stipulates with the treasurers to sell them all the kinin that they need for a certain sum) — he is obliged to replace whatever is found to be unfit. (As we learned above (4:9): \"He (the supplier) does not receive his money until it (the flour or the wine) is accepted upon the altar.\" So that if the wine turns sour or the flour becomes wormy, it is returned to the merchant.) Similarly, if the bird becomes unfit after it is bought, it is returned to the buyer and he returns the money. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi. For thus is it stated in the Yerushalmi: \"It is a condition of beth-din that the supplier of the kinin replaces (the birds) that are lost or that become unfit.\"]"
+        ],
+        [
+            "\tAll the spittle found in Jerusalem is (ritually) clean [and it is not assumed to be the spittle of a zav or of a zavah, which causes uncleanliness in man and vessels, for we follow the majority (of instances)], except for the upper marketplace, [for gentile washers were found there, and the sages decreed that the gentiles be like zavin in all respects and that their spittle is unclean. And some say it is because the upper marketplace was unfrequented by most people and tended to be frequented only by zavin and zavoth, who would isolate themselves from others.] These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yossi says: The other days of the year (i.e., not on festivals) (spittle found) in the middle (of the road) is unclean; and on the sides, clean. During the festival, in the middle, it is clean; on the sides, unclean, for since they (the zavin) are unclean, they move to the sides. [(The other days of the year), zavin and zavoth are numerous and they walk in the middle of the road; and those who are clean move to the sides of the road, where most people do not walk and they exhort all those who are unclean not to touch them. But during the festival, when most of Israel are clean, the unclean ones remove themselves to the sides so as not to make the people unclean, and the clean ones walk in the middle of the road. Therefore, during the festival, the spittle found in the middle is clean and that found on the sides is unclean. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi.]",
+            "\tAll vessels found in Jerusalem — (if they were found) on the descent to the mikveh, they are unclean; on the ascent, they are clean. [There were two paths to the mikveh: one, descending; the other, ascending, so that the unclean (vessels) not touch the clean. Those found on the descent are unclean of a certainty, for they must have fallen from those bringing them for immersion]; for not as their descent is their ascent. [For in their descent they were definitely unclean, for which reason they would bring them to the mikveh; whereas in their ascent, after immersion, they are clean.] R. Yossi says: They are all clean, [for they did not decree (uncleanliness) for vessels of doubtful status in Jerusalem. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi] (they are all clean) except for the basket, the rake [with which the bones of the dead are collected when they are scattered], and the meritzah [an instrument for crushing and breaking the bones of the dead to place them in the basket to carry them from place to place], for they are specifically designated for burial purposes.",
+            "\tIf one found a knife on the fourteenth (of Nissan), he may slaughter with it immediately, [for of a certainty its owner immersed it (in a mikveh) yesterday, so that at sunset (it would become clean) and he would be able to slaughter with it today, Pesach eve]; (if it were found) on the thirteenth, he immerses it again. [That is, even though it may be assumed that its owner already immersed it, the finder must immerse it again on the possibility that its owner did not immerse it, having had time to do so until towards evening. And even though they did not decree (uncleanliness) for vessels of doubtful status in Jerusalem, because of the greater stringency of kodshim, immersion was required. Rambam explains that he sprinkles upon it again on the possibility that it incurred dead body uncleanliness and was sprinkled upon the third day; and now (on the possibility of its being the seventh day), he sprinkles upon it again and then immerses it.] and (if one found) a hatchet [used for cutting flesh and hacking bones], both on this and this [the thirteenth and the fourteenth] he immerses it again. [For a hatchet is fit only for the chagigah (the festival offering) in which the breaking of bones is permitted (as opposed to the Pesach offering). The gemara (Pesachim 70a) construes the Mishnah as referring to an instance in which the Nassi is at the point of death on the thirteenth, in which instance, if he dies, the entire congregation will be unclean and will sacrifice their Pesach offering in a state of uncleanliness, so that vessels would not need to be cleansed. Therefore, a knife, which is needed for the slaughtering of the Pesach, and which is subject to only one doubt, viz., perhaps the Nassi will not die and the Pesach will be sacrificed in cleanliness — a knife would be immersed (by the owner) and it is assumed that he cleansed it on the thirteenth in order to slaughter the Pesach with it on the fourteenth. But a hatchet, where there are two doubts — perhaps the Nassi will die and they will sacrifice the Pesach in uncleanliness, in which instance a chagigah is not brought and there is no need for a hatchet, and also (the second doubt), even if he does not die, perhaps the Pesachim will be abundant and a chagigah will not be brought on the fourteenth (see Pesachim 6:3) — they will not immerse it and it is assumed that it has not been cleansed.] If the fourteenth fell out on a Sabbath, he may slaughter with it immediately, [and we do not say that since it is Shabbath he may not slaughter with it, the possibility obtaining that it is unclean, so that the Pesach is rendered unclean, and he will be found to have desecrated the Sabbath with no mitzvah having been performed. My teachers explained \"he may slaughter with it immediately\" as referring to the hatchet. For even though there is no chagigah on Shabbath, it may be assumed that he immersed it on Sabbath eve for the chagigah of the fifteenth.] (If he found it) on the fifteenth, he may slaughter with it immediately, [for all the people know that sprinkling and immersion are forbidden on the festival, and they immerse everything before the festival.] If it (the hatchet) were found bound to a knife, it is like the knife, [i.e., we say that he certainly immersed it with the knife. But Rambam explains: If one knife were found with another knife that he recognizes, it (the first) is regarded as the second: if unclean, unclean; if clean, clean.]",
+            "\tIf a parocheth (a Temple curtain) became unclean through a v'lad hatumah (\"the offspring of uncleanliness,\" i.e., first-degree uncleanliness) [If it touched unclean liquids, the sages having decreed that unclean liquids render objects unclean, a decree by reason of the \"liquid\" of zav and zavah, such as his spittle and his semen which are av hatumah (proto-uncleanliness) and render men and objects unclean by Torah law], it is immersed inside [and does not need to be sent outside the Divine encampment, having become unclean only through a v'lad hatumah], and it is immediately returned, [not requiring \"sunset\" (for its cleanliness)]. But if it became unclean through an av hatumah [a sheretz (creeping thing) or carrion], it is immersed outside. [It must be sent out (of the Divine encampment), as stated (Eruvin 10:15): \"If one brings sheretz-uncleanliness into the Temple, he is liable.\"], and it is spread out in the Chel [outside the azarah]. And if it was new, it was spread out on the Itzteva (the Temple portico), so the people could see how finely it was wrought.",
+            "\tR. Shimon b. Gamliel says in the name of R. Shimon the son of the adjutant high-priest: The thickness of the parocheth was a hand-breadth, it was woven on seventy-two cross-rods, and on each strand there were twenty-four threads. [For it was made of blue and purple and scarlet and linen, six-fold each, as explained in Yoma.] Its length was forty cubits, and its breadth, twenty [as per the entrance of the Ulam, which was forty cubits high and twenty broad.] And it was made of eighty-two thousand. [This was the number of strands of which it was made. Another interpretation: the number of golden dinars expended upon it (was eighty-two thousand). Some texts have: \"eighty-six thousand young maidens were occupied in fashioning it.\"] Two of them were made every year, and three hundred Cohanim immersed it. [For finished articles, even though they were finished in cleanliness, require immersion for the Temple (Chagigah 3:2). The \"three hundred Cohanim\" of our Mishnah is an exaggeration, that many not being required to immerse it.]",
+            "\tThe flesh of holy of holies which became unclean, whether through an av hatumah or a v'lad hatumah, whether inside (the azarah) or outside — Beth Shammai say: All is to be burned inside [in the great beth hadeshen (\"the house of the ashes\") in the azarah, where they burned holy of holies which had become unfit. For all that becomes unfit in holiness is burned in (a place of) holiness], except what became unclean through an av hatumah outside, [for since the uncleanliness is grave, and the unfitness occurred outside, it is not to be brought into the azarah to be burned, since it did not become unfit in holiness.] Beth Hillel say: All is burned outside, except what became unclean through a v'lad hatumah inside, [in which instance there are two (factors dictating its being burned inside): its uncleanliness having been incurred inside, and its uncleanliness being of lesser gravity. But if it became unclean through an av hatumah, its uncleanliness is not to be kept within until it is burned, but it is to be taken out immediately and burned outside.]",
+            "\tR. Eliezer says: What became unclean through an av hatumah, whether inside or outside, is to be burned outside; and what became unclean through a v'lad hatumah, whether inside or outside, is to be burned inside. [For since it is clean by Torah law, even if it became unclean outside, it should be burned in (a place of) holiness.] R. Akiva says: Wherever it became unclean, there it is burned.",
+            "\tThe limbs of the tamid are placed on the lower half of the ramp to the west. [The Cohanim who won the lot to offer up the limbs of the tamid did not do so at one time, but they would place them upon the ramp and go to the lishkath hagazith (the chamber of hewn stone) to recite the Shema, and then they would return and sacrifice the limbs upon the altar. And it is taught here that they would be placed on the lower half of the ramp. For the ramp was thirty-two cubits long, and they would place it on the half going down. And the ramp was sixteen cubits broad, and they would place it on the half towards the west.] And (the limbs) of the mussafin are placed on the lower half of the ramp towards the east. And (the limbs) of the Rosh Chodesh offerings are placed on the upper half, on the rim of the altar, [i.e., the sovev (the gallery)] towards the east. Shekalim and bikkurim (first-fruits) obtain only when there is a Temple. [Shekalim, because they are used for (the purchase of) offerings, so that where there are no offerings, there are no shekalim. Bikkurim, because it is written (Exodus 23:19): \"The first of the first-fruits of your land shall you bring to the house of the L rd your G d\" — When you have a house (i.e., the Temple), you have bikkurim; when you do not have a house, you do not have bikkurim.]; but the grain tithe and the beast tithe and bechoroth (firstlings) obtain both when there is or is not a Temple. [For the sanctity of the land does not depart, so that terumoth and ma'aseroth must be separated. And, with the beast tithe, every tenth beast must be separated. In Bechoroth (53a) it is stated that the beast tithe was suspended, so that it not be abused.] If one consecrates shekalim and bikkurim, [which obtain only when there is a Temple — if he separates them when there is no Temple], they are (notwithstanding) consecrated. R. Shimon says: If one pronounces his bikkurim consecrated, they are not consecrated. [For since it is explicitly written: \"…shall you bring to the house of the L rd your G d,\" even if he separated them, they are not called \"bikkurim\" when there is no Temple. Rambam understands this as: \"If one consecrates to bedek habayith (Temple maintenance) shekalim and bikkurim that he has already (separated).\" According to his interpretation, it is not clear why according to R. Shimon shekalim are consecrated and bikkurim not. The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon.]"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Chapter",
+        "Mishnah"
+    ]
+}

json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Shekalim/English/William Davidson Edition - English.json

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "Mishnah Shekalim",
+    "versionSource": "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1",
+    "versionTitle": "William Davidson Edition - English",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "priority": 4.0,
+    "license": "CC-BY-NC",
+    "versionNotes": "English from The William Davidson digital edition of the <a href='https://www.korenpub.com/koren_en_usd/koren/talmud/koren-talmud-bavli-no.html'>Koren Noé Talmud</a>, with commentary by <a href='/adin-even-israel-steinsaltz'>Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz</a>",
+    "actualLanguage": "en",
+    "languageFamilyName": "english",
+    "isBaseText": false,
+    "isSource": false,
+    "direction": "ltr",
+    "heTitle": "משנה שקלים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [
+            "<b>On the first of Adar</b> the court <b>proclaims concerning</b> the collection of <b>shekels,</b> i.e., the yearly half-shekel contribution to the Temple treasury made by each adult male for the purpose of buying communal offerings. <b>And</b> they also proclaim <b>with regard to</b> the obligation to uproot forbidden mixtures of <b>diverse kinds</b> of food crops in gardens and fields. <b>And on the fifteenth</b> day <b>of the</b> month of Adar, <b>the Scroll [<i>Megilla</i>]</b> of Esther <b>is read in the cities [<i>kerakim</i>]</b> surrounded by walls from the time of Joshua. <b>And they</b> also <b>repair the roads</b> that were damaged in the winter, <b>and the streets, and the cisterns. And</b> at that time <b>they perform all that is necessary for public welfare. And they</b> also <b>mark the</b> Jewish <b>gravesites</b> anew, so that people would know their location and avoid ritual impurity, as the previous markers may have eroded during the rainy season. <b>And</b> agents of the court <b>also go out</b> to inspect the fields <b>for diverse kinds</b> of food crops, to determine whether or not the farmers had in fact uprooted these seeds after the proclamation on the first of the month. If the agents of the court found that these diverse kinds had not been uprooted, they themselves would uproot them.",
+            "At the end of the last mishna it was stated that the court sends out agents on the fifteenth of Adar to inspect whether the owners of fields had indeed uprooted any diverse kinds of crops as instructed. <b>Rabbi Yehuda said: At first</b> those agents <b>would uproot</b> the diverse kinds of crops <b>and cast them in front of</b> the owners of the fields. <b>When</b> the number of <b>transgressors</b> who would not uproot diverse kinds in their fields <b>increased,</b> and the Sages saw that this tactic was ineffective, <b>they would cast</b> the uprooted crops <b>onto the roads.</b> Ultimately, <b>they instituted that the entire field should be declared ownerless.</b>",
+            "<b>On the fifteenth of</b> Adar, money changers would <b>sit</b> at <b>tables</b> set up <b>in</b> the rest of <b>the country,</b> outside the Temple, to handle the collection of shekels. <b>On the twenty-fifth of</b> Adar, the money changers <b>sat in the Temple. From</b> the time <b>when</b> the money changers <b>sat in the Temple,</b> the court <b>began to seize collateral</b> from those who had yet to donate the half-shekel. <b>From whom did they seize collateral?</b> From <b>Levites, Israelites, converts, and emancipated slaves. However,</b> they did <b>not</b> seize collateral from <b>women, slaves, or minors. And any minor whose father began</b> one year <b>to contribute</b> a half-shekel <b>on his behalf,</b> despite the fact that he was not obligated to do so, <b>he may not cease to do so</b> in subsequent years. The court <b>does not seize collateral from priests,</b> although they are legally obligated to give a half-shekel like all other Jews, <b>because of the ways of peace.</b> The mishna goes on to explain the status of priests with regard to the contribution of the half-shekel.",
+            "<b>Rabbi Yehuda said</b> that <b>ben Bukhri testified in Yavne: Any priest who contributes</b> the half-shekel <b>is not</b> considered <b>a sinner,</b> despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so. Rabbi Yehuda added that <b>Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to</b> ben Bukhri: <b>Not so; rather, any priest who does not contribute</b> the half-shekel is considered <b>a sinner,</b> as they are obligated like all other Jews. <b>However,</b> Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai continued, <b>the priests</b> who do not contribute <b>interpret this verse to their own</b> advantage: <b>“And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten”</b> (Leviticus 6:16). Those priests claim as follows: <b>Since the <i>omer</i></b> offering <b>and the two loaves,</b> i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat brought on the festival of <i>Shavuot</i>, <b>and the shewbread</b> placed on the sacred table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, which are all meal-offerings, are <b>ours,</b> then if we contribute shekels we will have partial ownership of these communal offerings, as they are purchased with the shekels. <b>How,</b> then, <b>can</b> they <b>be eaten?</b> They ought to be regarded as priests’ meal-offerings, which must be wholly burnt. But since these offerings are eaten, the priests concluded that they are not obligated to contribute the half-shekel. This argument does not, however, take into account the fact that communal offerings belong to the public, which is understood as its own entity, and are not regarded as shared offerings of all who contribute to the public purse.",
+            "<b>Although</b> the Sages <b>said,</b> as stated in the previous mishna, that the court <b>does not seize collateral</b> from <b>women, slaves, and minors,</b> as they are not obligated to contribute, <b>however, if they contributed a shekel</b> of their own accord, the Temple treasurers <b>accept from them.</b> Conversely, in the case of <b>a gentile or a Samaritan [<i>Kuti</i>] who contributed a shekel</b> to participate in the communal offerings, <b>they do not accept</b> it <b>from them. And</b> likewise, <b>they do not accept from</b> a gentile or a Samaritan <b>pairs</b> of birds sacrificed in the purification ritual of <b>a <i>zav</i>, pairs</b> of birds <b>of a <i>zava</i>, or pairs</b> of birds <b>of a woman who gave birth,</b> all of which are brought for ritual purification, <b>or sin-offerings or guilt-offerings.</b> <b>This is the principle:</b> With regard to <b>anything that can be</b> brought to the altar <b>as a vow or as a free-will offering,</b> the priests <b>accept</b> it <b>from</b> gentiles and Samaritans, and with regard to <b>anything that cannot be</b> brought <b>as a vow or as a free-will offering, they</b> may <b>not accept</b> it <b>from them. And this</b> principle <b>was similarly articulated by Ezra,</b> when he recorded the Jewish leadership’s rejection of the Samaritans’ request to assist the Jews in the construction of the Second Temple, <b>as it is stated:</b> “But Zerubbabel, and Joshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers’ houses of Israel, said unto them: <b>You have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God;</b> but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord the God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us” (Ezra 4:3).",
+            "<sup><b>[4a]</b></sup> The mishna states another <i>halakha</i>: <b>And these are</b> the people <b>who are obligated</b> in <b>the premium [<i>kalbon</i>],</b> a small sum added to the half-shekel collected: <b>Levites, Israelites, converts, and emancipated</b> Canaanite <b>slaves, but not priests, women,</b> Canaanite <b>slaves, or minors.</b> <b>One who contributes</b> a half-shekel <b>on behalf of a priest, on behalf of a woman, on behalf of a slave,</b> or <b>on behalf of a child, is exempt</b> from the premium, as they are exempt. <b>But if he contributed on his own behalf and on behalf of another,</b> i.e., he contributed one whole shekel to discharge both his own obligation and that of someone else, <b>he is obligated in one premium. Rabbi Meir says:</b> He must pay <b>two premiums.</b> The mishna further states: <b>One who gives</b> the collection agent <b>a <i>sela</i>,</b> i.e., a whole shekel, <b>and takes a shekel,</b> i.e., a half-shekel, as change <b>is obligated</b> in <b>two premiums.</b>",
+            "<b>One who contributes</b> a half-shekel <b>on behalf of a poor</b> person, <b>on behalf of his neighbor, or on behalf of a resident of his city is exempt</b> from the premium. The Sages did not obligate in the premium those who use their own money to fulfill the obligation of another. <b>But if one loaned them</b> a half-shekel, rather than paying it on their behalf, <b>he is obligated</b> to pay the premium. Since the recipients of the loan must repay the money, it is as though the half-shekel were paid from their property rather than the lender’s. <b>Partnered brothers,</b> who have fully divided among themselves their late father’s assets, and <b>who,</b> if they jointly pay a whole shekel from those assets to discharge both of their obligations, <b>are obligated in the premium</b> like any other two private individuals, <b>are exempt from the animal tithe</b> for the livestock they inherited. Since they have completely divided between them all inherited assets, they are considered purchasers of the livestock, and a purchaser is exempt from the animal tithe. <b>But when</b> they have not completely divided the assets, and <b>they are</b> therefore <b>obligated in the animal tithe,</b> as the livestock is considered in their father’s possession, <b>they are exempt from the premium</b> for their joint payment, as in the case of one who pays on behalf of another. <b>And how much is a premium? A silver <i>ma’a</i>.</b> This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:</b> It is only <b>half a <i>ma’a</i>.</b>"
+        ],
+        [
+            "When people who live far from Jerusalem wish to send to Jerusalem the shekels that have been levied from their community, <b>they</b> may <b>combine</b> their <b>shekels</b> and exchange them <b>for darics [<i>darkonot</i>],</b> which are large gold coins, <b>due to the burden of the way.</b> Instead of carrying large amounts of shekels, the agents who deliver the funds will bring a much lighter burden of gold coins with them. The mishna adds: <b>Just as there were</b> collection <b>horns in the Temple</b> to receive the half-shekel contributions, <b>so too there were</b> collection <b>horns in the rest of the country,</b> i.e., areas outside of Jerusalem. The local inhabitants placed their half-shekels in these horns, which were later brought to Jerusalem. § With regard to <b>the residents of a town who sent their shekels</b> to the Temple <b>and they were stolen</b> from the agent on the way <b>or were lost, if</b> the <b>collection</b> of the chamber <b>had</b> already <b>been collected</b> before these shekels arrived, the agents must <b>take the oath</b> of a bailee <b>to the treasurers [<i>gizbarin</i>].</b> After the collection of the chamber, all the shekels that have been contributed become the property of the Temple, so the Temple treasurers who are in charge of this property become the opposing litigants of the agents. <b>If</b> the ceremony has not yet been performed and the contributions have <b>not</b> yet been collected into the baskets, the shekels are considered the property of the residents of the town, and therefore the agents must <b>take an oath to</b> absolve themselves to <b>the residents of the town.</b> Since those shekels are still considered the property of the residents of the town because the shekels never reached the Temple, they have not fulfilled their obligation. Therefore, <b>the residents of the town</b> must <b>contribute</b> other shekels <b>in their place. If,</b> after the residents of the town contributed other shekels, the original shekels <b>were found or the thieves returned them,</b> both <b>these</b> original shekels <b>and those</b> newly contributed ones have the status of consecrated <b>shekels</b> and belong to the Temple. However, <b>they do not count for the following year.</b> The people cannot claim that since they contributed twice in one year they are exempt from contributing the next year.",
+            "With regard to <b>one who gives his shekel to his fellow to contribute on his behalf</b> by placing it in the collection horn for him, <b>and</b> the fellow instead <b>contributed it for himself, if</b> at the time that he placed the shekel in the collection horn <b>the collection</b> of the chamber <b>had been collected,</b> the fellow is guilty of <b>misuse of consecrated property.</b> When they perform the collection of the chamber, the treasurers also have in mind the shekels that have been contributed but are not yet in the possession of the Temple treasury, so that all those who have contributed shekels will have a part in the communal sacrifices. Therefore, when the agent gives this shekel for himself, he is considered to be deriving benefit from a consecrated item and is guilty of unintentional misuse of consecrated property. With regard to <b>one who</b> mistakenly <b>contributes his shekel from consecrated</b> money, <b>and</b> then <b>the collection of</b> the chamber <b>was collected and an animal</b> purchased with those funds <b>was sacrificed</b> as a communal offering, he is guilty of <b>misuse of consecrated property</b> once the animal has been offered. This is because at that point the money used to purchase the animal is transferred to non-sacred status. However, before that point, merely contributing consecrated money is not considered misuse. If one mistakenly contributed his shekel from money used to redeem the fruits of the <b>second tithe or from money</b> from the permitted sale of produce grown during the <b>Sabbatical Year, he must eat</b> non-sacred fruits besides the ones he already possesses, <b>corresponding to</b> the value of the shekel, and he must treat them with the sanctity of second tithes or Sabbatical Year fruits.",
+            "With regard to <b>one who gathers together</b> small <b>coins and said: These are for my shekel,</b> and subsequently discovered that it amounted to more than a half-shekel. <b>Beit Shammai say: The leftover</b> coins are placed in the collection horn designated for <b>a free-will offering,</b> as the money is consecrated property but it does not have the status of a shekel. <b>Beit Hillel say: The leftover</b> money <b>is non-sacred</b> property since, <i>ab initio</i>, he had in mind to consecrate a half-shekel and no more. An item that was consecrated by mistake does not have the status of consecrated property. However, if he originally said: I am gathering together this money so <b>that I will bring my shekel from these, they agree that the leftover</b> money <b>is non-sacred</b> property. If one who was obligated to bring a sin-offering gathered together coins and said: <b>These are for my sin-offering,</b> then if he had accumulated more than was needed, <b>they agree that the leftover</b> money must be designated as <b>a free-will offering.</b> However, if he originally said: <b>That I will bring my sin-offering from these, they agree that the leftover</b> money <b>is non-sacred</b> property.",
+            "<b>Rabbi Shimon said: What is the difference between shekels and a sin-offering?</b> Why do Beit Hillel say that the leftover money is non-sacred property in the case of shekels, while with regard to a sin-offering they say that the leftover money is consecrated for a free-will offering? <b>Rather,</b> the issue is <b>that shekels have a fixed</b> value, a half-shekel and no more. Therefore, there is a clear amount beyond which one did not intend the money to become consecrated property. However, <b>a sin-offering has no fixed</b> value. Since the entire sum that one collected could have been used to purchase a sin-offering, whatever he didn’t use must at least be designated for a free-will offering. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: Even for shekels there is no</b> real <b>fixed</b> value. <b>For when the Jewish people ascended from the exile, they would contribute darics,</b> which are Median coins worth two shekels by Torah law. They brought these coins with them and would give a half of one to fulfill their half-shekel obligation. Later on, when the Median Empire was dissolved, <b>they reverted to contributing</b> with <b>a <i>sela</i>,</b> a silver coin of equal weight to the the shekel mentioned in the Torah. People would contribute a half-<i>sela</i> for their half-shekel requirement. When the value of this currency changed later on, <b>they reverted to contributing</b> with <b>a <i>tiva</i>,</b> a different coin which is worth a half-shekel. Some people <b>wished to contribute</b> only <b>dinars,</b> which are half the value of the <b><i>tiva</i>,</b> i.e., one quarter shekel in value. The Sages <b>refused to accept it</b> and required them to contribute at least the half-shekel mentioned in the Torah. Nevertheless, it is clear that the obligation of contributing shekels does not have a fixed value. <b>Rabbi Shimon said</b> in response: <b>Even so,</b> despite the fact that during different periods there were different amounts used to fulfill the obligation of the half-shekel, <b>everyone has equal standing,</b> i.e., at any particular time, everyone contributes the same amount. Therefore, any sum collected beyond that amount was not intended to be consecrated. <b>However, a sin-offering</b> has no fixed amount whatsoever; <b>this</b> person may <b>bring</b> an animal <b>worth a <i>sela</i>, and that one</b> may <b>bring</b> one <b>worth two, and this one</b> may <b>bring</b> one <b>worth three.</b> Therefore, it cannot be supposed that there was no intention to consecrate the whole sum.",
+            "<b>The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what was set aside for <b>shekels is non-sacred</b> property, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in the previous mishna. The mishna now discusses similar cases for other sacred items: However, with regard to <b>the leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase <b>the tenth of an ephah</b> of fine flour for a meal-offering and <b>the leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase offerings that he is liable to sacrifice due to ritual impurity or a sin, such as <b>the pairs</b> of birds <b>of a <i>zav</i>, the pairs</b> of birds <b>of a <i>zava</i>, and the pairs</b> of birds <b>of a woman after childbirth, sin-offerings,</b> or <b>guilt-offerings,</b> in these cases, <b>its leftover</b> money must be used for <b>free-will offerings</b> that are offered as repletion of the altar, i.e., burnt-offerings sacrificed at times when the altar was idle. <b>This is the principle: Whatever</b> money <b>is designated for a sin-offering or for a guilt-offering, its leftover</b> money must be used for <b>a free-will offering. The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase <b>a burnt-offering</b> that he owes, due to a vow or to volunteering, must be used <b>for</b> another <b>burnt-offering</b> that he will bring in the future. <b>The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase fine flour for <b>a meal-offering</b> must be used <b>for</b> another <b>meal-offering. The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase <b>a peace-offering</b> must be used <b>for</b> another <b>peace-offering.</b> <b>The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase a lamb for his <b>Paschal lamb</b> is not used for another Paschal lamb, such as for the following year. Rather, it is used <b>for</b> purchasing <b>a peace-offering. The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase sacrifices for a number of <b>nazirites</b> must be used to purchase sacrifices <b>for</b> other <b>nazirites. The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what a single <b>nazirite</b> set aside for his own offering must be used <b>for a free-will offering.</b>  <b>The leftover</b> money collected <b>for</b> freeing unspecified <b>captives</b> must be allocated <b>to</b> freeing <b>captives. The leftover</b> money collected <b>for</b> freeing <b>a</b> specific <b>captive</b> is given as a gift <b>to that captive. The leftover</b> money collected as charity <b>for the poor</b> must be allocated <b>to the poor. The leftover</b> money collected for <b>a</b> specific <b>poor</b> person is given as a gift <b>to that poor</b> person. <b>The leftover</b> money collected <b>for</b> burying <b>the dead</b> must be allocated to burying <b>the dead. The leftover</b> money collected to bury or provide burial shrouds <b>for a</b> particular <b>deceased</b> person is given <b>to his heirs. Rabbi Meir says:</b> It is uncertain what should be done, and therefore <b>the leftover</b> money <b>for the deceased should be placed</b> in a safe place <b>until Elijah comes</b> and teaches what should be done. <b>Rabbi Natan says:</b> With <b>the leftover</b> money collected <b>for a deceased</b> person they <b>build a monument [<i>nefesh</i>] on his grave for him.</b>"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<b>On three occasions during the year the</b> ceremony of the <b>collection of the</b> Temple treasury <b>chamber is performed.</b> During the ceremony, a priest enters the treasury chamber with three containers, lifts up [<i>torem</i>] some of the coins, and places them in the containers. These funds, known as the collection of the chamber, are used to purchase animals for communal offerings and other needs of the Temple. These three occasions are: <b>Half a month,</b> fifteen days, <b>before Passover,</b> on the day before the first of the month of Nisan; <b>half a month before <i>Shavuot</i>,</b> on or around the twentieth of Iyar; <b>half a month before the festival</b> of <i>Sukkot</i>, on the day before Rosh HaShana. <b>These</b> three days <b>are</b> also <b>the due dates</b> that were established by the Sages <b>for</b> the setting aside of <b>animal tithes.</b> On each of these days one is obligated to tithe the animals that were born during the intervening period, and it is prohibited for him to eat or sell them until he does so. <b>This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.</b> <b>Ben Azzai says</b> that the dates established by the Sages for the setting aside of animal tithes are <b>the twenty-ninth of Adar, the first of Sivan, and the twenty-ninth of Av.</b> <b>Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say</b> that the dates for the animal tithes are <b>the first of Nisan, the first of Sivan, and the twenty-ninth of Elul.</b> <b>And why did</b> Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon <b>say the twenty-ninth of Elul and not the first of Tishrei,</b> as they said the first of Nisan and Sivan? <b>Because</b> the first of Tishrei <b>is</b> the <b>festival</b> of Rosh HaShana, <b>and it is not permitted to tithe on a Festival. Therefore,</b> the Sages <b>advanced</b> the day of tithing the animals born over the course of the summer <b>to the twenty-ninth of Elul.</b>",
+            "The funds <b>are collected from the</b> Temple treasury <b>chamber with three baskets, each</b> measuring <b>three <i>se’a</i>. On</b> the baskets <b>is written,</b> respectively, <b><i>alef</i>, <i>beit</i>, <i>gimmel</i>,</b> based on the order in which the baskets are filled, to indicate from which basket coins should be taken to buy sacrifices. The coins were used in the order of their collection. <b>Rabbi Yishmael says:</b> The letters <b>written on them</b> were <b>in Greek, <i>alfa</i>, <i>beta</i>, <i>gamma</i>.</b> <b>The one who collects</b> the funds from the chamber <b>must not enter while wearing a cuffed garment</b> [<b><i>ḥafut</i></b>], <b>and not with a shoe, and not with a sandal, and not with phylacteries, and not with an amulet,</b> since all of these have places into which money can be inserted. The concern is that <b>perhaps</b> the one collecting the funds <b>will</b> one day <b>become poor, and</b> people <b>will say</b> that it is <b>because of the sin of</b> stealing the shekels of <b>the chamber</b> that <b>he became poor,</b> as they will suspect that he stole money and hid it in those places. <b>Or perhaps he will become rich and</b> people <b>will say</b> that <b>he became rich from</b> stealing <b>the funds of the chamber,</b> even though he did not actually do so. Even though one should not suspect someone of stealing consecrated shekels, the one collecting the funds from the chamber must nevertheless take these precautions, <b>as a person must appear justified before people just as he must appear justified before the Omnipresent [<i>HaMakom</i>], and it is stated: “And you shall be guiltless before the Lord and before Israel”</b> (Numbers 32:22). From here it may be inferred that it is not enough to be innocent before God; one must also be innocent before the Jewish people. Even in situations where there is little concern that one may commit a sin, the proper course is to remain above any possible suspicion of misconduct. <b>And the verse states: “So shall you find grace and good understanding in the sight of God and man”</b> (Proverbs 3:4).",
+            "In order to indicate the importance that was attached to the ceremony of the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, the mishna relates that the members <b>of the house of Rabban Gamliel</b> desired that their shekels be the ones collected from the chamber and used for the purchase of the communal offerings. Each of them <b>would</b> therefore come to the Temple specifically on the day of the ceremony of the collection of the chamber, <b>enter</b> the chamber <b>with his shekel between his fingers, and toss it in front of the one collecting</b> the money so that he would see it and place it in the basket containing the money to be taken out of the chamber. Understanding what was happening, <b>the one collecting</b> the money from the chamber <b>would purposely push</b> this shekel <b>into the basket,</b> so that it would later be used to buy communal offerings. <b>The one collecting</b> the funds from the chamber may <b>not</b> begin to <b>collect</b> the money <b>until he asks</b> the Temple treasurers three times: <b>Shall I collect</b> the funds, <b>and they say to him: Collect</b> them, <b>collect</b> them, <b>collect</b> them, <b>three times.</b>",
+            "The coins were stored in the Temple treasury in three large baskets, each measuring nine <i>se’a</i>. In the collection of the chamber ceremony, coins were removed from these baskets and placed in smaller baskets of three <i>se’a</i> each that were marked with letters (see the previous mishna on <i>daf</i> 8a). After <b>he collected the</b> funds <b>from the first</b> large basket and put them into one of the smaller baskets labeled with the letter <i>alef</i>, <b>he</b> immediately <b>covered with a leather cover</b> the large basket from which he had removed the money. After collecting funds <b>from the second</b> large basket, <b>he covered</b> it <b>with a leather cover</b> as well. But after collecting funds from <b>the third</b> large basket, <b>he did not cover</b> it. The mishna asks: <b>Why did he cover</b> the first two baskets? In order to mark them as already having had funds collected from them. In this way, there was no concern that <b>perhaps he would forget and</b> once again <b>collect</b> funds <b>from</b> a basket from which funds <b>had</b> already <b>been collected.</b> The mishna specifies the intent of the one collecting the funds from the baskets as he does so: <b>He collected</b> funds <b>from the first</b> basket <b>on behalf of</b> the people living in <b>Eretz Yisrael;</b> from <b>the second</b> basket <b>on behalf of</b> the people living in <b>the cities near</b> Eretz Yisrael; and from <b>the third</b> basket <b>on behalf of</b> the people living in <b>Babylonia, and on behalf of</b> the people living in <b>Media, and on behalf of</b> the people living in <b>the distant countries.</b>"
+        ],
+        [
+            "At certain times of the year, half-shekels that had been donated to the Temple and stored in a chamber in the Temple were collected in order to be used for various purposes. The mishna asks: <b>The collection</b> of half-shekels, <b>what would they do with it? They</b> would <b>purchase</b> animals for the <b>daily offerings,</b> which were offered each morning and afternoon; <b>and</b> for <b>the additional offerings,</b> which were offered on Shabbat, the New Moon, and Festivals; <b>and</b> wine for <b>their libations;</b> barley for <b>the <i>omer</i></b> meal-offering; <b>and</b> wheat for both the <b>two loaves</b> offered on Shavuot <b>and the shewbread; and</b> animals for <b>all the communal offerings.</b> § The <b>guards of</b> the <b><i>sefiḥin</i>,</b> grain that grew without being purposely planted, <b>during the Sabbatical Year,</b> ensured that people did not take this ownerless grain, so that it remained available to be used for the <i>omer</i> and the offering of the two loaves. They <b>collect their wages from the collection of the</b> Temple treasury <b>chamber. Rabbi Yosei says: One who</b> so <b>desires</b> may <b>even volunteer</b> his services and guard the grain as <b>an unpaid bailee.</b> The Rabbis <b>said to him: Even you</b> must <b>say that</b> the <i>omer</i> and the two loaves <b>come only</b> <b>from communal</b> funds and not from any one individual. If one were to volunteer his services, he would acquire the grain for himself by guarding it and transporting it to the Temple. In that case, these offerings would have come from an individual. So that the offerings come solely from communal funds, the guards must receive payment from the half-shekels removed from the chamber.",
+            "<b>The</b> red <b>heifer, the scapegoat, and the strip of crimson</b> wool used in the process of burning the red heifer all <b>come from the collection of the</b> Temple treasury <b>chamber,</b> despite the fact that they are not sacrificial offerings. The same is true for <b>the ramp</b> built from the Temple Mount to the location on the Mount of Olives, where they would slaughter the red <b>heifer; the ramp</b> built to lead the <b>scapegoat</b> out of the city; <b>the strip</b> of crimson wool <b>that was</b> tied <b>between its horns;</b> any repairs required for <b>the aqueduct</b> that ran through the Temple courtyard and <b>the walls of the city and its towers; and</b> for <b>all the needs of the city,</b> such as street repairs, security, and the like. All of these <b>come from the remains of the chamber,</b> i.e., from the money that remained in the chamber after the three collections of money were taken to use for communal offerings. <b>Abba Shaul says: The High Priests construct the ramp</b> for <b>the</b> red <b>heifer from their own</b> funds.",
+            "<b>What would they do with the leftover remains of the chamber</b> after all the items mentioned above had been attended to? <b>They</b> would <b>purchase wine, oil, and fine flour</b> and sell them to those who needed them for their private offerings. <b>And the profit</b> from these sales would go <b>to consecrated</b> property, i.e., to the Temple treasury; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: One may not generate profit by</b> selling <b>consecrated</b> property, <b>neither</b> may one profit <b>from</b> funds set aside <b>for the poor.</b>",
+            "<b>What would they do with the leftover</b> funds <b>of the collection</b> that had not been spent on communal offerings? They would purchase <b>golden plates</b> as a <b>coating for the</b> walls and floor of the <b>Holy of Holies. Rabbi Yishmael says: The leftover produce</b> was used to purchase the <b>repletion of the altar,</b> i.e., burnt-offerings sacrificed at times when the altar was idle. <b>The leftover</b> funds <b>of the collection</b> were used <b>to</b> purchase <b>sacred vessels.</b> <b>Rabbi Akiva says: The leftover</b> funds <b>of the collection</b> were used to purchase the animals used <b>for the repletion of the altar,</b> since they had originally been collected for offerings. <b>The leftover libations</b> were used <b>to</b> purchase <b>sacred vessels. Rabbi Ḥananya, the deputy [<i>segan</i>] High Priest, says: The leftover libations</b> were used to purchase animals for <b>the repletion of the altar,</b> while <b>the leftover</b> funds <b>of the collection</b> were used <b>to</b> purchase <b>sacred vessels.</b> Both <b>this</b> Sage, Rabbi Akiva, and <b>that</b> Sage, Rabbi Ḥananya, <b>did not agree</b> with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion <b>with regard to the</b> leftover produce.",
+            "<b>The leftover incense</b> from one year could not be used the following year, as it had been purchased with the shekels collected for the previous year. <b>What would be done with it</b> in order to make it usable? The Temple treasurers <b>would set aside</b> an amount <b>of it</b> equal to the value of <b>the wages of the artisans</b> who worked in the Temple. <b>They would</b> then <b>desacralize</b> that incense by transferring its sanctity <b>to the money</b> owed to <b>the artisans. They would</b> then <b>give</b> the incense <b>to the artisans as their wages.</b> Finally, <b>they would return and buy</b> back the incense from the artisans with funds <b>from the new collection</b> of shekels. <b>If the new</b> funds <b>come on time,</b> i.e., by the beginning of Nisan, <b>they purchase</b> the incense with funds <b>from the new collection</b> of shekels. <b>And if not,</b> they may still purchase it <b>from the old</b> collection, and it is valid.",
+            "<b>One who consecrates</b> all <b>his possessions</b> without specifying for what purpose, his possessions are consecrated for Temple maintenance. <b>And</b> if <b>among them there are items</b> that are <b>suitable for</b> use as <b>communal offerings,</b> which may not be used for the maintenance of the Temple but only for sacrificial purposes, what is done with those items to remove their consecration for Temple maintenance, in order that they may be reconsecrated for sacrificial use? <b>They are given to</b> Temple <b>artisans as their wages,</b> and thereby they are desacralized; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him: This is not the method</b> to be used. <b>Rather,</b> the same method that is used to desacralize the leftover incense, as is described in the previous mishna, should also be used here, i.e., <b>they set aside from</b> the consecrated items the equivalent of the value owed to the <b>artisans for their wages, and they desacralize them</b> by transferring their sanctity <b>onto</b> the <b>money</b> allocated <b>for the artisans’</b> wages, <b>and</b> then <b>they give those</b> items, which are no longer consecrated, <b>to the artisans as their wages.</b> According to both opinions, once the desacralized items are in the possession of the artisans, one of Temple treasurers <b>should repurchase those</b> items using money <b>from</b> that year’s <b>new collection of half-shekels,</b> consecrating them for sacrificial use during the coming year.",
+            "In the case of <b>one who consecrates</b> all <b>his possessions</b> without specifying for what purpose, <b>and among them there is an animal that is suitable</b> to be sacrificed <b>on the altar, male</b> or <b>female,</b> what should be done with it? <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> Since he did not specify otherwise, everything is consecrated for Temple maintenance. Therefore, any <b>males</b> should <b>be sold for the needs of burnt-offerings,</b> i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such. <b>And</b> any <b>females,</b> since they cannot be brought as burnt-offerings, should <b>be sold for the needs of peace-offerings,</b> i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such. <b>And their monetary value</b> that is received from their sale is <b>allocated with the rest of his property for Temple maintenance.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehoshua says:</b> Although he did not specify for what purpose he consecrated his possessions, it may be assumed that he intended the animals to be consecrated as burnt-offerings. Therefore, any <b>males</b> should <b>themselves be sacrificed as burnt-offerings, and</b> any <b>females,</b> since they cannot be brought as burnt-offerings, should <b>be sold for the needs of peace-offerings,</b> i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such, <b>and their monetary value</b> that is received from their sale should be used to purchase and <b>bring burnt-offerings.</b> According to both opinions, <b>the rest of the possessions,</b> which are not suitable for sacrificial use, <b>are allocated for Temple maintenance.</b> <b>Rabbi Akiva said: I see the statement of Rabbi Eliezer</b> as more correct <b>than the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, since Rabbi Eliezer applied his method equally</b> to both animals and other possessions in treating both as consecrated for Temple maintenance, whereas <b>Rabbi Yehoshua made a distinction</b> between them. <b>Rabbi Papeyyas said: I heard the statements of both of them</b> applied to different situations: <b>One who consecrates</b> all his possessions and <b>explicitly</b> states that his animals are to be included, clearly intends to equate his animals with the rest of his possessions, that both should be consecrated for the same purpose, i.e., for Temple maintenance. Therefore, he should act <b>in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.</b> However, with regard to <b>one who consecrates</b> all his possessions <b>without</b> explicitly <b>specifying</b> that this includes his animals, since there is no reason to presume that he wishes them all to be consecrated for the same purpose, it is presumed that each item is consecrated for the purpose most suited to it. Therefore, he should act <b>in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.</b>",
+            " In the case of <b>one who consecrates</b> all <b>his possessions, and among them there were items that are suitable to</b> be sacrificed <b>on the altar,</b> such as <b>wines</b> for libations, <b>and oils</b> for meal-offerings, <b>and birds,</b> e.g., turtledoves or young pigeons, <b>Rabbi Eliezer says: They are sold for the needs of that kind</b> of item, i.e., to individuals who will use them as such. <b>And he should bring with their monetary value</b> that is received from their sale <b>burnt-offerings. And the rest of the possessions are allocated for Temple maintenance.</b>",
+            "<b>Once every thirty days, the prices</b> at which the Temple supplies such as wine, flour, or oil will be purchased <b>are set for the</b> Temple <b>chamber.</b> This set price is implemented in the following way: <b>Any</b> merchant <b>who undertakes to provide fine flour</b> after the chamber set a price of <b>four</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>, even if the general market price rose and <b>stood at three</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>, <b>he must provide</b> fine flour based on the set price of <b>four</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>. However, if the chamber’s set price was <b>three</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>, and the general market price fell to <b>four</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>, <b>he must</b> now <b>provide</b> fine flour based on the new market price of <b>four</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>. This is in order <b>that the</b> Temple treasury of <b>consecrated</b> property always <b>has the upper hand.</b> <b>If the fine flour became wormy, it became wormy for</b> the merchant, i.e., he bears the loss of the ruined fine flour and must provide new fine flour in its place. Similarly, <b>if the wine turned to vinegar, it turned to vinegar for</b> the merchant. This is because the merchant <b>only receives,</b> i.e., earns, <b>his money once the altar is satisfied,</b> i.e., the transaction is only realized once the items have been sacrificed on the altar."
+        ],
+        [
+            "<b>These are the officials who served</b> in specific positions <b>in the Temple: Yoḥanan ben Pineḥas</b> was responsible <b>for the seals.</b> One who paid for a specific type of sacrificial item received a seal, which he presented to the Temple official in exchange for that item. <b>Aḥiyya</b> was responsible <b>for the libations,</b> i.e., the wine, oil, and flour prepared with the level of ritual purity necessary for the libation offerings and the meal-offerings, which accompanied many animal offerings. Aḥiyya supplied the libations to those who presented the appropriate seal. <b>Matya ben Shmuel</b> was responsible <b>for the lotteries,</b> which were used to select priests for the various Temple services each day. <b>Petaḥya</b> was responsible <b>for the pairs</b> of birds, i.e., the turtledoves or pigeons, brought by a <i>zav</i>, a <i>zava</i>, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. They placed the appropriate sum of money into the horn designated for this purpose, and each day Petaḥya oversaw the purchase of birds from that money and their sacrifice in the proper manner. Incidentally, the Gemara mentions: <b>Petaḥya is Mordecai</b> from the book of Esther. <b>And why was he called Petaḥya,</b> which resembles the word for opening [<i>petaḥ</i>]? The reason is <b>that he would open,</b> i.e., elucidate, difficult <b>topics and interpret them</b> to the people, <b>and</b> because <b>he knew</b> all <b>seventy languages</b> known at the time. The mishna resumes the list of officials. <b>Ben Aḥiyya</b> was responsible <b>for</b> the care of the priests who suffered from <b>intestinal disease. Neḥunya</b> was the <b>well digger</b> for pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem for the Festivals. <b>Gevini</b> was the Temple <b>crier</b> who would awaken the priests and the Levites for their Temple duties. <b>Ben Gever</b> was responsible <b>for locking the</b> Temple <b>gates</b> in the evening and for unlocking them in the morning. <b>Ben Bevai</b> was <b>appointed over the shreds</b> of garments, which were formed into wicks for the Temple candelabra. He also supervised the twisting of those wicks into the appropriate thickness for the various nights during the different seasons of the year. <b>Ben Arza</b> was responsible <b>for the cymbal,</b> which was rung as a signal that the Levites should commence their song. <b>Hugras ben Levi</b> was responsible <b>for the song.</b> He taught and conducted the singers in the Temple. <b>The house of Garmu</b> was responsible <b>for the preparation of the shewbread; the house of Avtinas</b> was responsible <b>for the preparation of the incense; and Elazar</b> was responsible <b>for</b> weaving <b>the</b> Temple <b>curtains; and Pineḥas</b> was <b>the valet,</b> who assisted the priests in fitting their clothes and dressing themselves for their Temple service.",
+            "<b>There must be no fewer than seven trustees [<i>amarkolin</i>] and three treasurers</b> appointed over the Temple administration. <b>And we do not appoint an authority over the public</b> comprised <b>of fewer than two</b> people, <b>except for ben Aḥiyya, who</b> was responsible <b>for</b> healing priests who suffered from <b>intestinal disease, and Elazar, who</b> was responsible <b>for</b> the weaving <b>of the</b> Temple <b>curtains.</b> The reason for these exceptions is <b>that the majority of the public accepted these</b> men <b>upon themselves</b> as officials who served without the assistance of even a single partner.",
+            "This mishna provides details of the functions performed by Yoḥanan ben Pineḥas and Aḥiyya, the officials mentioned in the first mishna of this chapter, which concerns the seals and libations. <b>There were four seals in the Temple</b> that confirmed that the bearer had paid for the libations that accompanied his offering. <b>And</b> one of the following inscriptions was <b>written on them: Calf; male,</b> i.e., a ram; <b>kid; and sinner,</b> i.e., a leper, as leprosy is a punishment for one of seven sins (see <i>Arakhin</i> 16a). Conversely, <b>ben Azzai says: There were five</b> seals, <b>and</b> the following was <b>written upon them</b> in <b>Aramaic,</b> not Hebrew: <b>Calf, male, kid, poor sinner, and rich sinner.</b> The mishna explains the significance of each of the four aforementioned seals. The <b>calf</b> seal <b>serves</b> as a payment receipt <b>for libations of cattle</b> offerings, whether they are <b>large or small, male or female,</b> as all offerings from the cow family are accompanied by the same libation. The <b>kid</b> seal <b>serves for libations of sheep</b> or goat offerings, whether <b>large or small, male or female, except for those of rams</b> aged thirteen months and older. The <b>ram</b> seal, which was earlier called the male seal, <b>serves exclusively for ram libations.</b> The <b>sinner</b> seal <b>serves for libations of the three animal</b> offerings <b>of a leper,</b> for the completion of his purification.",
+            "<b>One who seeks libations</b> for his offering <b>goes to Yoḥanan,</b> the official <b>who was responsible for the seals, and gives him</b> the appropriate sum of <b>money and receives a seal from him.</b> With that seal <b>he</b> subsequently <b>comes to Aḥiyya, who was responsible for the libations, and gives him</b> Yoḥanan’s <b>seal and receives</b> his <b>libations from him.</b> <b>In the evening,</b> Yoḥanan and Aḥiyya <b>would get together</b> to reconcile their accounts, <b>and Aḥiyya would take out the seals</b> he had received <b>and accept the money</b> Yoḥanan had received <b>in exchange for them. If</b> the money <b>was less</b> than the value of the seals, <b>they were less to him,</b> i.e., Yoḥanan would bear the loss, <b>and Yoḥanan would</b> have to <b>pay</b> the difference to the Temple treasury <b>from his own</b> property. <b>And if</b> there was some money <b>left over,</b> i.e., the total money was greater than the value of the seals, <b>they</b> were <b>left over to</b> the benefit of <b>the Temple treasury of consecrated property, as the Temple treasury</b> always <b>has the upper hand.</b>",
+            "With regard to <b>one who lost his seal</b> that he purchased from Yoḥanan, Yoḥanan and <b>Aḥiyya would wait to</b> resolve <b>his</b> problem <b>until the evening. And</b> when they added their accounts in the evening, <b>if they found for him</b> a surplus of money <b>equivalent to</b> the value of <b>his seal, they would give him</b> the corresponding libations. <b>And if not, they would not give him</b> libations. <b>And the name of the day</b> of the week <b>was written upon</b> the seals <b>because of the cheats.</b> They might try to use old seals that had been lost by the Temple officials or by someone who had brought an offering at an earlier date, so as to receive libations in a deceitful manner.",
+            "<b>There were two</b> special <b>chambers in the Temple, one</b> called <b>the chamber of secret</b> gifts <b>and</b> the other <b>one</b> called <b>the chamber of vessels.</b> The mishna explains the purpose of these chambers. In <b>the chamber of secret</b> gifts, <b>sin-fearing people put</b> money <b>secretly and poor people of noble descent support themselves from it secretly.</b> With regard to <b>the chamber of vessels, anyone who donates a vessel</b> to the Temple <b>drops it inside</b> that chamber, <b>and once every thirty days the treasurers open it. And any vessel that they found for it a use for Temple maintenance, they leave it</b> for that purpose, <b>and the rest are sold, and their monetary</b> value is <b>allocated to Temple maintenance.</b>"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<b>There were thirteen</b> collection <b>horns,</b> narrow at the top and wide at the bottom, into which were placed the shekels that were collected for the various needs of the Temple. There <b>were</b> also <b>thirteen tables</b> for various purposes, and <b>thirteen prostrations in the Temple.</b> The members <b>of the household of Rabban Gamliel and</b> the members <b>of the household of Rabbi Ḥananya, the deputy High Priest, would prostrate</b> themselves <b>in fourteen</b> places. <b>And where was</b> this <b>extra</b> location? It was <b>facing the wood depository, as there was a tradition handed</b> down <b>to them from their fathers that the Ark was sequestered there.</b>",
+            "The mishna relates that there was <b>an incident involving a certain priest who was going about</b> his duties <b>and saw</b> a certain <b>flagstone that was different from the others.</b> He noticed that one of the stones was slightly raised above the others, indicating that it had been removed and returned to its place. The priest understood that this was the opening to an underground tunnel where the Ark was concealed. <b>He came and said to his fellow</b> that he had noticed this deviation in the floor. <b>He did not manage to conclude</b> relating <b>the incident before his soul left him,</b> i.e., he died. Following this event, <b>they knew with certainty that the Ark was sequestered there</b> and that God had prevented that priest from revealing its location.",
+            "The previous mishna mentioned that there were thirteen prostrations in the Temple. <b>Where were these prostrations?</b> There were <b>four in the north</b> of the courtyard, <b>four in the south, three in the east and two in the west,</b> as the thirteen prostrations were <b>facing the thirteen gates</b> of the Temple courtyard. The thirteen gates were as follows: <b>The southern ones,</b> listed in order, beginning with the one <b>adjacent to the western</b> side, were <b>the Upper Gate,</b> and the topography of the courtyard was such that there was an incline on the east-west plane, therefore the gate farthest to the west was higher than the other gates; <b>the Gate of Kindling,</b> through which the priests would bring the wood for the arrangement of fire on top of the altar; <b>the Gate of the Firstborn,</b> through which priests would bring the ritually pure firstborn animals to be sacrificed, as it is permitted to slaughter firstborn animals on the southern side of the courtyard; and <b>the Gate of Water.</b> The mishna elaborates: <b>And why was it named the Gate of Water? Since through it they would bring in the vial</b> <b>of</b> water for <b>the water libation on the festival</b> of <i>Sukkot</i>, as they would ceremoniously draw the water from the Pool of Siloam and bring it to the altar through this gate. <b>Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:</b> There was a different reason for this name. It was called the Gate of Water because <b>through it the water would trickle [<i>mefakim</i>], and in the future</b> this water will increase and <b>go out from under the threshold of the House.</b> <b>Facing these</b> gates were the ones <b>in the north,</b> listed in order from the one <b>closest to the west: The Gate of Jeconiah; the Gate of the Offering,</b> through which they would bring the offerings of the most sacred order, as these could be slaughtered only in the northern part of the courtyard; <b>the Gate of Women,</b> where women would enter the courtyard to place their hands on the heads of their offerings; and <b>the Gate of Song,</b> through which they would bring the musical instruments into the courtyard. The mishna asks: <b>And why was it called the Gate of Jeconiah?</b> The reason is <b>that through it Jeconiah went out to his exile.</b> Before Jeconiah was exiled by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon he came to take leave of the Temple, and he left through this gate. The mishna resumes the list with the gates <b>that</b> are <b>in the east: the Gate of Nicanor,</b> which was named after Nicanor, who brought the doors of this gate from Egypt (see <i>Yoma</i> 38a). <b>And</b> the Gate of Nicanor <b>had two wickets [<i>pishpeshin</i>], one on its right and one on its left. And</b> there were <b>two</b> gates <b>in the west that did not have a name,</b> making a total of thirteen gates.",
+            "This mishna details the exact location and purpose of the thirteen tables in the Temple. There <b>were thirteen tables in the Temple. Eight</b> of them were made <b>of marble</b> and were located <b>in the slaughtering area,</b> north of the altar, where the priests would slaughter the offerings of the most sacred order. <b>Upon these</b> tables <b>they would wash the innards</b> of the offerings, as the marble was cool and preserved the freshness of the meat. <b>And</b> there were <b>two</b> more tables <b>on the western</b> side <b>of the ramp,</b> south of the altar, <b>one of marble and one of silver.On</b> the table <b>of marble they would place the limbs</b> before they were sacrificed, and from there the priests would bring them up to the altar. <b>On</b> the table made <b>of silver</b> they would place the ninety-three <b>sacred vessels</b> brought out from the Chamber of Vessels each morning for the services of that day. <b>And</b> there were <b>two</b> tables <b>in the Entrance Hall</b> to the Sanctuary, <b>on the inside</b> of the Entrance Hall, <b>near the opening to the Temple, one of marble and one of gold. On</b> the table <b>of marble they would put the shewbread before its entrance</b> to the Sanctuary after it was baked on the eve of Shabbat. <b>And</b> they would place the old shewbread <b>on</b> the table <b>of gold upon its exit</b> from the Sanctuary, to be divided among the priests. The reason the shewbread was placed on a marble table before being brought into the Sanctuary and on a golden one upon when removed from there is <b>that one elevates</b> to a higher level <b>in</b> matters of <b>sanctity and one does not downgrade.</b> Since it had been placed on the golden Shewbread table all week inside the Sanctuary, upon its removal it could not be derogated to a marble table and so was placed on a different golden table in the Entrance Hall. Finally, there was <b>one</b> table <b>of gold inside</b> the Sanctuary, i.e. the Shewbread table, <b>upon which the shewbread</b> was placed <b>always.</b>",
+            "<b>There were thirteen</b> collection <b>horns in the Temple, and</b> the intended use of the funds <b>was written upon</b> each one, as follows: <b>New shekels, old shekels, pairs</b> of birds, <b>fledglings</b> designated for <b>burnt-offerings, wood</b> for the arrangement on the altar, <b>frankincense</b> that accompanied meal-offerings, and <b>gold</b> donated <b>for the Ark cover.</b> The remaining <b>six horns</b> were designated <b>for</b> communal <b>free-will offerings.</b> The horn labeled <b>new shekels</b> was designated for the half-shekel donation <b>that</b> was brought <b>every year</b> for the needs of that year. The horn labeled <b>old shekels</b> was for <b>one who did not bring</b> his half-shekel <b>the previous year,</b> who would <b>contribute his shekel for the following year.</b> The funds in the horn labeled <b>pairs</b> of birds <b>are</b> designated for the <b>turtledoves</b> used for bird-offerings, and the one labeled <b>fledglings</b> for <b>burnt-offerings are</b> used to purchase <b>young pigeons</b> as burnt-offerings. <b>All of these,</b> i.e., the funds in both horns, were used exclusively for voluntary <b>burnt-offerings.</b> This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.</b> <b>And the Rabbis say:</b> The funds in both the horn labeled pairs of birds and the horn labeled fledglings were for young pigeons and turtledoves. The distinction between them is that the funds in the horn labeled <b>pairs</b> of birds were designated for the obligatory offerings of a <i>zav</i>, a <i>zava</i>, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. These offerings included a pair of birds, <b>one</b> brought for <b>a sin-offering, and</b> the other <b>one</b> brought for <b>a burnt-offering.</b> Conversely, the funds in the horn labeled <b>fledglings</b> for <b>burnt-offerings</b> were <b>all</b> used exclusively for voluntary <b>burnt-offerings.</b>",
+            "<b>One who says:</b> It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>wood</b> to the Temple, must donate <b>no fewer than two logs</b> for the arrangement on the altar. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate <b>frankincense,</b> must donate <b>no less than a handful</b> of frankincense, the amount brought with a meal-offering. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate <b>gold,</b> must donate <b>no less than a dinar of gold.</b> It was stated that <b>six horns</b> were designated <b>for</b> communal <b>free-will offerings.</b> The Mishna asks: With regard to the money designated for communal <b>free-will offerings, what would they do with this</b> money? The Mishna answers that they used <b>it to purchase</b> animals for <b>burnt-offerings,</b> as <b>the meat</b> from these offerings was offered on the altar <b>to God and the hides</b> were given <b>to the priests.</b> <b>This midrash was taught</b> by <b>Jehoiada the High Priest:</b> There is an apparent contradiction between two verses. With regard to the guilt-offering, the verse states: <b>“It is a guilt-offering; he is certainly guilty before the Lord”</b> (Leviticus 5:19). This verse indicates that the guilt-offering goes to God, not the priests. However, a different verse states: “As is the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering; there is one law for them; the priest who makes atonement with it, he shall have it” (Leviticus 7:7). This verse indicates that the offering is designated for the priests alone. How can these two verses be reconciled? The Mishna explains that <b>this is the principle: Any</b> funds <b>that come due to a sin-offering or due to a guilt-offering,</b> i.e., leftover coins designated for one of these offerings, <b>they</b> should be used for the <b>purchase of animals for a</b> voluntary <b>burnt-offering,</b> as <b>the meat</b> will be offered on the altar <b>to God, and the hides</b> will go <b>to the priests.</b> In this manner <b>the two verses are found</b> to be <b>fulfilled,</b> as it is both <b>a guilt-offering to God as well as a guilt-offering to the priest.</b> <b>And</b> this <i>halakha</i> also explains the verse that <b>says: “The guilt-offering money and the sin-offering money was not brought into the House of the Lord; it was for the priests”</b> (II Kings 12:17). This verse is understood to refer to the hides given to the priests."
+        ],
+        [
+            "If <b>money was found</b> on the floor of the Temple <b>between</b> one of <b>the</b> collection horns marked <b>shekels and the</b> collection horn marked <b>free-will offerings,</b> that is to say, between the first and the thirteenth collection horns, in which funds contributed to the Temple were stored, the following distinctions apply: If the money was found <b>closer to the</b> horn marked <b>shekels, it is allocated to the shekels;</b> if it was found <b>closer to the</b> horn marked <b>free-will offerings, it is allocated to free-will offerings;</b> and if it was <b>equidistant</b> from the horn marked shekels and the horn marked free-will offerings, <b>it is allocated to free-will offerings.</b> If the money was found <b>between</b> the horn marked <b>wood and</b> the horn marked <b>frankincense,</b> that is, between the fifth and sixth horns, if it was <b>closer to the</b> horn marked <b>wood, it is allocated to wood;</b> if it was closer to <b>the</b> horn marked <b>frankincense, it is allocated to frankincense;</b> and if it was found <b>equidistant</b> from both, <b>it is allocated to frankincense.</b> If the money was found <b>between</b> the horn marked <b>pairs</b> of bird-offerings <b>and</b> the horn marked <b>doves for burnt-offerings,</b> i.e., between the third and the fourth horns, if it is <b>closer to the</b> horn marked <b>pairs</b> of bird-offerings, <b>it is allocated to pairs</b> of bird-offerings; if it was found <b>closer to</b> the horn marked <b>doves for burnt-offerings, it is allocated to doves for burnt-offerings;</b> and if it was found <b>equidistant</b> from both, <b>it is allocated to doves for burnt-offerings.</b> And similarly, if money was found anywhere else <b>between</b> a container for ordinary, <b>non-sacred</b> money <b>and</b> one containing <b>second-tithe</b> money, the following distinctions apply: If the money was found <b>closer to the non-sacred</b> money, <b>it is allocated to the non-sacred</b> money; if it was found closer to <b>second-tithe</b> money, <b>it is allocated to second-tithe</b> money; and if it was found <b>equidistant</b> from both, <b>it is allocated to second-tithe</b> money. <b>This is the principle:</b> In cases of doubt, the ruling <b>follows whichever is closer,</b> even if this involves <b>being lenient,</b> but if the money was found <b>equidistant</b> from both, the ruling follows whichever allocation involves <b>being stringent.</b>",
+            "This mishna considers other situations in which something is found and its source is unknown. <b>Money found before animal merchants</b> in Jerusalem is <b>always</b> presumed to be second-<b>tithe</b> money. The presumption is based on the fact that in Jerusalem, most of the animals are bought with second-tithe money and sacrificed as peace-offerings. <b>And</b> money found <b>on the Temple Mount</b> is presumed to be <b>non-sacred</b> money. <b>And</b> with regard to money found <b>in</b> the rest of <b>Jerusalem,</b> the following distinction applies: If it was found <b>during the rest of the days of the year,</b> it is presumed to be <b>non-sacred</b> money, <b>but</b> if it was found <b>during the time of a pilgrim Festival,</b> it is <b>all</b> presumed to be second-<b>tithe</b> money, because most of the money found in Jerusalem at the time of a Festival is second-tithe money.",
+            "The mishna continues: With regard to <b>meat that was found in the</b> Temple <b>courtyard,</b> and it is not known from whence it came, the <i>halakha</i> is as follows: If it is whole <b>limbs</b> of the animal, in the manner that burnt-offerings are brought to the altar, it is presumed to be <b>burnt-offerings. And</b> if it is in small <b>pieces,</b> it is presumed to be <b>sin-offerings. And</b> if the meat, in whatever form, is found <b>in</b> the city of <b>Jerusalem,</b> as opposed to the courtyard, it is presumed to be the meat of <b>peace-offerings,</b> as most of the meat in Jerusalem is the meat of peace-offerings. Since it is possible that the time during which it is permitted to eat any of it has already passed, both <b>this and that,</b> whether it is determined to be the meat of burnt-offerings or the meat of peace-offerings, <b>its form</b> must be allowed <b>to decay,</b> i.e., it must be left until it is definitely disqualified, <b>and</b> then <b>it must be taken out to the place of burning,</b> where offerings that have become disqualified are burned. With regard to meat <b>found in the outlying areas,</b> outside of Jerusalem, if it is in the form of whole <b>limbs,</b> the meat presumably comes from <b>carcasses</b> of animals that were not properly slaughtered, for meat unfit for eating was generally cut up into full limbs, to be fed to dogs or sold to gentiles. <b>But</b> if it is in small <b>pieces,</b> it is presumably kosher and <b>permitted</b> to be eaten, as kosher meat was ordinarily cut up into small pieces. <b>And</b> if meat is found <b>at the time of a Festival, when meat is plentiful,</b> so that it is generally not cut up into small pieces, then <b>even</b> whole <b>limbs are permitted</b> to be eaten.",
+            "If <b>an animal</b> that is fit for the altar <b>was found</b> straying, <b>from Jerusalem and as far as Migdal Eder, and</b> similarly if it was found <b>within that distance</b> from Jerusalem <b>in any</b> other <b>direction,</b> it is presumed that the animal came from Jerusalem. Most of the animals in Jerusalem were designated for offerings, and presumably this one was as well. <b>Males</b> are presumed to be <b>burnt-offerings,</b> as only males are brought as burnt-offerings. <b>Females</b> are presumed to be <b>peace-offerings,</b> as it is permitted to bring a female peace-offering. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> An animal <b>that is fit for the Paschal offering,</b> i.e., a one-year-old male lamb or kid, is presumed to be <b>a Paschal offering,</b> provided that it was found <b>within thirty days before the Festival</b> of Passover.",
+            "<b>Originally,</b> the court <b>would seize collateral from one who found</b> such an animal, as security <b>until he would bring with it the libations</b> associated with this offering, as if the found animal were his own and he had committed himself to bring the libations. This brought about a situation in which those who found the animals <b>began leaving them</b> where they found them, <b>and absconding,</b> so as not to become liable for the libations. <b>The court</b> therefore <b>instituted that the libations</b> accompanying these offerings <b>would come from public</b> funds, that is, from the Temple treasury.",
+            "<b>Rabbi Shimon said: The court instituted seven ordinances</b> with regard to the financial aspects of offerings and consecrations. <b>And this</b> ordinance, namely, that the cost of the libations accompanying the sacrifice of a found animal is borne by the public, <b>is one of them.</b> These are the other ordinances: If <b>a gentile sent his burnt-offering from abroad,</b> outside Eretz Yisrael, <b>and he sent with it</b> money for the purchase of the <b>libations</b> that must accompany it, the libations <b>are offered at his</b> expense. <b>And if</b> the gentile <b>did not</b> cover the cost of the libations, it is a condition of the court that the libations are <b>sacrificed at the public’s</b> expense, with funds taken from the Temple treasury. <b>And likewise,</b> in the case of <b>a convert who died</b> without heirs <b>and left</b> animals that he had designated as <b>offerings. If he has the libations,</b> i.e., if he also had set aside libations or money for that purpose, the libations <b>are sacrificed from his</b> estate. <b>And if</b> he did <b>not</b> do so, the libations <b>are sacrificed from public</b> funds. <b>And</b> another ordinance: <b>It is a condition of the court with regard to a High Priest who died,</b> and a new High Priest had not yet been appointed in his place, <b>that his meal-offering,</b> i.e., the griddle-cake offering that the High Priest would bring each day from one-tenth of an ephah of flour, would be <b>sacrificed from public</b> funds. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> It was brought <b>from</b> the property of the High Priest’s <b>heirs,</b> i.e., his estate, and not from public funds. In any event, the offering was not brought as it would have been brought by the High Priest himself were he still alive, half in the morning and half in the evening, <b>but</b> rather <b>it was sacrificed</b> all at once, from a <b>whole</b> one-tenth of an ephah.",
+            "The fourth ordinance was <b>about the salt</b> in the Temple that was designated for salting the offerings, <b>and</b> the fifth was <b>about the wood</b> that was used for the burning of the offerings. These ordinances decreed <b>that the priests may use them</b> also to prepare the meat of the offerings that they eat. <b>And</b> the sixth ordinance <b>concerned the</b> red <b>heifer: that</b> deriving benefit <b>from its ashes is not considered misusing</b> consecrated property. <b>And</b> the seventh ordinance was <b>about disqualified pairs</b> of bird-offerings: It ruled <b>that</b> their replacements <b>should come from public</b> funds. <b>Rabbi Yosei</b> disagreed and <b>says:</b> The expense does not fall upon the public, but rather upon <b>whoever supplies</b> all <b>the pairs</b> of bird-offerings to the Temple; <b>he must</b> also <b>supply,</b> at no additional charge, the replacements for <b>the disqualified</b> birds."
+        ],
+        [
+            "The mishna discusses the ritual purity of items found either in the Temple or in Jerusalem and its environs, in continuation of the previous chapter’s discussion of found money, animals, or meat. <b>All the spittle that is found in Jerusalem is ritually pure.</b> Since neither ritually impure people nor gentiles were commonly present in Jerusalem, the Sages decreed an exception to the rule that spittle that is found is ritually impure since it presumably comes from one of those groups. This is the case <b>except for</b> spittle found <b>in the upper marketplace,</b> where gentiles and ritually impure Jews were likely to be present. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir.</b> <b>Rabbi Yosei says: On all the other days of the year,</b> i.e., any day that is not on one of the three pilgrim Festivals, Passover, <i>Shavuot</i>, and <i>Sukkot</i>, spittle <b>that</b> is found <b>in the middle</b> of the street is <b>ritually impure,</b> and spittle <b>that</b> is found on <b>the sides</b> of the street is <b>ritually pure.</b> According to Rabbi Yosei, it was common for people who were ritually impure to be present in the streets of Jerusalem. They would be careful to walk in the middle of the street, while the ritually pure who wished to remain so would walk on the sides. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that spittle found in the middle of the street is from one who is impure, while spittle found on the side of the street is from one who is pure. <b>But during the time of the Festival,</b> when most of the people in Jerusalem were there for the Festival and were ritually pure, the spittle found <b>in the middle</b> of the street was <b>ritually pure,</b> and that found on <b>the sides</b> of the street was <b>ritually impure.</b> The difference is <b>due to</b> the fact <b>that</b> at the time of the Festival, <b>the</b> ritually impure <b>minority moves to the sides</b> of the streets.",
+            "The mishna continues: <b>All the vessels that are found in Jerusalem</b> on the <b>way down into the bathhouse,</b> wherein one purifies vessels in a ritual bath, are <b>ritually impure, and</b> those that are found on the <b>way up</b> are <b>ritually pure.</b> The mishna explains: <b>Their descent</b> into the bathhouse <b>is not</b> by the same route <b>as their ascent</b> out of it, and it can be assumed that those found on the way down have not yet been immersed, while those found on the way up have been. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir.</b> However, <b>Rabbi Yosei says: They are all ritually pure, except for the basket, and the shovel, and the <i>meritza</i>, which are specifically used for graves,</b> to gather up the bones of the dead. These tools must be presumed to be ritually impure, but in general, vessels are presumed to be pure.",
+            "The mishna continues with another ruling about ritual purity: One may <b>slaughter immediately with a knife that was found on the fourteenth</b> of Nisan, i.e., the day the Paschal lamb is slaughtered, and need not be concerned that it is ritually impure. Presumably it was immersed the day before so that it could be used to slaughter the Paschal offering. If he found it <b>on the thirteenth</b> of Nisan, he <b>immerses</b> it <b>again.</b> Perhaps its owners had not yet immersed it, since they still had time to do so before the evening. If one finds a <b>cleaver [<i>kofitz</i>],</b> which is used to slaughter an animal and break its bones, whether it was <b>on this</b> day, i.e., the fourteenth, or <b>on that</b> day, i.e., the thirteenth, <b>he immerses</b> it <b>again</b> out of doubt. Since breaking the bones of the Paschal lamb is prohibited, its owners would have no need for it on the fourteenth, and it cannot be presumed that it has already been immersed to make it ritually pure. However, if the <b>fourteenth occurs on Shabbat,</b> he may <b>slaughter with</b> the cleaver <b>immediately.</b> Since immersing a vessel is prohibited on Shabbat, and presumably the owner of the cleaver wants it to be ritually pure on the fifteenth, one can assume that he immersed it already on Friday, the thirteenth of Nisan. It is therefore ritually pure. If the cleaver was found <b>on the fifteenth</b> of Nisan, i.e., if it was found on the Festival itself, he may <b>slaughter with it immediately.</b> The owners of the cleaver would have immersed it so that they could use it on the fifteenth to cut up the bones of a Festival peace-offering. If the cleaver <b>was found attached to a knife, it is like a knife,</b> i.e., if it was found on the thirteenth of Nisan it is presumed impure, and if it was found on the fourteenth he may slaughter with it immediately, as it was certainly immersed on the day before.",
+            "With regard to <b>a curtain that became ritually impure from a secondary source of impurity,</b> since its ritual impurity is by rabbinic law and not Torah law, there is no need to remove it from the Temple. Rather, <b>it is immersed inside</b> the Temple. <b>And</b> if it were removed to outside the courtyard in order to immerse it, <b>it</b> can <b>be brought</b> back into the courtyard <b>immediately.</b> Since it is ritually impure only by rabbinic law, there is no need to wait until sunset before returning it. But <b>if it became impure from a primary source of impurity,</b> e.g., it came into contact with the carcass of one of the eight creeping animals that confer impurity by Torah law, <b>it is immersed outside</b> the courtyard <b>and is spread out</b> to dry <b>on the rampart.</b> This is the low wall surrounding the Temple courtyard and the buildings within it, which has a lower level of holiness than the courtyard. The reason for this policy is <b>because the sun needs to set on it.</b> Immersion does not confer ritual purity on an item that became impure by Torah law until after the sun has set. And <b>if</b> this curtain <b>were new, it is spread out</b> to dry <b>on top of the bench [<i>itztabba</i>],</b> a prominent place on the Temple Mount, <b>so that the people</b> will <b>see its craftsmanship and perceive its beauty.</b>",
+            "The Gemara discusses the aforementioned curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary. <b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon the son of the deputy</b> High Priest: The <b>curtain</b> has the <b>thickness of a handbreadth,</b> and <b>it is woven from seventy-two strands</b> of yarn. And <b>each and every strand</b> from those seventy-two is made from <b>twenty-four threads.</b> The curtain was made from four materials: Sky-blue wool, purple wool, scarlet wool, and fine linen, and a strand was made up of six threads of each type of material. And with regard to the dimensions of the curtain, <b>its length</b> was <b>forty cubits,</b> as the height of the ceiling of the Sanctuary; <b>and its width</b> was <b>twenty</b> cubits, to match the width of the entrance; <b>and</b> it <b>was made from eighty-two ten-thousands,</b> i.e., 820,000 golden dinar. <b>And they</b> used to <b>make two</b> new curtains <b>every year. And</b> the curtain was so heavy that they needed <b>three hundred priests</b> to carry it when they would <b>immerse it.</b>",
+            "With regard to <b>the flesh of offerings of the most sacred order that became impure, whether</b> it became impure <b>from a primary source of impurity or from a secondary source of impurity, whether</b> it became impure <b>inside</b> the courtyard <b>or outside,</b> it must be burned. There is a dispute among the <i>tanna’im</i> with regard to where it is burned. <b>Beit Shammai say: It all should be burned inside</b> the Temple courtyard, <b>except for that which became impure from a primary source of ritual impurity outside,</b> as under such circumstances, it is not appropriate to bring it inside the Temple. <b>Beit Hillel say: It all should be burned outside</b> the Temple courtyard, <b>except for that which became ritually impure by a secondary source of impurity inside.</b> In such a case the flesh need not be removed from the courtyard and is burned there.",
+            "<b>Rabbi Elazar says:</b> Flesh from offerings of the most sacred order <b>that became</b> ritually <b>impure from a primary source of ritual impurity, whether</b> it became so <b>inside</b> the courtyard <b>or outside, is burned outside.</b> Since its ritual impurity is of the most stringent type, it is not to be brought into the courtyard, or allowed to remain there. However, an item <b>that became ritually impure from a secondary source of ritual impurity, whether</b> it became ritually impure <b>outside or inside, is burned inside.</b> Since its ritual impurity is of a lenient type, it can be brought into the courtyard in order to be burned. <b>Rabbi Akiva says: The place of its impurity is where its burning should occur.</b> Therefore, regardless of whether the source is primary or secondary, such flesh is burned wherever it presently is.",
+            "The <b>limbs of the daily offering</b> were not placed directly on the altar fire. Instead, after cutting up the offering, its limbs <b>were placed</b> first on the <b>ramp</b> of the altar, <b>from</b> the <b>halfway</b> point <b>and below,</b> on the lower sixteen cubits of the ramp, <b>on</b> its <b>western</b> side. Limbs <b>of</b> the <b>additional</b> offerings of the Shabbat and Festivals <b>were placed on the ramp from the halfway point and below on</b> its <b>eastern</b> side. <b>Additional New Moon offerings were placed on top of the upper part of the edge [<i>karkov</i>] of the altar.</b> Another law: The obligation to give <b>half-shekels</b> each year <b>and</b> to offer <b>the first fruits is practiced only in the presence of the Temple,</b>as fulfillment of these mitzvot is only possible then. <b>But</b> the mitzvot of produce tithes and <b>grain tithes and</b> of <b>animal tithes and of</b> the sanctified <b>firstborn</b> animals <b>are practiced whether</b> one is <b>in the presence of the Temple, or</b> one is <b>not in the presence of the Temple.</b> Although animal tithes and firstborn cannot be sacrificed without a Temple, once they develop a blemish, they may be eaten by their owners. If, in the present time when there is no Temple, <b>one consecrates shekels</b> for the mitzva of the half-shekel <b>or</b> fruits for the mitzva of <b>first fruits, they are consecrated,</b> and it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. <b>Rabbi Shimon says: One who declared first fruits to be consecrated,</b> in the present time, does not give them that status and they are <b>not consecrated.</b>"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Chapter",
+        "Mishnah"
+    ]
+}

json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Shekalim/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+{
+    "title": "Mishnah Shekalim",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Shekalim",
+    "text": [
+        [
+            "<b>On the first of Adar</b> the court <b>proclaims concerning</b> the collection of <b>shekels,</b> i.e., the yearly half-shekel contribution to the Temple treasury made by each adult male for the purpose of buying communal offerings. <b>And</b> they also proclaim <b>with regard to</b> the obligation to uproot forbidden mixtures of <b>diverse kinds</b> of food crops in gardens and fields. <b>And on the fifteenth</b> day <b>of the</b> month of Adar, <b>the Scroll [<i>Megilla</i>]</b> of Esther <b>is read in the cities [<i>kerakim</i>]</b> surrounded by walls from the time of Joshua. <b>And they</b> also <b>repair the roads</b> that were damaged in the winter, <b>and the streets, and the cisterns. And</b> at that time <b>they perform all that is necessary for public welfare. And they</b> also <b>mark the</b> Jewish <b>gravesites</b> anew, so that people would know their location and avoid ritual impurity, as the previous markers may have eroded during the rainy season. <b>And</b> agents of the court <b>also go out</b> to inspect the fields <b>for diverse kinds</b> of food crops, to determine whether or not the farmers had in fact uprooted these seeds after the proclamation on the first of the month. If the agents of the court found that these diverse kinds had not been uprooted, they themselves would uproot them.",
+            "At the end of the last mishna it was stated that the court sends out agents on the fifteenth of Adar to inspect whether the owners of fields had indeed uprooted any diverse kinds of crops as instructed. <b>Rabbi Yehuda said: At first</b> those agents <b>would uproot</b> the diverse kinds of crops <b>and cast them in front of</b> the owners of the fields. <b>When</b> the number of <b>transgressors</b> who would not uproot diverse kinds in their fields <b>increased,</b> and the Sages saw that this tactic was ineffective, <b>they would cast</b> the uprooted crops <b>onto the roads.</b> Ultimately, <b>they instituted that the entire field should be declared ownerless.</b>",
+            "<b>On the fifteenth of</b> Adar, money changers would <b>sit</b> at <b>tables</b> set up <b>in</b> the rest of <b>the country,</b> outside the Temple, to handle the collection of shekels. <b>On the twenty-fifth of</b> Adar, the money changers <b>sat in the Temple. From</b> the time <b>when</b> the money changers <b>sat in the Temple,</b> the court <b>began to seize collateral</b> from those who had yet to donate the half-shekel. <b>From whom did they seize collateral?</b> From <b>Levites, Israelites, converts, and emancipated slaves. However,</b> they did <b>not</b> seize collateral from <b>women, slaves, or minors. And any minor whose father began</b> one year <b>to contribute</b> a half-shekel <b>on his behalf,</b> despite the fact that he was not obligated to do so, <b>he may not cease to do so</b> in subsequent years. The court <b>does not seize collateral from priests,</b> although they are legally obligated to give a half-shekel like all other Jews, <b>because of the ways of peace.</b> The mishna goes on to explain the status of priests with regard to the contribution of the half-shekel.",
+            "<b>Rabbi Yehuda said</b> that <b>ben Bukhri testified in Yavne: Any priest who contributes</b> the half-shekel <b>is not</b> considered <b>a sinner,</b> despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so. Rabbi Yehuda added that <b>Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to</b> ben Bukhri: <b>Not so; rather, any priest who does not contribute</b> the half-shekel is considered <b>a sinner,</b> as they are obligated like all other Jews. <b>However,</b> Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai continued, <b>the priests</b> who do not contribute <b>interpret this verse to their own</b> advantage: <b>“And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly made to smoke; it shall not be eaten”</b> (Leviticus 6:16). Those priests claim as follows: <b>Since the <i>omer</i></b> offering <b>and the two loaves,</b> i.e., the public offering of two loaves from the new wheat brought on the festival of <i>Shavuot</i>, <b>and the shewbread</b> placed on the sacred table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, which are all meal-offerings, are <b>ours,</b> then if we contribute shekels we will have partial ownership of these communal offerings, as they are purchased with the shekels. <b>How,</b> then, <b>can</b> they <b>be eaten?</b> They ought to be regarded as priests’ meal-offerings, which must be wholly burnt. But since these offerings are eaten, the priests concluded that they are not obligated to contribute the half-shekel. This argument does not, however, take into account the fact that communal offerings belong to the public, which is understood as its own entity, and are not regarded as shared offerings of all who contribute to the public purse.",
+            "<b>Although</b> the Sages <b>said,</b> as stated in the previous mishna, that the court <b>does not seize collateral</b> from <b>women, slaves, and minors,</b> as they are not obligated to contribute, <b>however, if they contributed a shekel</b> of their own accord, the Temple treasurers <b>accept from them.</b> Conversely, in the case of <b>a gentile or a Samaritan [<i>Kuti</i>] who contributed a shekel</b> to participate in the communal offerings, <b>they do not accept</b> it <b>from them. And</b> likewise, <b>they do not accept from</b> a gentile or a Samaritan <b>pairs</b> of birds sacrificed in the purification ritual of <b>a <i>zav</i>, pairs</b> of birds <b>of a <i>zava</i>, or pairs</b> of birds <b>of a woman who gave birth,</b> all of which are brought for ritual purification, <b>or sin-offerings or guilt-offerings.</b> <b>This is the principle:</b> With regard to <b>anything that can be</b> brought to the altar <b>as a vow or as a free-will offering,</b> the priests <b>accept</b> it <b>from</b> gentiles and Samaritans, and with regard to <b>anything that cannot be</b> brought <b>as a vow or as a free-will offering, they</b> may <b>not accept</b> it <b>from them. And this</b> principle <b>was similarly articulated by Ezra,</b> when he recorded the Jewish leadership’s rejection of the Samaritans’ request to assist the Jews in the construction of the Second Temple, <b>as it is stated:</b> “But Zerubbabel, and Joshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers’ houses of Israel, said unto them: <b>You have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God;</b> but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord the God of Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia has commanded us” (Ezra 4:3).",
+            "<sup><b>[4a]</b></sup> The mishna states another <i>halakha</i>: <b>And these are</b> the people <b>who are obligated</b> in <b>the premium [<i>kalbon</i>],</b> a small sum added to the half-shekel collected: <b>Levites, Israelites, converts, and emancipated</b> Canaanite <b>slaves, but not priests, women,</b> Canaanite <b>slaves, or minors.</b> <b>One who contributes</b> a half-shekel <b>on behalf of a priest, on behalf of a woman, on behalf of a slave,</b> or <b>on behalf of a child, is exempt</b> from the premium, as they are exempt. <b>But if he contributed on his own behalf and on behalf of another,</b> i.e., he contributed one whole shekel to discharge both his own obligation and that of someone else, <b>he is obligated in one premium. Rabbi Meir says:</b> He must pay <b>two premiums.</b> The mishna further states: <b>One who gives</b> the collection agent <b>a <i>sela</i>,</b> i.e., a whole shekel, <b>and takes a shekel,</b> i.e., a half-shekel, as change <b>is obligated</b> in <b>two premiums.</b>",
+            "<b>One who contributes</b> a half-shekel <b>on behalf of a poor</b> person, <b>on behalf of his neighbor, or on behalf of a resident of his city is exempt</b> from the premium. The Sages did not obligate in the premium those who use their own money to fulfill the obligation of another. <b>But if one loaned them</b> a half-shekel, rather than paying it on their behalf, <b>he is obligated</b> to pay the premium. Since the recipients of the loan must repay the money, it is as though the half-shekel were paid from their property rather than the lender’s. <b>Partnered brothers,</b> who have fully divided among themselves their late father’s assets, and <b>who,</b> if they jointly pay a whole shekel from those assets to discharge both of their obligations, <b>are obligated in the premium</b> like any other two private individuals, <b>are exempt from the animal tithe</b> for the livestock they inherited. Since they have completely divided between them all inherited assets, they are considered purchasers of the livestock, and a purchaser is exempt from the animal tithe. <b>But when</b> they have not completely divided the assets, and <b>they are</b> therefore <b>obligated in the animal tithe,</b> as the livestock is considered in their father’s possession, <b>they are exempt from the premium</b> for their joint payment, as in the case of one who pays on behalf of another. <b>And how much is a premium? A silver <i>ma’a</i>.</b> This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:</b> It is only <b>half a <i>ma’a</i>.</b>"
+        ],
+        [
+            "When people who live far from Jerusalem wish to send to Jerusalem the shekels that have been levied from their community, <b>they</b> may <b>combine</b> their <b>shekels</b> and exchange them <b>for darics [<i>darkonot</i>],</b> which are large gold coins, <b>due to the burden of the way.</b> Instead of carrying large amounts of shekels, the agents who deliver the funds will bring a much lighter burden of gold coins with them. The mishna adds: <b>Just as there were</b> collection <b>horns in the Temple</b> to receive the half-shekel contributions, <b>so too there were</b> collection <b>horns in the rest of the country,</b> i.e., areas outside of Jerusalem. The local inhabitants placed their half-shekels in these horns, which were later brought to Jerusalem. § With regard to <b>the residents of a town who sent their shekels</b> to the Temple <b>and they were stolen</b> from the agent on the way <b>or were lost, if</b> the <b>collection</b> of the chamber <b>had</b> already <b>been collected</b> before these shekels arrived, the agents must <b>take the oath</b> of a bailee <b>to the treasurers [<i>gizbarin</i>].</b> After the collection of the chamber, all the shekels that have been contributed become the property of the Temple, so the Temple treasurers who are in charge of this property become the opposing litigants of the agents. <b>If</b> the ceremony has not yet been performed and the contributions have <b>not</b> yet been collected into the baskets, the shekels are considered the property of the residents of the town, and therefore the agents must <b>take an oath to</b> absolve themselves to <b>the residents of the town.</b> Since those shekels are still considered the property of the residents of the town because the shekels never reached the Temple, they have not fulfilled their obligation. Therefore, <b>the residents of the town</b> must <b>contribute</b> other shekels <b>in their place. If,</b> after the residents of the town contributed other shekels, the original shekels <b>were found or the thieves returned them,</b> both <b>these</b> original shekels <b>and those</b> newly contributed ones have the status of consecrated <b>shekels</b> and belong to the Temple. However, <b>they do not count for the following year.</b> The people cannot claim that since they contributed twice in one year they are exempt from contributing the next year.",
+            "With regard to <b>one who gives his shekel to his fellow to contribute on his behalf</b> by placing it in the collection horn for him, <b>and</b> the fellow instead <b>contributed it for himself, if</b> at the time that he placed the shekel in the collection horn <b>the collection</b> of the chamber <b>had been collected,</b> the fellow is guilty of <b>misuse of consecrated property.</b> When they perform the collection of the chamber, the treasurers also have in mind the shekels that have been contributed but are not yet in the possession of the Temple treasury, so that all those who have contributed shekels will have a part in the communal sacrifices. Therefore, when the agent gives this shekel for himself, he is considered to be deriving benefit from a consecrated item and is guilty of unintentional misuse of consecrated property. With regard to <b>one who</b> mistakenly <b>contributes his shekel from consecrated</b> money, <b>and</b> then <b>the collection of</b> the chamber <b>was collected and an animal</b> purchased with those funds <b>was sacrificed</b> as a communal offering, he is guilty of <b>misuse of consecrated property</b> once the animal has been offered. This is because at that point the money used to purchase the animal is transferred to non-sacred status. However, before that point, merely contributing consecrated money is not considered misuse. If one mistakenly contributed his shekel from money used to redeem the fruits of the <b>second tithe or from money</b> from the permitted sale of produce grown during the <b>Sabbatical Year, he must eat</b> non-sacred fruits besides the ones he already possesses, <b>corresponding to</b> the value of the shekel, and he must treat them with the sanctity of second tithes or Sabbatical Year fruits.",
+            "With regard to <b>one who gathers together</b> small <b>coins and said: These are for my shekel,</b> and subsequently discovered that it amounted to more than a half-shekel. <b>Beit Shammai say: The leftover</b> coins are placed in the collection horn designated for <b>a free-will offering,</b> as the money is consecrated property but it does not have the status of a shekel. <b>Beit Hillel say: The leftover</b> money <b>is non-sacred</b> property since, <i>ab initio</i>, he had in mind to consecrate a half-shekel and no more. An item that was consecrated by mistake does not have the status of consecrated property. However, if he originally said: I am gathering together this money so <b>that I will bring my shekel from these, they agree that the leftover</b> money <b>is non-sacred</b> property. If one who was obligated to bring a sin-offering gathered together coins and said: <b>These are for my sin-offering,</b> then if he had accumulated more than was needed, <b>they agree that the leftover</b> money must be designated as <b>a free-will offering.</b> However, if he originally said: <b>That I will bring my sin-offering from these, they agree that the leftover</b> money <b>is non-sacred</b> property.",
+            "<b>Rabbi Shimon said: What is the difference between shekels and a sin-offering?</b> Why do Beit Hillel say that the leftover money is non-sacred property in the case of shekels, while with regard to a sin-offering they say that the leftover money is consecrated for a free-will offering? <b>Rather,</b> the issue is <b>that shekels have a fixed</b> value, a half-shekel and no more. Therefore, there is a clear amount beyond which one did not intend the money to become consecrated property. However, <b>a sin-offering has no fixed</b> value. Since the entire sum that one collected could have been used to purchase a sin-offering, whatever he didn’t use must at least be designated for a free-will offering. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: Even for shekels there is no</b> real <b>fixed</b> value. <b>For when the Jewish people ascended from the exile, they would contribute darics,</b> which are Median coins worth two shekels by Torah law. They brought these coins with them and would give a half of one to fulfill their half-shekel obligation. Later on, when the Median Empire was dissolved, <b>they reverted to contributing</b> with <b>a <i>sela</i>,</b> a silver coin of equal weight to the the shekel mentioned in the Torah. People would contribute a half-<i>sela</i> for their half-shekel requirement. When the value of this currency changed later on, <b>they reverted to contributing</b> with <b>a <i>tiva</i>,</b> a different coin which is worth a half-shekel. Some people <b>wished to contribute</b> only <b>dinars,</b> which are half the value of the <b><i>tiva</i>,</b> i.e., one quarter shekel in value. The Sages <b>refused to accept it</b> and required them to contribute at least the half-shekel mentioned in the Torah. Nevertheless, it is clear that the obligation of contributing shekels does not have a fixed value. <b>Rabbi Shimon said</b> in response: <b>Even so,</b> despite the fact that during different periods there were different amounts used to fulfill the obligation of the half-shekel, <b>everyone has equal standing,</b> i.e., at any particular time, everyone contributes the same amount. Therefore, any sum collected beyond that amount was not intended to be consecrated. <b>However, a sin-offering</b> has no fixed amount whatsoever; <b>this</b> person may <b>bring</b> an animal <b>worth a <i>sela</i>, and that one</b> may <b>bring</b> one <b>worth two, and this one</b> may <b>bring</b> one <b>worth three.</b> Therefore, it cannot be supposed that there was no intention to consecrate the whole sum.",
+            "<b>The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what was set aside for <b>shekels is non-sacred</b> property, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in the previous mishna. The mishna now discusses similar cases for other sacred items: However, with regard to <b>the leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase <b>the tenth of an ephah</b> of fine flour for a meal-offering and <b>the leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase offerings that he is liable to sacrifice due to ritual impurity or a sin, such as <b>the pairs</b> of birds <b>of a <i>zav</i>, the pairs</b> of birds <b>of a <i>zava</i>, and the pairs</b> of birds <b>of a woman after childbirth, sin-offerings,</b> or <b>guilt-offerings,</b> in these cases, <b>its leftover</b> money must be used for <b>free-will offerings</b> that are offered as repletion of the altar, i.e., burnt-offerings sacrificed at times when the altar was idle. <b>This is the principle: Whatever</b> money <b>is designated for a sin-offering or for a guilt-offering, its leftover</b> money must be used for <b>a free-will offering. The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase <b>a burnt-offering</b> that he owes, due to a vow or to volunteering, must be used <b>for</b> another <b>burnt-offering</b> that he will bring in the future. <b>The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase fine flour for <b>a meal-offering</b> must be used <b>for</b> another <b>meal-offering. The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase <b>a peace-offering</b> must be used <b>for</b> another <b>peace-offering.</b> <b>The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase a lamb for his <b>Paschal lamb</b> is not used for another Paschal lamb, such as for the following year. Rather, it is used <b>for</b> purchasing <b>a peace-offering. The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what one set aside to purchase sacrifices for a number of <b>nazirites</b> must be used to purchase sacrifices <b>for</b> other <b>nazirites. The leftover</b> money <b>from</b> what a single <b>nazirite</b> set aside for his own offering must be used <b>for a free-will offering.</b>  <b>The leftover</b> money collected <b>for</b> freeing unspecified <b>captives</b> must be allocated <b>to</b> freeing <b>captives. The leftover</b> money collected <b>for</b> freeing <b>a</b> specific <b>captive</b> is given as a gift <b>to that captive. The leftover</b> money collected as charity <b>for the poor</b> must be allocated <b>to the poor. The leftover</b> money collected for <b>a</b> specific <b>poor</b> person is given as a gift <b>to that poor</b> person. <b>The leftover</b> money collected <b>for</b> burying <b>the dead</b> must be allocated to burying <b>the dead. The leftover</b> money collected to bury or provide burial shrouds <b>for a</b> particular <b>deceased</b> person is given <b>to his heirs. Rabbi Meir says:</b> It is uncertain what should be done, and therefore <b>the leftover</b> money <b>for the deceased should be placed</b> in a safe place <b>until Elijah comes</b> and teaches what should be done. <b>Rabbi Natan says:</b> With <b>the leftover</b> money collected <b>for a deceased</b> person they <b>build a monument [<i>nefesh</i>] on his grave for him.</b>"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<b>On three occasions during the year the</b> ceremony of the <b>collection of the</b> Temple treasury <b>chamber is performed.</b> During the ceremony, a priest enters the treasury chamber with three containers, lifts up [<i>torem</i>] some of the coins, and places them in the containers. These funds, known as the collection of the chamber, are used to purchase animals for communal offerings and other needs of the Temple. These three occasions are: <b>Half a month,</b> fifteen days, <b>before Passover,</b> on the day before the first of the month of Nisan; <b>half a month before <i>Shavuot</i>,</b> on or around the twentieth of Iyar; <b>half a month before the festival</b> of <i>Sukkot</i>, on the day before Rosh HaShana. <b>These</b> three days <b>are</b> also <b>the due dates</b> that were established by the Sages <b>for</b> the setting aside of <b>animal tithes.</b> On each of these days one is obligated to tithe the animals that were born during the intervening period, and it is prohibited for him to eat or sell them until he does so. <b>This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.</b> <b>Ben Azzai says</b> that the dates established by the Sages for the setting aside of animal tithes are <b>the twenty-ninth of Adar, the first of Sivan, and the twenty-ninth of Av.</b> <b>Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say</b> that the dates for the animal tithes are <b>the first of Nisan, the first of Sivan, and the twenty-ninth of Elul.</b> <b>And why did</b> Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon <b>say the twenty-ninth of Elul and not the first of Tishrei,</b> as they said the first of Nisan and Sivan? <b>Because</b> the first of Tishrei <b>is</b> the <b>festival</b> of Rosh HaShana, <b>and it is not permitted to tithe on a Festival. Therefore,</b> the Sages <b>advanced</b> the day of tithing the animals born over the course of the summer <b>to the twenty-ninth of Elul.</b>",
+            "The funds <b>are collected from the</b> Temple treasury <b>chamber with three baskets, each</b> measuring <b>three <i>se’a</i>. On</b> the baskets <b>is written,</b> respectively, <b><i>alef</i>, <i>beit</i>, <i>gimmel</i>,</b> based on the order in which the baskets are filled, to indicate from which basket coins should be taken to buy sacrifices. The coins were used in the order of their collection. <b>Rabbi Yishmael says:</b> The letters <b>written on them</b> were <b>in Greek, <i>alfa</i>, <i>beta</i>, <i>gamma</i>.</b> <b>The one who collects</b> the funds from the chamber <b>must not enter while wearing a cuffed garment</b> [<b><i>ḥafut</i></b>], <b>and not with a shoe, and not with a sandal, and not with phylacteries, and not with an amulet,</b> since all of these have places into which money can be inserted. The concern is that <b>perhaps</b> the one collecting the funds <b>will</b> one day <b>become poor, and</b> people <b>will say</b> that it is <b>because of the sin of</b> stealing the shekels of <b>the chamber</b> that <b>he became poor,</b> as they will suspect that he stole money and hid it in those places. <b>Or perhaps he will become rich and</b> people <b>will say</b> that <b>he became rich from</b> stealing <b>the funds of the chamber,</b> even though he did not actually do so. Even though one should not suspect someone of stealing consecrated shekels, the one collecting the funds from the chamber must nevertheless take these precautions, <b>as a person must appear justified before people just as he must appear justified before the Omnipresent [<i>HaMakom</i>], and it is stated: “And you shall be guiltless before the Lord and before Israel”</b> (Numbers 32:22). From here it may be inferred that it is not enough to be innocent before God; one must also be innocent before the Jewish people. Even in situations where there is little concern that one may commit a sin, the proper course is to remain above any possible suspicion of misconduct. <b>And the verse states: “So shall you find grace and good understanding in the sight of God and man”</b> (Proverbs 3:4).",
+            "In order to indicate the importance that was attached to the ceremony of the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, the mishna relates that the members <b>of the house of Rabban Gamliel</b> desired that their shekels be the ones collected from the chamber and used for the purchase of the communal offerings. Each of them <b>would</b> therefore come to the Temple specifically on the day of the ceremony of the collection of the chamber, <b>enter</b> the chamber <b>with his shekel between his fingers, and toss it in front of the one collecting</b> the money so that he would see it and place it in the basket containing the money to be taken out of the chamber. Understanding what was happening, <b>the one collecting</b> the money from the chamber <b>would purposely push</b> this shekel <b>into the basket,</b> so that it would later be used to buy communal offerings. <b>The one collecting</b> the funds from the chamber may <b>not</b> begin to <b>collect</b> the money <b>until he asks</b> the Temple treasurers three times: <b>Shall I collect</b> the funds, <b>and they say to him: Collect</b> them, <b>collect</b> them, <b>collect</b> them, <b>three times.</b>",
+            "The coins were stored in the Temple treasury in three large baskets, each measuring nine <i>se’a</i>. In the collection of the chamber ceremony, coins were removed from these baskets and placed in smaller baskets of three <i>se’a</i> each that were marked with letters (see the previous mishna on <i>daf</i> 8a). After <b>he collected the</b> funds <b>from the first</b> large basket and put them into one of the smaller baskets labeled with the letter <i>alef</i>, <b>he</b> immediately <b>covered with a leather cover</b> the large basket from which he had removed the money. After collecting funds <b>from the second</b> large basket, <b>he covered</b> it <b>with a leather cover</b> as well. But after collecting funds from <b>the third</b> large basket, <b>he did not cover</b> it. The mishna asks: <b>Why did he cover</b> the first two baskets? In order to mark them as already having had funds collected from them. In this way, there was no concern that <b>perhaps he would forget and</b> once again <b>collect</b> funds <b>from</b> a basket from which funds <b>had</b> already <b>been collected.</b> The mishna specifies the intent of the one collecting the funds from the baskets as he does so: <b>He collected</b> funds <b>from the first</b> basket <b>on behalf of</b> the people living in <b>Eretz Yisrael;</b> from <b>the second</b> basket <b>on behalf of</b> the people living in <b>the cities near</b> Eretz Yisrael; and from <b>the third</b> basket <b>on behalf of</b> the people living in <b>Babylonia, and on behalf of</b> the people living in <b>Media, and on behalf of</b> the people living in <b>the distant countries.</b>"
+        ],
+        [
+            "At certain times of the year, half-shekels that had been donated to the Temple and stored in a chamber in the Temple were collected in order to be used for various purposes. The mishna asks: <b>The collection</b> of half-shekels, <b>what would they do with it? They</b> would <b>purchase</b> animals for the <b>daily offerings,</b> which were offered each morning and afternoon; <b>and</b> for <b>the additional offerings,</b> which were offered on Shabbat, the New Moon, and Festivals; <b>and</b> wine for <b>their libations;</b> barley for <b>the <i>omer</i></b> meal-offering; <b>and</b> wheat for both the <b>two loaves</b> offered on Shavuot <b>and the shewbread; and</b> animals for <b>all the communal offerings.</b> § The <b>guards of</b> the <b><i>sefiḥin</i>,</b> grain that grew without being purposely planted, <b>during the Sabbatical Year,</b> ensured that people did not take this ownerless grain, so that it remained available to be used for the <i>omer</i> and the offering of the two loaves. They <b>collect their wages from the collection of the</b> Temple treasury <b>chamber. Rabbi Yosei says: One who</b> so <b>desires</b> may <b>even volunteer</b> his services and guard the grain as <b>an unpaid bailee.</b> The Rabbis <b>said to him: Even you</b> must <b>say that</b> the <i>omer</i> and the two loaves <b>come only</b> <b>from communal</b> funds and not from any one individual. If one were to volunteer his services, he would acquire the grain for himself by guarding it and transporting it to the Temple. In that case, these offerings would have come from an individual. So that the offerings come solely from communal funds, the guards must receive payment from the half-shekels removed from the chamber.",
+            "<b>The</b> red <b>heifer, the scapegoat, and the strip of crimson</b> wool used in the process of burning the red heifer all <b>come from the collection of the</b> Temple treasury <b>chamber,</b> despite the fact that they are not sacrificial offerings. The same is true for <b>the ramp</b> built from the Temple Mount to the location on the Mount of Olives, where they would slaughter the red <b>heifer; the ramp</b> built to lead the <b>scapegoat</b> out of the city; <b>the strip</b> of crimson wool <b>that was</b> tied <b>between its horns;</b> any repairs required for <b>the aqueduct</b> that ran through the Temple courtyard and <b>the walls of the city and its towers; and</b> for <b>all the needs of the city,</b> such as street repairs, security, and the like. All of these <b>come from the remains of the chamber,</b> i.e., from the money that remained in the chamber after the three collections of money were taken to use for communal offerings. <b>Abba Shaul says: The High Priests construct the ramp</b> for <b>the</b> red <b>heifer from their own</b> funds.",
+            "<b>What would they do with the leftover remains of the chamber</b> after all the items mentioned above had been attended to? <b>They</b> would <b>purchase wine, oil, and fine flour</b> and sell them to those who needed them for their private offerings. <b>And the profit</b> from these sales would go <b>to consecrated</b> property, i.e., to the Temple treasury; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: One may not generate profit by</b> selling <b>consecrated</b> property, <b>neither</b> may one profit <b>from</b> funds set aside <b>for the poor.</b>",
+            "<b>What would they do with the leftover</b> funds <b>of the collection</b> that had not been spent on communal offerings? They would purchase <b>golden plates</b> as a <b>coating for the</b> walls and floor of the <b>Holy of Holies. Rabbi Yishmael says: The leftover produce</b> was used to purchase the <b>repletion of the altar,</b> i.e., burnt-offerings sacrificed at times when the altar was idle. <b>The leftover</b> funds <b>of the collection</b> were used <b>to</b> purchase <b>sacred vessels.</b> <b>Rabbi Akiva says: The leftover</b> funds <b>of the collection</b> were used to purchase the animals used <b>for the repletion of the altar,</b> since they had originally been collected for offerings. <b>The leftover libations</b> were used <b>to</b> purchase <b>sacred vessels. Rabbi Ḥananya, the deputy [<i>segan</i>] High Priest, says: The leftover libations</b> were used to purchase animals for <b>the repletion of the altar,</b> while <b>the leftover</b> funds <b>of the collection</b> were used <b>to</b> purchase <b>sacred vessels.</b> Both <b>this</b> Sage, Rabbi Akiva, and <b>that</b> Sage, Rabbi Ḥananya, <b>did not agree</b> with Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion <b>with regard to the</b> leftover produce.",
+            "<b>The leftover incense</b> from one year could not be used the following year, as it had been purchased with the shekels collected for the previous year. <b>What would be done with it</b> in order to make it usable? The Temple treasurers <b>would set aside</b> an amount <b>of it</b> equal to the value of <b>the wages of the artisans</b> who worked in the Temple. <b>They would</b> then <b>desacralize</b> that incense by transferring its sanctity <b>to the money</b> owed to <b>the artisans. They would</b> then <b>give</b> the incense <b>to the artisans as their wages.</b> Finally, <b>they would return and buy</b> back the incense from the artisans with funds <b>from the new collection</b> of shekels. <b>If the new</b> funds <b>come on time,</b> i.e., by the beginning of Nisan, <b>they purchase</b> the incense with funds <b>from the new collection</b> of shekels. <b>And if not,</b> they may still purchase it <b>from the old</b> collection, and it is valid.",
+            "<b>One who consecrates</b> all <b>his possessions</b> without specifying for what purpose, his possessions are consecrated for Temple maintenance. <b>And</b> if <b>among them there are items</b> that are <b>suitable for</b> use as <b>communal offerings,</b> which may not be used for the maintenance of the Temple but only for sacrificial purposes, what is done with those items to remove their consecration for Temple maintenance, in order that they may be reconsecrated for sacrificial use? <b>They are given to</b> Temple <b>artisans as their wages,</b> and thereby they are desacralized; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Ben Azzai said to him: This is not the method</b> to be used. <b>Rather,</b> the same method that is used to desacralize the leftover incense, as is described in the previous mishna, should also be used here, i.e., <b>they set aside from</b> the consecrated items the equivalent of the value owed to the <b>artisans for their wages, and they desacralize them</b> by transferring their sanctity <b>onto</b> the <b>money</b> allocated <b>for the artisans’</b> wages, <b>and</b> then <b>they give those</b> items, which are no longer consecrated, <b>to the artisans as their wages.</b> According to both opinions, once the desacralized items are in the possession of the artisans, one of Temple treasurers <b>should repurchase those</b> items using money <b>from</b> that year’s <b>new collection of half-shekels,</b> consecrating them for sacrificial use during the coming year.",
+            "In the case of <b>one who consecrates</b> all <b>his possessions</b> without specifying for what purpose, <b>and among them there is an animal that is suitable</b> to be sacrificed <b>on the altar, male</b> or <b>female,</b> what should be done with it? <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> Since he did not specify otherwise, everything is consecrated for Temple maintenance. Therefore, any <b>males</b> should <b>be sold for the needs of burnt-offerings,</b> i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such. <b>And</b> any <b>females,</b> since they cannot be brought as burnt-offerings, should <b>be sold for the needs of peace-offerings,</b> i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such. <b>And their monetary value</b> that is received from their sale is <b>allocated with the rest of his property for Temple maintenance.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehoshua says:</b> Although he did not specify for what purpose he consecrated his possessions, it may be assumed that he intended the animals to be consecrated as burnt-offerings. Therefore, any <b>males</b> should <b>themselves be sacrificed as burnt-offerings, and</b> any <b>females,</b> since they cannot be brought as burnt-offerings, should <b>be sold for the needs of peace-offerings,</b> i.e., to individuals who will sacrifice them as such, <b>and their monetary value</b> that is received from their sale should be used to purchase and <b>bring burnt-offerings.</b> According to both opinions, <b>the rest of the possessions,</b> which are not suitable for sacrificial use, <b>are allocated for Temple maintenance.</b> <b>Rabbi Akiva said: I see the statement of Rabbi Eliezer</b> as more correct <b>than the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua, since Rabbi Eliezer applied his method equally</b> to both animals and other possessions in treating both as consecrated for Temple maintenance, whereas <b>Rabbi Yehoshua made a distinction</b> between them. <b>Rabbi Papeyyas said: I heard the statements of both of them</b> applied to different situations: <b>One who consecrates</b> all his possessions and <b>explicitly</b> states that his animals are to be included, clearly intends to equate his animals with the rest of his possessions, that both should be consecrated for the same purpose, i.e., for Temple maintenance. Therefore, he should act <b>in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.</b> However, with regard to <b>one who consecrates</b> all his possessions <b>without</b> explicitly <b>specifying</b> that this includes his animals, since there is no reason to presume that he wishes them all to be consecrated for the same purpose, it is presumed that each item is consecrated for the purpose most suited to it. Therefore, he should act <b>in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.</b>",
+            " In the case of <b>one who consecrates</b> all <b>his possessions, and among them there were items that are suitable to</b> be sacrificed <b>on the altar,</b> such as <b>wines</b> for libations, <b>and oils</b> for meal-offerings, <b>and birds,</b> e.g., turtledoves or young pigeons, <b>Rabbi Eliezer says: They are sold for the needs of that kind</b> of item, i.e., to individuals who will use them as such. <b>And he should bring with their monetary value</b> that is received from their sale <b>burnt-offerings. And the rest of the possessions are allocated for Temple maintenance.</b>",
+            "<b>Once every thirty days, the prices</b> at which the Temple supplies such as wine, flour, or oil will be purchased <b>are set for the</b> Temple <b>chamber.</b> This set price is implemented in the following way: <b>Any</b> merchant <b>who undertakes to provide fine flour</b> after the chamber set a price of <b>four</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>, even if the general market price rose and <b>stood at three</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>, <b>he must provide</b> fine flour based on the set price of <b>four</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>. However, if the chamber’s set price was <b>three</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>, and the general market price fell to <b>four</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>, <b>he must</b> now <b>provide</b> fine flour based on the new market price of <b>four</b> <i>se’a</i> per <i>sela</i>. This is in order <b>that the</b> Temple treasury of <b>consecrated</b> property always <b>has the upper hand.</b> <b>If the fine flour became wormy, it became wormy for</b> the merchant, i.e., he bears the loss of the ruined fine flour and must provide new fine flour in its place. Similarly, <b>if the wine turned to vinegar, it turned to vinegar for</b> the merchant. This is because the merchant <b>only receives,</b> i.e., earns, <b>his money once the altar is satisfied,</b> i.e., the transaction is only realized once the items have been sacrificed on the altar."
+        ],
+        [
+            "<b>These are the officials who served</b> in specific positions <b>in the Temple: Yoḥanan ben Pineḥas</b> was responsible <b>for the seals.</b> One who paid for a specific type of sacrificial item received a seal, which he presented to the Temple official in exchange for that item. <b>Aḥiyya</b> was responsible <b>for the libations,</b> i.e., the wine, oil, and flour prepared with the level of ritual purity necessary for the libation offerings and the meal-offerings, which accompanied many animal offerings. Aḥiyya supplied the libations to those who presented the appropriate seal. <b>Matya ben Shmuel</b> was responsible <b>for the lotteries,</b> which were used to select priests for the various Temple services each day. <b>Petaḥya</b> was responsible <b>for the pairs</b> of birds, i.e., the turtledoves or pigeons, brought by a <i>zav</i>, a <i>zava</i>, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. They placed the appropriate sum of money into the horn designated for this purpose, and each day Petaḥya oversaw the purchase of birds from that money and their sacrifice in the proper manner. Incidentally, the Gemara mentions: <b>Petaḥya is Mordecai</b> from the book of Esther. <b>And why was he called Petaḥya,</b> which resembles the word for opening [<i>petaḥ</i>]? The reason is <b>that he would open,</b> i.e., elucidate, difficult <b>topics and interpret them</b> to the people, <b>and</b> because <b>he knew</b> all <b>seventy languages</b> known at the time. The mishna resumes the list of officials. <b>Ben Aḥiyya</b> was responsible <b>for</b> the care of the priests who suffered from <b>intestinal disease. Neḥunya</b> was the <b>well digger</b> for pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem for the Festivals. <b>Gevini</b> was the Temple <b>crier</b> who would awaken the priests and the Levites for their Temple duties. <b>Ben Gever</b> was responsible <b>for locking the</b> Temple <b>gates</b> in the evening and for unlocking them in the morning. <b>Ben Bevai</b> was <b>appointed over the shreds</b> of garments, which were formed into wicks for the Temple candelabra. He also supervised the twisting of those wicks into the appropriate thickness for the various nights during the different seasons of the year. <b>Ben Arza</b> was responsible <b>for the cymbal,</b> which was rung as a signal that the Levites should commence their song. <b>Hugras ben Levi</b> was responsible <b>for the song.</b> He taught and conducted the singers in the Temple. <b>The house of Garmu</b> was responsible <b>for the preparation of the shewbread; the house of Avtinas</b> was responsible <b>for the preparation of the incense; and Elazar</b> was responsible <b>for</b> weaving <b>the</b> Temple <b>curtains; and Pineḥas</b> was <b>the valet,</b> who assisted the priests in fitting their clothes and dressing themselves for their Temple service.",
+            "<b>There must be no fewer than seven trustees [<i>amarkolin</i>] and three treasurers</b> appointed over the Temple administration. <b>And we do not appoint an authority over the public</b> comprised <b>of fewer than two</b> people, <b>except for ben Aḥiyya, who</b> was responsible <b>for</b> healing priests who suffered from <b>intestinal disease, and Elazar, who</b> was responsible <b>for</b> the weaving <b>of the</b> Temple <b>curtains.</b> The reason for these exceptions is <b>that the majority of the public accepted these</b> men <b>upon themselves</b> as officials who served without the assistance of even a single partner.",
+            "This mishna provides details of the functions performed by Yoḥanan ben Pineḥas and Aḥiyya, the officials mentioned in the first mishna of this chapter, which concerns the seals and libations. <b>There were four seals in the Temple</b> that confirmed that the bearer had paid for the libations that accompanied his offering. <b>And</b> one of the following inscriptions was <b>written on them: Calf; male,</b> i.e., a ram; <b>kid; and sinner,</b> i.e., a leper, as leprosy is a punishment for one of seven sins (see <i>Arakhin</i> 16a). Conversely, <b>ben Azzai says: There were five</b> seals, <b>and</b> the following was <b>written upon them</b> in <b>Aramaic,</b> not Hebrew: <b>Calf, male, kid, poor sinner, and rich sinner.</b> The mishna explains the significance of each of the four aforementioned seals. The <b>calf</b> seal <b>serves</b> as a payment receipt <b>for libations of cattle</b> offerings, whether they are <b>large or small, male or female,</b> as all offerings from the cow family are accompanied by the same libation. The <b>kid</b> seal <b>serves for libations of sheep</b> or goat offerings, whether <b>large or small, male or female, except for those of rams</b> aged thirteen months and older. The <b>ram</b> seal, which was earlier called the male seal, <b>serves exclusively for ram libations.</b> The <b>sinner</b> seal <b>serves for libations of the three animal</b> offerings <b>of a leper,</b> for the completion of his purification.",
+            "<b>One who seeks libations</b> for his offering <b>goes to Yoḥanan,</b> the official <b>who was responsible for the seals, and gives him</b> the appropriate sum of <b>money and receives a seal from him.</b> With that seal <b>he</b> subsequently <b>comes to Aḥiyya, who was responsible for the libations, and gives him</b> Yoḥanan’s <b>seal and receives</b> his <b>libations from him.</b> <b>In the evening,</b> Yoḥanan and Aḥiyya <b>would get together</b> to reconcile their accounts, <b>and Aḥiyya would take out the seals</b> he had received <b>and accept the money</b> Yoḥanan had received <b>in exchange for them. If</b> the money <b>was less</b> than the value of the seals, <b>they were less to him,</b> i.e., Yoḥanan would bear the loss, <b>and Yoḥanan would</b> have to <b>pay</b> the difference to the Temple treasury <b>from his own</b> property. <b>And if</b> there was some money <b>left over,</b> i.e., the total money was greater than the value of the seals, <b>they</b> were <b>left over to</b> the benefit of <b>the Temple treasury of consecrated property, as the Temple treasury</b> always <b>has the upper hand.</b>",
+            "With regard to <b>one who lost his seal</b> that he purchased from Yoḥanan, Yoḥanan and <b>Aḥiyya would wait to</b> resolve <b>his</b> problem <b>until the evening. And</b> when they added their accounts in the evening, <b>if they found for him</b> a surplus of money <b>equivalent to</b> the value of <b>his seal, they would give him</b> the corresponding libations. <b>And if not, they would not give him</b> libations. <b>And the name of the day</b> of the week <b>was written upon</b> the seals <b>because of the cheats.</b> They might try to use old seals that had been lost by the Temple officials or by someone who had brought an offering at an earlier date, so as to receive libations in a deceitful manner.",
+            "<b>There were two</b> special <b>chambers in the Temple, one</b> called <b>the chamber of secret</b> gifts <b>and</b> the other <b>one</b> called <b>the chamber of vessels.</b> The mishna explains the purpose of these chambers. In <b>the chamber of secret</b> gifts, <b>sin-fearing people put</b> money <b>secretly and poor people of noble descent support themselves from it secretly.</b> With regard to <b>the chamber of vessels, anyone who donates a vessel</b> to the Temple <b>drops it inside</b> that chamber, <b>and once every thirty days the treasurers open it. And any vessel that they found for it a use for Temple maintenance, they leave it</b> for that purpose, <b>and the rest are sold, and their monetary</b> value is <b>allocated to Temple maintenance.</b>"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<b>There were thirteen</b> collection <b>horns,</b> narrow at the top and wide at the bottom, into which were placed the shekels that were collected for the various needs of the Temple. There <b>were</b> also <b>thirteen tables</b> for various purposes, and <b>thirteen prostrations in the Temple.</b> The members <b>of the household of Rabban Gamliel and</b> the members <b>of the household of Rabbi Ḥananya, the deputy High Priest, would prostrate</b> themselves <b>in fourteen</b> places. <b>And where was</b> this <b>extra</b> location? It was <b>facing the wood depository, as there was a tradition handed</b> down <b>to them from their fathers that the Ark was sequestered there.</b>",
+            "The mishna relates that there was <b>an incident involving a certain priest who was going about</b> his duties <b>and saw</b> a certain <b>flagstone that was different from the others.</b> He noticed that one of the stones was slightly raised above the others, indicating that it had been removed and returned to its place. The priest understood that this was the opening to an underground tunnel where the Ark was concealed. <b>He came and said to his fellow</b> that he had noticed this deviation in the floor. <b>He did not manage to conclude</b> relating <b>the incident before his soul left him,</b> i.e., he died. Following this event, <b>they knew with certainty that the Ark was sequestered there</b> and that God had prevented that priest from revealing its location.",
+            "The previous mishna mentioned that there were thirteen prostrations in the Temple. <b>Where were these prostrations?</b> There were <b>four in the north</b> of the courtyard, <b>four in the south, three in the east and two in the west,</b> as the thirteen prostrations were <b>facing the thirteen gates</b> of the Temple courtyard. The thirteen gates were as follows: <b>The southern ones,</b> listed in order, beginning with the one <b>adjacent to the western</b> side, were <b>the Upper Gate,</b> and the topography of the courtyard was such that there was an incline on the east-west plane, therefore the gate farthest to the west was higher than the other gates; <b>the Gate of Kindling,</b> through which the priests would bring the wood for the arrangement of fire on top of the altar; <b>the Gate of the Firstborn,</b> through which priests would bring the ritually pure firstborn animals to be sacrificed, as it is permitted to slaughter firstborn animals on the southern side of the courtyard; and <b>the Gate of Water.</b> The mishna elaborates: <b>And why was it named the Gate of Water? Since through it they would bring in the vial</b> <b>of</b> water for <b>the water libation on the festival</b> of <i>Sukkot</i>, as they would ceremoniously draw the water from the Pool of Siloam and bring it to the altar through this gate. <b>Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:</b> There was a different reason for this name. It was called the Gate of Water because <b>through it the water would trickle [<i>mefakim</i>], and in the future</b> this water will increase and <b>go out from under the threshold of the House.</b> <b>Facing these</b> gates were the ones <b>in the north,</b> listed in order from the one <b>closest to the west: The Gate of Jeconiah; the Gate of the Offering,</b> through which they would bring the offerings of the most sacred order, as these could be slaughtered only in the northern part of the courtyard; <b>the Gate of Women,</b> where women would enter the courtyard to place their hands on the heads of their offerings; and <b>the Gate of Song,</b> through which they would bring the musical instruments into the courtyard. The mishna asks: <b>And why was it called the Gate of Jeconiah?</b> The reason is <b>that through it Jeconiah went out to his exile.</b> Before Jeconiah was exiled by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon he came to take leave of the Temple, and he left through this gate. The mishna resumes the list with the gates <b>that</b> are <b>in the east: the Gate of Nicanor,</b> which was named after Nicanor, who brought the doors of this gate from Egypt (see <i>Yoma</i> 38a). <b>And</b> the Gate of Nicanor <b>had two wickets [<i>pishpeshin</i>], one on its right and one on its left. And</b> there were <b>two</b> gates <b>in the west that did not have a name,</b> making a total of thirteen gates.",
+            "This mishna details the exact location and purpose of the thirteen tables in the Temple. There <b>were thirteen tables in the Temple. Eight</b> of them were made <b>of marble</b> and were located <b>in the slaughtering area,</b> north of the altar, where the priests would slaughter the offerings of the most sacred order. <b>Upon these</b> tables <b>they would wash the innards</b> of the offerings, as the marble was cool and preserved the freshness of the meat. <b>And</b> there were <b>two</b> more tables <b>on the western</b> side <b>of the ramp,</b> south of the altar, <b>one of marble and one of silver.On</b> the table <b>of marble they would place the limbs</b> before they were sacrificed, and from there the priests would bring them up to the altar. <b>On</b> the table made <b>of silver</b> they would place the ninety-three <b>sacred vessels</b> brought out from the Chamber of Vessels each morning for the services of that day. <b>And</b> there were <b>two</b> tables <b>in the Entrance Hall</b> to the Sanctuary, <b>on the inside</b> of the Entrance Hall, <b>near the opening to the Temple, one of marble and one of gold. On</b> the table <b>of marble they would put the shewbread before its entrance</b> to the Sanctuary after it was baked on the eve of Shabbat. <b>And</b> they would place the old shewbread <b>on</b> the table <b>of gold upon its exit</b> from the Sanctuary, to be divided among the priests. The reason the shewbread was placed on a marble table before being brought into the Sanctuary and on a golden one upon when removed from there is <b>that one elevates</b> to a higher level <b>in</b> matters of <b>sanctity and one does not downgrade.</b> Since it had been placed on the golden Shewbread table all week inside the Sanctuary, upon its removal it could not be derogated to a marble table and so was placed on a different golden table in the Entrance Hall. Finally, there was <b>one</b> table <b>of gold inside</b> the Sanctuary, i.e. the Shewbread table, <b>upon which the shewbread</b> was placed <b>always.</b>",
+            "<b>There were thirteen</b> collection <b>horns in the Temple, and</b> the intended use of the funds <b>was written upon</b> each one, as follows: <b>New shekels, old shekels, pairs</b> of birds, <b>fledglings</b> designated for <b>burnt-offerings, wood</b> for the arrangement on the altar, <b>frankincense</b> that accompanied meal-offerings, and <b>gold</b> donated <b>for the Ark cover.</b> The remaining <b>six horns</b> were designated <b>for</b> communal <b>free-will offerings.</b> The horn labeled <b>new shekels</b> was designated for the half-shekel donation <b>that</b> was brought <b>every year</b> for the needs of that year. The horn labeled <b>old shekels</b> was for <b>one who did not bring</b> his half-shekel <b>the previous year,</b> who would <b>contribute his shekel for the following year.</b> The funds in the horn labeled <b>pairs</b> of birds <b>are</b> designated for the <b>turtledoves</b> used for bird-offerings, and the one labeled <b>fledglings</b> for <b>burnt-offerings are</b> used to purchase <b>young pigeons</b> as burnt-offerings. <b>All of these,</b> i.e., the funds in both horns, were used exclusively for voluntary <b>burnt-offerings.</b> This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.</b> <b>And the Rabbis say:</b> The funds in both the horn labeled pairs of birds and the horn labeled fledglings were for young pigeons and turtledoves. The distinction between them is that the funds in the horn labeled <b>pairs</b> of birds were designated for the obligatory offerings of a <i>zav</i>, a <i>zava</i>, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. These offerings included a pair of birds, <b>one</b> brought for <b>a sin-offering, and</b> the other <b>one</b> brought for <b>a burnt-offering.</b> Conversely, the funds in the horn labeled <b>fledglings</b> for <b>burnt-offerings</b> were <b>all</b> used exclusively for voluntary <b>burnt-offerings.</b>",
+            "<b>One who says:</b> It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>wood</b> to the Temple, must donate <b>no fewer than two logs</b> for the arrangement on the altar. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate <b>frankincense,</b> must donate <b>no less than a handful</b> of frankincense, the amount brought with a meal-offering. One who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate <b>gold,</b> must donate <b>no less than a dinar of gold.</b> It was stated that <b>six horns</b> were designated <b>for</b> communal <b>free-will offerings.</b> The Mishna asks: With regard to the money designated for communal <b>free-will offerings, what would they do with this</b> money? The Mishna answers that they used <b>it to purchase</b> animals for <b>burnt-offerings,</b> as <b>the meat</b> from these offerings was offered on the altar <b>to God and the hides</b> were given <b>to the priests.</b> <b>This midrash was taught</b> by <b>Jehoiada the High Priest:</b> There is an apparent contradiction between two verses. With regard to the guilt-offering, the verse states: <b>“It is a guilt-offering; he is certainly guilty before the Lord”</b> (Leviticus 5:19). This verse indicates that the guilt-offering goes to God, not the priests. However, a different verse states: “As is the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering; there is one law for them; the priest who makes atonement with it, he shall have it” (Leviticus 7:7). This verse indicates that the offering is designated for the priests alone. How can these two verses be reconciled? The Mishna explains that <b>this is the principle: Any</b> funds <b>that come due to a sin-offering or due to a guilt-offering,</b> i.e., leftover coins designated for one of these offerings, <b>they</b> should be used for the <b>purchase of animals for a</b> voluntary <b>burnt-offering,</b> as <b>the meat</b> will be offered on the altar <b>to God, and the hides</b> will go <b>to the priests.</b> In this manner <b>the two verses are found</b> to be <b>fulfilled,</b> as it is both <b>a guilt-offering to God as well as a guilt-offering to the priest.</b> <b>And</b> this <i>halakha</i> also explains the verse that <b>says: “The guilt-offering money and the sin-offering money was not brought into the House of the Lord; it was for the priests”</b> (II Kings 12:17). This verse is understood to refer to the hides given to the priests."
+        ],
+        [
+            "If <b>money was found</b> on the floor of the Temple <b>between</b> one of <b>the</b> collection horns marked <b>shekels and the</b> collection horn marked <b>free-will offerings,</b> that is to say, between the first and the thirteenth collection horns, in which funds contributed to the Temple were stored, the following distinctions apply: If the money was found <b>closer to the</b> horn marked <b>shekels, it is allocated to the shekels;</b> if it was found <b>closer to the</b> horn marked <b>free-will offerings, it is allocated to free-will offerings;</b> and if it was <b>equidistant</b> from the horn marked shekels and the horn marked free-will offerings, <b>it is allocated to free-will offerings.</b> If the money was found <b>between</b> the horn marked <b>wood and</b> the horn marked <b>frankincense,</b> that is, between the fifth and sixth horns, if it was <b>closer to the</b> horn marked <b>wood, it is allocated to wood;</b> if it was closer to <b>the</b> horn marked <b>frankincense, it is allocated to frankincense;</b> and if it was found <b>equidistant</b> from both, <b>it is allocated to frankincense.</b> If the money was found <b>between</b> the horn marked <b>pairs</b> of bird-offerings <b>and</b> the horn marked <b>doves for burnt-offerings,</b> i.e., between the third and the fourth horns, if it is <b>closer to the</b> horn marked <b>pairs</b> of bird-offerings, <b>it is allocated to pairs</b> of bird-offerings; if it was found <b>closer to</b> the horn marked <b>doves for burnt-offerings, it is allocated to doves for burnt-offerings;</b> and if it was found <b>equidistant</b> from both, <b>it is allocated to doves for burnt-offerings.</b> And similarly, if money was found anywhere else <b>between</b> a container for ordinary, <b>non-sacred</b> money <b>and</b> one containing <b>second-tithe</b> money, the following distinctions apply: If the money was found <b>closer to the non-sacred</b> money, <b>it is allocated to the non-sacred</b> money; if it was found closer to <b>second-tithe</b> money, <b>it is allocated to second-tithe</b> money; and if it was found <b>equidistant</b> from both, <b>it is allocated to second-tithe</b> money. <b>This is the principle:</b> In cases of doubt, the ruling <b>follows whichever is closer,</b> even if this involves <b>being lenient,</b> but if the money was found <b>equidistant</b> from both, the ruling follows whichever allocation involves <b>being stringent.</b>",
+            "This mishna considers other situations in which something is found and its source is unknown. <b>Money found before animal merchants</b> in Jerusalem is <b>always</b> presumed to be second-<b>tithe</b> money. The presumption is based on the fact that in Jerusalem, most of the animals are bought with second-tithe money and sacrificed as peace-offerings. <b>And</b> money found <b>on the Temple Mount</b> is presumed to be <b>non-sacred</b> money. <b>And</b> with regard to money found <b>in</b> the rest of <b>Jerusalem,</b> the following distinction applies: If it was found <b>during the rest of the days of the year,</b> it is presumed to be <b>non-sacred</b> money, <b>but</b> if it was found <b>during the time of a pilgrim Festival,</b> it is <b>all</b> presumed to be second-<b>tithe</b> money, because most of the money found in Jerusalem at the time of a Festival is second-tithe money.",
+            "The mishna continues: With regard to <b>meat that was found in the</b> Temple <b>courtyard,</b> and it is not known from whence it came, the <i>halakha</i> is as follows: If it is whole <b>limbs</b> of the animal, in the manner that burnt-offerings are brought to the altar, it is presumed to be <b>burnt-offerings. And</b> if it is in small <b>pieces,</b> it is presumed to be <b>sin-offerings. And</b> if the meat, in whatever form, is found <b>in</b> the city of <b>Jerusalem,</b> as opposed to the courtyard, it is presumed to be the meat of <b>peace-offerings,</b> as most of the meat in Jerusalem is the meat of peace-offerings. Since it is possible that the time during which it is permitted to eat any of it has already passed, both <b>this and that,</b> whether it is determined to be the meat of burnt-offerings or the meat of peace-offerings, <b>its form</b> must be allowed <b>to decay,</b> i.e., it must be left until it is definitely disqualified, <b>and</b> then <b>it must be taken out to the place of burning,</b> where offerings that have become disqualified are burned. With regard to meat <b>found in the outlying areas,</b> outside of Jerusalem, if it is in the form of whole <b>limbs,</b> the meat presumably comes from <b>carcasses</b> of animals that were not properly slaughtered, for meat unfit for eating was generally cut up into full limbs, to be fed to dogs or sold to gentiles. <b>But</b> if it is in small <b>pieces,</b> it is presumably kosher and <b>permitted</b> to be eaten, as kosher meat was ordinarily cut up into small pieces. <b>And</b> if meat is found <b>at the time of a Festival, when meat is plentiful,</b> so that it is generally not cut up into small pieces, then <b>even</b> whole <b>limbs are permitted</b> to be eaten.",
+            "If <b>an animal</b> that is fit for the altar <b>was found</b> straying, <b>from Jerusalem and as far as Migdal Eder, and</b> similarly if it was found <b>within that distance</b> from Jerusalem <b>in any</b> other <b>direction,</b> it is presumed that the animal came from Jerusalem. Most of the animals in Jerusalem were designated for offerings, and presumably this one was as well. <b>Males</b> are presumed to be <b>burnt-offerings,</b> as only males are brought as burnt-offerings. <b>Females</b> are presumed to be <b>peace-offerings,</b> as it is permitted to bring a female peace-offering. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> An animal <b>that is fit for the Paschal offering,</b> i.e., a one-year-old male lamb or kid, is presumed to be <b>a Paschal offering,</b> provided that it was found <b>within thirty days before the Festival</b> of Passover.",
+            "<b>Originally,</b> the court <b>would seize collateral from one who found</b> such an animal, as security <b>until he would bring with it the libations</b> associated with this offering, as if the found animal were his own and he had committed himself to bring the libations. This brought about a situation in which those who found the animals <b>began leaving them</b> where they found them, <b>and absconding,</b> so as not to become liable for the libations. <b>The court</b> therefore <b>instituted that the libations</b> accompanying these offerings <b>would come from public</b> funds, that is, from the Temple treasury.",
+            "<b>Rabbi Shimon said: The court instituted seven ordinances</b> with regard to the financial aspects of offerings and consecrations. <b>And this</b> ordinance, namely, that the cost of the libations accompanying the sacrifice of a found animal is borne by the public, <b>is one of them.</b> These are the other ordinances: If <b>a gentile sent his burnt-offering from abroad,</b> outside Eretz Yisrael, <b>and he sent with it</b> money for the purchase of the <b>libations</b> that must accompany it, the libations <b>are offered at his</b> expense. <b>And if</b> the gentile <b>did not</b> cover the cost of the libations, it is a condition of the court that the libations are <b>sacrificed at the public’s</b> expense, with funds taken from the Temple treasury. <b>And likewise,</b> in the case of <b>a convert who died</b> without heirs <b>and left</b> animals that he had designated as <b>offerings. If he has the libations,</b> i.e., if he also had set aside libations or money for that purpose, the libations <b>are sacrificed from his</b> estate. <b>And if</b> he did <b>not</b> do so, the libations <b>are sacrificed from public</b> funds. <b>And</b> another ordinance: <b>It is a condition of the court with regard to a High Priest who died,</b> and a new High Priest had not yet been appointed in his place, <b>that his meal-offering,</b> i.e., the griddle-cake offering that the High Priest would bring each day from one-tenth of an ephah of flour, would be <b>sacrificed from public</b> funds. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> It was brought <b>from</b> the property of the High Priest’s <b>heirs,</b> i.e., his estate, and not from public funds. In any event, the offering was not brought as it would have been brought by the High Priest himself were he still alive, half in the morning and half in the evening, <b>but</b> rather <b>it was sacrificed</b> all at once, from a <b>whole</b> one-tenth of an ephah.",
+            "The fourth ordinance was <b>about the salt</b> in the Temple that was designated for salting the offerings, <b>and</b> the fifth was <b>about the wood</b> that was used for the burning of the offerings. These ordinances decreed <b>that the priests may use them</b> also to prepare the meat of the offerings that they eat. <b>And</b> the sixth ordinance <b>concerned the</b> red <b>heifer: that</b> deriving benefit <b>from its ashes is not considered misusing</b> consecrated property. <b>And</b> the seventh ordinance was <b>about disqualified pairs</b> of bird-offerings: It ruled <b>that</b> their replacements <b>should come from public</b> funds. <b>Rabbi Yosei</b> disagreed and <b>says:</b> The expense does not fall upon the public, but rather upon <b>whoever supplies</b> all <b>the pairs</b> of bird-offerings to the Temple; <b>he must</b> also <b>supply,</b> at no additional charge, the replacements for <b>the disqualified</b> birds."
+        ],
+        [
+            "The mishna discusses the ritual purity of items found either in the Temple or in Jerusalem and its environs, in continuation of the previous chapter’s discussion of found money, animals, or meat. <b>All the spittle that is found in Jerusalem is ritually pure.</b> Since neither ritually impure people nor gentiles were commonly present in Jerusalem, the Sages decreed an exception to the rule that spittle that is found is ritually impure since it presumably comes from one of those groups. This is the case <b>except for</b> spittle found <b>in the upper marketplace,</b> where gentiles and ritually impure Jews were likely to be present. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir.</b> <b>Rabbi Yosei says: On all the other days of the year,</b> i.e., any day that is not on one of the three pilgrim Festivals, Passover, <i>Shavuot</i>, and <i>Sukkot</i>, spittle <b>that</b> is found <b>in the middle</b> of the street is <b>ritually impure,</b> and spittle <b>that</b> is found on <b>the sides</b> of the street is <b>ritually pure.</b> According to Rabbi Yosei, it was common for people who were ritually impure to be present in the streets of Jerusalem. They would be careful to walk in the middle of the street, while the ritually pure who wished to remain so would walk on the sides. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that spittle found in the middle of the street is from one who is impure, while spittle found on the side of the street is from one who is pure. <b>But during the time of the Festival,</b> when most of the people in Jerusalem were there for the Festival and were ritually pure, the spittle found <b>in the middle</b> of the street was <b>ritually pure,</b> and that found on <b>the sides</b> of the street was <b>ritually impure.</b> The difference is <b>due to</b> the fact <b>that</b> at the time of the Festival, <b>the</b> ritually impure <b>minority moves to the sides</b> of the streets.",
+            "The mishna continues: <b>All the vessels that are found in Jerusalem</b> on the <b>way down into the bathhouse,</b> wherein one purifies vessels in a ritual bath, are <b>ritually impure, and</b> those that are found on the <b>way up</b> are <b>ritually pure.</b> The mishna explains: <b>Their descent</b> into the bathhouse <b>is not</b> by the same route <b>as their ascent</b> out of it, and it can be assumed that those found on the way down have not yet been immersed, while those found on the way up have been. This is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir.</b> However, <b>Rabbi Yosei says: They are all ritually pure, except for the basket, and the shovel, and the <i>meritza</i>, which are specifically used for graves,</b> to gather up the bones of the dead. These tools must be presumed to be ritually impure, but in general, vessels are presumed to be pure.",
+            "The mishna continues with another ruling about ritual purity: One may <b>slaughter immediately with a knife that was found on the fourteenth</b> of Nisan, i.e., the day the Paschal lamb is slaughtered, and need not be concerned that it is ritually impure. Presumably it was immersed the day before so that it could be used to slaughter the Paschal offering. If he found it <b>on the thirteenth</b> of Nisan, he <b>immerses</b> it <b>again.</b> Perhaps its owners had not yet immersed it, since they still had time to do so before the evening. If one finds a <b>cleaver [<i>kofitz</i>],</b> which is used to slaughter an animal and break its bones, whether it was <b>on this</b> day, i.e., the fourteenth, or <b>on that</b> day, i.e., the thirteenth, <b>he immerses</b> it <b>again</b> out of doubt. Since breaking the bones of the Paschal lamb is prohibited, its owners would have no need for it on the fourteenth, and it cannot be presumed that it has already been immersed to make it ritually pure. However, if the <b>fourteenth occurs on Shabbat,</b> he may <b>slaughter with</b> the cleaver <b>immediately.</b> Since immersing a vessel is prohibited on Shabbat, and presumably the owner of the cleaver wants it to be ritually pure on the fifteenth, one can assume that he immersed it already on Friday, the thirteenth of Nisan. It is therefore ritually pure. If the cleaver was found <b>on the fifteenth</b> of Nisan, i.e., if it was found on the Festival itself, he may <b>slaughter with it immediately.</b> The owners of the cleaver would have immersed it so that they could use it on the fifteenth to cut up the bones of a Festival peace-offering. If the cleaver <b>was found attached to a knife, it is like a knife,</b> i.e., if it was found on the thirteenth of Nisan it is presumed impure, and if it was found on the fourteenth he may slaughter with it immediately, as it was certainly immersed on the day before.",
+            "With regard to <b>a curtain that became ritually impure from a secondary source of impurity,</b> since its ritual impurity is by rabbinic law and not Torah law, there is no need to remove it from the Temple. Rather, <b>it is immersed inside</b> the Temple. <b>And</b> if it were removed to outside the courtyard in order to immerse it, <b>it</b> can <b>be brought</b> back into the courtyard <b>immediately.</b> Since it is ritually impure only by rabbinic law, there is no need to wait until sunset before returning it. But <b>if it became impure from a primary source of impurity,</b> e.g., it came into contact with the carcass of one of the eight creeping animals that confer impurity by Torah law, <b>it is immersed outside</b> the courtyard <b>and is spread out</b> to dry <b>on the rampart.</b> This is the low wall surrounding the Temple courtyard and the buildings within it, which has a lower level of holiness than the courtyard. The reason for this policy is <b>because the sun needs to set on it.</b> Immersion does not confer ritual purity on an item that became impure by Torah law until after the sun has set. And <b>if</b> this curtain <b>were new, it is spread out</b> to dry <b>on top of the bench [<i>itztabba</i>],</b> a prominent place on the Temple Mount, <b>so that the people</b> will <b>see its craftsmanship and perceive its beauty.</b>",
+            "The Gemara discusses the aforementioned curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the Sanctuary. <b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon the son of the deputy</b> High Priest: The <b>curtain</b> has the <b>thickness of a handbreadth,</b> and <b>it is woven from seventy-two strands</b> of yarn. And <b>each and every strand</b> from those seventy-two is made from <b>twenty-four threads.</b> The curtain was made from four materials: Sky-blue wool, purple wool, scarlet wool, and fine linen, and a strand was made up of six threads of each type of material. And with regard to the dimensions of the curtain, <b>its length</b> was <b>forty cubits,</b> as the height of the ceiling of the Sanctuary; <b>and its width</b> was <b>twenty</b> cubits, to match the width of the entrance; <b>and</b> it <b>was made from eighty-two ten-thousands,</b> i.e., 820,000 golden dinar. <b>And they</b> used to <b>make two</b> new curtains <b>every year. And</b> the curtain was so heavy that they needed <b>three hundred priests</b> to carry it when they would <b>immerse it.</b>",
+            "With regard to <b>the flesh of offerings of the most sacred order that became impure, whether</b> it became impure <b>from a primary source of impurity or from a secondary source of impurity, whether</b> it became impure <b>inside</b> the courtyard <b>or outside,</b> it must be burned. There is a dispute among the <i>tanna’im</i> with regard to where it is burned. <b>Beit Shammai say: It all should be burned inside</b> the Temple courtyard, <b>except for that which became impure from a primary source of ritual impurity outside,</b> as under such circumstances, it is not appropriate to bring it inside the Temple. <b>Beit Hillel say: It all should be burned outside</b> the Temple courtyard, <b>except for that which became ritually impure by a secondary source of impurity inside.</b> In such a case the flesh need not be removed from the courtyard and is burned there.",
+            "<b>Rabbi Elazar says:</b> Flesh from offerings of the most sacred order <b>that became</b> ritually <b>impure from a primary source of ritual impurity, whether</b> it became so <b>inside</b> the courtyard <b>or outside, is burned outside.</b> Since its ritual impurity is of the most stringent type, it is not to be brought into the courtyard, or allowed to remain there. However, an item <b>that became ritually impure from a secondary source of ritual impurity, whether</b> it became ritually impure <b>outside or inside, is burned inside.</b> Since its ritual impurity is of a lenient type, it can be brought into the courtyard in order to be burned. <b>Rabbi Akiva says: The place of its impurity is where its burning should occur.</b> Therefore, regardless of whether the source is primary or secondary, such flesh is burned wherever it presently is.",
+            "The <b>limbs of the daily offering</b> were not placed directly on the altar fire. Instead, after cutting up the offering, its limbs <b>were placed</b> first on the <b>ramp</b> of the altar, <b>from</b> the <b>halfway</b> point <b>and below,</b> on the lower sixteen cubits of the ramp, <b>on</b> its <b>western</b> side. Limbs <b>of</b> the <b>additional</b> offerings of the Shabbat and Festivals <b>were placed on the ramp from the halfway point and below on</b> its <b>eastern</b> side. <b>Additional New Moon offerings were placed on top of the upper part of the edge [<i>karkov</i>] of the altar.</b> Another law: The obligation to give <b>half-shekels</b> each year <b>and</b> to offer <b>the first fruits is practiced only in the presence of the Temple,</b>as fulfillment of these mitzvot is only possible then. <b>But</b> the mitzvot of produce tithes and <b>grain tithes and</b> of <b>animal tithes and of</b> the sanctified <b>firstborn</b> animals <b>are practiced whether</b> one is <b>in the presence of the Temple, or</b> one is <b>not in the presence of the Temple.</b> Although animal tithes and firstborn cannot be sacrificed without a Temple, once they develop a blemish, they may be eaten by their owners. If, in the present time when there is no Temple, <b>one consecrates shekels</b> for the mitzva of the half-shekel <b>or</b> fruits for the mitzva of <b>first fruits, they are consecrated,</b> and it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. <b>Rabbi Shimon says: One who declared first fruits to be consecrated,</b> in the present time, does not give them that status and they are <b>not consecrated.</b>"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "William Davidson Edition - English",
+            "https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "משנה שקלים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Chapter",
+        "Mishnah"
+    ]
+}

json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Shekalim/Hebrew/Mishnah based on the Kaufmann manuscript, edited by Dan Be'eri.json

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Mishnah Shekalim",
+    "versionSource": "https://archive.org/details/MishnaCorrectedKaufman00WHOLE",
+    "versionTitle": "Mishnah based on the Kaufmann manuscript, edited by Dan Be'eri",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "license": "PD",
+    "digitizedBySefaria": true,
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "משנה שקלים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [
+            "<small>א</small>\nבְּאֶחָד בְּאָדָר, \nמְשַׁמְּעִים עַל הַשְּׁקָלִים וְעַל הַכִּלְאַיִם. \nוּבַחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ, \nקוֹרִין אֶת הַמְּגִלָּה בַכְּרַכִּים, \nוּמְתַקְּנִים אֶת הַדְּרָכִים וְאֶת הָרְחוֹבוֹת, \nוְאֶת מִקְווֹת הַמַּיִם, \nוְעוֹשִׂין כָּל צָרְכֵי הָרַבִּים, \nוּמְצַיְּנִים אֶת הַקְּבָרוֹת, \nוְיוֹצְאִין אַף עַל הַכִּלְאַיִם.\n",
+            "<small>ב</small>\nאָמַר רְבִּי יְהוּדָה: \nבָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, \nהָיוּ עוֹקְרִים וּמַשְׁלִיכִים לִפְנֵיהֶם. \nמִשֶּׁרַבּוּ עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה, \nהָיוּ מַשְׁלִיכִים עַל הַדְּרָכִים; \nהִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מַבְקִירִים אֶת כָּל הַשָּׂדֶה.\n",
+            "<small>ג</small>\nבַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ, \nשֻׁלְחָנוֹת יָשְׁבוּ בַמְּדִינָה. \nבְּעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה, יָשְׁבוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ; \nמִשֶּׁיָּשְׁבוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הִתְחִילוּ לְמַשְׁכֵּן. \nוְאֶת מִי מְמַשְׁכְּנִים? \nלְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים, \nגֵּרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִים, \nאֲבָל לֹא נָשִׁים וְלֹא עֲבָדִים וְלֹא קְטַנִּים. \nוְכָל קָטָן שֶׁהִתְחִיל אָבִיו לִשְׁקוֹל עַל יָדוֹ, \nאֵינוּ פוֹסֵק. \nוְאֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אֶת הַכֹּהֲנִים, \nמִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם.\n",
+            "<small>ד</small>\nאָמַר רְבִּי יְהוּדָה: \nהֵעִיד בֶּן כּוּבָרִי בְיַבְנֶה, \nשֶׁכָּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁהוּא שׁוֹקֵל אֵינוּ חוֹטֵא. \nאָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּי: \nלֹא כִי, \nאֶלָּא שֶׁכָּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוּ שׁוֹקֵל, חוֹטֵא, \nאֶלָּא שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים דּוֹרְשִׁים מִקְרָא זֶה לְעַצְמָן: \n\"וְכָל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל\" (ויקרא ו,טז) \nהוֹאִיל וְהָעֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁלָּנוּ, \nהֵיאָךְ הֵן נֶאֱכָלִים? \n",
+            "<small>ה</small>\nאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמָרוּ: \nאֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִים נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים, \nאֲבָל אִם שָׁקָלוּ, מְקַבְּלִים מִיָּדָם. \nנָכְרִי וְכוּתִי שֶׁשָּׁקָלוּ, אֵין מְקַבְּלִים מִיָּדָם. \nאֵין מְקַבְּלִים מִיָּדָם קִנֵּי זָבִין וְקִנֵּי זָבוֹת וְקִנֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת; \nחַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת מְקַבְּלִים מִיָּדָם. \nזֶה הַכְּלָל: \nכָּל שֶׁהוּא נִדָּר וְנִדָּב, \nמְקַבְּלִים מִיָּדָם; \nוְכָל שֶׁאֵינוּ לֹא נִדָּר וְלֹא נִדָּב, \nאֵין מְקַבְּלִים מִיָּדָם. \nוְכֵן הוּא מְפָרֵשׁ עַל יְדֵי עֶזְרָה: (עזרא ד,ג) \n\"לֹא לָכֶם וָלָנוּ לִבְנוֹת בַּיִת לֵאלֹהֵינוּ\".\n",
+            "<small>ו</small>\nוְאֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין בַּקָּלְבּוֹן: \nלְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵל גֵּרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִים, \nאֲבָל לֹא נָשִׁים וְלֹא עֲבָדִים וְלֹא קְטַנִּים. \nהַשּׁוֹקֵל עַל יַד עֶבֶד, וְעַל יַד אִשָּׁה, \nוְעַל יַד כֹּהֵן, וְעַל יַד הַקָּטָן, פָּטוּר. \nעַל יָדוֹ וְעַל יַד חֲבֵרוֹ, חַיָּב קָלְבּוֹן אֶחָד. \nרְבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: \nשְׁנֵי קָלְבּוֹנוֹת. \nנָתָן סֶלַע לִטֹּל שֶׁקֶל, \nחַיָּב שְׁנֵי קָלְבּוֹנוֹת.\n",
+            "<small>ז</small>\nהַשּׁוֹקֵל עַל יַד עָנִי וְעַל יַד שְׁכֵנוֹ \nוְעַל יַד בֶּן עִירוֹ, פָּטוּר. \nוְאִם הִלְוָן, חַיָּב. \nהָאַחִים הַשּׁוּתָפִין שֶׁחַיָּבִים בַּקָּלְבּוֹן, \nפְּטוּרִים מִמַּעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה; \nוְשֶׁחַיָּבִים בְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, \nפְּטוּרִים מִן הַקָּלְבּוֹן. \nוְכַמָּה הוּא קָלְבּוֹן? \nמָעָה כֶסֶף. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nחֵצִי.\n\n\n\n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<small>א</small>\nמְצָרְפִין שְׁקָלִים דְּרָכוֹנוֹת מִפְּנֵי מַסּוּי הַדֶּרֶךְ. \nכַּשֵּׁם שֶׁהָיוּ שׁוֹפָרוֹת בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, \nכָּךְ הָיוּ בַמְּדִינָה. \nבְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁשִּׁלְּחוּ אֶת שִׁקְלֵיהֶם,\nוְנִגְנָבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבָדוּ, \nאִם נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה, נִשְׁבָּעִים לַגִּזְבָּרִים, \nוְאִם לָאו, נִשְׁבָּעִים לִבְנֵי הָעִיר, \nוּבְנֵי הָעִיר שׁוֹקְלִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶם. \nנִמְצָאוּ, אוֹ שֶׁהֶחְזִירוּם הַגַּנָּבִים, \nאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ שְׁקָלִים, \nוְאֵין עוֹלִים לָהֶם לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה.\n",
+            "<small>ב</small>\nהַנּוֹתֵן שִׁקְלוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ לִשְׁקוֹל עַל יָדוֹ, \nוּשְׁקָלוֹ עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ, \nאִם נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה, \nמָעַל. \nהַשּׁוֹקֵל שִׁקְלוֹ מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, \nאִם נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה, \nוְאִם קָרְבָה הַבְּהֵמָה, \nמָעַל. \nמִמַּעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, וּמִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית, \nיֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּן.\n",
+            "<small>ג</small>\nהַמְכַנֵּס מָעוֹת וְאָמַר: \n\"הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שִׁקְלִי\", \nבֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים: \nמוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. \nוּבֵית הֶלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: \nמוֹתָרָן חֻלִּים. \n\"שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶן שִׁקְלִי\", \nשָׁוִים שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר חֻלִּין. \n\"אֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי\", \nשָׁוִים שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר נְדָבָה; \n\"שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶן חַטָּאתִי\", \nשָׁוִים שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר חֻלִּים.\n",
+            "<small>ד</small>\nאָמַר רְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: \nמַה בֵּין שְׁקָלִים לַחַטָּאת? \nאֶלָּא שֶׁהַשְּׁקָלִים, יֵשׁ לָהֶם קִצְבָה, \nוְלַחַטָּאת אֵין לָהּ קִצְבָה. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nאַף לִשְׁקָלִים אֵין לָהֶם קִצְבָה; \n\n<small>ה</small>\nשֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הַגּוֹלָה, \nהָיוּ שׁוֹקְלִים דְּרָכוֹנוֹת, \nחָזְרוּ לִשְׁקוֹל סְלָעִים, \nחָזְרוּ לִשְׁקוֹל טְבָעִים, \nבִּקְשׁוּ לִשְׁקוֹל דִּינָרִים. \nאָמַר רְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: \nאַף עַל פִּי כֵן, יַד כֻּלָּם שָׁוָה, \nאֲבָל חַטָּאת, \nזֶה מֵבִיא בְסֶלַע, וְזֶה מֵבִיא בִשְׁתַּיִם, \nוְזֶה מֵבִיא בְשָׁלוֹשׁ.\n",
+            "<small>ו</small>\nמוֹתַר שְׁקָלִים, חֻלִּים. \nמוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה, \nמוֹתַר קִנֵּי זָבִים, קִנֵּי זָבוֹת, קִנֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת, \nחַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת, \nמוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. \nזֶה הַכְּלָל: \nכָּל שֶׁהוּא בָא מִשּׁוּם חֵטְא וּמִשּׁוּם אַשְׁמָה, \nמוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. \n\n<small>ז</small>\nמוֹתַר עוֹלָה לָעוֹלָה. \nמוֹתַר מִנְחָה לַמִּנְחָה. \nמוֹתַר שְׁלָמִים לִשְׁלָמִים. \nמוֹתַר הַפֶּסַח לִשְׁלָמִים. \nמוֹתַר נְזִירִים לִנְזִירִים. \nמוֹתַר נָזִיר לִנְדָבָה. \nמוֹתַר שְׁבוּיִים לִשְׁבוּיִים. \nמוֹתַר שָׁבוּי לְאוֹתוֹ שָׁבוּי. \nמוֹתַר עֲנִיִּים לַעֲנִיִּים. \nמוֹתַר עָנִי לְאוֹתוֹ עָנִי. \nמוֹתַר הַמֵּתִים לַמֵּתִים. \nמוֹתַר הַמֵּת לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. \nרְבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: \nמוֹתַר הַמֵּת יְהֵא מֻנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. \nרְבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: \nמוֹתַר הַמֵּת, בּוֹנִים לוֹ נְפָשׁ עַל קִבְרוֹ.\n\n\n\n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<small>א</small>\nבִּשְׁלֹשָׁה פְרָקִים בַּשָּׁנָה \nתּוֹרְמִין אֶת הַלִּשְׁכָּה: \nבִּפְרַס הַפֶּסַח, \nבִּפְרַס עֲצֶרֶת, \nבִּפְרַס הֶחָג, \nוְהֵן גֳּרָנוֹת שֶׁלְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי עֲקִיבָה. \nבֶּן עַזַּי אוֹמֵר: \nבְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בַאֲדָר, \nבְּאֶחָד בְּסִיוָן, \nבְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בֶאֱלוּל. \nרְבִּי לְעָזָר וּרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: \nבְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן, \nבְּאֶחָד בְּסִיוָן, \nבְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרִי. \nוְלָמָּה אָמְרוּ בְעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בֶאֱלוּל, \nוְלֹא אָמְרוּ בְאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרִי? \nמִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יוֹם טוֹב, \nוְאֵי אֶפְשָׁר לְעַשֵּׂר בְּיוֹם טוֹב, \nלְפִיכָךְ הִקְדִּימוּהוּ בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בֶאֱלוּל.\n",
+            "<small>ב</small>\nבְּשָׁלוֹשׁ קֻפּוֹת שֶׁלְּשָׁלוֹשׁ שָׁלוֹשׁ סְאִים \nתּוֹרְמִין אֶת הַלִּשְׁכָּה, \nוְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶם אָלֶ\"ף בֵּי\"ת גִּימֶ\"ל. \nרְבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: \nיְוָנִית כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶם אַלְפָ\"א בִּיטָ\"א גַמָּ\"א. \nאֵין הַתּוֹרֵם נִכְנָס לֹא בְפֵרְגוּד חָפוּת, \nוְלֹא בְמַנְעָל, וְלֹא בְסַנְדָּל, \nוְלֹא בִתְפִלָּה, וְלֹא בְקָמִיעַ; \nשֶׁמֵּא יַעְנִי, וְיֹאמְרוּ: \nמֵעֲוֹן הַלִּשְׁכָּה הֶעְנִי, \nאוֹ שֶׁמֵּא יַעְשִׁיר וְיֹאמְרוּ: \nמִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה הֶעְשִׁיר; \nשֶׁאָדָם צָרִיךְ לָצֵאת יְדֵי הַבְּרִיּוֹת \nכְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ לָצֵאת יְדֵי הַמָּקוֹם, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (במדבר לב,כב) \n\"וִהְיִיתֶם נְקִיִּם מֵיי וּמִיִּשְׂרָאֵל\", \nוְאוֹמֵר: (משלי ג,ד) \n\"וּמְצָא חֵן וְשֵׂכֶל טוֹב בְּעֵינֵי אֱלהִים וְאָדָם\".\n",
+            "<small>ג</small>\nשֶׁלְּבֵית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל \nהָיָה נִכְנָס וְשִׁקְלוֹ בֵין אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו, \nוְזוֹרְקוֹ לִפְנֵי הַתּוֹרֵם, \nוְהַתּוֹרֵם מִתְכַּוֵּן וְדוֹחֲפוֹ לַקֻּפָּה. \nאֵין הַתּוֹרֵם תּוֹרֵם עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהֶם: \n\"אֶתְרֹם\", \nוְהֵן אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: \n\"תְּרֹם, תְּרֹם, תְּרֹם!\" \nשָׁלוֹשׁ פְּעָמִים.\n",
+            "<small>ד</small>\nתָּרַם אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וְחִפָּה בִּקְטַבְלָיוֹת, \nשְׁנִיָּה, וְחִפָּה בִּקְטַבְלָיוֹת, \nשְׁלִישִׁית לֹא הָיָה מְחַפָּהּ. \nוְלָמָּה לֹא הָיָה מְחַפָּהּ?\nשֶׁמֵּא יִשְׁכַּח וְיִתְרֹם מִן הַדָּבָר הַתָּרוּם. \nתָּרַם אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לְשֵׁם אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, \nשְׁנִיָּה לְשֵׁם הַכְּרַכִּים הַמֻּקָּפִים לָהּ, \nשְׁלִישִׁית לְשֵׁם בָּבֶל וּלְשֵׁם מָדַי וּלְשֵׁם מְדִינוֹת הָרְחוֹקוֹת.\n\n\n\n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<small>א</small>\nהַתְּרוּמָה מָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ? \nלוֹקְחִין בָּהּ תְּמִידִים וּמוּסָפִים וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם, \nוְהָעֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, \nוְכָל קָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר. \nשׁוֹמְרֵי סְפָחִים בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, \nנוֹטְלִים שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. \nרְבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר: \nאַף הָרוֹצֶה מִתְנַדֵּב שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \nאַף אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שֶׁאֵינָן בָּאִים אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁלַּצִּבּוּר.\n",
+            "<small>ב</small>\nפָּרָה וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁלִּזְהוֹרִית \nבָּאִים מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. \nכֶּבֶשׁ פָּרָה וְכֶבֶשׁ שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּל��ֵחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁבֵּין קְרָנָיו, \nוְאַמַּת הַמַּיִם וְחוֹמַת הָעִיר וּמִגְדְּלוֹתֶיהָ, \nוְכָל צָרְכֵי הָעִיר \nבָּאִים מִשִּׁירֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה. \nאַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: \nכֶּבֶשׁ פָּרָה, \nכֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִשֶּׁלְּעַצְמָן.\n",
+            "<small>ג</small>\nמוֹתַר שִׁירֵי לִשְׁכָּה מָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן? \nלוֹקְחִין בָּהֶן יֵינוֹת וּשְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת, \nוְהַשָּׂכָר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. \nרְבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: \nאֵין מִשְׂתַּכְּרִין בְּשֶׁלַּהֶקְדֵּשׁ וְלֹא מִשֶּׁלָּעֲנִיִּים.\n",
+            "<small>ד</small>\nמוֹתַר הַתְּרוּמָה מָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ? \nרִקּוּעֵי זָהָב צִפּוּי לְבֵית קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים. \nרְבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: \nמוֹתַר הַפֵּרוֹת לְקַיִץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, \nוּמוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. \nרְבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: \nמוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה לְקַיִץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, \nוּמוֹתַר נְסָכִים לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. \nרְבִּי חֲנַנְיָה סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר: \nמוֹתַר נְסָכִים לְקַיִץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, \nוּמוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. \nוְזֶה וָזֶה לֹא הָיוּ מוֹדִים בַּפֵּרוֹת.\n",
+            "<small>ה</small>\nמוֹתַר הַקְּטֹרֶת מָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ? \nמַפְרִישִׁין מִמֶּנָּה שְׂכַר הָאֻמָּנִים, \nוּמְחַלְּלִים אוֹתָהּ עַל מָעוֹת הָאֻמָּנִים, \nוְנוֹתְנִים אוֹתָהּ לָאֻמָּנִים בִּשְׂכָרָן, \nוְחוֹזְרִים וְלוֹקְחִין אוֹתָהּ מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה. \nאִם בָּא חָדָשׁ בִּזְמַנּוֹ, \nלוֹקְחִין אוֹתָהּ מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה, \nוְאִם לָאו, מִן הַיְשָׁנָה.\n",
+            "<small>ו</small>\nהַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו, \nוְהָיוּ בָהֶן דְּבָרִים רְאוּיִין לְקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר, \nיִנָּתְנוּ לָאֻמָּנִים בִּשְׂכָרָן. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי עֲקִיבָה. \nאָמַר לוֹ בֶן עַזַּי: \nאֵינָה הִיא הַמִּדָּה, \nאֶלָּא מַפְרִישִׁין מֵהֶן שְׂכַר הָאֻמָּנִים, \nוּמְחַלְּלִין אוֹתָן עַל מָעוֹת הָאֻמָּנִים, \nוְנוֹתְנִין אוֹתָם לָאֻמָּנִין בִּשְׂכָרָן, \nוְחוֹזְרִים וְלוֹקְחִים אוֹתָם מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה.\n",
+            "<small>ז</small>\nהַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו, \nוְהָיְתָה בָהֶן בְּהֵמָה רְאוּיָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, \nזְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת, \nרְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: \nזְכָרִים יִמָּכְרוּ לִצְרִיכֵי עוֹלוֹת, \nוּנְקֵבוֹת יִמָּכֵרוּ לִצְרִיכֵי זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, \nוְיָבִיא בִדְמֵיהֶם עוֹלוֹת, \nוּדְמֵיהֶם יִפְּלוּ עִם שְׁאָר נְכָסִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. \n\n<small>ח</small>\nרְבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: \nזְכָרִים עַצְמָן יִקְרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת, \nוּנְקֵבוֹת יִמָּכְרוּ לִצְרִיכֵי זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, \nוְיָבִיא בִדְמֵיהֶם עוֹלוֹת, \nוּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. \n\n<small>ט</small>\nאָמַר רְבִּי עֲקִיבָה: \nרוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי רְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר \nמִדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, \nשֶׁרֶבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִשְׁוָה אֶת מִדָּתוֹ, \nוּרְבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ חָלַק. \nאָמַר רְבִּי פַפְּיַס: \nשָׁמַעְתִּי דִבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם, \nהַמַּקְדִּישׁ בְּפֵרוּשׁ כְּדִבְרֵי רְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, \nוְהַמַּקְדִּישׁ סְתָם כְּדִבְרֵי רְבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.\n",
+            "<small>י</small>\nהַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו, \nוְהָיוּ בָהֶם דְּבָרִים רְאוּיִם עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, \nיֵינוֹת וּשְׁמָנִים וְעוֹפוֹת, \nרְבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: \nיִמָּכְרוּ לִצְרִיכֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין, \nוְיָבִיא בִדְמֵיהֶם עוֹלוֹת, \nוּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.\n",
+            "<small>יא</small>\nאַחַת לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, \nמְשַׁעֲרִים אֶת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. \nכָּל הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לִסְפֵק סְלָתוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע, \nעָמְדוּ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ, יְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע; \nמִשָּׁלֹשׁ, וְעָמְדוּ מֵאַרְבַּע, יְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע; \nשֶׁהַיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ לָעֶלְיוֹנָה. \nאִם הִתְלִיעָה סֹלֶת, הִתְלִיעָה לוֹ, \nוְאִם הֶחְמִיץ יַיִן, הֶחְמִיץ לוֹ. \nוְאֵינוּ מְקַבֵּל אֶת מָעוֹתָיו, \nעַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְרַצֶּה.\n\n\n\n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<small>א</small>\nוְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַמְמֻנִּים שֶׁהָיוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ: \nיוֹחָנָן בֶּן פִּינְחָס עַל הַחוֹתָמוֹת, \nאֲחִיָּה עַל הַנְּסָכִים, \nמַתְּיָה בֶן שְׁמוּאֵל עַל הַפְּיָסוֹת, \nפְּתַחְיָה עַל הַקִּנִּים; \nפְּתַחְיָה זֶהוּא מָרְדְּכַי. \nוְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פְתַחְיָה? \nשֶׁהוּא פוֹתֵחַ דְּבָרִים וְדוֹרְשָׁן, \nוְיוֹדֵעַ בְּשִׁבְעִים לָשׁוֹן. \n\n<small>ב</small>\nבֶּן אֲחִיָּה עַל חֳלִי מֵעַיִם, &lt;חֲלִי&gt;\nנְחוֹנְיָה חוֹפֵר שִׁיחִים, \nגְּבִנֵּי כָרוֹז, \nבֶּן גִּבֵּר עַל נְעִילַת שְׁעָרִים, \nבֶּן בָּבִי עַל הַפָּקִיעַ, \nבֶּן אַרְזָה עַל הַצַּלְצֵל, \nהָגְרַס בֶּן לֵוִי עַל הַשִּׁיר, \nבֵּית גַּרְמוּ עַל מַעֲשֵׂה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, \nבֵּית אַבְטִינָס עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַקְּטֹרֶת, \nוְאֶלְעָזָר עַל הַפָּרְכוֹת, \nוּפִינְחָס עַל הַמַּלְבּוּשׁ. &lt;המלביש&gt;\n",
+            "<small>ג</small>\nאֵין פּוֹחֲתִים מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה גִזְבָּרִים, \nוּמִשִּׁבְעָה מַרְכוּלִים, \nוְאֵין עוֹשִׂין סְרָרָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר בְּמָמוֹן פָּחוּת מִשְּׁנַיִם, \nחוּץ מִבֶּן אֲחִיָּה שֶׁעַל חֳלִי מֵעַיִם, \nוְאֶלְעָזָר שֶׁעַל הַפָּרְכוֹת, \nשֶׁאוֹתָם קִבְּלוּ צִבּוּר עֲלֵיהֶם.\n",
+            "<small>ד</small>\nאַרְבָּעָה חוֹתָמוֹת הָיוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ, \nוְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶם: \nעֵגֶל, זָכָר, גְּדִי, וְחוֹטֵא. \nבֶּן עַזַּי אוֹמֵר: \nחֲמִשָּׁה הָיוּ, וַאֲרָמִית כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶם: \nעֵגַל, דְּכַר, גְּדִי, חוֹטֵא דַל וְחוֹטֵא עָשִׁיר. \nעֵגַל מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי בָקָר, \nגְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת; \nגְּדִי מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי צֹאן, \nגְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת, \nחוּץ מִשֶּׁלָּאֵילִים; \nאַיִל מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי אֵילִים בִּלְבַד; \nחוֹטֵא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי שָׁלוֹשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁלִּמְצֹרָע.\n",
+            "<small>ה</small>\nמִי שֶׁהוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ נְסָכִים, \nהוֹלֵךְ לוֹ אֵצֶל יוֹחָנָן, \nשֶׁהוּא מְמֻנֶּה עַל הַחוֹתָמוֹת, \nוְנוֹתֵן לוֹ מָעוֹת וּמְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ חוֹתָם. \nבָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל אֲחִיָּה, \nשֶׁהוּא מְמֻנֶּה עַל הַנְּסָכִים, \nוְנוֹתֵן לוֹ חוֹתָם, \nוּמְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ נְסָכִים. \nוְלָעֶרֶב בָּאִין זֶה אֵצֶל זֶה, \nוַאֲחִיָּה מוֹצִיא אֶת הַחוֹתָמוֹת, \nוּמְקַבֵּל כְּנֶגְדָּן מָעוֹת; \nאִם הוֹתִירוּ, הוֹתִירוּ לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, \nוְאִם פָּחֲתוּ, יְשַׁלֵּם יוֹחָנָן מִבֵּיתוֹ, \nשֶׁהַיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ לָעֶלְיוֹנָה.\n",
+            "<small>ו</small>\nמִי שֶׁאָבַד חוֹתָמוֹ, \nמַמְתִּינִים לוֹ עַד הָעֶרֶב, \nאִם מָצְאו�� לוֹ כְּדֵי חוֹתָמוֹ, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ; \nוְאִם לָאו, לֹא הָיָה לוֹ; \nוְשֵׁם כָּל הַיּוֹם כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי הָרַמָּאִים.\n",
+            "<small>ז</small>\nשְׁתֵּי לְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ: \nאַחַת, לִשְׁכַּת חֲשָׁיִים, \nוְאַחַת, לִשְׁכַּת הַכֵּלִים. \nלִשְׁכַּת חֲשָׁיִים, \nיִרְאֵי חֵט נוֹתְנִין לְתוֹכָהּ בַּחְשַׁי, \nוַעֲנִיִּים בְּנֵי טוֹבִים מִתְפַּרְנְסִין מִתּוֹכָהּ בַּחְשַׁי. \nלִשְׁכַּת הַכֵּלִים, \nכָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא מִתְנַדֵּב כֶּלִי, \nזוֹרְקוֹ לְתוֹכָהּ, \nוְאַחַת לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, \nהַגִּזְבָּרִין פּוֹתְחִים אוֹתָהּ, \nכֶּלִי שֶׁמָּצְאוּ בוֹ צֹרֶךְ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, \nמַנִּיחִים אוֹתוֹ, \nוְהַשְּׁאָר נִמְכָּרִים, &lt;וְהַשַּׁאַר&gt;\nוּדְמֵיהֶם נוֹפְלִים לְלִשְׁכַּת בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת.\n\n\n\n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<small>א</small>\nשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שׁוֹפָרוֹת, \nשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שֻׁלְחָנוֹת, \nוּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה הַשְׁתַּחֲוָיוֹת הָיוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ. \nשֶׁלְּבֵית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל \nוְשֶׁלְּבֵית רְבִּי חֲנַנְיָה סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים, \nהָיוּ מִשְׁתַּחֲוִין בְּאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה. \nוְאֵיכָן הָיְתָה יְתֵרָה? \nכְּנֶגֶד דֵּיר הָעֵצִים, \nשֶׁכֵּן מָסֹרֶת בְּיָדָם מֵאֲבוֹתֵיהֶם, \nשֶׁשָּׁם הָאָרוֹן גָּנוּז.\n",
+            "<small>ב</small>\nמַעֲשֶׂה בְכֹהֵן אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מִתְעַסֵּק, \nוְרָאָה אֶת הָרִצְפָּה שֶׁהִיא מְשֻׁנָּה מֵחֲבֵרוֹתֶיהָ. \nבָּא וְאָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ, \nוְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִגְמוֹר אֶת הַדָּבָר, \nעַד שֶׁיָּצְתָה נִשְׁמָתוֹ, \nוְיָדְעוּ בְיֵחוּד שֶׁשָּׁם הָאָרוֹן גָּנוּז.\n",
+            "<small>ג</small>\nוְאֵיכָן הָיוּ הַשְׁתַּחֲוָיוֹת הָאֵלּוּ? \nאַרְבַּע בַּצָּפוֹן, וְאַרְבַּע בַּדָּרוֹם, \nשָׁלוֹשׁ בַּמִּזְרָח, וּשְׁתַּיִם בַּמַּעֲרָב, \nכְּנֶגֶד הַשְּׁעָרִים. \nשְׁעָרִים דְּרוֹמִיִּים סְמוּכִים לַמַּעֲרָב: \nשַׁעַר הָעֶלְיוֹן, שַׁעַר הַדֶּלֶק, \nשַׁעַר הַבְּכוֹרוֹת, שַׁעַר הַמַּיִם. \nוְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ שַׁעַר הַמַּיִם? \nשֶׁבּוֹ מַכְנִיסִים צְלוֹחִית שֶׁלַּמַּיִם שֶׁלַּנִּסּוּךְ בֶּחָג. \nרְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: &lt;ליעזר&gt;\nבּוֹ הַמַּיִם מְפַכִּים וַעֲתִידִים לִהְיוֹת יוֹצְאִין \nמִתַּחַת מִפְתַּן הַבַּיִת. \n\n<small>ד</small>\nלְעֻמָּתָן בַּצָּפוֹן סְמוּכִים לַמַּעֲרָב: \nשַׁעַר יְכָנְיָה, שַׁעַר הַקָרְבָּן, \nשַׁעַר הַנָּשִׁים, שַׁעַר הַשִּׁיר. \nוְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ שַׁעַר יְכָנְיָה? \nשֶׁבּוֹ יָצָא יְכָנְיָה בְגָלוּתוֹ. &lt;וגלותו&gt;\nוְשֶׁבַּמִּזְרָח שַׁעַר נִיקָנוֹר, \nוּשְׁנֵי פְשֶׁפְשִׁים הָיוּ לוֹ, \nאֶחָד בִּימִינוֹ וְאֶחָד בִּשְׂמאלוֹ. \nוּשְׁנַיִם בַּמַּעֲרָב שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לָהֶן שֵׁם.\n",
+            "<small>ה</small>\nשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שֻׁלְחָנוֹת הָיוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ: \nשְׁמוֹנָה שֶׁלַּשַּׁיִשׁ בְּבֵית הַמִּטְבְּחַיִם, \nשֶׁעֲלֵיהֶן מְדִיחִין אֶת הַקְּרָבַיִם; \nוּשְׁנַיִם בְּמַעֲרַב הַכֶּבֶשׁ, \nאֶחָד שֶׁלַּשַּׁיִשׁ וְאֶחָד שֶׁלַּכֶּסֶף. \nעַל שֶׁלַּשַּׁיִשׁ נוֹתְנִים אֶת הָאֵבָרִים, \nוְעַל שֶׁלַּכֶּסֶף נוֹתְנִים כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת; \nוּשְׁנַיִם בָּאוּלָם מִבִּפְנִים עַל פֶּתַח הַבַּיִת, \nאֶחָד שֶׁלַּשַּׁיִשׁ וְאֶחָד שֶׁלַּזָּהָב. \nעַל שֶׁלַּשַּׁיִשׁ נוֹתְנִין אֶת לֶחֶם ה��פָּנִים בִּכְנֵיסָתוֹ, \nוְעַל שֶׁלַּזָּהָב בִּיצִיאָתוֹ, \nשֶׁמַּעֲלִים בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִים; \nוְאֶחָד שֶׁלַּזָּהָב מִבִּפְנִים, \nשֶׁעָלָיו לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים תָּמִיד.\n",
+            "<small>ו</small>\nשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שׁוֹפָרוֹת הָיוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ, \nוְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶם: \nתִּקְלִין חַדַתִּין וְתִקְלִין עַתִּיקִין, \nקִנִּים וְגּוֹזָלֵי עוֹלָה, \nעֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה, \nזָהָב לַכַּפֹּרֶת, \nשִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה. \nתִּקְלִין חַדַתִּין, שֶׁבְּכָל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה, \nוְעַתִּיקִין, מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁקַל אֶשְׁתְּקַד, \nשׁוֹקֵל לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה; \n\n<small>ז</small>\nקִנִּים, הֵן תּוֹרִין; \nוְגּוֹזָלֵי עוֹלָה, הֵן בְּנֵי יוֹנָה, \nכֻּלָּם עוֹלוֹת. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי יְהוּדָה. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nקִנִּים, אֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶחָד עוֹלָה, \nוְגּוֹזָלֵי עוֹלָה, כֻּלָּם עוֹלוֹת.\n",
+            "<small>ח</small>\nהָאוֹמֵר: \n\"הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵצִים\", \nלֹא יִפְחֹת מִשְּׁנֵי גִיזֵרִין; \n\"לְבוֹנָה\", \nלֹא יִפְחֹת מִן הַקֹּמֶץ; \n\"זָהָב\", \nלֹא יִפְחֹת מִדִּינַר זָהָב. \nשִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה. \n\"נְדָבָה\", \nמָה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ? \nלוֹקְחִין בָּהּ עוֹלוֹת, \nהַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם וְהָעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים. \nזֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ יְהוֹיָדָע כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל: \n\"אָשָׁם הוּא, אָשֹׁם אָשַׁם לַיי\" (ויקרא ה,יט), \nזֶה הַכְּלָל: \nכָּל שֶׁהוּא בָא מִשּׁוּם חֵט וּמִשּׁוּם אַשְׁמָה, \nיִלָּקְחוּ בּוֹ עוֹלוֹת, \nהַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם, וְהָעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים. \nנִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים קַיָּמִים: \nאָשָׁם לַיי וְאָשָׁם לַכֹּהֵן, \nוְאוֹמֵר: (מלכים ב יב,יז) \n\"כֶּסֶף אָשָׁם וְכֶסֶף חַטָּאוֹת לֹא יוּבָא בֵית יי, \nלַכֹּהֲנִים יִהְיוּ\".\n\n\n\n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<small>א</small>\nמָעוֹת שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בֵין שְׁקָלִים לִנְדָבָה: \nקָרוֹב לִשְׁקָלִים, יִפְּלוּ לִשְׁקָלִים, \nלִנְדָבָה, יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה; \nמַחְצָה לְמַחְצָה, יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. \nבֵּין עֵצִים לִלְבוֹנָה: \nקָרוֹב לָעֵצִים, יִפְּלוּ לָעֵצִים, \nלִלְבוֹנָה, יִפְּלוּ לִלְבוֹנָה, \nמַחְצָה לְמַחְצָה, יִפְּלוּ לִלְבוֹנָה. \nבֵּין קִנִּים לְגוֹזָלֵי עוֹלָה: \nקָרוֹב לַקִּנִּים, יִפְּלוּ לַקִּנִּים, \nלְגוֹזָלֵי עוֹלָה, יִפְּלוּ לְגוֹזָלֵי עוֹלָה, \nמַחְצָה לְמַחְצָה, יִפְּלוּ לְגוֹזָלֵי עוֹלָה. \nבֵּין חֻלִּין לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי: \nקָרוֹב לַחֻלִּין, יִפְּלוּ לַחֻלִּין, \nלְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, יִפְּלוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, \nמַחְצָה לְמַחְצָה, יִפְּלוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. \nזֶה הַכְּלָל: \nהוֹלְכִים אַחַר הַקָּרוֹב; \nמַחְצָה לְמַחְצָה, לְהַחְמִיר.\n",
+            "<small>ב</small>\nמָעוֹת שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ לִפְנֵי סוֹחֲרֵי בְהֵמָה, \nלְעוֹלָם מַעֲשֵׂר. \nוּבְהַר הַבַּיִת, חֻלִּין. \nוּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם, \nבִּשְׁאָר כָּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, חֻלִּין, \nוּבְשָׁעַת הָרֶגֶל, הַכֹּל מַעֲשֵׂר.\n",
+            "<small>ג</small>\nבָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָעֲזָרָה, \nאֵבָרִים, עוֹלוֹת, \nוַחֲתִיכוֹת, חַטָּאוֹת, \nוּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם, זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. \nזֶה וָזֶה, \nתְּעַבֵּר צוּרָתוֹ וְיֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרִיפָה. \n\n<small>ד</small>\nנִמְצָא בַגְּבוּלִים, \nאֵבָרִים, נְבֵלוֹת, \nוַחֲתִיכוֹת, מֻתָּרוֹת. \nוּבְשָׁעַת הָרֶגֶל, שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר מְרֻבֶּה, \nאַף אֵבָרִים מֻתָּרִים.\n",
+            "<small>ה</small>\nבְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת מִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְעַד מִגְדַּל עֵדֶר, \nכְּמִדָּתָהּ לְכָל רוּחַ: \nזְכָרִים, עוֹלוֹת וּנְקֵבוֹת, זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: &lt;יודה&gt;\nאַף הָרָאוּי לִפְסָחִים, פְּסָחִים, \nקֹדֶם לָרֶגֶל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.\n",
+            "<small>ו</small>\nבָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ מְמַשְׁכְּנִים אֶת מוֹצְאֶיהָ, \nעַד שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא עִמָּהּ נְסָכֶיהָ. \nחָזְרוּ לִהְיוֹת מַנִּיחִים אוֹתָהּ וּבוֹרְחִים. \nהִתְקִינוּ בֵית דִּין \nשֶׁיְּהוּ נְסָכֶיהָ בָאִים מִשֶּׁלַּצִּבּוּר.\n",
+            "<small>ז</small>\nאָמַר רְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: \nשִׁבְעָה דְבָרִים הִתְקִינוּ בֵית דִּין, \nוְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן. \nגּוֹי שֶׁשִּׁלַּח עוֹלָתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, \nאִם שִׁלַּח עִמָּהּ נְסָכִים, קְרֵבִים מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, \nוְאִם לָאו, קְרֵבִים מִשֶּׁלַּצִּבּוּר. \nוְכֵן גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ זְבָחִים, \nאִם יֶשׁ לוֹ נְסָכִים, קְרֵבִים מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, \nוְאִם לָאו, קְרֵבִים מִשֶּׁלַּצִּבּוּר. \nתְּנַי בֵּית דִּין הוּא עַל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת, \nשֶׁתְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ קְרֵבָה מִשֶּׁלַּצִּבּוּר. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nמִשֶּׁלַּיּוֹרְשִׁים. \nוּשְׁלֵמָה הָיְתָה קְרֵבָה.\n",
+            "<small>ח</small> \nעַל הַמֶּלַח וְעַל הָעֵצִים, \nשֶׁיְּהוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים נֵאוֹתִים בָּהֶם. \nוְעַל הַפָּרָה, \nשֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מוֹעֲלִים בְּאֶפְרָהּ. &lt;מוּעֲלִים&gt;\nעַל הַקִּנִּים הַפְּסוּלוֹת, \nשֶׁיְּהוּ בָאוֹת מִשֶּׁלַּצִּבּוּר; \nרְבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר: \nהַמְסַפֵּק אֶת הַקִּנִּים, \nמְסַפֵּק אֶת הַפְּסוּלוֹת.\n\n\n\n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<small>א</small>\nכָּל הָרוֹקִים הַנִּמְצְאִים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם טְהוֹרִים, \nחוּץ מִשּׁוּק הָעֶלְיוֹן. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nרְבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר: \nבִּשְׁאָר כָּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, \nשֶׁבָּאֶמְצַע טְמֵאִים, \nוְשֶׁבִּצְדָדִים טְהוֹרִים; \nוּבְשָׁעַת הָרֶגֶל, \nשֶׁבָּאֶמְצַע טְהוֹרִים, \nוְשֶׁבִּצְדָדִים טְמֵאִים, \nשֶׁמִּפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמֵּעוּטִים מִסְתַּלְּקִים לִצְדָדִים.\n",
+            "<small>ב</small>\nכָּל הַכֵּלִים הַנִּמְצְאִים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, \nדֶּרֶךְ יְרִידָה לְבֵית הַטְּבִילָה, טְמֵאִים, \nדֶּרֶךְ עֲלִיָּה, טְהוֹרִים, \nשֶׁלֹּא כִירִידָתָן עֲלָיָתָן. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nרְבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר: \nכֻּלָּם טְהוֹרִים, \nחוּץ מִן הַסַּל וְהַמַּגְרֵפָה \nוְהַמְּרִיצָה הַמְיֻחָדִים לִקְבָרוֹת.\n",
+            "<small>ג</small>\nסְכִין שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, \nשׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ מִיָּד; \nבִּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר, שׁוֹנֶה וּמַטְבִּיל. \nקָפִּיס, בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה, שׁוֹנֶה וּמַטְבִּיל. \nחָל אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת, \nשׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ מִיָּד. \nבַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, שׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ מִיָּד. \nנִמְצֵאת קְשׁוּרָה לִסְכִין, \nהֲרֵי זוֹ כִסְכִין.\n",
+            "<small>ד</small>\nפָּרֹכֶת שֶׁנִּטַּמָּאת בִּוְלַד הַטֻּמְאָה, \nמַטְבִּילִים אוֹתָהּ בִּפְנִים, \nוּמַכְנִיסִים אוֹתָהּ מִיָּד. \nשֶׁנִּטַּמָּאת בְּאַב הַטֻּמְאָה, \nמַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ בַּחוּץ, \nוְשׁוֹטְחִים אוֹתָהּ בַּחֵיל, \nמִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא צְרִיכָה הַעְרֵב שֶׁמֶשׁ.\nאִם הָיְתָה חֲדָשָׁה, \nשׁוֹטְחִין אוֹתָהּ עַל גַּג הָאִצְטְבָא, &lt;האיסטווה&gt;\nכְּדֵי שֶׁיִּרְאוּ הָעָם אֶת ��ְלַאכְתָּהּ שֶׁהִיא נָאָה.\n",
+            "<small>ה</small>\nרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר \nמִשּׁוּם שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן הַסֶּגֶן: \nפָּרֹכֶת, עָבְיָהּ טֶפַח, \nעַל שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם נִירִים נֶאֱרֶגֶת, \nעַל כָּל נִימָה וְנִימָה עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חוּטִים. \nאָרְכָּהּ אַרְבָּעִים אַמָּה, \nוְרָחְבָּהּ עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה, \nוּבִשְׁמוֹנִים וּשְׁתַּיִם רִבּוֹא הָיְתָה נֶעְשֵׂית; &lt;ריבו&gt;\nוּשְׁתַּיִם עוֹשִׂין בְּכָל שָׁנָה, \nוּשְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת כֹּהֲנִים מַטְבִּילִים אוֹתָהּ.\n",
+            "<small>ו</small>\nבְּשַׂר קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּטַּמָּא \nבֵין בְּאַב הַטֻּמְאָה \nבֵין בִּוְלַד הַטֻּמְאָה, \nבֵּין מִבִּפְנִים, בֵּין מִבַּחוּץ, \nבֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים: \nהַכֹּל יִשָּׂרֵף בִּפְנִים, \nחוּץ מִשֶּׁנִּטַּמָּא בְאַב הַטֻּמְאָה בַחוּץ. \nוּבֵית הֶלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: \nהַכֹּל יִשָּׂרֵף בַּחוּץ, \nחוּץ מִשֶּׁנִּטַּמָּא בִוְלַד הַטֻּמְאָה בִפְנִים.\n",
+            "<small>ז</small>\nרְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: \nאֶת שֶׁנִּטַּמָּא בְאַב הַטֻּמְאָה, \nבֵּין בִּפְנִים בֵּין בַּחוּץ, \nיִשָּׂרֵף בַּחוּץ; \nוְאֶת שֶׁנִּטַּמָּא בִוְלַד הַטֻּמְאָה, \nבֵּין בַּחוּץ בֵּין בִּפְנִים, \nיִשָּׂרֵף בִּפְנִים. \nרְבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: \nמְקוֹם טֻמְאָתוֹ, שָׁם תְּהֵא שְׂרִיפָתוֹ.\n",
+            "<small>ח</small>\nאֵבָרֵי הַתָּמִיד נִתָּנִים מֵחֲצִי כֶבֶשׁ וּלְמַטָּה בַמַּעֲרָב, \nוְשֶׁלַּמּוּסָפִין נִתָּנִין מֵחֲצִי כֶבֶשׁ לְמַטָּה בַמִּזְרָח, \nוְשֶׁלְּרָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים נִתָּנִים עַל כַּרְכֹּב הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִלְּמַעְלָה. \nהַשְּׁקָלִים וְהַבִּכּוּרִים אֵינָן נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בִפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, \nאֲבָל מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן וּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וּבְכוֹרוֹת \nנוֹהֲגִין בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹּא בִפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. \nהַמַּקְדִּישׁ שְׁקָלִים וּבִכּוּרִים, \nהֲרֵי זֶה קֹדֶשׁ. \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nהָאוֹמֵר: \n\"בִּכּוּרִים קֹדֶשׁ\", אֵינָן קֹדֶשׁ. \n\nסליק "
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Chapter",
+        "Mishnah"
+    ]
+}

json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Shekalim/Hebrew/Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913.json

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Mishnah Shekalim",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001741739",
+    "versionTitle": "Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "priority": 2.0,
+    "license": "Public Domain",
+    "digitizedBySefaria": true,
+    "heversionSource": "http://primo.nli.org.il/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=NLI&docId=NNL_ALEPH00174173",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה, מהדורת בית דפוס ראם, וילנא 1913",
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "משנה שקלים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [
+            "באחד באדר. משמיעין על השקלים. ועל הכלאים. בחמשה עשר בו קורין את המגילה בכרכין ומתקנין את הדרכים. ואת הרחובות. ואת מקואות המים. ועושין כל צרכי הרבים. ומציינין את הקברות. ויוצאין אף על הכלאים:  ",
+            "אמר רבי יהודה. בראשונה היו עוקרין ומשליכין לפניהם. משרבו עוברי עברה. היו עוקרין ומשליכין על הדרכים. התקינו שיהו מפקירין כל השדה כולה:  ",
+            "בחמשה עשר בו שולחנות היו יושבין במדינה. בעשרים וחמשה ישבו במקדש. משישבו במקדש התחילו למשכן. את מי ממשכנין לוים. וישראלים. גרים ועבדים משוחררים. אבל לא נשים. ועבדים וקטנים. כל קטן שהתחיל אביו לשקול על ידו. שוב אינו פוסק. ואין ממשכנין את הכהנים מפני דרכי שלום:  ",
+            "אמר רבי יהודה העיד בן בוכרי ביבנה כל כהן ששוקל אינו חוטא. אמר לו רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לא כי אלא כל כהן שאינו שוקל חוטא. אלא שהכהנים דורשים מקרא זה לעצמן. (ויקרא ו, טז) כל מנחת כהן כליל תהיה לא תאכל. הואיל ועומר ושתי הלחם ולחם הפנים שלנו האיך נאכלים:  ",
+            "אף על פי שאמרו אין ממשכנין נשים. ועבדים. וקטנים. אם שקלו מקבלין מידן. העובד כוכבים והכותי ששקלו אין מקבלין מידן. ואין מקבלין מידן קיני זבין. וקיני זבות. וקיני יולדות. וחטאות ואשמות. אבל נדרים ונדבות מקבלין מידן. זה הכלל כל שנידר ונידב מקבלין מידן. כל שאין נידר ונידב. אין מקבלין מידן. וכן הוא מפורש על ידי עזרא. שנאמר (עזרא ד, ג) לא לכם ולנו לבנות את בית אלהינו:  ",
+            "ואלו שחייבין בקלבון. לוים וישראלים. וגרים. ועבדים משוחררים אבל לא כהנים ונשים ועבדים וקטנים. השוקל על ידי כהן. על ידי אשה. על ידי עבד. על ידי קטן. פטור. ואם שקל על ידו ועל יד חבירו חייב בקלבון אחד. רבי מאיר אומר שני קלבונות. הנותן סלע ונוטל שקל חייב שני קלבונות:  ",
+            "השוקל על ידי עני. ועל ידי שכנו. ועל ידי בן עירו פטור. ואם הלוום חייב. האחין והשותפין שחייבין בקלבון פטורין ממעשר בהמה וכשחייבין במעשר בהמה פטורין מן הקלבון וכמה הוא קלבון. מעה כסף דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים חצי:  "
+        ],
+        [
+            "מצרפין שקלים לדרכונות מפני משוי הדרך. כשם שהיו שופרות במקדש. כך היו שופרות במדינה. בני העיר ששלחו את שקליהן ונגנבו. או שאבדו. אם נתרמה התרומה נשבעין לגיזברים. ואם לאו נשבעין לבני העיר. ובני העיר שוקלין תחתיהן. נמצאו. או שהחזירום הגנבים. אלו ואלו שקלים. ואין עולין להן לשנה הבאה: \n",
+            "הנותן שקלו לחברו לשקול על ידו. ושקלו על ידי עצמו. אם נתרמה תרומה מעל. השוקל שקלו ממעות הקדש אם נתרמה תרומה וקרבה הבהמה מעל. מדמי מעשר שני מדמי שביעית יאכל כנגדן: \n",
+            "המכנס מעות ואמר הרי אלו לשקלי. בית שמאי אומרים מותרן נדבה. ובית הלל אומרים מותרן חולין. שאביא מהן לשקלי. שוין שמותרן חולין. אלו לחטאת שוין שהמותר נדבה. שאביא מהן לחטאת. שוין שהמותר חולין: \n",
+            "אמר רבי שמעון מה בין שקלים. לחטאת. שקלים יש להם קצבה. וחטאת אין לה קצבה רבי יהודה אומר אף לשקלים אין להם קצבה. שכשעלו ישראל מן הגולה. היו שוקלים דרכונות. חזרו לשקול סלעים חזרו לשקול טבעין. ובקשו לשקול דינרים. אמר ר' שמעון אף על פי כן יד כולן שוה. אבל חטאת. זה מביא בסלע. וזה מביא בשתים. וזה מביא בשלש: \n",
+            "מותר שקלים חולין. מותר עשירית האיפה. מותר קיני זבין. קיני זבות וקיני יולדות. וחטאות ואשמות מותריהן נדבה זה הכלל. כל שהוא בא לשם חטאת. ולשם אשמה. מותרן נדבה. מותר עולה לעולה. מותר מנחה למנחה. מותר שלמים לשלמים. מותר פסח לשלמים. מותר נזירים לנזירים. מותר נזיר לנדבה מותר עניים לעניים מותר עני לאותו עני. מותר שבוים לשבוים מותר שבוי לאותו שבוי. מותר המתים למתים. מותר המת ליורשיו. רבי מאיר אומר מותר המת יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו רבי נתן אומר מותר המת. בונין לו נפש על קברו. \n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "בשלשה פרקים בשנה תורמין את הלשכה בפרוס הפסח בפרוס עצרת. בפרוס החג. והן גרנות למעשר בהמה. דברי רבי עקיבא. בן עזאי אומר בעשרים ותשעה באדר ובאחד בסיון ובעשרים ותשעה באב רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון אומרים באחד בניסן. באחד בסיון. בעשרים ותשעה באלול. מפני מה אמרו בעשרים בתשעה ולא אמרו באחד בתשרי. מפני שהוא יום טוב. ואי אפשר לעשר ביום טוב. לפיכך הקדימוהו לעשרים ותשעה באלול.  ",
+            "בשלש קופות של שלש שלש סאין תורמין את הלשכה וכתוב בהן אל\"ף בי\"ת גימ\"ל. רבי ישמעאל אומר יונית כתוב בהן אלפ\"א בית\"א גמל\"א אין התורם נכנס לא בפרגוד חפות. ולא במנעל ולא בסנדל. ולא בתפילין. ולא בקמיע שמא יעני ויאמרו מעון הלשכה העני. או שמא יעשיר ויאמרו מתרומת הלשכה העשיר. לפי שאדם צריך לצאת ידי הבריות כדרך שצריך לצאת ידי המקום. שנאמר (במדבר לב, כב) והייתם נקיים מה' ומישראל. ואומר (משלי ג, ד) ומצא חן ושכל טוב בעיני אלהים ואדם:  ",
+            "של בית רבן גמליאל היה נכנס ושקלו בין אצבעותיו. וזורקו לפני התורם. והתורם מתכוין ודוחפו לקופה. אין התורם תורם. עד שיאמר להם אתרום. והן אומרים לו. תרום. תרום. תרום. שלש פעמים:  ",
+            "תרם את הראשונה. ומחפה בקטבלאות. שניה ומחפה בקטבלאות. שלישית לא היה מחפה שמא ישכח ויתרום מן הדבר התרום. תרם את הראשונה לשם ארץ ישראל. ושניה לשום כרכים המוקפין לה. והשלישית לשום בבל. ולשום מדי. ולשום מדינות הרחוקות:  "
+        ],
+        [
+            "התרומה מה היו עושין בה. לוקחין בה תמידין ומוספין. ונסכיהם. העומר. ושתי הלחם. ולחם הפנים וכל קרבנות הצבור. שומרי ספיחים בשביעית. נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה ר' יוסי אומר אף הרוצה מתנדב שומר חנם. אמרו לו אף אתה אומר שאינן באין אלא משל צבור: \n",
+            "פרה. ושעיר המשתלח. ולשון של זהורית באין מתרומת הלשכה. כבש פרה וכבש שעיר המשתלח. ולשון שבין קרניו ואמת המים וחומת העיר. ומגדלותיה. וכל צורכי העיר באין משירי הלשכה. אבא שאול אומר כבש פרה כהנים גדולים עושין אותו משל עצמן: \n",
+            "מותר שירי הלשכה מה היו עושין בהן. לוקחין בהן יינות שמנים וסלתות. והשכר להקדש. דברי רבי ישמעאל. רבי עקיבא אומר אין משתכרין משל הקדש. ולא משל עניים: \n",
+            "מותר תרומה מה היו עושין בה רקועי זהב צפוי לבית קדשי הקדשים. רבי ישמעאל אומר מותר הפירות לקיץ המזבח. ומותר התרומה לכלי שרת. רבי עקיבא אומר מותר התרומה לקיץ המזבח. ומותר נסכים לכלי שרת. רבי חנניה סגן הכה��ים אומר מותר נסכים לקיץ המזבח ומותר התרומה לכלי שרת. זה וזה לא היו מודים בפירות: \n",
+            "מותר הקטרת מה היו עושין בה. מפרישין ממנה שכר האומנין. ומחללין אותה על שכר האומנין ונותנין אותה לאומנין בשכרן. וחוזרין ולוקחין אותה מתרומה חדשה אם בא החדש בזמנו לוקחין אותה מתרומה חדשה ואם לאו מן הישנה: \n",
+            "המקדיש נכסיו. והיו בהן דברים ראוין לקרבנות הצבור. ינתנו לאומנין בשכרן דברי רבי עקיבא. אמר לו בן עזאי אינה היא המדה אלא מפרישין מהן שכר האומנין ומחללין אותן על מעות האומנין. ונותנין אותן לאומנין בשכרן. וחוזרין ולוקחין אותן מתרומה חדשה: \n",
+            "המקדיש נכסיו והיתה בהן בהמה ראויה לגבי המזבח. זכרים ונקבות רבי אליעזר אומר זכרים ימכרו לצרכי עולות. ונקבות ימכרו לצרכי זבחי שלמים. ודמיהן יפלו עם שאר נכסים לבדק הבית רבי יהושע אומר זכרים עצמן יקרבו עולות ונקבות ימכרו לצרכי זבחי שלמים ויביא בדמיהן עולות ושאר נכסים יפלו לבדק הבית. רבי עקיבא אומר רואה אני את דברי רבי אליעזר מדברי רבי יהושע. שר' אליעזר השוה את מדתו. ור' יהושע חלק אמר רבי פפייס שמעתי כדברי שניהן. שהמקדיש בפירוש כדברי ר' אליעזר והמקדיש סתם כדברי רבי יהושע. \n",
+            "המקדיש נכסים והיו בהן דברים ראוין על גבי המזבח. יינות שמנים ועופות רבי אלעזר אומר ימכרו לצרכי אותו המין. ויביא בדמיהן עולות ושאר נכסים יפלו לבדק הבית: \n",
+            "אחת לשלשים יום משערין את הלשכה כל המקבל עליו לספק סלתות מארבעה. עמדו משלש. יספק מארבעה. משלש ועמדו מארבעה. יספק מארבעה. שיד הקדש על העליונה ואם התליעה סולת התליעה לו. ואם החמיץ יין החמיץ לו ואינו מקבל את מעותיו עד שיהא המזבח מרצה: \n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "אלו הן הממונין שהיו במקדש. יוחנן בן פינחס על החותמות. אחיה על הנסכים. מתתיה בן שמואל על הפייסות. פתחיה על הקינין פתחיה זה מרדכי. למה נקרא שמו פתחיה. שהיה פותח בדברים ודורשן ויודע שבעים לשון. בן אחיה על חולי מעיים. נחוניא חופר שיחין. גביני כרוז. בן גבר על נעילת שערים. בן בבי על הפקיע. בן ארזה על הצלצל. הוגרס בן לוי על השיר. בית גרמו על מעשה לחם הפנים בית אבטינס על מעשה הקטורת אלעזר על הפרוכת. ופנחס על המלבוש.  ",
+            "אין פוחתין משלשה גזברין. ומשבעה אמרכלין ואין עושין שררה על הציבור בממון פחות משנים. חוץ מבן אחיה. שעל חולי מעיים. ואלעזר שעל הפרכות. שאותן קיבלו רוב הצבור עליהן:  ",
+            "ארבעה חותמות היו במקדש. וכתוב עליהן. עגל. זכר. גדי. חוטא. בן עזאי אומר חמשה היו. וארמית כתוב עליהן. עגל. זכר. גדי. חוטא דל. וחוטא עשיר. עגל משמש עם נסכי בקר גדולים וקטנים זכרים ונקבות. גדי משמש עם נסכי צאן גדולים וקטנים זכרים ונקבות. חוץ משל אילים. זכר משמש עם נסכי אילים בלבד. חוטא משמש עם נסכי שלש בהמות של מצורעין:  ",
+            "מי שהוא מבקש נסכים. הולך לו אצל יוחנן. שהוא ממונה על החותמות. נותן לו מעות ומקבל ממנו חותם. בא לו אצל אחיה שהוא ממונה על הנסכים ונותן לו חותם ומקבל ממנו נסכים. ולערב באין זה אצל זה. ואחיה מוציא את החותמות ומקבל כנגדן מעות. ואם הותירו. הותירו להקדש. ואם פחתו. היה משלם יוחנן מביתו. שיד הקדש על העליונה:  ",
+            "מי שאבד ממנו חותמו. ממתינין לו עד הערב אם מצאו לו כדי חותמו נותנין לו. ואם לאו לא היה לו ושם היום כתוב עליהן מפני הרמאין:  ",
+            "שתי לשכות היו במקדש. אחת לשכת חשאים. ואחת לשכת הכלים. לשכת חשאים. יראי חטא נותנים לתוכה בחשאי. ועניים בני טובים מתפרנסים מתוכה בחשאי. לשכת הכלים. כל מי שהוא מתנדב כלי. זורקו לתוכה. ואחד לשלשים יום גזברין פותחין אותה. וכל כלי שמצאו בו צורך לבדק הבית מניחין אותו והשאר נמכרין בדמיהן ונופלין ללשכת בדק הבית:  "
+        ],
+        [
+            "שלשה עשר שופרות שלשה עשר שולחנות שלש עשרה השתחויות היו במקדש. של בית רבן גמליאל ושל בית רבי חנניה סגן הכהנים היו משתחוין ארבע עשרה. והיכן היתה יתרה. כנגד דיר העצים שכן מסורת בידם מאבותיהם ששם הארון נגנז:  ",
+            "מעשה בכהן אחד שהיה מתעסק וראה הרצפה שהיא משונה מחברותיה בא ואמר לחברו לא הספיק לגמור את הדבר עד שיצתה נשמתו וידעו ביחוד ששם הארון נגנז:  ",
+            "והיכן היו משתחוים. ארבע בצפון. וארבע בדרום. שלש במזרח. ושתים במערב כנגד שלשה עשר שערים. שערים דרומיים סמוכין למערב שער העליון. שער הדלק. שער הבכורות. שער המים. ולמה נקרא שמו שער המים שבו מכניסין צלוחית של מים של נסוך בחג. רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר בו המים מפכים. ועתידין להיות יוצאין מתחת מפתן הבית לעומתן בצפון סמוכין למערב. שער יכניה. שער קרבן. שער נשים שער השיר. ולמה נקרא שמו שער יכניה. שבו יצא יכניה בגלותו. במזרח שער ניקנור ושתי פשפשין היו לו. אחד בימינו ואחד בשמאלו ושנים במערב שלא היה להן שם:  ",
+            "שלשה עשר שלחנות היו במקדש שמנה של שיש בבית המטבחים שעליהן מדיחין את הקרבים. ושנים במערב הכבש אחד של שיש. ואחד של כסף. על של שיש היו נותנים את האברים. על של כסף כלי שרת. ושנים באולם מבפנים על פתח הבית. אחד של שיש ואחד של זהב. על של שיש נותנין לחם הפנים בכניסתו. ועל של זהב ביציאתו. שמעלין בקדש ולא מורידין. ואחד של זהב מבפנים שעליו לחם הפנים תמיד:  ",
+            "שלשה עשר שופרות היו במקדש. וכתוב עליהם תקלין חדתין. ותקלין עתיקין. קינין. וגוזלי עולה. עצים. ולבונה. זהב לכפורת. ששה לנדבה. תקלין חדתין שבכל שנה ושנה. ועתיקין מי שלא שקל אשתקד שוקל לשנה הבאה. קינין הם תורים. וגוזלי עולה הן בני יונה. וכולן עולות. דברי ר' יהודה. וחכמים אומרים קינין אחד חטאת ואחד עולה. וגוזלי עולה כולן עולות:  ",
+            "האומר הרי עלי עצים. לא יפחות משני גיזרין. לבונה. לא יפחות מקומץ. זהב. לא יפחות מדינר זהב. ששה לנדבה. נדבה מה היו עושין בה. לוקחין בה עולות. הבשר לשם. והעורות לכהנים. זה מדרש דרש יהוידע כהן גדול (ויקרא ה, יט) אשם הוא אשום אשם לה'. זה הכלל כל שהוא בא משום חטא ומשום אשמה ילקח בו עולות. הבשר לשם. והעורות לכהנים. נמצאו שני כתובים קיימים. אשם לה' ואשם לכהנים. ואומר (מלכים ב' יב, יז) כסף אשם וכסף חטאות לא יובא בית ה'. לכהנים יהיו:  "
+        ],
+        [
+            "מעות שנמצאו בין השקלים לנדבה. קרוב לשקלים יפלו לשקלים. לנדבה יפלו לנדבה. מחצה למחצה יפלו לנדבה. בין עצים ללבונה. קרוב לעצים יפלו לעצים. ללבונה יפלו ללבונה. מחצה למחצה יפלו ללבונה. בין קינין לגוזלי עולה קרוב לקינין יפלו לקינין. לגוזלי עולה יפלו לגוזלי עולה. מחצה למחצה יפלו לגוזלי עולה. בין חולין למעשר שני. קרוב לחולין יפלו לחולין. למעשר שני יפלו למעשר שני. מחצה למחצה יפלו למעשר שני. זה הכלל הולכין אחר הקרוב להקל. מחצה למחצה להחמיר.  ",
+            "מעות שנמצאו לפני סוחרי בהמה. לעולם מעשר. בהר הבית חולין. בירושלם בשעת הרגל מעשר. ובשאר כל ימות השנה חולין:  ",
+            "בשר שנמצא בעזרה אברין עולות וחתיכות חטאות. בירושלם זבחי שלמים. זה וזה תעובר צורתו ויצא לבית השריפה. נמצא בגבולין. אברין נבילות. חתיכות מותרות. ובשעת הרגל שהבשר מרובה אף אברין מותרין:  ",
+            "בהמה שנמצאת מירושלם ועד מגדל עדר. וכמידתה לכל רוח זכרים עולות. נקבות זבחי שלמים. רבי יהודה אומר הראוי לפסחים פסחים. קודם לרגל שלשים יום:  ",
+            "בראשונה היו ממשכנין את מוצאיה עד שהוא מביא נסכיה חזרו להיות מניחין אותה ובורחין. התקינו בית דין שיהו נסכיה באין משל צבור:  ",
+            "אמר רבי שמעון שבעה דברים התקינו בית דין. וזה אחד מהן נכרי ששלח עולתו ממדינת הים ושלח עמה נסכים קריבין משלו. ואם לאו קריבין משל צבור. וכן גר שמת והניח זבחים. אם יש לו נסכים קריבין משלו. ואם לאו קריבין משל צבור. ותנאי בית דין הוא על כהן גדול שמת שתהא מנחתו קריבה משל צבור. רבי יהודה אומר משל יורשין. ושלימה היתה קריבה:  ",
+            "על המלח. ועל העצים שיהו הכהנים נאותים בהן. ועל הפרה. שלא יהו מועלין באפרה. ועל הקינין הפסולות שיהו באות משל צבור רבי יוסי אומר המספק את הקינין מספק את הפסולות:  "
+        ],
+        [
+            "כל הרוקין הנמצאין בירושלם טהורין חוץ משל שוק העליון דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יוסי אומר בשאר ימות השנה שבאמצע טמאין. ושבצדדין טהורין. ובשעת הרגל. שבאמצע טהורין. ושבצדדין טמאין. שמפני שהן מועטין מסתלקין לצדדין:  ",
+            "כל הכלים הנמצאין בירושלם. דרך ירידה לבית הטבילה. טמאין. דרך עלייה טהורין. שלא בדרך ירידתן עלייתן. דברי רבי מאיר. ר' יוסי אומר כולן טהורין. חוץ מן הסל והמגריפה והמריצה המיוחדין לקברות:  ",
+            "סכין שנמצאת בארבעה עשר. שוחט בה מיד. בשלשה עשר שונה ומטביל. וקופיץ בין בזה ובין בזה. שונה ומטביל. חל ארבעה עשר להיות בשבת שוחט בה מיד. בחמשה עשר שוחט בה מיד. נמצאת קשורה לסכין. הרי זו כסכין:  ",
+            "פרוכת שנטמאת בולד הטומאה מטבילין אותה בפנים ומכניסין אותה מיד. ואת שנטמאת באב הטומאה. מטבילין אותה בחוץ. ושוטחין אותה בחיל. ואם היתה חדשה שוטחין אותה על גג האיצטבא כדי שיראו העם את מלאכתן שהיא נאה:  ",
+            "רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר. משום רבי שמעון בן הסגן. פרוכת עביה טפח. ועל שבעים ושנים נימין נארגת. ועל כל נימא ונימא עשרים וארבעה חוטין ארכה ארבעים אמה ורחבה עשרים אמה. ומשמונים ושתי רבוא נעשית. ושתים עושין בכל שנה. ושלש מאות כהנים. מטבילין אותה:  ",
+            "בשר קדשי קדשים שנטמא. בין באב הטומאה. בין בולד הטומאה. בין בפנים. בין בחוץ. בית שמאי אומרים הכל ישרף בפנים. חוץ משנטמא באב הטומאה בחוץ. ובית הלל אומרים. הכל ישרף בחוץ. חוץ משנטמא בולד הטומאה בפנים:  ",
+            "רבי אליעזר אומר. את שנטמא באב הטומאה. בין בפנים בין בחוץ. ישרף בחוץ. ואת שנטמא בולד הטומאה. בין בפנים בין בחוץ ישרף בפנים. רבי עקיבא אומר מקום טומאתו שם שריפתו:  ",
+            "אברי התמיד נתנין מחצי כבש ולמטה במזרח (ספרים אחרים במערב) ושל מוספין נתנין מחצי כבש ולמטה במערב (ספרים אחרים במזרח) ושל ראשי חדשים נתנין מתחת (ספרים אחרים על) כרכוב המזבח מלמטה (ספרים אחרים מלמעלה) השקלים והבכורים אין נוהגין אלא בפני הבית. אבל מעשר דגן ומעשר בהמה והבכורות. נוהגין בין בפני הבית. בין שלא בפני הבית. המקדיש שקלים ובכורים הרי זה קדש. רבי שמעון אומר. האומר בכורים קדש. אינן קדש:    "
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Chapter",
+        "Mishnah"
+    ]
+}

json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Shekalim/Hebrew/Torat Emet 357.json

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Mishnah Shekalim",
+    "versionSource": "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads",
+    "versionTitle": "Torat Emet 357",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "priority": 3.0,
+    "license": "Public Domain",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "תורת אמת 357",
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "משנה שקלים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [
+            "בְּאֶחָד בַּאֲדָר מַשְׁמִיעִין עַל הַשְּׁקָלִים וְעַל הַכִּלְאַיִם. בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ קוֹרִין אֶת הַמְּגִלָּה בַּכְּרַכִּין, וּמְתַקְּנִין אֶת הַדְּרָכִים וְאֶת הָרְחוֹבוֹת וְאֶת מִקְוְאוֹת הַמַּיִם, וְעוֹשִׂין כָּל צָרְכֵי הָרַבִּים, וּמְצַיְּנִין אֶת הַקְּבָרוֹת, וְיוֹצְאִין אַף עַל הַכִּלְאָיִם: \n",
+            "אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ עוֹקְרִין וּמַשְׁלִיכִין לִפְנֵיהֶם. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה, הָיוּ עוֹקְרִין וּמַשְׁלִיכִין עַל הַדְּרָכִים, הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מַפְקִירִין כָּל הַשָּׂדֶה כֻּלָּהּ: \n",
+            "בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ, שֻׁלְחָנוֹת הָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין בַּמְּדִינָה. בְּעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה, יָשְׁבוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. מִשֶּׁיָּשְׁבוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, הִתְחִילוּ לְמַשְׁכֵּן. אֶת מִי מְמַשְׁכְּנִין, לְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים, גֵּרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִים, אֲבָל לֹא נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים. כָּל קָטָן שֶׁהִתְחִיל אָבִיו לִשְׁקוֹל עַל יָדוֹ, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵק. וְאֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אֶת הַכֹּהֲנִים מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵּי שָׁלוֹם: \n",
+            "אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הֵעִיד בֶּן בּוּכְרִי בְּיַבְנֶה, כָּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁשּׁוֹקֵל אֵינוֹ חוֹטֵא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, לֹא כִּי, אֶלָּא כָּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹקֵל חוֹטֵא, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים דּוֹרְשִׁים מִקְרָא זֶה לְעַצְמָן, (ויקרא ו) וְכָל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל, הוֹאִיל וְעֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁלָּנוּ, הֵיאָךְ נֶאֱכָלִים: \n",
+            "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים, אִם שָׁקְלוּ מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. הַנָּכְרִי וְהַכּוּתִי שֶׁשָּׁקְלוּ, אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן קִנֵּי זָבִין וְקִנֵּי זָבוֹת וְקִנֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת, וְחַטָאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת. (אֲבָל) נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת, מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל שֶׁנִּדָּר וְנִדָּב, מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. כָּל שֶׁאֵין נִדָּר וְנִדָּב אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. וְכֵן הוּא מְפֹרָשׁ עַל יְדֵי עֶזְרָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (עזרא ד) לֹא לָכֶם וְלָנוּ לִבְנוֹת בַּיִת לֵאלֹהֵינוּ: \n",
+            "וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁחַיָּבִין בַּקָּלְבּוֹן, לְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים וְגֵרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִים, אֲבָל לֹא כֹּהֲנִים וְנָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים. הַשּׁוֹקֵל עַל יְדֵי כֹּהֵן, עַל יְדֵי אִשָּׁה, עַל יְדֵי עֶבֶד, עַל יְדֵי קָטָן, פָּטוּר. וְאִם שָׁקַל עַל יָדוֹ וְעַל יַד חֲבֵרוֹ, חַיָּב בְּקָלְבּוֹן אֶחָד. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵי קָלְבּוֹנוֹת. הַנּוֹתֵן סֶלַע וְנוֹטֵל שֶׁקֶל, חַיָּב שְׁנֵי קָלְבּוֹנוֹת: \n",
+            "הַשּׁוֹקֵל עַל יְדֵי עָנִי, וְעַל יְדֵי שְׁכֵנוֹ, וְעַל יְדֵי בֶּן עִירוֹ, פָטוּר. וְאִם הִלְוָם חַיָּב. הָאַחִין וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁחַיָּבִין בַּקָּלְבּוֹן, פְּטוּרִין מִמַּעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה. וּכְשֶׁחַיָּבִין בְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, פְּטוּרִין מִן הַקָּלְבּוֹן. וְכַמָּה הוּא קָלְבּוֹן, מָעָה כֶּסֶף, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, חֵצִי: \n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "מְצָרְפִין שְׁקָלִים לְדַרְכּוֹנוֹת מִפְּנֵי מַשּׂוֹי הַדֶּרֶךְ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָיוּ שׁוֹפָרוֹת בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, כָּךְ הָיוּ שׁוֹפָרוֹת בַּמְּדִינָה. בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ אֶת שִׁקְלֵיהֶן וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבָדוּ, אִם נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה, נִשְׁבָּעִין לַגִּזְבָּרִים. וְאִם לָאו נִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר, וּבְנֵי הָעִיר שׁוֹקְלִין תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. נִמְצָאוּ, אוֹ שֶׁהֶחֱזִירוּם הַגַּנָּבִים, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ שְׁקָלִים, וְאֵין עוֹלִין לָהֶן לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה: \n",
+            "הַנּוֹתֵן שִׁקְלוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ לִשְׁקֹל עַל יָדוֹ, וּשְׁקָלוֹ עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ, אִם נִתְרְמָה תְּרוּמָה מָעַל. הַשּׁוֹקֵל שִׁקְלוֹ מִמְּעוֹת הֶקְדֵּשׁ, אִם נִתְרְמָה תְרוּמָה וְקָרְבָה הַבְּהֵמָה מָעַל. מִדְּמֵי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית, יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּן: \n",
+            "הַמְכַנֵּס מָעוֹת וְאָמַר, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לְשִׁקְלִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, מוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מוֹתָרָן חֻלִּין. שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶן לְשִׁקְלִי, שָׁוִין שֶׁמּוֹתָרָן חֻלִּין. אֵלּוּ לְחַטָאת, שָׁוִין שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר נְדָבָה. שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶן לְחַטָאת, שָׁוִין שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר חֻלִּין: \n",
+            "אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַה בֵּין שְׁקָלִים לְחַטָאת. שְׁקָלִים יֵשׁ לָהֶם קִצְבָה, וְחַטָאת אֵין לָהּ קִצְבָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף לִשְׁקָלִים אֵין לָהֶן קִצְבָה, שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הַגּוֹלָה הָיוּ שׁוֹקְלִים דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת, חָזְרוּ לִשְׁקוֹל סְלָעִים, חָזְרוּ לִשְׁקוֹל טְבָעִין, וּבִקְּשׁוּ לִשְׁקֹל דִּינָרִים. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן, יַד כֻּלָּן שָׁוָה. אֲבָל חַטָאת, זֶה מֵבִיא בְּסֶלַע וְזֶה מֵבִיא בִּשְׁתַּיִם וְזֶה מֵבִיא בְּשָׁלשׁ: \n",
+            "מוֹתַר שְׁקָלִים, חֻלִּין. מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה, מוֹתַר קִנֵּי זָבִין, קִנֵּי זָבוֹת, קִנֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת, וְחַטָאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת, מוֹתְרֵיהֶן נְדָבָה. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל שֶׁהוּא בָּא לְשֵׁם חַטָאת וּלְשֵׁם אַשְׁמָה, מוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. מוֹתַר עוֹלָה, לָעוֹלָה. מוֹתַר מִנְחָה, לַמִּנְחָה. מוֹתַר שְׁלָמִים, לַשְּׁלָמִים. מוֹתַר פֶּסַח, לַשְּׁלָמִים. מוֹתַר נְזִירִים, לַנְּזִירִים. מוֹתַר נָזִיר, לַנְּדָבָה. מוֹתַר עֲנִיִּים, לָעֲנִיִּים. מוֹתַר עָנִי, לְאוֹתוֹ עָנִי. מוֹתַר שְׁבוּיִים, לַשְּׁבוּיִים. מוֹתַר שָׁבוּי, לְאוֹתוֹ שָׁבוּי. מוֹתַר הַמֵּתִים, לַמֵּתִים. מוֹתַר הַמֵּת, לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר הַמֵּת, יְהֵא מֻנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר הַמֵּת בּוֹנִין לוֹ נֶפֶשׁ עַל קִבְרוֹ: \n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "בִּשְׁלשָׁה פְּרָקִים בַּשָּׁנָה, תּוֹרְמִין אֶת הַלִּשְׁכָּה, בִּפְרוֹס הַפֶּסַח, בִּפְרוֹס עֲצֶרֶת, בִּפְר��ֹס הֶחָג, וְהֵן גְּרָנוֹת לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בַּאֲדָר, וּבְאֶחָד בְּסִיוָן, וּבְעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בְּאָב. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים, בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן, בְּאֶחָד בְּסִיוָן, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בֶּאֱלוּל. מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בֶּאֱלוּל, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרֵי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יוֹם טוֹב, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְעַשֵּׂר בְּיוֹם טוֹב, לְפִיכָךְ הִקְדִּימוּהוּ לְעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בֶּאֱלוּל: \n",
+            "בְּשָׁלשׁ קֻפּוֹת שֶׁל שָׁלשׁ שָׁלשׁ סְאִין תּוֹרְמִין אֶת הַלִּשְׁכָּה, וְכָתוּב בָּהֶן אָל\"ף בֵי\"ת גִימ\"ל. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, יְוָנִית כָּתוּב בָּהֶן אָלפ\"א בֵית\"א גָמל\"א. אֵין הַתּוֹרֵם נִכְנָס לֹא בְּפַרְגּוֹד חָפוּת, וְלֹא בְּמִנְעָל, וְלֹא בְּסַנְדָּל, וְלֹא בִּתְפִלִּין, וְלֹא בְּקָמִיעַ, שֶׁמָּא יַעֲנִי, וְיֹאמְרוּ מֵעֲוֹן הַלִּשְׁכָּה הֶעֱנִי, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשִׁיר, וְיֹאמְרוּ מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה הֶעֱשִׁיר. לְפִי שֶׁאָדָם צָרִיךְ לָצֵאת יְדֵי הַבְּרִיּוֹת כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לָצֵאת יְדֵי הַמָּקוֹם, שְׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לב) וִהְיִיתֶם נְקִיִים מֵיְיָ וּמִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְאוֹמֵר (משלי ג) וּמְצָא חֵן וְשֵׂכֶל טוֹב בְּעֵינֵי אֱלֹהִים וְאָדָם: \n",
+            "שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל (הָיָה) נִכְנָס וְשִׁקְלוֹ בֵּין אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו, וְזוֹרְקוֹ לִפְנֵי הַתּוֹרֵם, וְהַתּוֹרֵם מִתְכַּוֵּן וְדוֹחֲקוֹ לַקֻּפָּה. אֵין הַתּוֹרֵם תּוֹרֵם עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהֶם, אֶתְרֹם. וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים לוֹ, תְּרֹם, תְּרֹם, תְּרֹם, שָׁלשׁ פְּעָמִים: \n",
+            "תָּרַם אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּמְחַפֶּה בִּקְטַבְלָאוֹת, שְׁנִיָּה וּמְחַפֶּה בִּקְטַבְלָאוֹת. שְׁלִישִׁית לֹא הָיָה מְחַפֶּה, שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁכַּח וְיִתְרֹם מִן הַדָּבָר הַתָּרוּם. תָּרַם אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לְשֵׁם אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּשְׁנִיָּה לְשׁוּם כְּרַכִין הַמֻּקָּפִין לָהּ, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁית לְשׁוּם בָּבֶל וּלְשׁוּם מָדַי וּלְשׁוּם מְדִינוֹת הָרְחוֹקוֹת: \n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "הַתְּרוּמָה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ, לוֹקְחִין בָּהּ תְּמִידִין וּמוּסָפִין וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם, הָעֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וְכָל קָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר. שׁוֹמְרֵי סְפִיחִים בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, (אַף הָרוֹצֶה) מִתְנַדֵּב שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אַף אַתָּה אוֹמֵר, שֶׁאֵינָן בָּאִין אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר: \n",
+            "פָּרָה וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁל זְהוֹרִית, בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִשְׁכָּה. כֶּבֶשׁ פָּרָה, וְכֶבֶשׁ שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁבֵּין קַרְנָיו, וְאַמַּת הַמַּיִם, וְחוֹמַת הָעִיר וּמִגְדְּלוֹתֶיהָ, וְכָל צָרְכֵי הָעִיר, בָּאִין מִשְּׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, כֶּבֶשׁ פָּרָה כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִשֶּׁל עַצְמָן: \n",
+            "מוֹתַר שְׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן, לוֹקְחִין בָּהֶן יֵינוֹת, שְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת, וְהַשָּׂכָר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֵין מִשְׂתַּכְּרִין מִשֶּׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל עֲנִיִּים: \n",
+            "מוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ, רִקּוּעֵי זָהָב צִפּוּי לְבֵית קָדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר הַפֵּרוֹת לְקַיִץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּמוֹתַר הַתְּרוּמָה לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר הַתְּרוּמָה לְקַיִץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּמוֹתַר נְסָכִים לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר נְסָכִים לְקַיִץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּמוֹתַר הַתְּרוּמָה לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. זֶה וָזֶה לֹא הָיוּ מוֹדִים בַּפֵּרוֹת: \n",
+            "מוֹתַר הַקְּטֹרֶת מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ, מַפְרִישִׁין (מִמֶּנָּה) שְׂכַר הָאֻמָּנִין, וּמְחַלְּלִין אוֹתָהּ עַל שְׂכַר הָאֻמָּנִין, וְנוֹתְנִין אוֹתָהּ לָאֻמָּנִין בִּשְׂכָרָן, וְחוֹזְרִין וְלוֹקְחִין אוֹתָהּ מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה. אִם בָּא הֶחָדָשׁ בִּזְמַנּוֹ, לוֹקְחִין אוֹתָהּ מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה. וְאִם לָאו מִן הַיְּשָׁנָה: \n",
+            "הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן דְּבָרִים רְאוּיִין לְקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר, יִנָּתְנוּ לָאֻמָּנִין בִּשְׂכָרָן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר לוֹ בֶּן עֲזַאי, אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּדָּה, אֶלָּא מַפְרִישִׁין מֵהֶן שְׂכַר הָאֻמָּנִין, וּמְחַלְּלִין אוֹתָן עַל מָעוֹת הָאֻמָּנִין, וְנוֹתְנִין אוֹתָן לָאֻמָּנִין בִּשְׂכָרָן, וְחוֹזְרִין וְלוֹקְחִין אוֹתָן מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה: \n",
+            "הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו וְהָיְתָה בָּהֶן בְּהֵמָה רְאוּיָה לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, זְכָרִים יִמָּכְרוּ לְצָרְכֵי עוֹלוֹת, וּנְקֵבוֹת יִמָּכְרוּ לְצָרְכֵי זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וּדְמֵיהֶן יִפְּלוּ עִם שְׁאָר נְכָסִים לְבֶדֶק הַבָּיִת. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, זְכָרִים עַצְמָן יִקָּרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת, וּנְקֵבוֹת יִמָּכְרוּ לְצָרְכֵי זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן עוֹלוֹת, וּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבָּיִת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִדִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִשְׁוָה אֶת מִדָּתוֹ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ חָלַק. אָמַר רַבִּי פַּפְּיַס, שָׁמַעְתִּי כְּדִבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן, שֶׁהַמַּקְדִּישׁ בְּפֵרוּשׁ, כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וְהַמַּקְדִּישׁ סְתָם, כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: \n",
+            "הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסִים וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן דְּבָרִים רְאוּיִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, יֵינוֹת, שְׁמָנִים וְעוֹפוֹת, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, יִמָּכְרוּ לְצָרְכֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן עוֹלוֹת, וּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבָּיִת: \n",
+            "אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, מְשַׁעֲרִין אֶת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. כָּל הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לְסַפֵּק סְלָתוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע, עָמְדוּ מִשָּׁלשׁ, יְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע. מִשָּׁלשׁ וְעָמְדוּ מֵאַרְבַּע, יְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע, שֶׁיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. וְאִם הִתְלִיעָה סֹלֶת, הִתְלִיעָה לוֹ. וְאִם הֶחְמִיץ יַיִן, הֶחְמִיץ לוֹ. וְאֵינו�� מְקַבֵּל אֶת מְעוֹתָיו, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְרַצֶּה: \n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "אֵלּוּ הֵן הַמְמֻנִּין שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, יוֹחָנָן בֶּן פִּנְחָס עַל הַחוֹתָמוֹת, אֲחִיָּה עַל הַנְּסָכִים, מַתִּתְיָה בֶּן שְׁמוּאֵל עַל הַפְּיָסוֹת, פְּתַחְיָה עַל הַקִּנִּין. פְּתַחְיָה, זֶה מָרְדְּכָי. לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פְּתַחְיָה. שֶׁהָיָה פּוֹתֵחַ בִּדְבָרִים וְדוֹרְשָׁן, וְיוֹדֵעַ שִׁבְעִים לָשׁוֹן. בֶּן אֲחִיָּה עַל חוֹלֵי מֵעַיִם, נְחוּנְיָא חוֹפֵר שִׁיחִין, גְּבִינֵי כָרוֹז, בֶּן גֶּבֶר עַל נְעִילַת שְׁעָרִים, בֶּן בֵּבָי עַל הַפָּקִיעַ, בֶּן אַרְזָה עַל הַצִּלְצָל, הֻגְרַס בֶּן לֵוִי עַל הַשִּׁיר, בֵּית גַּרְמוּ עַל מַעֲשֵׂה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, בֵּית אַבְטִינָס עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַקְּטֹרֶת, אֶלְעָזָר עַל הַפָּרוֹכוֹת, וּפִנְחָס עַל הַמַּלְבּוּשׁ: \n",
+            "אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין מִשְּׁלֹשָה גִּזְבָּרִין וּמִשִּׁבְעָה אֲמַרְכָּלִין, וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין שְׂרָרָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר בְּמָמוֹן פָּחוּת מִשְּׁנַיִם, חוּץ מִבֶּן אֲחִיָּה שֶׁעַל חוֹלֵי מֵעַיִם וְאֶלְעָזָר שֶׁעַל הַפָּרוֹכוֹת, שֶׁאוֹתָן קִבְּלוּ רוֹב הַצִּבּוּר עֲלֵיהֶן: \n",
+            "אַרְבָּעָה חוֹתָמוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן, עֵגֶל, זָכָר, גְּדִי, חוֹטֵא. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר, חֲמִשָּׁה הָיוּ, וַאֲרָמִית כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן, עֵגֶל, זָכָר, גְּדִי, חוֹטֵא דַּל, וְחוֹטֵא עָשִׁיר. עֵגֶל מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי בָּקָר גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת. גְּדִי מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי צֹאן גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל אֵילִים. זָכָר מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי אֵילִים בִּלְבָד. חוֹטֵא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי שָׁלשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁל מְצוֹרָעִין: \n",
+            "מִי שֶׁהוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ נְסָכִים הוֹלֵךְ לוֹ אֵצֶל יוֹחָנָן שֶׁהוּא מְמֻנֶּה עַל הַחוֹתָמוֹת, נוֹתֵן לוֹ מָעוֹת וּמְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ חוֹתָם. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל אֲחִיָּה שֶׁהוּא מְמֻנֶּה עַל הַנְּסָכִים, וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ חוֹתָם וּמְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ נְסָכִים. וְלָעֶרֶב בָּאִין זֶה אֵצֶל זֶה, וַאֲחִיָּה מוֹצִיא אֶת הַחוֹתָמוֹת וּמְקַבֵּל כְּנֶגְדָּן מָעוֹת. וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ הוֹתִירוּ לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְאִם פָּחָתוּ, הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּם יוֹחָנָן מִבֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה: \n",
+            "מִי שֶׁאָבַד מִמֶּנּוּ חוֹתָמוֹ, מַמְתִּינִין לוֹ עַד הָעֶרֶב. אִם מוֹצְאִין לוֹ כְּדֵי חוֹתָמוֹ, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ. וְאִם לָאו לֹא הָיָה לוֹ. וְשֵׁם הַיּוֹם כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי הָרַמָּאִין: \n",
+            "שְׁתֵּי לְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, אַחַת לִשְׁכַּת חֲשָׁאִים, וְאַחַת לִשְׁכַּת הַכֵּלִים, לִשְׁכַּת חֲשָׁאִים יִרְאֵי חֵטְא נוֹתְנִים לְתוֹכָה בַּחֲשַׁאי, וַעֲנִיִּים בְּנֵי טוֹבִים מִתְפַּרְנְסִים מִתוֹכָהּ בַּחֲשַׁאי. לִשְׁכַּת הַכֵּלִים, כָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא מִתְנַדֵּב כֶּלִי, זוֹרְקוֹ לְתוֹכָהּ. וְאַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, גִּזְבָּרִין פּוֹתְחִין אוֹתָהּ. וְכָל כְּלִי שֶׁמּוֹצְאִין בּוֹ צֹרֶךְ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, מַנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ. וְהַשְּׁאָר נִמְכָּרִין בִּדְמֵיהֶן וְנוֹפְלִין לְלִשְׁכַּת בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת: \n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שׁוֹפָרוֹת, שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שֻׁלְחָנוֹת, שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיוֹת, הָיוּ בַּמִקְדָּשׁ. שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְשֶׁל בֵּית רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים הָיוּ מִשְׁתַּחֲוִין אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה. וְהֵיכָן הָיְתָה יְתֵרָה, כְּנֶגֶד דִּיר הָעֵצִים, שֶׁכֵּן מָסֹרֶת בְּיָדָם מֵאֲבוֹתֵיהֶם שֶׁשָּׁם הָאָרוֹן נִגְנַז:  ",
+            "מַעֲשֶׂה בְּכֹהֵן אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מִתְעַסֵּק, וְרָאָה הָרִצְפָּה שֶׁהִיא מְשֻׁנָּה מֵחֲבֵרוֹתֶיהָ. בָּא וְאָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ. לֹא הִסְפִּיק לִגְמֹר אֶת הַדָּבָר עַד שֶׁיָּצְתָה נִשְׁמָתוֹ, וְיָדְעוּ בְיִחוּד שֶׁשָּׁם הָאָרוֹן נִגְנַז:  ",
+            "וְהֵיכָן הָיוּ מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים, אַרְבַּע בַּצָּפוֹן, וְאַרְבַּע בַּדָּרוֹם, שָׁלשׁ בַּמִּזְרָח, וּשְׁתַּיִם בַּמַּעֲרָב, כְּנֶגֶד שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר שְׁעָרִים. שְׁעָרִים דְּרוֹמִיִּים סְמוּכִין לַמַּעֲרָב, שַׁעַר הָעֶלְיוֹן, שַׁעַר הַדֶּלֶק, שַׁעַר הַבְּכוֹרוֹת, שַׁעַר הַמָּיִם. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ שַׁעַר הַמַּיִם, שֶׁבּוֹ מַכְנִיסִין צְלוֹחִית שֶׁל מַיִם שֶׁל נִסּוּךְ בֶּחָג. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, בּוֹ הַמַּיִם מְפַכִּים וַעֲתִידִין לִהְיוֹת יוֹצְאִין מִתַּחַת מִפְתַּן הַבַּיִת. לְעֻמָּתָן בַּצָּפוֹן סְמוּכִין לַמַּעֲרָב, שַׁעַר יְכָנְיָה, שַׁעַר קָרְבָּן, שַׁעַר נָשִׁים, שַׁעַר הַשִּׁיר. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ שַׁעַר יְכָנְיָה, שֶׁבּוֹ יָצָא יְכָנְיָה בְּגָלוּתוֹ. בַּמִּזְרָח, שַׁעַר נִיקָנוֹר, וּשְׁנֵי פִשְׁפְּשִׁין הָיוּ לוֹ, אֶחָד בִּימִינוֹ וְאֶחָד בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ. וּשְׁנַיִם בַּמַּעֲרָב שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לָהֶם שֵׁם:  ",
+            "שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר שֻׁלְחָנוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, שְׁמוֹנֶה שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ בְּבֵית הַמִּטְבְּחַיִם, שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶן מְדִיחִין אֶת הַקְּרָבַיִם. וּשְׁנַיִם בְּמַעֲרַב הַכֶּבֶשׁ, אֶחָד שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ וְאֶחָד שֶׁל כֶּסֶף עַל שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ הָיוּ נוֹתְנִים אֶת הָאֵבָרִים, עַל שֶׁל כֶּסֶף כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת. וּשְׁנַיִם בָּאוּלָם מִבִּפְנִים עַל פֶּתַח הַבַּיִת, אֶחָד שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ וְאֶחָד שֶׁל זָהָב, עַל שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ נוֹתְנִין לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ, וְעַל שֶׁל זָהָב בִּיצִיאָתוֹ, שֶׁמַּעֲלִין בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין. וְאֶחָד שֶׁל זָהָב מִבִּפְנִים, שֶׁעָלָיו לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים תָּמִיד:  ",
+            "שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר שׁוֹפָרוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶם, תִּקְלִין חַדְתִין וְתִקְלִין עַתִּיקִין, קִנִּין וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, עֵצִים, וּלְבוֹנָה, זָהָב לַכַּפֹּרֶת. שִׁשָּׁה, לִנְדָבָה. תִּקְלִין חַדְתִּין, שֶׁבְּכָל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה. עַתִּיקִין, מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁקַל אֶשְׁתָּקַד, שׁוֹקֵל לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה. קִנִּין, הֵם תּוֹרִים. וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, הֵן בְּנֵי יוֹנָה. וְכֻלָּן עוֹלוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, קִנִּין, אֶחָד חַטָאת וְאֶחָד עוֹלָה. וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, כֻּלָּן עוֹלוֹת:  ",
+            "הָאוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵצִים, לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי גִּזְרִין. לְבוֹנָה, לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִקֹּמֶץ. זָהָב, לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִדִּינַר זָהָב, שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה, נְדָבָה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ, לוֹקְחִין בָּהּ עוֹלוֹת, הַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם, וְהָעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים. זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ יְהוֹיָדָע כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, (ויקרא ה) אָשָׁם הוּא אָשֹׁם אָשַׁם לַיְיָ. (זֶה הַכְּלָל), כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בָּא מִשּׁוּם חֵטְא וּמִשּׁוּם אַשְׁמָה, יִלָּקַח בּוֹ עוֹלוֹת, הַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם, וְהָעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים קַיָּמִים, אָשָׁם לַה', וְאָשָׁם לַכֹּהֲנִים, וְאוֹמֵר, (מלכים ב יב), כֶּסֶף אָשָׁם וְכֶסֶף חַטָאוֹת לֹא יוּבָא בֵּית ה' לַכֹּהֲנִים יִהְיוּ:  "
+        ],
+        [
+            "מָעוֹת שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בֵּין הַשְּׁקָלִים לִנְדָבָה, קָרוֹב לַשְּׁקָלִים יִפְּלוּ לַשְּׁקָלִים, לַנְּדָבָה יִפְּלוּ לַנְּדָבָה, מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה יִפְּלוּ לַנְּדָבָה. בֵּין עֵצִים לִלְבוֹנָה, קָרוֹב לָעֵצִים יִפְּלוּ לָעֵצִים, לַלְּבוֹנָה יִפְּלוּ לַלְּבוֹנָה, מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה יִפְּלוּ לַלְּבוֹנָה. בֵּין קִנִּין לְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, קָרוֹב לַקִּנִּין יִפְּלוּ לַקִּנִּין. לְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה יִפְּלוּ לְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה יִפְּלוּ לְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה. בֵּין חֻלִּין לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, קָרוֹב לַחֻלִּין יִפְּלוּ לַחֻלִּין, לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי יִפְּלוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה יִפְּלוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. זֶה הַכְּלָל, הוֹלְכִים אַחַר הַקָּרוֹב (לְהָקֵל). מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה לְהַחְמִיר: \n",
+            "מָעוֹת שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ לִפְנֵי סוֹחֲרֵי בְּהֵמָה, לְעוֹלָם מַעֲשֵׂר. בְּהַר הַבַּיִת, חֻלִּין. בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם בִּשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל, מַעֲשֵׂר. וּבִשְׁאָר כָּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, חֻלִּין: \n",
+            "בָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּעֲזָרָה, אֵבָרִים, עוֹלוֹת. וַחֲתִיכוֹת, חַטָאוֹת. בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. זֶה וָזֶה תְּעֻבַּר צוּרָתוֹ וְיֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. נִמְצָא בַּגְּבוּלִין, אֵבָרִים, נְבֵלוֹת. חֲתִיכוֹת, מֻתָּרוֹת. וּבִשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר מְרֻבֶּה, אַף אֵבָרִים מֻתָּרִין: \n",
+            "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת מִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְעַד מִגְדַּל עֵדֶר, וּכְמִדָּתָהּ לְכָל רוּחַ, זְכָרִים, עוֹלוֹת. נְקֵבוֹת, זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הָרָאוּי לִפְסָחִים, פְּסָחִים קֹדֶם לָרֶגֶל שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם: \n",
+            "בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אֶת מוֹצְאֶיהָ, עַד שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא נְסָכֶיהָ. חָזְרוּ לִהְיוֹת מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָהּ וּבוֹרְחִין. הִתְקִינוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁיְּהוּ נְסָכֶיהָ בָּאִין מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר: \n",
+            "אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים הִתְקִינוּ בֵּית דִּין, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן, נָכְרִי שֶׁשִּׁלַּח עוֹלָתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְשִׁלַּח עִמָּהּ נְסָכִים, קְרֵבִין מִשֶׁלּוֹ. וְאִם לָאו, קְרֵבִין מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. וְכֵן גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ זְבָחִים, אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ נְסָכִים, קְרֵבִין מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. וְאִם לָאו, קְרֵבִין מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. וּתְנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא עַל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת, שֶׁתְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ קְרֵבָה מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מִשֶּׁל יוֹרְשִׁין. וּשְׁלֵמָה הָיְתָה קְרֵבָה: \n",
+            "עַל הַמֶּלַח וְעַל הָעֵצִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים נֵאוֹתִים בָּהֶן, וְעַל הַפָּרָה שׁ��לֹּא יְהוּ מוֹעֲלִין בְּאֶפְרָהּ, וְעַל הַקִּנִּין הַפְּסוּלוֹת שֶׁיְּהוּ בָאוֹת מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, הַמְסַפֵּק אֶת הַקִּנִּין, מְסַפֵּק אֶת הַפְּסוּלוֹת: \n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "כָּל הָרֻקִּין הַנִּמְצָאִים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל שׁוּק הָעֶלְיוֹן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁבָּאֶמְצַע טְמֵאִין וְשֶׁבַּצְּדָדִין טְהוֹרִין. וּבִשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל, שֶׁבָּאֶמְצַע טְהוֹרִין וְשֶׁבַּצְּדָדִין טְמֵאִין, שֶׁמִּפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מֻעָטִין מִסְתַּלְּקִין לַצְּדָדִין: \n",
+            "כָּל הַכֵּלִים הַנִּמְצָאִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם דֶּרֶךְ יְרִידָה לְבֵית הַטְבִילָה טְמֵאִין. דֶּרֶךְ עֲלִיָּה, טְהוֹרִין, שֶׁלֹּא כְּדֶרֶךְ יְרִידָתָן עֲלִיָּתָן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, כֻּלָּן טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מִן הַסַּל וְהַמַּגְרֵפָה וְהַמְּרִצָּה הַמְיֻחָדִין לַקְּבָרוֹת: \n",
+            "סַכִּין שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, שׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ מִיָּד. בִּשְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר, שׁוֹנֶה וּמַטְבִּיל. וְקוֹפִיץ, בֵּין בָּזֶה וּבֵין בָּזֶה שׁוֹנֶה וּמַטְבִּיל. חָל אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, שׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ מִיָּד. בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, שׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ מִיָּד. נִמְצֵאת קְשׁוּרָה לְסַכִּין, הֲרֵי זוֹ כַּסַּכִּין: \n",
+            "פָּרֹכֶת שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת בִּוְלַד הַטֻמְאָה, מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ בִּפְנִים וּמַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּד. וְאֶת שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת בְּאַב הַטֻמְאָה, מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ בַּחוּץ וְשׁוֹטְחִין אוֹתָהּ בַּחֵיל. וְאִם הָיְתָה חֲדָשָׁה, שׁוֹטְחִין אוֹתָהּ עַל גַּג הָאִצְטַבָּא, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּרְאוּ הָעָם אֶת מְלַאכְתָּהּ שֶׁהִיא נָאָה: \n",
+            "רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן הַסְּגַן, פָּרֹכֶת עָבְיָהּ טֶפַח, וְעַל שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁתַּיִם נִימִין נֶאֱרֶגֶת, וְעַל כָּל נִימָא וְנִימָא עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חוּטִין. אָרְכָּהּ אַרְבָּעִים אַמָּה וְרָחְבָּהּ עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה, וּמִשְּׁמוֹנִים וּשְׁתֵּי רִבּוֹא נַעֲשֵׂית. וּשְׁתַּיִם עוֹשִׂין בְּכָל שָׁנָה, וּשְׁלשׁ מֵאוֹת כֹּהֲנִים מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ: \n",
+            "בְּשַׂר קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּטְמָא, בֵּין בְּאַב הַטֻמְאָה, בֵּין בִּוְלַד הַטֻמְאָה, בֵּין בִּפְנִים, בֵּין בַּחוּץ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, הַכֹּל יִשָּׂרֵף בִּפְנִים, חוּץ מִשֶּׁנִּטְמָא בְּאַב הַטֻמְאָה בַּחוּץ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, הַכֹּל יִשָּׂרֵף בַּחוּץ, חוּץ מִשֶּׁנִּטְמָא בִּוְלַד הַטֻמְאָה בִּפְנִים: \n",
+            "רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אֶת שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּאַב הַטֻמְאָה, בֵּין בִּפְנִים בֵּין בַּחוּץ, יִשָּׂרֵף בַּחוּץ. וְאֶת שֶׁנִּטְמָא בִּוְלַד הַטֻמְאָה, בֵּין בִּפְנִים בֵּין בַּחוּץ, יִשָּׂרֵף בִּפְנִים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מְקוֹם טֻמְאָתוֹ שָׁם שְׂרֵפָתוֹ: \n",
+            "אֵבָרֵי הַתָּמִיד, נִתָּנִין מֵחֲצִי כֶּבֶשׁ וּלְמַטָה בַּמִּזְרָח, וְשֶׁל מוּסָפִין נִתָּנִין מֵחֲצִי כֶּבֶשׁ וּלְמַטָה בַּמַּעֲרָב, וְשֶׁל רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים נִתָּנִין מִתַּחַת כַּרְכֹּב הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִלְּמָטָה, הַשְּׁקָלִים וְהַבִּכּוּרִים אֵין נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, אֲבָל מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן וּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וְהַבְּכוֹרוֹת נוֹהֲגִין בֵּין בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. הַמַּקְדִּישׁ שְׁקָלִים וּבִכּוּרִים, הֲרֵי זֶה קֹדֶשׁ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, הָאוֹמֵר בִּכּוּרִים קֹדֶשׁ, אֵינָן קֹדֶשׁ:   \n"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Chapter",
+        "Mishnah"
+    ]
+}

json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Shekalim/Hebrew/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+{
+    "title": "Mishnah Shekalim",
+    "language": "he",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Shekalim",
+    "text": [
+        [
+            "בְּאֶחָד בַּאֲדָר מַשְׁמִיעִין עַל הַשְּׁקָלִים וְעַל הַכִּלְאַיִם. בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ קוֹרִין אֶת הַמְּגִלָּה בַּכְּרַכִּין, וּמְתַקְּנִין אֶת הַדְּרָכִים וְאֶת הָרְחוֹבוֹת וְאֶת מִקְוְאוֹת הַמַּיִם, וְעוֹשִׂין כָּל צָרְכֵי הָרַבִּים, וּמְצַיְּנִין אֶת הַקְּבָרוֹת, וְיוֹצְאִין אַף עַל הַכִּלְאָיִם: \n",
+            "אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ עוֹקְרִין וּמַשְׁלִיכִין לִפְנֵיהֶם. מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה, הָיוּ עוֹקְרִין וּמַשְׁלִיכִין עַל הַדְּרָכִים, הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ מַפְקִירִין כָּל הַשָּׂדֶה כֻּלָּהּ: \n",
+            "בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ, שֻׁלְחָנוֹת הָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִין בַּמְּדִינָה. בְּעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה, יָשְׁבוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ. מִשֶּׁיָּשְׁבוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, הִתְחִילוּ לְמַשְׁכֵּן. אֶת מִי מְמַשְׁכְּנִין, לְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים, גֵּרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִים, אֲבָל לֹא נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים. כָּל קָטָן שֶׁהִתְחִיל אָבִיו לִשְׁקוֹל עַל יָדוֹ, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ פּוֹסֵק. וְאֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אֶת הַכֹּהֲנִים מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵּי שָׁלוֹם: \n",
+            "אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הֵעִיד בֶּן בּוּכְרִי בְּיַבְנֶה, כָּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁשּׁוֹקֵל אֵינוֹ חוֹטֵא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, לֹא כִּי, אֶלָּא כָּל כֹּהֵן שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹקֵל חוֹטֵא, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים דּוֹרְשִׁים מִקְרָא זֶה לְעַצְמָן, (ויקרא ו) וְכָל מִנְחַת כֹּהֵן כָּלִיל תִּהְיֶה לֹא תֵאָכֵל, הוֹאִיל וְעֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים שֶׁלָּנוּ, הֵיאָךְ נֶאֱכָלִים: \n",
+            "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אֵין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים, אִם שָׁקְלוּ מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. הַנָּכְרִי וְהַכּוּתִי שֶׁשָּׁקְלוּ, אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. וְאֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן קִנֵּי זָבִין וְקִנֵּי זָבוֹת וְקִנֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת, וְחַטָאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת. (אֲבָל) נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת, מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל שֶׁנִּדָּר וְנִדָּב, מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. כָּל שֶׁאֵין נִדָּר וְנִדָּב אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִיָּדָן. וְכֵן הוּא מְפֹרָשׁ עַל יְדֵי עֶזְרָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (עזרא ד) לֹא לָכֶם וְלָנוּ לִבְנוֹת בַּיִת לֵאלֹהֵינוּ: \n",
+            "וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁחַיָּבִין בַּקָּלְבּוֹן, לְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים וְגֵרִים וַעֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִים, אֲבָל לֹא כֹּהֲנִים וְנָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים. הַשּׁוֹקֵל עַל יְדֵי כֹּהֵן, עַל יְדֵי אִשָּׁה, עַל יְדֵי עֶבֶד, עַל יְדֵי קָטָן, פָּטוּר. וְאִם שָׁקַל עַל יָדוֹ וְעַל יַד חֲבֵרוֹ, חַיָּב בְּקָלְבּוֹן אֶחָד. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵי קָלְבּוֹנוֹת. הַנּוֹתֵן סֶלַע וְנוֹטֵל שֶׁקֶל, חַיָּב שְׁנֵי קָלְבּוֹנוֹת: \n",
+            "הַשּׁוֹקֵל עַל יְדֵי עָנִי, וְעַל יְדֵי שְׁכֵנוֹ, וְעַל יְדֵי בֶּן עִירוֹ, פָטוּר. וְאִם הִלְוָם חַיָּב. הָאַחִין וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִין שֶׁחַיָּבִין בַּקָּלְבּוֹן, פְּטוּרִין מִמַּעֲשֵׂר בְּהֵמָה. וּכְשֶׁחַיָּבִין בְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, פְּטוּרִין מִן הַקָּלְבּוֹן. וְכַמָּה הוּא קָלְבּוֹן, מָעָה כֶּסֶף, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, חֵצִי: \n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "מְצָרְפִין שְׁקָלִים לְדַרְכּוֹנוֹת מִפְּנֵי מַשּׂוֹי הַדֶּרֶךְ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָיוּ שׁוֹפָרוֹת בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, כָּךְ הָיוּ שׁוֹפָרוֹת בַּמְּדִינָה. בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁשָּׁלְחוּ אֶת שִׁקְלֵיהֶן וְנִגְנְבוּ אוֹ שֶׁאָבָדוּ, אִם נִתְרְמָה הַתְּרוּמָה, נִשְׁבָּעִין לַגִּזְבָּרִים. וְאִם לָאו נִשְׁבָּעִין לִבְנֵי הָעִיר, וּבְנֵי הָעִיר שׁוֹקְלִין תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. נִמְצָאוּ, אוֹ שֶׁהֶחֱזִירוּם הַגַּנָּבִים, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ שְׁקָלִים, וְאֵין עוֹלִין לָהֶן לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה: \n",
+            "הַנּוֹתֵן שִׁקְלוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ לִשְׁקֹל עַל יָדוֹ, וּשְׁקָלוֹ עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ, אִם נִתְרְמָה תְּרוּמָה מָעַל. הַשּׁוֹקֵל שִׁקְלוֹ מִמְּעוֹת הֶקְדֵּשׁ, אִם נִתְרְמָה תְרוּמָה וְקָרְבָה הַבְּהֵמָה מָעַל. מִדְּמֵי מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית, יֹאכַל כְּנֶגְדָּן: \n",
+            "הַמְכַנֵּס מָעוֹת וְאָמַר, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לְשִׁקְלִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, מוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מוֹתָרָן חֻלִּין. שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶן לְשִׁקְלִי, שָׁוִין שֶׁמּוֹתָרָן חֻלִּין. אֵלּוּ לְחַטָאת, שָׁוִין שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר נְדָבָה. שֶׁאָבִיא מֵהֶן לְחַטָאת, שָׁוִין שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר חֻלִּין: \n",
+            "אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַה בֵּין שְׁקָלִים לְחַטָאת. שְׁקָלִים יֵשׁ לָהֶם קִצְבָה, וְחַטָאת אֵין לָהּ קִצְבָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף לִשְׁקָלִים אֵין לָהֶן קִצְבָה, שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הַגּוֹלָה הָיוּ שׁוֹקְלִים דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת, חָזְרוּ לִשְׁקוֹל סְלָעִים, חָזְרוּ לִשְׁקוֹל טְבָעִין, וּבִקְּשׁוּ לִשְׁקֹל דִּינָרִים. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן, יַד כֻּלָּן שָׁוָה. אֲבָל חַטָאת, זֶה מֵבִיא בְּסֶלַע וְזֶה מֵבִיא בִּשְׁתַּיִם וְזֶה מֵבִיא בְּשָׁלשׁ: \n",
+            "מוֹתַר שְׁקָלִים, חֻלִּין. מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵפָה, מוֹתַר קִנֵּי זָבִין, קִנֵּי זָבוֹת, קִנֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת, וְחַטָאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת, מוֹתְרֵיהֶן נְדָבָה. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל שֶׁהוּא בָּא לְשֵׁם חַטָאת וּלְשֵׁם אַשְׁמָה, מוֹתָרָן נְדָבָה. מוֹתַר עוֹלָה, לָעוֹלָה. מוֹתַר מִנְחָה, לַמִּנְחָה. מוֹתַר שְׁלָמִים, לַשְּׁלָמִים. מוֹתַר פֶּסַח, לַשְּׁלָמִים. מוֹתַר נְזִירִים, לַנְּזִירִים. מוֹתַר נָזִיר, לַנְּדָבָה. מוֹתַר עֲנִיִּים, לָעֲנִיִּים. מוֹתַר עָנִי, לְאוֹתוֹ עָנִי. מוֹתַר שְׁבוּיִים, לַשְּׁבוּיִים. מוֹתַר שָׁבוּי, לְאוֹתוֹ שָׁבוּי. מוֹתַר הַמֵּתִים, לַמֵּתִים. מוֹתַר הַמֵּת, לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר הַמֵּת, יְהֵא מֻנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר הַמֵּת בּוֹנִין לוֹ נֶפֶשׁ עַל קִבְרוֹ: \n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "בִּשְׁלשָׁה פְּרָקִים בַּשָּׁנָה, תּוֹרְמִין אֶת הַלִּשְׁכָּה, בִּפְרוֹס הַפֶּסַח, בִּפְרוֹס עֲצֶרֶת, בִּפְרוֹס הֶחָג, וְהֵן גְּרָנוֹת לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בַּאֲדָר, וּבְאֶחָד בְּסִיוָן, וּבְעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בְּאָב. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים, בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן, בְּאֶחָד בְּסִיוָן, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בֶּאֱלוּל. מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בֶּאֱלוּל, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרֵי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא יוֹם טוֹב, וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לְעַשֵּׂר בְּיוֹם טוֹב, לְפִיכָךְ הִקְדִּימוּהוּ לְעֶשְׂרִים וְתִשְׁעָה בֶּאֱלוּל: \n",
+            "בְּשָׁלשׁ קֻפּוֹת שֶׁל שָׁלשׁ שָׁלשׁ סְאִין תּוֹרְמִין אֶת הַלִּשְׁכָּה, וְכָתוּב בָּהֶן אָל\"ף בֵי\"ת גִימ\"ל. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, יְוָנִית כָּתוּב בָּהֶן אָלפ\"א בֵית\"א גָמל\"א. אֵין הַתּוֹרֵם נִכְנָס לֹא בְּפַרְגּוֹד חָפוּת, וְלֹא בְּמִנְעָל, וְלֹא בְּסַנְדָּל, וְלֹא בִּתְפִלִּין, וְלֹא בְּקָמִיעַ, שֶׁמָּא יַעֲנִי, וְיֹאמְרוּ מֵעֲוֹן הַלִּשְׁכָּה הֶעֱנִי, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשִׁיר, וְיֹאמְרוּ מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה הֶעֱשִׁיר. לְפִי שֶׁאָדָם צָרִיךְ לָצֵאת יְדֵי הַבְּרִיּוֹת כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לָצֵאת יְדֵי הַמָּקוֹם, שְׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לב) וִהְיִיתֶם נְקִיִים מֵיְיָ וּמִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, וְאוֹמֵר (משלי ג) וּמְצָא חֵן וְשֵׂכֶל טוֹב בְּעֵינֵי אֱלֹהִים וְאָדָם: \n",
+            "שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל (הָיָה) נִכְנָס וְשִׁקְלוֹ בֵּין אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו, וְזוֹרְקוֹ לִפְנֵי הַתּוֹרֵם, וְהַתּוֹרֵם מִתְכַּוֵּן וְדוֹחֲקוֹ לַקֻּפָּה. אֵין הַתּוֹרֵם תּוֹרֵם עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לָהֶם, אֶתְרֹם. וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים לוֹ, תְּרֹם, תְּרֹם, תְּרֹם, שָׁלשׁ פְּעָמִים: \n",
+            "תָּרַם אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּמְחַפֶּה בִּקְטַבְלָאוֹת, שְׁנִיָּה וּמְחַפֶּה בִּקְטַבְלָאוֹת. שְׁלִישִׁית לֹא הָיָה מְחַפֶּה, שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁכַּח וְיִתְרֹם מִן הַדָּבָר הַתָּרוּם. תָּרַם אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לְשֵׁם אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּשְׁנִיָּה לְשׁוּם כְּרַכִין הַמֻּקָּפִין לָהּ, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁית לְשׁוּם בָּבֶל וּלְשׁוּם מָדַי וּלְשׁוּם מְדִינוֹת הָרְחוֹקוֹת: \n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "הַתְּרוּמָה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ, לוֹקְחִין בָּהּ תְּמִידִין וּמוּסָפִין וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם, הָעֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וְכָל קָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר. שׁוֹמְרֵי סְפִיחִים בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, נוֹטְלִין שְׂכָרָן מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, (אַף הָרוֹצֶה) מִתְנַדֵּב שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אַף אַתָּה אוֹמֵר, שֶׁאֵינָן בָּאִין אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר: \n",
+            "פָּרָה וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁל זְהוֹרִית, בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִשְׁכָּה. כֶּבֶשׁ פָּרָה, וְכֶבֶשׁ שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁבֵּין קַרְנָיו, וְאַמַּת הַמַּיִם, וְחוֹמַת הָעִיר וּמִגְדְּלוֹתֶיהָ, וְכָל צָרְכֵי הָעִיר, בָּאִין מִשְּׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, כֶּבֶשׁ פָּרָה כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִשֶּׁל עַצְמָן: \n",
+            "מוֹתַר שְׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶן, לוֹקְחִין בָּהֶן יֵינוֹת, שְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת, וְהַשָּׂכָר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֵין מִשְׂתַּכְּרִין מִשֶּׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל עֲנִיִּים: \n",
+            "מוֹתַר תְּרוּמָה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ, רִקּוּעֵי זָהָב צִפּוּי לְבֵית קָד��שֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר הַפֵּרוֹת לְקַיִץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּמוֹתַר הַתְּרוּמָה לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר הַתְּרוּמָה לְקַיִץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּמוֹתַר נְסָכִים לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר, מוֹתַר נְסָכִים לְקַיִץ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וּמוֹתַר הַתְּרוּמָה לִכְלֵי שָׁרֵת. זֶה וָזֶה לֹא הָיוּ מוֹדִים בַּפֵּרוֹת: \n",
+            "מוֹתַר הַקְּטֹרֶת מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ, מַפְרִישִׁין (מִמֶּנָּה) שְׂכַר הָאֻמָּנִין, וּמְחַלְּלִין אוֹתָהּ עַל שְׂכַר הָאֻמָּנִין, וְנוֹתְנִין אוֹתָהּ לָאֻמָּנִין בִּשְׂכָרָן, וְחוֹזְרִין וְלוֹקְחִין אוֹתָהּ מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה. אִם בָּא הֶחָדָשׁ בִּזְמַנּוֹ, לוֹקְחִין אוֹתָהּ מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה. וְאִם לָאו מִן הַיְּשָׁנָה: \n",
+            "הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן דְּבָרִים רְאוּיִין לְקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר, יִנָּתְנוּ לָאֻמָּנִין בִּשְׂכָרָן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר לוֹ בֶּן עֲזַאי, אֵינָהּ הִיא הַמִּדָּה, אֶלָּא מַפְרִישִׁין מֵהֶן שְׂכַר הָאֻמָּנִין, וּמְחַלְּלִין אוֹתָן עַל מָעוֹת הָאֻמָּנִין, וְנוֹתְנִין אוֹתָן לָאֻמָּנִין בִּשְׂכָרָן, וְחוֹזְרִין וְלוֹקְחִין אוֹתָן מִתְּרוּמָה חֲדָשָׁה: \n",
+            "הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו וְהָיְתָה בָּהֶן בְּהֵמָה רְאוּיָה לְגַבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, זְכָרִים יִמָּכְרוּ לְצָרְכֵי עוֹלוֹת, וּנְקֵבוֹת יִמָּכְרוּ לְצָרְכֵי זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וּדְמֵיהֶן יִפְּלוּ עִם שְׁאָר נְכָסִים לְבֶדֶק הַבָּיִת. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, זְכָרִים עַצְמָן יִקָּרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת, וּנְקֵבוֹת יִמָּכְרוּ לְצָרְכֵי זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן עוֹלוֹת, וּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבָּיִת. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִדִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִשְׁוָה אֶת מִדָּתוֹ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ חָלַק. אָמַר רַבִּי פַּפְּיַס, שָׁמַעְתִּי כְּדִבְרֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן, שֶׁהַמַּקְדִּישׁ בְּפֵרוּשׁ, כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וְהַמַּקְדִּישׁ סְתָם, כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: \n",
+            "הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסִים וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן דְּבָרִים רְאוּיִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, יֵינוֹת, שְׁמָנִים וְעוֹפוֹת, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, יִמָּכְרוּ לְצָרְכֵי אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן עוֹלוֹת, וּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבָּיִת: \n",
+            "אַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, מְשַׁעֲרִין אֶת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. כָּל הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לְסַפֵּק סְלָתוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע, עָמְדוּ מִשָּׁלשׁ, יְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע. מִשָּׁלשׁ וְעָמְדוּ מֵאַרְבַּע, יְסַפֵּק מֵאַרְבַּע, שֶׁיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה. וְאִם הִתְלִיעָה סֹלֶת, הִתְלִיעָה לוֹ. וְאִם הֶחְמִיץ יַיִן, הֶחְמִיץ לוֹ. וְאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל אֶת מְעוֹתָיו, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְרַצֶּה: \n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "אֵלּוּ הֵן הַמְמֻנִּין שֶׁהָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, יוֹחָנָן בֶּן פִּנְחָס עַל הַחוֹתָמוֹת, אֲחִיָּה עַל הַנְּסָכִים, מַתִּתְיָה בֶּן שְׁמוּאֵל עַל הַפְּיָסוֹת, פְּתַחְיָה עַל הַקִּנִּין. פְּתַחְיָה, זֶה מָרְדְּכָי. לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פְּתַחְיָה. שֶׁהָיָה פּוֹתֵחַ בִּדְבָרִים וְדוֹרְשָׁן, וְיוֹדֵעַ שִׁבְעִים לָשׁוֹן. בֶּן אֲחִיָּה עַל חוֹלֵי מֵעַיִם, נְחוּנְיָא חוֹפֵר שִׁיחִין, גְּבִינֵי כָרוֹז, בֶּן גֶּבֶר עַל נְעִילַת שְׁעָרִים, בֶּן בֵּבָי עַל הַפָּקִיעַ, בֶּן אַרְזָה עַל הַצִּלְצָל, הֻגְרַס בֶּן לֵוִי עַל הַשִּׁיר, בֵּית גַּרְמוּ עַל מַעֲשֵׂה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, בֵּית אַבְטִינָס עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַקְּטֹרֶת, אֶלְעָזָר עַל הַפָּרוֹכוֹת, וּפִנְחָס עַל הַמַּלְבּוּשׁ: \n",
+            "אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין מִשְּׁלֹשָה גִּזְבָּרִין וּמִשִּׁבְעָה אֲמַרְכָּלִין, וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין שְׂרָרָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר בְּמָמוֹן פָּחוּת מִשְּׁנַיִם, חוּץ מִבֶּן אֲחִיָּה שֶׁעַל חוֹלֵי מֵעַיִם וְאֶלְעָזָר שֶׁעַל הַפָּרוֹכוֹת, שֶׁאוֹתָן קִבְּלוּ רוֹב הַצִּבּוּר עֲלֵיהֶן: \n",
+            "אַרְבָּעָה חוֹתָמוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן, עֵגֶל, זָכָר, גְּדִי, חוֹטֵא. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר, חֲמִשָּׁה הָיוּ, וַאֲרָמִית כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן, עֵגֶל, זָכָר, גְּדִי, חוֹטֵא דַּל, וְחוֹטֵא עָשִׁיר. עֵגֶל מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי בָּקָר גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת. גְּדִי מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי צֹאן גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל אֵילִים. זָכָר מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי אֵילִים בִּלְבָד. חוֹטֵא מְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם נִסְכֵּי שָׁלשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁל מְצוֹרָעִין: \n",
+            "מִי שֶׁהוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ נְסָכִים הוֹלֵךְ לוֹ אֵצֶל יוֹחָנָן שֶׁהוּא מְמֻנֶּה עַל הַחוֹתָמוֹת, נוֹתֵן לוֹ מָעוֹת וּמְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ חוֹתָם. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל אֲחִיָּה שֶׁהוּא מְמֻנֶּה עַל הַנְּסָכִים, וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ חוֹתָם וּמְקַבֵּל מִמֶּנּוּ נְסָכִים. וְלָעֶרֶב בָּאִין זֶה אֵצֶל זֶה, וַאֲחִיָּה מוֹצִיא אֶת הַחוֹתָמוֹת וּמְקַבֵּל כְּנֶגְדָּן מָעוֹת. וְאִם הוֹתִירוּ הוֹתִירוּ לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְאִם פָּחָתוּ, הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּם יוֹחָנָן מִבֵּיתוֹ, שֶׁיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה: \n",
+            "מִי שֶׁאָבַד מִמֶּנּוּ חוֹתָמוֹ, מַמְתִּינִין לוֹ עַד הָעֶרֶב. אִם מוֹצְאִין לוֹ כְּדֵי חוֹתָמוֹ, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ. וְאִם לָאו לֹא הָיָה לוֹ. וְשֵׁם הַיּוֹם כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי הָרַמָּאִין: \n",
+            "שְׁתֵּי לְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, אַחַת לִשְׁכַּת חֲשָׁאִים, וְאַחַת לִשְׁכַּת הַכֵּלִים, לִשְׁכַּת חֲשָׁאִים יִרְאֵי חֵטְא נוֹתְנִים לְתוֹכָה בַּחֲשַׁאי, וַעֲנִיִּים בְּנֵי טוֹבִים מִתְפַּרְנְסִים מִתוֹכָהּ בַּחֲשַׁאי. לִשְׁכַּת הַכֵּלִים, כָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא מִתְנַדֵּב כֶּלִי, זוֹרְקוֹ לְתוֹכָהּ. וְאַחַת לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, גִּזְבָּרִין פּוֹתְחִין אוֹתָהּ. וְכָל כְּלִי שֶׁמּוֹצְאִין בּוֹ צֹרֶךְ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, מַנִּיחִין אוֹתוֹ. וְהַשְּׁאָר נִמְכָּרִין בִּדְמֵיהֶן וְנוֹפְלִין לְלִשְׁכַּת בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת: \n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שׁוֹפָרוֹת, שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שֻׁלְחָנוֹת, שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיוֹת, הָיוּ בַּמִקְדָּשׁ. שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְשֶׁל בֵּית רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים הָיוּ מִשְׁתַּחֲוִי�� אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה. וְהֵיכָן הָיְתָה יְתֵרָה, כְּנֶגֶד דִּיר הָעֵצִים, שֶׁכֵּן מָסֹרֶת בְּיָדָם מֵאֲבוֹתֵיהֶם שֶׁשָּׁם הָאָרוֹן נִגְנַז:  ",
+            "מַעֲשֶׂה בְּכֹהֵן אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מִתְעַסֵּק, וְרָאָה הָרִצְפָּה שֶׁהִיא מְשֻׁנָּה מֵחֲבֵרוֹתֶיהָ. בָּא וְאָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ. לֹא הִסְפִּיק לִגְמֹר אֶת הַדָּבָר עַד שֶׁיָּצְתָה נִשְׁמָתוֹ, וְיָדְעוּ בְיִחוּד שֶׁשָּׁם הָאָרוֹן נִגְנַז:  ",
+            "וְהֵיכָן הָיוּ מִשְׁתַּחֲוִים, אַרְבַּע בַּצָּפוֹן, וְאַרְבַּע בַּדָּרוֹם, שָׁלשׁ בַּמִּזְרָח, וּשְׁתַּיִם בַּמַּעֲרָב, כְּנֶגֶד שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר שְׁעָרִים. שְׁעָרִים דְּרוֹמִיִּים סְמוּכִין לַמַּעֲרָב, שַׁעַר הָעֶלְיוֹן, שַׁעַר הַדֶּלֶק, שַׁעַר הַבְּכוֹרוֹת, שַׁעַר הַמָּיִם. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ שַׁעַר הַמַּיִם, שֶׁבּוֹ מַכְנִיסִין צְלוֹחִית שֶׁל מַיִם שֶׁל נִסּוּךְ בֶּחָג. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, בּוֹ הַמַּיִם מְפַכִּים וַעֲתִידִין לִהְיוֹת יוֹצְאִין מִתַּחַת מִפְתַּן הַבַּיִת. לְעֻמָּתָן בַּצָּפוֹן סְמוּכִין לַמַּעֲרָב, שַׁעַר יְכָנְיָה, שַׁעַר קָרְבָּן, שַׁעַר נָשִׁים, שַׁעַר הַשִּׁיר. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ שַׁעַר יְכָנְיָה, שֶׁבּוֹ יָצָא יְכָנְיָה בְּגָלוּתוֹ. בַּמִּזְרָח, שַׁעַר נִיקָנוֹר, וּשְׁנֵי פִשְׁפְּשִׁין הָיוּ לוֹ, אֶחָד בִּימִינוֹ וְאֶחָד בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ. וּשְׁנַיִם בַּמַּעֲרָב שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לָהֶם שֵׁם:  ",
+            "שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר שֻׁלְחָנוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, שְׁמוֹנֶה שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ בְּבֵית הַמִּטְבְּחַיִם, שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶן מְדִיחִין אֶת הַקְּרָבַיִם. וּשְׁנַיִם בְּמַעֲרַב הַכֶּבֶשׁ, אֶחָד שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ וְאֶחָד שֶׁל כֶּסֶף עַל שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ הָיוּ נוֹתְנִים אֶת הָאֵבָרִים, עַל שֶׁל כֶּסֶף כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת. וּשְׁנַיִם בָּאוּלָם מִבִּפְנִים עַל פֶּתַח הַבַּיִת, אֶחָד שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ וְאֶחָד שֶׁל זָהָב, עַל שֶׁל שַׁיִשׁ נוֹתְנִין לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ, וְעַל שֶׁל זָהָב בִּיצִיאָתוֹ, שֶׁמַּעֲלִין בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וְלֹא מוֹרִידִין. וְאֶחָד שֶׁל זָהָב מִבִּפְנִים, שֶׁעָלָיו לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים תָּמִיד:  ",
+            "שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר שׁוֹפָרוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶם, תִּקְלִין חַדְתִין וְתִקְלִין עַתִּיקִין, קִנִּין וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, עֵצִים, וּלְבוֹנָה, זָהָב לַכַּפֹּרֶת. שִׁשָּׁה, לִנְדָבָה. תִּקְלִין חַדְתִּין, שֶׁבְּכָל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה. עַתִּיקִין, מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁקַל אֶשְׁתָּקַד, שׁוֹקֵל לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה. קִנִּין, הֵם תּוֹרִים. וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, הֵן בְּנֵי יוֹנָה. וְכֻלָּן עוֹלוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, קִנִּין, אֶחָד חַטָאת וְאֶחָד עוֹלָה. וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, כֻּלָּן עוֹלוֹת:  ",
+            "הָאוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵצִים, לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי גִּזְרִין. לְבוֹנָה, לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִקֹּמֶץ. זָהָב, לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִדִּינַר זָהָב, שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה, נְדָבָה מֶה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהּ, לוֹקְחִין בָּהּ עוֹלוֹת, הַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם, וְהָעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים. זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ יְהוֹיָדָע כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, (ויקרא ה) אָשָׁם הוּא אָשֹׁם אָשַׁם לַיְיָ. (זֶה הַכְּלָל), כֹּל שֶׁהוּא בָּא מִשּׁוּם חֵטְא וּמִשּׁוּם אַשְׁמָה, יִלָּקַח בּוֹ עוֹלוֹת, הַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם, וְהָעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים. נִמְצְאוּ שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים קַיָּמִים, אָשָׁם לַה', וְאָשָׁם לַכֹּהֲנִים, וְאוֹמֵר, (מלכים ב יב), כֶּסֶף אָשָׁם וְכֶסֶף חַטָאוֹת לֹא יוּבָא בֵּית ה' לַכֹּהֲנִים יִהְיוּ:  "
+        ],
+        [
+            "מָעוֹת שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בֵּין הַשְּׁקָלִים לִנְדָבָה, קָרוֹב לַשְּׁקָלִים יִפְּלוּ לַשְּׁקָלִים, לַנְּדָבָה יִפְּלוּ לַנְּדָבָה, מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה יִפְּלוּ לַנְּדָבָה. בֵּין עֵצִים לִלְבוֹנָה, קָרוֹב לָעֵצִים יִפְּלוּ לָעֵצִים, לַלְּבוֹנָה יִפְּלוּ לַלְּבוֹנָה, מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה יִפְּלוּ לַלְּבוֹנָה. בֵּין קִנִּין לְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, קָרוֹב לַקִּנִּין יִפְּלוּ לַקִּנִּין. לְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה יִפְּלוּ לְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה יִפְּלוּ לְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה. בֵּין חֻלִּין לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, קָרוֹב לַחֻלִּין יִפְּלוּ לַחֻלִּין, לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי יִפְּלוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה יִפְּלוּ לְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. זֶה הַכְּלָל, הוֹלְכִים אַחַר הַקָּרוֹב (לְהָקֵל). מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה לְהַחְמִיר: \n",
+            "מָעוֹת שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ לִפְנֵי סוֹחֲרֵי בְּהֵמָה, לְעוֹלָם מַעֲשֵׂר. בְּהַר הַבַּיִת, חֻלִּין. בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם בִּשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל, מַעֲשֵׂר. וּבִשְׁאָר כָּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, חֻלִּין: \n",
+            "בָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּמְצָא בָּעֲזָרָה, אֵבָרִים, עוֹלוֹת. וַחֲתִיכוֹת, חַטָאוֹת. בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. זֶה וָזֶה תְּעֻבַּר צוּרָתוֹ וְיֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. נִמְצָא בַּגְּבוּלִין, אֵבָרִים, נְבֵלוֹת. חֲתִיכוֹת, מֻתָּרוֹת. וּבִשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר מְרֻבֶּה, אַף אֵבָרִים מֻתָּרִין: \n",
+            "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת מִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְעַד מִגְדַּל עֵדֶר, וּכְמִדָּתָהּ לְכָל רוּחַ, זְכָרִים, עוֹלוֹת. נְקֵבוֹת, זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הָרָאוּי לִפְסָחִים, פְּסָחִים קֹדֶם לָרֶגֶל שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם: \n",
+            "בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ מְמַשְׁכְּנִין אֶת מוֹצְאֶיהָ, עַד שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא נְסָכֶיהָ. חָזְרוּ לִהְיוֹת מַנִּיחִין אוֹתָהּ וּבוֹרְחִין. הִתְקִינוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁיְּהוּ נְסָכֶיהָ בָּאִין מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר: \n",
+            "אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים הִתְקִינוּ בֵּית דִּין, וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן, נָכְרִי שֶׁשִּׁלַּח עוֹלָתוֹ מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם וְשִׁלַּח עִמָּהּ נְסָכִים, קְרֵבִין מִשֶׁלּוֹ. וְאִם לָאו, קְרֵבִין מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. וְכֵן גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ זְבָחִים, אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ נְסָכִים, קְרֵבִין מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. וְאִם לָאו, קְרֵבִין מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. וּתְנַאי בֵּית דִּין הוּא עַל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁמֵּת, שֶׁתְּהֵא מִנְחָתוֹ קְרֵבָה מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מִשֶּׁל יוֹרְשִׁין. וּשְׁלֵמָה הָיְתָה קְרֵבָה: \n",
+            "עַל הַמֶּלַח וְעַל הָעֵצִים שֶׁיִּהְיוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים נֵאוֹתִים בָּהֶן, וְעַל הַפָּרָה שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מוֹעֲלִין בְּאֶפְרָהּ, וְעַל הַקִּנִּין הַפְּסוּלוֹת שֶׁיְּהוּ בָאוֹת מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, הַמְסַפֵּק אֶת הַקִּנִּין, מְסַפֵּק אֶת הַפְּסוּלוֹת: \n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "כָּל הָרֻקִּין הַנִּמְצָאִים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל שׁוּק הָעֶלְיוֹן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁבָּאֶמְצַע טְמֵאִין וְשֶׁבַּצְּדָדִין טְהוֹרִין. וּבִשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל, שֶׁבָּאֶמְצַע טְהוֹרִין וְשֶׁבַּצְּדָדִין טְמֵאִין, שֶׁמִּפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מֻעָטִין מִסְתַּלְּקִין לַצְּדָדִין: \n",
+            "כָּל הַכֵּלִים הַנִּמְצָאִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם דֶּרֶךְ יְרִידָה לְבֵית הַטְבִילָה טְמֵאִין. דֶּרֶךְ עֲלִיָּה, טְהוֹרִין, שֶׁלֹּא כְּדֶרֶךְ יְרִידָתָן עֲלִיָּתָן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, כֻּלָּן טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מִן הַסַּל וְהַמַּגְרֵפָה וְהַמְּרִצָּה הַמְיֻחָדִין לַקְּבָרוֹת: \n",
+            "סַכִּין שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר, שׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ מִיָּד. בִּשְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר, שׁוֹנֶה וּמַטְבִּיל. וְקוֹפִיץ, בֵּין בָּזֶה וּבֵין בָּזֶה שׁוֹנֶה וּמַטְבִּיל. חָל אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, שׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ מִיָּד. בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר, שׁוֹחֵט בָּהּ מִיָּד. נִמְצֵאת קְשׁוּרָה לְסַכִּין, הֲרֵי זוֹ כַּסַּכִּין: \n",
+            "פָּרֹכֶת שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת בִּוְלַד הַטֻמְאָה, מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ בִּפְנִים וּמַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּד. וְאֶת שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת בְּאַב הַטֻמְאָה, מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ בַּחוּץ וְשׁוֹטְחִין אוֹתָהּ בַּחֵיל. וְאִם הָיְתָה חֲדָשָׁה, שׁוֹטְחִין אוֹתָהּ עַל גַּג הָאִצְטַבָּא, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּרְאוּ הָעָם אֶת מְלַאכְתָּהּ שֶׁהִיא נָאָה: \n",
+            "רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן הַסְּגַן, פָּרֹכֶת עָבְיָהּ טֶפַח, וְעַל שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁתַּיִם נִימִין נֶאֱרֶגֶת, וְעַל כָּל נִימָא וְנִימָא עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה חוּטִין. אָרְכָּהּ אַרְבָּעִים אַמָּה וְרָחְבָּהּ עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה, וּמִשְּׁמוֹנִים וּשְׁתֵּי רִבּוֹא נַעֲשֵׂית. וּשְׁתַּיִם עוֹשִׂין בְּכָל שָׁנָה, וּשְׁלשׁ מֵאוֹת כֹּהֲנִים מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתָהּ: \n",
+            "בְּשַׂר קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁנִּטְמָא, בֵּין בְּאַב הַטֻמְאָה, בֵּין בִּוְלַד הַטֻמְאָה, בֵּין בִּפְנִים, בֵּין בַּחוּץ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, הַכֹּל יִשָּׂרֵף בִּפְנִים, חוּץ מִשֶּׁנִּטְמָא בְּאַב הַטֻמְאָה בַּחוּץ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, הַכֹּל יִשָּׂרֵף בַּחוּץ, חוּץ מִשֶּׁנִּטְמָא בִּוְלַד הַטֻמְאָה בִּפְנִים: \n",
+            "רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אֶת שֶׁנִּטְמָא בְּאַב הַטֻמְאָה, בֵּין בִּפְנִים בֵּין בַּחוּץ, יִשָּׂרֵף בַּחוּץ. וְאֶת שֶׁנִּטְמָא בִּוְלַד הַטֻמְאָה, בֵּין בִּפְנִים בֵּין בַּחוּץ, יִשָּׂרֵף בִּפְנִים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מְקוֹם טֻמְאָתוֹ שָׁם שְׂרֵפָתוֹ: \n",
+            "אֵבָרֵי הַתָּמִיד, נִתָּנִין מֵחֲצִי כֶּבֶשׁ וּלְמַטָה בַּמִּזְרָח, וְשֶׁל מוּסָפִין נִתָּנִין מֵחֲצִי כֶּבֶשׁ וּלְמַטָה בַּמַּעֲרָב, וְשֶׁל רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים נִתָּנִין מִתַּחַת כַּרְכֹּב הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִלְּמָטָה, הַשְּׁקָלִים וְהַבִּכּוּרִים אֵין נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, אֲבָל מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן וּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה וְהַבְּכוֹרוֹת נוֹהֲגִין בֵּין בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. הַמַּקְדִּישׁ שְׁקָלִים וּבִכ��וּרִים, הֲרֵי זֶה קֹדֶשׁ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, הָאוֹמֵר בִּכּוּרִים קֹדֶשׁ, אֵינָן קֹדֶשׁ:   \n"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Torat Emet 357",
+            "http://www.toratemetfreeware.com/index.html?downloads"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "משנה שקלים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Chapter",
+        "Mishnah"
+    ]
+}

json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Yoma/Hebrew/Mishnah based on the Kaufmann manuscript, edited by Dan Be'eri.json

@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Mishnah Yoma",
+    "versionSource": "https://archive.org/details/MishnaCorrectedKaufman00WHOLE",
+    "versionTitle": "Mishnah based on the Kaufmann manuscript, edited by Dan Be'eri",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "license": "PD",
+    "digitizedBySefaria": true,
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "משנה יומא",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [
+            "<small>א</small>\nשִׁבְעַת יָמִים קֹדֶם לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, \nמַפְרִישִׁין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מִבֵּיתוֹ לְלִשְׁכַּת הַפַּרְהֶדְרִין, \nוּמַתְקִינִין לוֹ כֹהֵן אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, \nשֶׁמֵּא יְאָרַע בּוֹ פְסוּל. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nאַף אִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת מַתְקִינִים לוֹ, \nשֶׁמֵּא תָמוּת אִשְׁתּוֹ, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ויקרא טז, ו) \n\"בַּעֲדוֹ וּבְעַד בֵּיתוֹ\", הִיא אִשְׁתּוֹ. \nאָמְרוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים: \nאֵין לַדָּבָר סוֹף.\n",
+            "<small>ב</small>\nכָּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים הוּא זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם, \nוּמַקְטִיר אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת, \nוּמֵטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת, \nוּמַקְרִיב אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְאֶת הָרֶגֶל. \nוּשְׁאָר כָּל הַיָּמִים, \nאִם רָצָה לְהַקְרִיב מַקְרִיב, \nשֶׁכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַקְרִיב חֵלֶק מֵרֹאשׁ, \nוְנוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ.\n",
+            "<small>ג</small>\nמָסְרוּ לוֹ זְקֵנִים מִזִּקְנֵי בֵית דִּין, \nוְקוֹרִין לְפָנָיו בְּסֵדֶר הַיּוֹם, וְאוֹמְרִים: \nאִישִׁי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, קְרָא אַתָּה בְפִיךָ, \nשֶׁמֵּא שָׁכַחְתָּ אוֹ שֶׁמֵּא לֹא לָמַדְתָּ. \nעֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים בַּשַּׁחְרִית, \nמַעֲמִידִין אוֹתוֹ בְשַׁעַר הַמִּזְרָח' \nוּמַעֲבִירִין לְפָנָיו פָּרִים וְאֵילִים וּכְבָשִׂים, \nכְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּיר וְרָגִיל בַּעֲבוֹדָה.\n",
+            "<small>ד</small>\nכָּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים, \nלֹא הָיוּ מוֹנְעִים מִמֶּנּוּ מַאֲכָל וּמִשְׁתֶּה. \nעֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים עִם חֲשֵׁכָה, \nלֹא הָיוּ מַנִּיחִים אוֹתוֹ לֹאכַל הַרְבֵּה, \nשֶׁהַמַּאֲכָל מֵבִיא אֶת הַשֵּׁנָה.\n",
+            "<small>ה</small>\nמְסָרוּהוּ זִקְנֵי בֵית דִּין לְזִקְנֵי כְהֻנָּה, \nהוֹלִיכוּהוּ לַעֲלִיַּת בֵּית אַבְטִינָס, \nהִשְׁבִּיעוּהוּ וְנִפְטְרוּ וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם. \nוְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: \n\"אִישִׁי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, \nאָנוּ שְׁלוּחֵי בֵית דִּין, \nוְאַתָּה שְׁלוּחֵנוּ וּשְׁלוּחַ בֵּית דִּין, \nמַשְׁבִּיעִים אָנוּ עָלֶיךָ \nבְּמִי שֶׁשִּׁכֵּן אֶת שְׁמוֹ בַּבַּיִת הַזֶּה, \nשֶׁלֹּא תְשַׁנֶּה דָבָר מִכָּל מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְנוּ לָךְ.\" \nוְהוּא פוֹרֵשׁ וּבוֹכֶה, \nוְהֵן פּוֹרְשִׁין וּבוֹכִין.\n",
+            "<small>ו</small>\nאִם הָיָה חָכָם, דּוֹרֵשׁ, \nוְאִם תַּלְמִיד חֲכָמִים, דּוֹרְשִׁין לְפָנָיו. \nוְאִם רָגִיל לִקְרוֹת, קוֹרֵא, \nוְאִם לָאו, קוֹרִין לְפָנָיו. \nוּבַמָּה קוֹרִין לְפָנָיו? \nבְּאִיּוֹב וּבְעֶזְרָה וּבְדִבְרֵי הַיָּמִים. \nזְכַרְיָה בֶן קְבוּטָל אוֹמֵר: \nפְּעָמִים הַרְבֵּה קָרִיתִי לְפָנָיו בְּדָנִיֵּאל.\n",
+            "<small>ז</small>\nבִּקֵּשׁ לְהִתְנַמְנֵם, \nפִּרְחֵי לְוִיָּה מַכִּים לְפָנָיו בְּאֶצְבַּע צְרַדָּה, \nוְאוֹמְרִין לוֹ: \nאִישִׁי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, \nעֲמֹד וְהָפֵג אַחַת עַל הָרִצְפָּה! \nוּמַעֲסִיקִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ זְמַן הַשְּׁחִיטָה.\n",
+            "<small>ח</small>\nבְּכָל יוֹם תּוֹרְמִים אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ \nמִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר אוֹ סָמוּךְ לוֹ, \nבֵּין מִלְּפָנָיו וּבֵין מִלְּאַחֲרָיו; \nוּבְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מֵחֲצוֹת, \nוּבָרְגָלִים מֵאַשְׁמֹרֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה; \nלֹא הָיְתָה קְרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר מַגַּעַת \nעַד שֶׁהָיְתָה עֲזָרָה מְלֵאָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.\n\n\n\n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<small>א</small>\nבָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, \nכָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא רוֹצֶה לִתְרֹם אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, \nתּוֹרֵם; \nבִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְרֻבִּים, \nוְרָצִים וְעוֹלִים בַּכֶּבֶשׁ, \nוְכָל הַקּוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ לְתוֹךְ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת זָכָה. \nאִם הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם שָׁוִים, \nוְהַמְמֻנֶּה אוֹמֵר לָהֶם: \n\"הַצְבִּיעוּ!\" \nוּמָה הֵן מוֹצִיאִין? \nאַחַת אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם, \nוְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין אֲגֻדָּל בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.\n",
+            "<small>ב</small>\nמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנַיִם שָׁוִים וְרָצִים וְעוֹלִין בַּכֶּבֶשׁ, \nדָּחַף אֶחָד מֵהֶן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ, \nוְנִשְׁבְּרָה רַגְלוֹ. \nוּכְשֶׁרָאוּ בֵית דִּין שֶׁהֵן בָּאִין לִידֵי סַכָּנָה, \nהִתְקִינוּ שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ תוֹרְמִין אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֶלָּא בַּפַּיִס. \nאַרְבַּע פְּיָסוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם, \nזֶה הַפַּיִס הָרִאשׁוֹן.\n",
+            "<small>ג</small>\nהַפַּיִס הַשֵּׁנִי, \nמִי שׁוֹחֵט, \nמִי זוֹרֵק, \nמִי מְדַשֵּׁן אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי, \nוּמִי מְדַשֵּׁן אֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה, \nוּמִי מַעֲלֶה אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ: \nהָרֹאשׁ וְהָרֶגֶל, \nוּשְׁתֵּי הַיָּדַיִם, \nהָעֹקֶץ וְהָרֶגֶל, \nהֶחָזֶה וְהַגֵּרָה, \nוּשְׁתֵּי הַדְּפָנוֹת, \nוְהַקְּרָבַיִם, \nוְהַסֹּלֶת, \nוְהַחֲבִתִּים, \nוְהַיַּיִן. \nוּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר זָכִים בּוֹ. \nאָמַר בֶּן עַזַּי לִפְנֵי רְבִּי עֲקִיבָה מִשֵּׁם רְבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: \nכְּדֶרֶךְ הִלּוּכוֹ הָיָה קָרֵב.\n",
+            "<small>ד</small>\nהַפַּיִס הַשְּׁלִישִׁי: \n\"חֲדָשִׁים לִקְטֹרֶת, בֹּאוּ וְהָפִיסוּ!\" \nרְבִיעִי, \nחֲדָשִׁים עִם יְשָׁנִים, \nמִי מַעֲלֶה אֵבָרִים מִן הַכֶּבֶשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.\n",
+            "<small>ה</small>\nתָּמִיד קָרֵב בְּתִשְׁעָה, \nבַּעֲשָׂרָה, \nבְּאֶחַד עָשָׂר, \nבִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר, \nלֹא פָחוּת וְלֹא יָתֵר. \nעַצְמוֹ בְתִשְׁעָה. \nבֶּחָג בְּיַד אֶחָד צְלוֹחִית שֶׁלַּמַּיִם, \nהֲרֵי עֲשָׂרָה. \nבֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם בְּאֶחָד עָשָׂר: \nעַצְמוֹ בְתִשְׁעָה, \nוּשְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי גִזְרֵי עֵצִים, &lt;גִזְּרֵי&gt;\nלְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָעֵצִים.\nוּבַשַּׁבָּת בְּאֶחָד עָשָׂר: \nהוּא עַצְמוֹ בְתִשְׁעָה, \nוּשְׁנַיִם בְּיָדָם שְׁנֵי בַזִּכֵּי לְבוֹנָה שֶׁלְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. \nוּבַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁבְּתוֹךְ הֶחָג, \nבְּיַד אֶחָד צְלוֹחִית שֶׁלַּמַּיִם.\n",
+            "<small>ו</small>\nאַיִל קָרֵב בְּאֶחָד עָשָׂר: \nהַבָּשָׂר בַּחֲמִשָּׁה, \nוְהַקְּרָבַיִם וְהַסֹּלֶת וְהַיַּיִן בִּשְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם.\n",
+            "<small>ז</small>\nפַּר קָרֵב בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה: \nהָרֹאשׁ וְהָרֶגֶל, \nהָרֹאשׁ בְּאֶחָד, \nוְהָרֶגֶל בִּשְׁנַיִם; \nהָעֹקֶץ וְהָרֶגֶל, \nהָעֹקֶץ בִּשְׁנַיִם, \nוְהָרֶגֶל בִּשְׁנַיִם; \nהֶחָזֶה וְהַגֵּרָה, \nהֶחָזֶה בְאֶחָד, \nוְהַגֵּרָה בִשְׁלֹשָׁה; \nשְׁתֵּי הַיָּדוֹת בִּשְׁנַיִם; \nוּשְׁתֵּי הַדְּפָנוֹת בִּשְׁנַיִם; \nוְהַקְּרָבַיִם וְהַסֹּלֶת וְהַיַּיִן בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה. \nבַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? &lt;בַּמֵּי&gt;\nבְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּבּוּר. \nאֲבָל בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד, \nאִם רָצָה לְהַקְרִיב מַקְרִיב. \nהֶפְשֵׁטָן וְנִתּוּחָן שֶׁלָּאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ שָׁוִים.\n\n\n\n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<small>א</small>\nאָמַר לָהֶם הַמְמֻנֶּה: \n\"צְאוּ וּרְאוּ אִם הִגִּיעַ זְמַן הַשְּׁחִיטָה. \nאִם הִגִּיעַ, הָרוֹאֶה אוֹמֵר: \nבֻּרְקִי! \nמַתְיָה בֶן שְׁמוּאֵל אוֹמֵר: \nהֵאִיר עַל פְּנֵי כָל הַמִּזְרָח, \nעַד שֶׁהוּא בְחֶבְרוֹן? \nוְהוּא אוֹמֵר: \nהִן.\n",
+            "<small>ב</small>\nוְלָמָּה צָרְכוּ לְכָךְ? \nפַּעַם אַחַת עָלָה מְאוֹר הַלְּבָנָה, \nוְדִמּוּ שֶׁהֵאִיר הַמִּזְרָח. \nשָׁחֲטוּ אֶת הַתָּמִיד, \nוְהוֹצִיאוּהוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. \nוְהוֹרִידוּ כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל לְבֵית הַטְּבִילָה. \nזֶה הַכְּלָל הָיָה בַמִּקְדָּשׁ: \nכָּל הַמֵּסֵךְ אֶת רַגְלָיו טָעוּן טְבִילָה, \nוְכָל הַמֵּטִיל לַמַּיִם טָעוּן קִדּוּשׁ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם.\n",
+            "<small>ג</small>\nאֵין אָדָם נִכְנָס לָעֲזָרָה וְלָעֲבוֹדָה, \nאֲפִלּוּ טָהוֹר, עַד שֶׁהוּא טוֹבֵל \nחָמֵשׁ טְבִילוֹת בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, \nוְכֻלָּם בַּקֹּדֶשׁ בְּבֵית הַפַּרְוָה, \nחוּץ מִזּוֹ בִלְבָד.\n",
+            "<small>ד</small>\nפֵּרְסוּ סָדִין שֶׁלַּבּוּץ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הָעָם. \nקִדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וּפָשַׁט, \nיָרַד וְטָבַל, עָלָה וְנִסְתַּפַּג. \nהֵבִיאוּ לוֹ בִגְדֵי זָהָב וְלָבַשׁ, \nקִדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו. \n\n<small>ה</small>\nהֵבִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַתָּמִיד. \nקְרָצוֹ, וּמֵרֵק אַחֵר שְׁחִיטָה עַל יָדוֹ, \nוְקִבֵּל אֶת הַדָּם וּזְרָקוֹ. \nנִכְנַס לְהַקְטִיר וּלְהֵטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת, \nלְהַקְרִיב אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְאֶת הָאֵבָרִים \nוְאֶת הַחֲבִתִּים וְאֶת הַיַּיִן.\n",
+            "<small>ו</small>\nקְטֹרֶת שֶׁלַּשַּׁחַר הָיְתָה קְרֵבָה בֵין הַדָּם לָאֵבָרִים. \nשֶׁלְּבֵין הָעַרְבַּיִם הָיְתָה קְרֵבָה בֵין אֵבָרִים לַנְּסָכִים. \nאִם הָיָה כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל זָקֵן אוֹ אַסְטְנֵס, \nמְחַמִּים לוֹ חַמִּים וּמְטִילִים לְתוֹךְ הַצּוֹנִים, \nבִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתָּפוּג צִנָּתָם.\n",
+            "<small>ז</small>\nהֱבִיאוּהוּ לְבֵית הַפַּרְוָה, \nוּבַקֹּדֶשׁ הָיָתָה. \nפֵּרְסוּ לוֹ סָדִין שֶׁלַּבּוּץ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הָעָם. \nקִדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו, \nוְיָרַד וְטָבַל, \nעָלָה וְנִסְתַּפַּג. \nהֵבִיאוּ לוֹ בִגְדֵי לָבָן, \nוְלָבַשׁ וְקִדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו.\n",
+            "<small>ח</small>\nבַּשַּׁחַר, הָיָה לָבוּשׁ פִּילוּסִים שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מָנֶה. \nבֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, הִנְדְּוִי שֶׁלִּשְׁמֹנֶה מֵאוֹת זוּז. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: \nבַּשַּׁחַר, הָיָה לָבוּשׁ שֶׁלִּשְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר מָנֶה, \nבֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, שֶׁלִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מָנֶה, \nהַכֹּל שְׁלֹשִׁים מָנֶה. \nאֵלּוּ נוֹטֵל מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. \nאִם רָצָה לְהוֹסִיף, מוֹסִיף מִשֶּׁלּוֹ.\n",
+            "<small>ט</small>\nבָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל פָּרוֹ, \nוּפָר הָיָה עוֹמֵד בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ, \nרֹאשׁוֹ דָרוֹם וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב; \nהַכֹּהֵן עוֹמֵד בַּמִּזְרָח וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב, \nוְסָמַךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וְנִתְוַדָּה. \nוְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר: \nאָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, \nעָוִיתִי, פָּשַׁעְתִּי, חָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ, \nאֲנִי וּבֵיתִי. \nאָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, \nכַּפֵּר נָא לָעֲוֹנוֹת לַפְּשָׁעִים וְלַחֲטָאִים, &lt;וְלַחַטָּאִים&gt;\nשֶׁעָוִיתִי, שֶׁפָּשַׁעְתִּי, וְשֶׁחָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ, \nאֲנִי וּבֵיתִי, \nכַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת משֶׁה עַבְדֶּךָ לֵאמֹר: (ויקרא טז,ל) \n\"כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם, \nלְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יי\" \nוְהֵן עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו: \n\"בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד\".\n",
+            "בָּא לוֹ לְמִזְרַח הָעֲזָרָה, \nלִצְפוֹן הַמִּזְבֵּח, \nוְהַסֶּגֶן בִּימִינוֹ וְרֹאשׁ בֵּית אָב מִשְּׂמאלוֹ. \nוְשָׁם שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירִים, \nוְקַלְפִּי הָיְתָה שָׁם וּבָהּ שְׁנֵי גוֹרָלוֹת. \nשֶׁלְּאֶשְׁכְּרוֹעַ הָיוּ, \nעֲשָׂאָן בֶּן גַּמְלָא שֶׁלַּזָּהָב, \nמַזְכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ לִשְׁבָח.\n",
+            "<small>י</small>\nבֶּן קָטִין עָשָׂה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר דַּד לַכִּיּוֹר, \nשֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם; \nאַף הוּא עָשָׂה מֵכְנֶה לַכִּיּוֹר, \nשֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מֵימָיו נִפְסָלִים בַּלִּינָה. \nמֻנְבַּז הַמֶּלֶךְ \nעָשָׂה כָל יְדוֹת הַכֵּלִים שֶׁלְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁלַּזָּהָב. \nהֵלְנִי אִמּוֹ \nעָשְׂתָה נִפְרֶשֶׁת שֶׁלַּזָּהָב עַל פִּתְחוֹ שֶׁלַּהֵיכָל; \nוְאַף הִיא עָשְׂתָה טַבְלָה שֶׁלַּזָּהָב, \nשֶׁפָּרָשַׁת שׂוֹטָה כְּתוּבָה עָלֶיהָ. \nנִיקָנוֹר, נֶעֱשׂוּ נִסִּים לְדַלְתוֹתָיו, \nמַזְכִּירִין אוֹתוֹ לִשְׁבָח.\n",
+            "<small>יא</small>\nוְאֵלּוּ לִגְנַי: \nבֵּית גַּרְמוּ, \nלֹא רָצוּ לְלַמֵּד עַל מַעֲשֵׂה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. \nבֵּית אַבְטִינָס, \nלֹא רָצוּ לְלַמֵּד עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַקְּטֹרֶת. \nהָגְדָס בֶּן לֵוִי הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ פֶּרֶק בַּשִּׁיר, \nוְלֹא רָצָה לְלַמֵּד; \nבֶּן קַמְצָר לֹא רָצָה לְלַמֵּד עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הַכְּתָב. \nעַל הָרִאשׁוֹנִים נֶאֱמַר: (משלי י,ז) \n\"זֵכֶר צַדִּיק לִבְרָכָה\", \nוְעַל אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמַר: \n\"וְשֵׁם רְשָׁעִים יִרְקָב\".\n\n\n\n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<small>א</small>\nטָרַף בַּקַּלְפִּי וְהֶעֱלָה שְׁנֵי גוֹרָלוֹת. \nאֶחָד כָּתוּב עָלָיו \"לַשֵּׁם\", \nוְאֶחָד כָּתוּב עָלָיו \"לַעֲזָאזֵל\". \nאִם שֶׁלַּשֵּׁם עָלָה בִימִינוֹ, \nהַסֶּגֶן אוֹמֵר: \nאִישִׁי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, \nהַגְבַּהּ יְמִינָךְ! \nוְאִם בִּשְׂמאלוֹ עָלָה, \nרֹאשׁ בֵּית אָב אוֹמֵר לוֹ: \nאִישִׁי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, \nהַגְבַּהּ אֶת שְׂמֹאלָךְ! \nנְתָנָם עַל שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירִים וְאוֹמֵר: \nלַיי חַטָּאת. \nרְבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: \nלֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר \"חַטָּאת\", \nאֶלָּא \"לַיי\". \nוְהֵן עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו: \nבָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד.\n",
+            "<small>ב</small>\nקָשַׁר לָשׁוֹן שֶׁלִּזְהוֹרִית בְּרֹאשׁ שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, \nהֶעֱמִידוֹ כְנֶגֶד בֵּית שִׁלּוּחוֹ, \nוְלַנִּשְׁחָט כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית שְׁחִיטָתוֹ. \nבָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל פָּרוֹ שְׁנִיָּה, \nוְסָמַךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וְנִתְוַדָּה. \nוְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר: \nאָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, \nעָוִיתִי, פָּשַׁעְתִּי, חָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ, \nאֲנִי וּבֵיתִי וּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַם קְדוֹשֶׁיךָ. \nאָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, \nכַּפֶּר נָא לָעֲוֹנוֹת וְלַפְּשָׁעִים וְלַחֲטָאִים, \nשֶׁעָוִיתִי וְשֶׁפָּשַׁעְתִּי וְשֶׁחָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ, \nאֲנִי וּבֵיתִי וּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַם קְדוֹשֶׁיךָ, \nכַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת משֶׁה עַבְדֶּךָ (וַיִּקְרָא טז,ל) \n\"כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם, \nמִכּל חַטּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יי תִּטְהָרוּ\". \nוְהֵן עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו: \nבָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד.\n",
+            "<small>ג</small>\nשְׁחָטוֹ וְקִבֵּל בַּמִּזְרָק אֶת דָּמוֹ, \nנְתָנוֹ לְמִי שֶׁהוּא מְמָרֵס בּוֹ \nעַל הָרֹבֶד הָרְבִיעִי שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל, \nכְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרַשׁ. \nנָטַל אֶת הַמַּחְתָּה, \nוְעָלָה לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּח, וְחָתָה, \nוְיָרַד וְהִנִּיחָהּ עַל הָרֹבֶד שֶׁבָּעֲזָרָה.\n",
+            "ד &lt;ג&gt;\nבְּכָל יוֹם חוֹתֶה בְשֶׁלַּכֶּסֶף, \nוּמְעָרֶה לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלַּזָּהָב, \nוְהַיּוֹם חוֹתֶה בְשֶׁלַּזָּהָב, \nוּבָהּ הָיָה מַכְנִיס. \n\nה &lt;ד&gt;\nבְּכָל יוֹם חוֹתֶה בְשֶׁלְּאַרְבַּעַת קַבִּים, \nוּמְעָרֶה לְתוֹךְ שֶׁלִּשְׁלשֶׁת קַבִּים, \nוְהַיּוֹם חוֹתֶה בְשֶׁלִּשְׁלשֶׁת קַבִּים, \nוּבָהּ הָיָה מַכְנִיס. \n\n<small>ו</small>\nרְבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר: \nבְּכָל יוֹם חוֹתֶה בְשֶׁלִּסְאָה, \nוּמְעָרֶה בְתוֹךְ שֶׁלִּשְׁלשֶׁת קַבִּים, \nוְהַיּוֹם חוֹתֶה בְשֶׁלִּשְׁלשֶׁת קַבִּים, \nוּבָהּ הָיָה מַכְנִיס. \n\n<small>ז</small>\nבְּכָל יוֹם הָיְתָה כְבֵדָה, \nוְהַיּוֹם קַלָּה. \nבְּכָל יוֹם הָיְתָה יָדָהּ קְצָרָה, \nוְהַיּוֹם אֲרֻכָּה. \nבְּכָל יוֹם הָיָה זְהָבָהּ יָרֹק, \nוְהַיּוֹם אָדֹם. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מְנַחֵם. \nבְּכָל יוֹם מַקְרִיב פָּרֶס בַּשַּׁחֲרִית \nוּפָרֶס בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, \nוְהַיּוֹם מוֹסִיף מְלֹא חָפְנָיו. \nבְּכָל יוֹם הָיְתָה דַקָּה, \nוְהַיּוֹם דַּקָּה מִן הַדַּקָּה.\n",
+            "<small>ח</small>\nבְּכָל יוֹם כֹּהֲנִים עוֹלִים בְּמִזְרָחוֹ שֶׁלַּכֶּבֶשׁ, \nוְיוֹרְדִים בְּמַעֲרָבוֹ, \nוְהַיּוֹם עוֹלִים בָּאֶמְצַע וְיוֹרְדִים בָּאֶמְצַע. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nלְעוֹלָם כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל עוֹלֶה בָאֶמְצַע וְיוֹרֵד בָּאֶמְצַע. \n\n<small>ט</small>\nבְּכָל יוֹם כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מְקַדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו מִן הַכִּיּוֹר, \nוְהַיּוֹם מִן הַקִּיתוֹן שֶׁלַּזָּהָב. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nלְעוֹלָם כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מְקַדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו \nמִן הַקִּיתוֹן שֶׁלַּזָּהָב.\n",
+            "<small>י</small>\nבְּכָל יוֹם הָיוּ שָׁם אַרְבַּע מַעֲרָכוֹת, \nוְהַיּוֹם חָמֵשׁ. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי מֵאִיר. \nרְבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר: \nבְּכָל יוֹם שָׁלוֹשׁ, \nוְהַיּוֹם אַרְבַּע. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nבְּכָל יוֹם שְׁתַּיִם, \nוְהַיּוֹם שָׁלוֹשׁ.\n\n\n\n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<small>א</small>\nהוֹצִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַכַּף וְאֶת הַמַּחְתָּה, \nחָפַן מְלֹא חָפְנָיו וְנָתַן לְתוֹךְ הַכַּף. \nהַגָּדוֹל לְפִי גֻדְלוֹ, \nוְהַקָּטָן לְפִי קֻטְנוֹ; \nוְכָךְ הָיְתָה מִדָּתָן. \nנָטַל אֶת הַמַּחְתָּה בִימִינוֹ וְאֶת הַכַּף בִּשְׂמאלוֹ. \nמְהַלֵּךְ בַּהֵיכָל, עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְבֵין שְׁתֵּי הַפָּרְכוֹת \nהַמַּבְדִּילוֹת בֵּין קֹדֶשׁ וּבֵין קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים, &lt;קֹדֶשׁ וּבֵין מחוק על ידי הנקדן&gt;\nוּבֵינֵיהֶן אַמָּה. \nרְבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר: \nלֹא הָיָה שָׁם אֶלָּא פָרֹכֶת אַחַת בִּלְבַד, \nשֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות כו,לג) \n\"וְהִבְדִּילָה הַפָּרֹכֶת לָכֶם \nבֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים\". \n\n<small>ב</small>\nהַחִיצוֹנָה פְרוּפָה מִן הַדָּרוֹם, \nוְהַפְּנִימִית מִן הַצָּפוֹן. \nוּמְהַלֵּךְ בֵּינֵיהֶם, עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַצָּפוֹן, \nוְהָפַךְ פָּנָיו לַדָּרוֹם, \nמְהַלֵּךְ לִשְׂמאלוֹ עִם הַפָּרֹכֶת, \nעַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לָאָרוֹן. \nהִגִּיעַ לָאָרוֹן, \nנָתַן אֶת הַמַּחְתָּה בֵּין שְׁנֵי הַבַּדִּים. \nצָבַר אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת עַל גַּבֵּי גֶחָלִים, \nוְנִתְמַלָּא הַבַּיִת עָשָׁן. \nיָצָא וּבָא לוֹ כְדֶרֶךְ בֵּית כְּנֵיסָתוֹ, \nמִתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִלָּה קְצָרָה בַבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן, \nוְלֹא הָיָה מַאֲרִיךְ, \nשֶׁלֹּא לְהַבְעִית אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל.\n",
+            "<small>ג</small>\nמִשֶּׁנִּטַּל הָאָרוֹן, \nאֶבֶן הָיְתָה שָׁם מִימוֹת הַנְּבִיאִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, \nוּשְׁתִיָּה נִקְרֵאת, \nגְּבוֹהָה מִן הָאָרֶץ שָׁלוֹשׁ אֶצְבָּעוֹת, \nוְעָלֶיהָ הָיָה נוֹתֵן.\n",
+            "<small>ד</small>\nנָטַל אֶת הַדָּם מִמִּי שֶׁהוּא מְמָרֵס בּוֹ, \nנִכְנַס לִמְקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְנַס, \nוְעָמַד בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁעָמַד, \nוְהִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַת לְמַעְלָן וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּן, \nוְלֹא הָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַזּוֹת \nלֹא לְמַעְלָן וְלֹא לְמַטָּן, אֶלָּא כְמַצְלִיף. \nוְכָךְ הָיָה מוֹנֶה: \nאַחַת וְאַחַת, \nאַחַת וּשְׁתַּיִם, \nאַחַת וְשָׁלוֹשׁ, \nאַחַת וְאַרְבַּע, \nאַחַת וְחָמֵשׁ, \nאַחַת וְשֵׁשׁ, \nאַחַת וָשֶׁבַע. \nיָצָא וְהִנִּיחוֹ עַל כַּן הַזָּהָב שֶׁהָיָה בַהֵיכָל.\n",
+            "<small>ה</small>\nהֵבִיאוּ לוֹ אֶת הַשָּׂעִיר, \nוּשְׁחָטוֹ וְזָרַק אֶת דָּמוֹ. \nוְעָמַד בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁעָמַד, \nהִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַת לְמַעְלָן וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּן, \nוְלֹא הָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַזּוֹת \nלֹא לְמַעְלָן וְלֹא לְמַטָּן, אֶלָּא כְמַצְלִיף. \nוְכָךְ הָיָה מוֹנֶה... \nיָצָא וְהִנִּיחוֹ עַל כַּן הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁהָיָה בַהֵיכָל. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nלֹא הָיָה שָׁם אֶלָּא כַן אֶחָד בִּלְבַד. \n\n<small>ו</small>\nנָטַל דַּם הַפָּר וְהִנִּיחַ דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר, \nוְהִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הָאָרוֹן מִבַּחוּץ, \nאַחַת לְמַעְלָן וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּן, \nוְלֹא הָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַזּוֹת \nלֹא לְמַעְלָן וְלֹא לְמַטָּן, אֶלָּא כְמַצְלִיף. \nוְכָךְ הָיָה מוֹנֶה... \nנָטַל דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר וְהִנִּיחַ דַּם הַפָּר, \nוְהִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת שֶׁכְּנֶגֶד הָאָרוֹן מִבַּחוּץ, \nאַחַת לְמַעְלָן וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּן, \nוְלֹא הָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַזּוֹת \nלֹא לְמַעְלָן וְלֹא לְמַטָּן, אֶלָּא כְמַצְלִיף. \nוְכָךְ הָיָה מוֹנֶה... \nעֵרָה דַם הַפָּר לְתוֹךְ דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר, \nוְנָתַן אֶת הַמָּלֵא בְתוֹךְ הָרֵיקָן.\n",
+            "\"וְיָצָא אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּח אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי יי\" (ויקרא טז,יח) \nזֶה מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב. \n\n<small>ז</small>\nהִתְחִיל מְחַטֵּא וְיוֹרֵד. \nמֵאֵיכָן הוּא מַתְחִיל? \nמִקֶּרֶן מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית, \nצְפוֹנִית מַעֲרָבִית, \nמַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית, \nדְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית, \nמָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא מַתְחִיל בַּחַטָּאת עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, \nשָׁם הוּא גוֹמֵר עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי. \nרְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: \nבִּמְקוֹמוֹ הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמְחַטֵּא. \nוְעַל כֻּלָּם הוּא נוֹתֵן מִלְּמַטָּן לְמַעְלָן, \nחוּץ מִזּוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה לְפָנָיו, \nשֶׁהָיָה נוֹתֵן מִלְמַעְלָן לְמַטָּן.\n",
+            "<small>ח</small>\nהִזָּה עַל טְהָרוֹ שֶׁלַּמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים. \nשִׁירֵי הַדָּם הָיָה שׁוֹפֵךְ \nעַל יְסוֹד מַעֲרָבִי שֶׁלְּמִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן, \nוְשֶׁלְּמִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן הָיָה שׁוֹפֵךְ עַל יְסוֹד הַדְּרוֹמִי. \nאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מִתְעָרְבִין בְּאַמָּה וְיוֹצְאִין לְנַחַל קִדְרוֹן, \nוְנִמְכָּרִים לַגַּנָּנִים לְזֶבֶל, \nוּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן.\n",
+            "<small>ט</small>\nכָּל מַעֲשֵׂה יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים הָאָמוּר עַל סֵדֶר. \nהִקְדִּים מַעֲשֶׂה לַחֲבֵרוֹ, \nלֹא עָשָׂה כְלוּם. \nהִקְדִּים דַּם הַשָּׂעִיר לְדַם הַפָּר, \nיַחְזֹר וְיַזֶּה מִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר וְאַחַר דַּם הַפָּר. \nאִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא גָמַר אֶת הַמַּתָּנוֹת מִבִּפְנִים נִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם, \nיָבִיא דָּם אַחֵר וְיַחְזֹר וְיַזֶּה כַתְּחִלָּה מִבִּפְנִים. \nוְכֵן בַּהֵיכָל, וְכֵן בְּמִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב, \nשֶׁכֻּלָּם כַּפָּרָה וְכַפָּרָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן. \nרְבִּי לְעָזָר וּרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: \nמִמָּקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַק, מִשָּׁם הוּא מַתְחִיל.\n\n\n\n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<small>א</small>\nשְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, \nמִצְוָתָן שֶׁיְּהוּ שָׁוִים \nבְּמַרְאֶה וּבְקוֹמָה וּבְדָמִין וּלְקִיחָתָן כְּאַחַת. \nאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן שָׁוִים, כְּשֵׁרִים. \nלָקַח אֶחָד הַיּוֹם וְאֶחָד לְמָחָר, כְּשֵׁרִים. \nמֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶם, \nאִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִגְרִיל מֵת, \nיִקַּח זוֹג לַשֵּׁנִי; \nוְאִם מִשֶּׁהִגְרִיל מֵת, \nיָבִיא שְׁנַיִם וְיַגְרִיל עֲלֵיהֶם כַּתְּחִלָּה. \n\n<small>ב</small>\nוְיֹאמַר, \nאִם שֶׁלַּשֵּׁם מֵת: \n\"זֶה שֶׁעָלָה עָלָיו הַגּוֹרָל \"לַשֵּׁם\"יִתְקַיֵּם תַּחְתָּיו\"; \nוְאִם שֶׁלַּעֲזָאזֵל מֵת: \n\"זֶה שֶׁעָלָה עָלָיו הַגּוֹרָל \"לַעֲזָאזֵל\"יִתְקַיֵּם תַּחְתָּיו\". \nהַשֵּׁנִי יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב וְיִמָּכֵר, \nוְיִפְּלוּ דָמָיו לִנְדָבָה, \nשֶׁאֵין חַטַּאת צִבּוּר מֵתָה. \nרְבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: \nתָּמוּת. \nוְעוֹד אָמַר רְבִּי יְהוּדָה: \nנִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם, יָמוּת הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ; \nמֵת הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ, יִשָּׁפֵךְ הַדָּם.\n",
+            "<small>ג</small>\nבָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ \nוְסָמַךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וְנִתְוַדָּה. \nוְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר: \nאָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, \nעָווּ, פָּשְׁעוּ, חָטְאוּ לְפָנֶיךָ עַמְּךָ בֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל. \nאָנָּא הַשֵּׁם... \n",
+            "<small>ד</small>\nמְסָרוֹ לְמִי שֶׁהוֹלִיכוֹ. \nהַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִים לְהוֹלִיכוֹ, \nאֶלָּא שֶׁעָשָׁה הַכֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים קֶבַע, \nוְלֹא הָיוּ מַנִּיחִים אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהוֹלִיכוֹ. \nאָמַר רְבִּי יוֹסֵי: \nמַעֲשֶׂה וְהוֹלִיכוֹ עַד שְׁאלָא מִצִּפּוֹרִין, \nוְיִשְׂרָאֵל הָיָה.\n",
+            "<small>ה</small>\nוְכֶבֶשׁ עוֹשִׁין לוֹ מִפְּנֵי הַבַּבְלִיִּים, \nשֶׁהָיוּ מְתַלְּשִׁים בִּשְׂעָרוֹ, \nוְאוֹמְרִין לוֹ: \n\"טֹל וְצֵא, טֹל וְצֵא!\" \nיַקִּירֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם הָיוּ מְלַוִּים אוֹתוֹ עַד סֻכָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. \nעֶשֶׂר סֻכּוֹת מִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְעַד צוֹק, \nתִּשְׁעִים רֵיס, \nשִׁבְעָה וּמַחְצָה לְכָל מִיל. \n\n ",
+            "<small>ו</small>\nוְעַל כָּל סֻכָּה וְסֻכָּה אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: \n\"הֲרֵי מָזוֹן וַהֲרֵי מַיִם\". \nוּמְלַוִּים אוֹתוֹ מִסֻּכָּה לְסֻכָּה, \nחוּץ מֵהָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁבָּהֶן, \nשֶׁאֵינוּ מַגִּיעַ עִמּוֹ לַצּוֹק, \nאֶלָּא עוֹמֵד מֵרָחוֹק וְרוֹאֶה אֶת מַעֲשָׂיו.\n",
+            "<small>ז</small>\nוּמָה הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה? \nחָלַק לָשׁוֹן שֶׁלִּזְהוֹרִית, \nחֶצְיוֹ קָשַׁר בַּסֶּלַע וְחֶצְיוֹ קָשַׁר בֵּין קַרְנָיו, \nוְדוֹחֲפוֹ לַאֲחוֹרָיו; \nוּמִתְגַּלְגֵּל וְיוֹרֵד, \nוְלֹא הָיָה מַגִּיעַ לְמַחֲצִית הָהָר, \nעַד שֶׁהוּא נֶעֱשָׂה אֵבָרִים אֵבָרִים. \nבָּא וְיָשַׁב לוֹ תַחַת סֻכָּה הָאַחֲרוֹנָה, \nעַד שֶׁתֶּחֱשַׁךְ. \nוּמֵאֵמָתַי מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים? \nמִשֶּׁיֵּצֵא לְחוֹמַת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nמִשָּׁעַת דְּחִיָּתוֹ לַצּוֹק.\n",
+            "<small>ח</small>\nבָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל הַפַּר וְאֵצֶל הַשָּׂעִיר הַנִּשְׂרָפִים. \nקְרָעָם וְהוֹצִיא אֶת אֱמוּרֵיהֶם, \nנְתָנָם בַּמֶּגֶס וְהִקְטִירָם עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. \nקְלָעָן בַּמַּקְלוֹת וְהוֹצִיאָן לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. \nמֵאֵימָתַי מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים? \nמִשֶּׁיֵּצְאוּ לְחוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה. \nרְבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: \nמִשֶּׁיִּצַּת הָאוּר בְּרֻבָּן.\n",
+            "<small>ט</small>\nאָמְרוּ לוֹ לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל: \nהִגִּיעַ שָׂעִיר לַמִּדְבָּר. \nוּמְנַיִן הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁהִגִּיעַ שָׂעִיר לַמִּדְבָּר? \nדִּרְכָּיוֹת הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין, וּמְנִיפִין בַּסּוּדָרִין, \nוְיוֹדְעִים שֶׁהִגִּיעַ שָׂעִיר לַמִּדְבָּר. \n\n<small>י</small>\nאָמַר רְבִּי יְהוּדָה: \nוַהֲלֹא סִימָן גָּדוֹל הָיָה לָהֶם? \nשְׁלוֹשֶׁת מִילִין מִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְעַד בֵּית חֲרוֹדוֹ; \nהוֹלְכִים מִיל, וְחוֹזְרִים מִיל, וְשׁוֹהִים כְּדֵי מִיל, \nוְיוֹדְעִים שֶׁהִגִּיעַ שָׂעִיר לַמִּדְבָּר. \n\n\n\n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<small>א</small>\nבָּא לוֹ כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל לִקְרוֹת. \nאִם רוֹצֶה בְּבִגְדֵי בוּץ קוֹרֵא, \nוְאִם לָאו, בְּאֶסְטְלֵית לָבָן מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. \nחַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת נוֹטֵל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה, \nוְנוֹתְנוֹ לְרֹאשׁ הַכְּנֶסֶת, \nוְרֹאשׁ הַכְּנֶסֶת נוֹתְנוֹ לַסֶּגֶן, \nוְהַסֶּגֶן נוֹתְנוֹ לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, \nוְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל עוֹמֵד וּמְקַבֵּל וְקוֹרֵא עוֹמֵד, \nוְקוֹרֵא \"אַחֲרֵי מוֹת\" וְ\"אַךְ בֶּעָשׁוֹר\". \nוְגוֹלֵל אֶת הַתּוֹרָה וּמַנִּיחָהּ בְּחֵיקוֹ, \nוְאוֹמֵר: \n\"יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁקָּרִיתִי לִפְנֵיכֶם כָּתוּב. \n\"וּבֶעָשׁוֹר\" שֶׁבְּחוּמַשׁ הַפְּקוּדִים \nוְקוֹרֵא עַל פֶּה. \nוּמְבָרֵךְ עָלֶיהָ שְׁמוֹנֶה בְרָכוֹת: \nעַל הַתּוֹרָה, \nוְעַל הָעֲבוֹדָה, \nוְעַל הַהוֹדָיָה, \nוְעַל מְחִילַת הֶעָוֹן, \nוְעַל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, \nוְעַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, \nוְעַל הַכֹּהֲנִים, \nוְעַל שְׁאָר הַתְּפִלָּה.\n",
+            "הָרוֹאֶה כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהוּא קוֹרֵא, \nוְאֵינוּ רוֹאֶה פַר וְשָׂעִיר הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, \nוְהָרוֹאֶה פַר וְשָׂעִיר הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, \nאֵינוּ רוֹאֶה כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהוּא קוֹרֵא. \nלֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינוּ רַשַּׁי, \nאֶלָּא שֶׁהָיְתָה דֶרֶךְ רְחוֹקָה, \nוּמְלֶאכֶת שְׁנֵיהֶם הָיְתָה כְאַחַת.\n",
+            "<small>ב</small>\nוְאִם בְּבִגְדֵי בוּץ קָרָא, \nקִדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וּפָשַׁט, \nיָרַד וְטָבַל, עָלָה וְנִסְתַּפַּג. \nהֵבִיאוּ לוֹ בִגְדֵי זָהָב, \nוְלָבַשׁ, קִדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו. \n\n<small>ג</small>\nיָצָא וְעָשָׂה אֶת אֵילוֹ וְאֶת אֵיל הָעָם, \nוְאֶת שִׁבְעַת כְּבָשִׂים תְּמִימִים. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. \nרְבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: \nעִם הַתָּמִיד שֶׁלַּשַּׁחַר הָיוּ קְרֵבִים, \nאֲבָל פַּר הָעוֹלָה וְשָׂעִיר הַנֶּעֱשָׂה בַחוּץ \nהָיוּ קְרֵבִים עִם הַתָּמִיד שֶׁלְּבֵין הָעַרְבַּיִם.\n",
+            "קִדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וּפָשַׁט, \nוְ��ָרַד וְטָבַל וְעָלָה וְנִסְתַּפַּג. \nהֵבִיאוּ לוֹ בִגְדֵי לָבָן וְלָבַשׁ, \nקִדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו. \n\n<small>ד</small>\nנִכְנַס לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הַכַּף וְאֶת הַמַּחְתָּה. \nקִדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וּפָשַׁט, \nיָרַד וְטָבַל, עָלָה וְנִסְתַּפַּג. \nהֵבִיאוּ לוֹ בִגְדֵי זָהָב וְלָבַשׁ, \nקִדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו. \n\n<small>ה</small>\nנִכְנַס לְהַקְטִיר אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת שֶׁלְּבֵין הָעַרְבַּיִם \nוּלְהֵטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת. \nקִדֵּשׁ יָדָיו וְרַגְלָיו וּפָשַׁט. \nהֵבִיאוּ לוֹ בִגְדֵי עַצְמוֹ וְלָבַשׁ. \nמְלַוִּים אוֹתוֹ עַד בֵּיתוֹ. \nיוֹם טוֹב עוֹשֶׂה לְכָל אוֹהֲבָיו, \nשֶׁיָּצָא בְּשָׁלוֹם.\n",
+            "<small>ו</small>\nכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בִּשְׁמוֹנָה כֵלִים, \nוְהַהֶדְיוֹט בְּאַרְבָּעָה: \nבִּכְתֹנֶת וּבְמִכְנְסַיִם, בְּמִצְנֶפֶת וּבְאַבְנֵט. \nמוֹסִיף עָלָיו כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל: \nחֹשֶׁן וְאֵפוֹד וּמְעִיל וְצִיץ. \nבְּאֵלּוּ נִשְׁאָלִים בְּאוּרִים וְתֻמִּים. \nוְאֵינָן נִשְׁאָלִים בָּהֶן לַהֶדְיוֹט, \nאֶלָּא לַמֶּלֶךְ וּלְבֵית דִּין, \nוּלְמִי שֶׁצֹּרֶךְ הַצִּבּוּר בּוֹ.\n\n\n\n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "<small>א</small>\nיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אָסוּר בַּאֲכִילָה וּבִשְׁתִיָּה \nוּבִרְחִיצָה וּבְסִיכָה וּבִנְעִילַת הַסַּנְדָּל וּבְתַשְׁמִישׂ הַמִּטָּה. \nוְהַמֶּלֶךְ וְהַכַּלָּה יִרְחֲצוּ אֶת פְּנֵיהֶם, \nוְהַחַיָּה תִנְעֹל אֶת הַסַּנְדָּל. \nדִּבְרֵי רְבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, \nוַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין.\n",
+            "<small>ב</small>\nהָאוֹכֵל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים \nכְּכוֹתֶבֶת הַגַּסָּה כָמוֹהָ וּכְגַלְעִינָתָהּ, \nוְהַשּׁוֹתֶה כִמְלֹא לָגְמָיו, חַיָּב. \nכָּל הָאֳכָלִים מִצְטָרְפִין לְכַכּוֹתֶבֶת, \nוְכָל הַמַּשְׁקִים מִצְטָרְפִין לְכִמְלֹא לָגְמָיו. \nהָאוֹכֵל וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה אֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִים.\n",
+            "<small>ג</small>\nאָכַל וְשָׁתָה בְהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, \nאֵינוּ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת. \nאָכַל וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכָה, חַיָּב שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת. \nאָכַל אֳכָלִים שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִים לַאֲכִילָה, \nשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִים שֶׁאֵינָן רְאוּיִין לִשְׁתִיָּה, \nשָׁתָה צֵיר אוֹ מֻרְיָס, פָּטוּר.\n",
+            "הַתִּינוֹקוֹת, \nאֵין מְעַנִּין אוֹתָם בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, \nאֲבָל מְחַנְּכִין אוֹתָם קֹדֶם שָׁנָה וְקֹדֶם שְׁתַּיִם, \nבִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיְּהוּ רְגִילִים לַמִּצְוֹת.\n",
+            "<small>ד</small>\nעוֹבָרָה שֶׁהֵרִיחָה, \nמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָהּ עַד שֶׁתָּשִׁיב נַפְשָׁהּ. \nחוֹלֶה, מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל פִּי בְקִיִּים; \nוְאִם אֵין שָׁם בְקִיִּים, \nמַאֲכִילִין עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, \nעַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר דַּי.\n",
+            "<small>ה</small>\nמִי שֶׁאָחֲזוֹ בָלְמוֹס, \nמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ אֲפִלּוּ דְבָרִים טְמֵאִים, \nעַד שֶׁיֵּאוֹרוּ עֵינָיו. \nמִי שֶׁנְּשָׁכוֹ כֶלֶב שׁוֹטֶה, \nאֵין מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחֲצַר הַכָּבֵד שֶׁלּוֹ. \nוּרְבִּי מַתַּתְיָה בֶן חָרָשׁ מַתִּיר. \nוְעוֹד אָמַר רְבִּי מַתַּתְיָה בֶן חָרָשׁ: \nהַחוֹשֵׁשׂ בְּפִיו, \nמְטִילִין בְּתוֹכוֹ סַם בַּשַּׁבָּת, \nמִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת, \nוְכָל סְפֵק נְפָשׁוֹת דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת.\n",
+            "<small>ו</small>\nמִי שֶׁנָּפְלָה עָלָיו מַפֹּלֶת, \nסָפֵק הוּא שָׁם, סָפֵק אֵינוּ שָׁם, \nסָפֵק חַי, סָפֵק מֵת, \nסָפֵק נָכְרִי, סָפֵק יִשְׂרָאֵל, \nמְפַקְּחִים עָלָיו. \nמְצָאוּהוּ חַי, מְפַקְּחִין עָלָיו, \nוְאִם מֵת, יַנִּיחוּהוּ.\n",
+            "<small>ז</small>\nחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם וַדַּאי מְכַפְּרִים. \nמִיתָה וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפְּרִים עִם הַתְּשׁוּבָה. \nהַתְּשׁוּבָה מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל עֲבֵרוֹת קַלּוֹת, \nוְעַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה; \nוְעַל הַחֲמוּרוֹת הִיא תּוֹלָה, \nעַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וִיכַפֵּר.\n",
+            "<small>ח</small>\nהָאוֹמֵר: \n\"אֶחֱטֵא וְאָשׁוּב, אֶחֱטֵא וְאָשׁוּב\", \nאֵין מַסְפִּיקִים בְּיָדוֹ לַעֲשׁוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה. \n\"אֶחֱטֵא, וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר\", \nאֵין יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר. \nעֲבֵרוֹת שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַמָּקוֹם, \nיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר, \nוְשֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ, \nאֵין יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר, \nעַד שֶׁיְּרַצֶּה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ. \n\n<small>ט</small>\nאֶת זוֹ דָרַשׁ רְבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: \n\"מִכּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יי תִּטְהָרוּ\", (ויקרא טז,ל) \nעֲבֵרוֹת שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַמָּקוֹם, \nיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר; \nעֲבֵרוֹת שֶׁבֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ, \nאֵין יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר, \nעַד שֶׁיְּרַצֶּה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ. \n\n<small>י</small>\nאָמַר רְבִּי עֲקִיבָה: \nאַשְׁרֵיכֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל! \nלִפְנֵי מִי אַתֶּם מִטַּהֲרִין, \nוּמִי מְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם? \nאֲבִיכֶם שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (יחזקאל לו,כה) \n\"וְזָרַקְתִּי עֲלֵיכֶם מַיִם טְהוֹרִים וּטְהַרְתֶּם\"; \nוְאוֹמֵר: (ירמיה יז,יג) \n\"מִקְוֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל יי\", \nמָה מִקְוֶה מְטַהֵר אֶת הַטְּמֵאִים, \nאַף הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְטַהֵר אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל.\n\n\n\n\n"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Chapter",
+        "Mishnah"
+    ]
+}

json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Yoma/Hebrew/Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913.json

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+{
+    "language": "he",
+    "title": "Mishnah Yoma",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001741739",
+    "versionTitle": "Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna 1913",
+    "status": "locked",
+    "priority": 2.0,
+    "license": "Public Domain",
+    "digitizedBySefaria": true,
+    "heversionSource": "http://primo.nli.org.il/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=NLI&docId=NNL_ALEPH00174173",
+    "versionTitleInHebrew": "משנה, מהדורת בית דפוס ראם, וילנא 1913",
+    "actualLanguage": "he",
+    "languageFamilyName": "hebrew",
+    "isBaseText": true,
+    "isSource": true,
+    "isPrimary": true,
+    "direction": "rtl",
+    "heTitle": "משנה יומא",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "text": [
+        [
+            "שבעת ימים קודם יום הכפורים מפרישין כהן גדול. מביתו ללשכת פלהדרין ומתקינין לו כהן אחר תחתיו שמא יארע בו פסול. רבי יהודה אומר אף אשה אחרת מתקינין לו. שמא תמות אשתו. שנאמר (ויקרא טז, ו) וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו. ביתו זו אשתו. אמרו לו אם כן אין לדבר סוף:  ",
+            "כל שבעת הימים הוא זורק את הדם. ומקטיר את הקטורת. ומטיב את הנרות ומקריב את הראש ואת הרגל. ושאר כל הימים אם רצה להקריב מקריב. שכהן גדול מקריב חלק בראש. ונוטל חלק בראש:  ",
+            "מסרו לו זקנים מזקני בית דין וקורין לפניו בסדר היום. ואומרים לו אישי כהן גדול. קרא אתה בפיך שמא שכחת. או שמא לא למדת. ערב יום כפורים שחרית מעמידין אותו בשער מזרח. ומעבירין לפניו פרים ואילים וכבשים. כדי שיהא מכיר ורגיל בעבודה:  ",
+            "כל שבעת הימים לא היו מונעין ממנו מאכל ומשתה. ערב יום הכפורים עם חשיכה לא היו מניחים אותו לאכול הרבה. מפני שהמאכל מביא את השינה:  ",
+            "מסרוהו זקני בית דין לזקני כהונה. והעלוהו לעליית בית אבטינס. והשביעוהו ונפטרו והלכו להם. ואמרו לו אישי כהן גדול. אנו שלוחי בית דין. ואתה שלוחנו ושליח בית דין משביעין אנו עליך במי ששכן שמו בבית הזה. שלא תשנה דבר מכל מה שאמרנו לך. הוא פורש ובוכה והן פורשין ובוכין:  ",
+            "אם היה חכם דורש ואם לאו תלמידי חכמים דורשין לפניו. ואם רגיל לקרות קורא. ואם לאו קורין לפניו. ובמה קורין לפניו. באיוב ובעזרא ובדברי הימים. זכריה בן קבוטל אומר. פעמים הרבה קריתי לפניו בדניאל:  ",
+            "בקש להתנמנם. פרחי כהונה מכין לפניו באצבע צרדה. ואומרים לו אישי כהן גדול עמוד והפג אחת על הרצפה. ומעסיקין אותו עד שיגיע זמן השחיטה:  ",
+            "בכל יום תורמין את המזבח. בקריאת הגבר. או סמוך לו. בין לפניו. בין לאחריו. ביום הכפורים מחצות. וברגלים. מאשמורה הראשונה. ולא היתה קריאת הגבר מגעת. עד שהיתה עזרה מלאה מישראל:  "
+        ],
+        [
+            "בראשונה כל מי שרוצה לתרום את המזבח תורם. ובזמן שהן מרובין. רצין ועולין בכבש. וכל הקודם את חברו בארבע אמות זכה. ואם היו שניהם שוין. הממונה אומר להם הצביעו. ומה הן מוציאין. אחת או שתים. ואין מוציאין אגודל במקדש: \n",
+            "מעשה שהיו שניהם שוין. ורצין ועולין בכבש. ודחף אחד מהן את חבירו ונפל. ונשברה רגלו. וכיון שראו בית דין שבאין לידי סכנה. התקינו שלא יהו תורמין את המזבח. אלא בפייס. ארבע פייסות היו שם. וזה הפייס הראשון: \n",
+            "הפייס השני מי שוחט. מי זורק. מי מדשן מזבח הפנימי. ומי מדשן את המנורה. ומי מעלה אברים לכבש. הראש והרגל. ושתי הידים. העוקץ והרגל. החזה והגרה. ושתי הדפנות. והקרבים. והסלת. והחביתין. והיין. שלשה עשר כהנים זכו בו. אמר בן עזאי לפני רבי עקיבא משום רבי יהושע דרך הלוכו היה קרב: \n",
+            "הפייס השלישי חדשים לקטרת בואו והפיסו. והרביעי חדשים עם ישנים. מי מעלה אברים מן הכבש ולמזבח: \n",
+            "תמיד קרב בתשעה. בעשרה. באחד עשר. בשנים עשר. לא פחות. ולא יותר. כיצד. עצמו בתשעה. בחג ביד אחד צלוחית של מים. הרי כאן עשרה. בין הערבים באחד עשר. הוא עצמו בתשעה. ושנים בידם שני גזירי עצים. ובשבת באחד עשר. הוא עצמו בתשעה. ושנים בידם שני בזיכי לבונה של לחם הפנים. ובשבת שבתוך החג ביד אחד צלוחית של מים: \n",
+            "איל קרב באחד עשר. הבשר בחמשה. הקרבים והסלת והיין בשנים שנים: \n",
+            "פר קרב בעשרים וארבעה. הראש והרגל. הראש באחד. והרגל בשנים. העוקץ והרגל. העוקץ בשנים. והרגל בשנים. החזה והגרה. החזה באחד. והגרה בשלשה. שתי ידים בשנים. שתי דפנות בשנים. הקרבים והסלת והיין בשלשה שלשה. במה דברים אמורים בקרבנות צבור. אבל בקרבן יחיד אם רצה להקריב מקריב. הפשטן ונתוחן של אלו ואלו שוין: \n"
+        ],
+        [
+            "אמר להם הממונה צאו וראו אם הגיע זמן השחיטה. אם הגיע. הרואה אומר ברקאי. מתתיא בן שמואל אומר האיר פני כל המזרח. עד שבחברון. והוא אומר הן:  ",
+            "ולמה הוצרכו לכך. שפעם אחת עלה מאור הלבנה ודימו שהאיר מזרח ושחטו את התמיד. והוציאוהו לבית השריפה. הורידו כהן גדול לבית הטבילה. זה הכלל היה במקדש. כל המיסך את רגליו טעון טבילה. וכל המטיל מים טעון קדוש ידים ורגלים:  ",
+            "אין אדם נכנס לעזרה לעבודה. אפילו טהור עד שיטבול. חמש טבילות. ועשרה קדושין. טובל כהן גדול ומקדש בו ביום. וכולן בקדש על בית הפרוה. חוץ מזו בלבד:  ",
+            "פרסו סדין של בוץ. בינו לבין העם. פשט ירד וטבל. עלה ונסתפג. הביאו לו בגדי זהב ולבש. וקדש ידיו ורגליו. הביאו לו את התמיד. קרצו. ומרק אחר שחיטה על ידו. קבל את הדם וזרקו. נכנס להקטיר קטורת של שחר ולהטיב את הנרות. ולהקריב את הראש. ואת האברים. ואת החביתין. ואת היין:  ",
+            "קטורת של שחר היתה קריבה בין דם לאברים. של בין הערבים בין אברים לנסכים. אם היה כהן גדול זקן. או אסטניס. מחמין לו חמין. ומטילין לתוך הצונן. כדי שתפיג צנתן:  ",
+            "הביאוהו לבית הפרוה ובקדש היתה. פרסו סדין של בוץ בינו לבין העם. קדש ידיו ורגליו. ופשט. ר' מאיר אומר פשט. קדש ידיו ורגליו. ירד וטבל עלה ונסתפג. הביאו לו בגדי לבן. לבש וקדש ידיו ורגליו:  ",
+            "בשחר היה לובש פלוסין של שנים עשר מנה. ובין הערבים הנדוין של שמונה מאות זוז דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים בשחר היה לובש של שמונה עשר מנה. ובין הערבים של שנים עשר מנה. הכל שלשים מנה. אלו משל צבור. ואם רצה להוסיף. מוסיף משלו:  ",
+            "בא לו אצל פרו. ופרו היה עומד בין האולם ולמזבח. ראשו לדרום ופניו למערב והכהן עומד במזרח ופניו למערב וסומך שתי ידיו עליו ומתודה. וכך היה אומר. אנא השם עויתי. פשעתי. חטאתי לפניך אני וביתי. אנא השם. כפר נא לעונות. ולפשעים. ולחטאים. שעויתי. ושפשעתי. ושחטאתי לפניך אני וביתי. ככתוב בתורת משה עבדך (ויקרא טז, ל) כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם וגו'. והן עונין אחריו ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד:  ",
+            "בא לו למזרח העזרה לצפון המזבח. הסגן מימינו וראש בית אב משמאלו. ושם שני שעירים וקלפי היתה שם. ובה שני גורלות של אשכרוע היו. ועשאן בן גמלא של זהב. והיו מזכירין אותו לשבח:  ",
+            "בן קטין עשה שנים עשר דד לכיור שלא היו לו אלא שנים. ואף הוא עשה מוכני לכיור שלא יהיו מימיו נפסלין בלינה. מונבז המלך היה עושה כל ידות הכלים של יום הכפורים של זהב. הילני אמו עשתה נברשת של זהב על פתחו של היכל. ואף היא עשתה טבלא של זהב. שפרשת סוטה כתובה עליה. נקנור נעשו נסים לדלתותיו. והיו מזכירין אותו לשבח:  ",
+            "ואלו לגנאי של בית גרמו. לא רצו ללמד על מעשה לחם הפנים. של בית אבטינס לא רצו ללמד על מעשה הקטורת. הגרוס בן לוי היה יודע פרק בשיר. ולא רצה ללמד. בן קמצר לא רצה ללמד על מעשה הכתב. על הראשונים נאמר זכר צדיק לברכה. ועל אלו נאמר ושם רשעים ירקב:  "
+        ],
+        [
+            "טרף בקלפי והעלה שני גורלות. אחד כתוב עליו לשם. ואחד כתוב עליו לעזאזל. הסגן בימינו. וראש בית אב משמאלו. אם של שם עלה בימינו הסגן אומר לו אישי כהן גדול הגבה ימינך. ואם של שם עלה בשמאלו. ראש בית אב אומר לו אישי כהן גדול הגבה שמאלך. נתנו על שני השעירים ואומר לה' חטאת. ר' ישמעאל אומר לא היה צריך לומר חטאת אלא לה'. והן עונין אחריו ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד:  ",
+            "קשר לשון של זהורית בראש שעיר המשתלח והעמידו כנגד בית שלוחו ולנשחט כנגד בית שחיטתו. בא לו אצל פרו שנייה. וסומך שתי ידיו עליו ומתודה. וכך היה אומר. אנא השם. עויתי. פשעתי. חטאתי לפניך אני וביתי. ובני אהרן עם קדושך. אנא השם. כפר נא לעונות. ולפשעים. ולחטאים. שעויתי. ושפשעתי. ושחטאתי לפניך אני וביתי. ובני אהרן עם קדושך. ככתוב בתורת משה עבדך (ויקרא טז, ל) כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם לטהר אתכם מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה' תטהרו והן עונין אחריו ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד:  ",
+            "שחטו וקבל במזרק את דמו. ונתנו למי שהוא ממרס בו על הרובד הרביעי שבהיכל כדי שלא יקרוש נטל מחתה ועלה לראש המזבח. ופנה גחלים אילך ואילך. וחותה מן המעוכלות הפנימיות. וירד והניחה על הרובד הרביעי שבעזרה:  ",
+            "בכל יום היה חותה בשל כסף ומערה בתוך של זהב והיום חותה בשל זהב ובה היה מכניס. בכל יום חותה בשל ד' קבין ומערה בתוך של שלשת קבין והיום חותה בשל שלשת קבין ובה היה מכניס. ר' יוסי אומר בכל יום חותה בשל סאה ומערה בתוך של שלשת קבין והיום חותה בשל שלשת קבין ובה היה מכניס. בכל יום היתה כבדה והיום קלה בכל יום היתה ידה קצרה והיום ארוכה בכל יום היה זהבה ירוק והיום אדום דברי ר' מנחם. בכל יום מקריב פרס בשחרית ופרס בין הערבים. והיום מוסיף מלא חפניו. בכל יום היתה דקה. והיום דקה מן הדקה:  ",
+            "בכל יום כהנים עולין במזרחו של כבש. ויורדין במערבו. והיום כהן גדול עולה באמצע ויורד באמצע. רבי יהודה אומר לעולם כהן גדול עולה באמצע ויורד באמצע. בכל יום כהן גדול מקדש ידיו ורגליו מן הכיור. והיום מן הקתון של זהב. רבי יהודה אומר לעולם כהן גדול מקדש ידיו ורגליו מן הקיתון של זהב:  ",
+            "בכל יום היו שם ארבע מערכות והיום חמש. דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יוסי אומר בכל יום שלש. והיום ארבע. רבי יהודה אומר בכל יום שתים. והיום שלש:  "
+        ],
+        [
+            "הוציאו לו את הכף ואת המחתה. וחפן מלא חפניו. ונתן לתוך הכף. הגדול לפי גדלו. והקטן לפי קטנו. וכך היתה מדתה. נטל את המחתה בימינו. ואת הכף בשמאלו. היה מהלך בהיכל עד שמגיע לבין שתי הפרוכת המבדילות בין הקדש ובין קדש הקדשים. וביניהן אמה. ר' יוסי אומר לא היתה שם אלא פרוכת אחת בלבד. שנאמר (שמות כו, לג) והבדילה הפרוכת לכם בין הקדש ובין קדש הקדשים. החיצונה היתה פרופה מן הדרום והפנימית מן הצפון מהלך ביניהן עד שמגיע לצפון. הגיע לצפון. הופך פניו לדרום. מהלך לשמאלו עם הפרוכת עד שהוא מגיע לארון הגיע לארון. נותן את המחתה בין שני הבדים צבר את הקטורת על גבי גחלים. ונתמלא כל הבית כולו עשן יצא ובא לו בדרך בית כניסתו ומתפלל תפלה קצרה בבית החיצון ולא היה מאריך בתפלתו. שלא להבעית את ישראל:  ",
+            "משניטל הארון. אבן היתה שם מימות נביאים ראשונים. ושתיה היתה נקראת. גבוהה מן הארץ שלש אצבעות ועליה היה נותן:  ",
+            "נטל את הדם ממי שהיה ממרס בו. נכנס למקום שנכנס. ועמד במקום שעמד. והזה ממנו אחת למעלה ושבע למטה. ולא היה מתכוין להזות לא למעלה. ולא למטה. אלא כמצליף וכך היה מונה. אחת. אחת ואחת. אחת ושתים. אחת ושלש. אחת וארבע. אחת וחמש. אחת ושש. אחת ושבע. יצא והניחו על כן הזהב שבהיכל:  ",
+            "הביאו לו את השעיר. שחטו וקבל במזרק את דמו. נכנס למקום שנכנס ועמד במקום שעמד והזה ממנו אחת למעלה. ושבע למטה. ולא היה מתכוין להזות. לא למעלה ולא למטה. אלא כמצליף וכך היה מונה אחת. אחת ואחת. אחת ושתים וכו'. יצא והניחו על כן השני שהיה בהיכל. רבי יהודה אומר לא היה שם אלא כן אחד בלבד. נטל דם הפר. והניח דם השעיר והזה ממנו על הפרוכת. שכנגד הארון מבחוץ. אחת למעלה ושבע למטה. ולא היה מתכוין וכו'. וכך היה מונה וכו'. נטל דם השעיר. והניח דם הפר. והזה ממנו על הפרוכת שכנגד הארון מבחוץ. אחת למעלה ושבע למטה וכו'. עירה דם הפר לתוך דם השעיר. ונתן את המלא בריקן:  ",
+            "ויצא אל המזבח אשר לפני ה' זה מזבח הזהב. התחיל מחטא ויורד מהיכן הוא מתחיל. מקרן מזרחית צפונית. צפונית מערבית. מערבית דרומית. דרומית מזרחית. מקום שהוא מתחיל בחטאת על מזבח החיצון משם היה גומר על מזבח הפנימי. ר' אליעזר אומר במקומו היה עומד ומחטא ועל כולן היה נותן מלמטה למעלה. חוץ מזו שהיתה לפניו שעליה היה נותן מלמעלה למטה:  ",
+            "הזה על טהרו של מזבח שבע פעמים ושירי הדם היה שופך על יסוד מערבי של מזבח החיצון. ושל מזבח החיצון היה שופך על יסוד דרומי. אלו ואלו מתערבין באמה. ויוצאין לנחל קדרון ונמכרין לגננין לזבל ומועלין בהן:  ",
+            "כל מעשה יום הכפורים האמור על הסדר אם הקדים מעשה לחברו לא עשה כלום. הקדים דם השעיר לדם הפר. יחזור ויזה מדם השעיר לאחר דם הפר ואם עד שלא גמר את המתנות שבפנים נשפך הדם יביא דם אחר ויחזור ויזה בתחלה בפנים. וכן בהיכל וכן במזבח הזהב. שכולן כפרה בפני עצמן. רבי אלעזר ורבי שמעון אומרים ממקום שפסק. משם הוא מתחיל:  "
+        ],
+        [
+            "שני שעירי יום הכפורים מצותן שיהיו שניהן שוין. במראה ובקומה ובדמים ובלקיחתן כאחד. ואף על פי שאין שוין כשרין. לקח אחד היום ואחד למחר כשרין. מת אחד מהן. אם עד שלא הגריל מת יקח זוג לשני. ואם משהגריל מת. יביא זוג אחר ויגריל עליהם בתחלה. ויאמר אם של שם מת. זה שעלה עליו הגורל לשם יתקיים תחתיו. ואם של עזאזל מת. זה שעלה עליו הגורל לעזאזל יתקיים תחתיו. והשני ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויפלו דמיו לנדבה. שאין חטאת צבור מתה. ר' יהודה אומר תמות. ועוד אמר רבי יהודה נשפך הדם ימות המשתלח. מת המשתלח. ישפך הדם:  ",
+            "בא לו אצל שעיר המשתלח. וסומך שתי ידיו עליו ומתוודה. וכך היה אומר. אנא השם. עוו פשעו חטאו לפניך עמך בית ישראל. אנא בשם. כפר נא לעונות. ולפשעים. ולחטאים. שעוו. ושפשעו. ושחטאו. לפניך עמך בית ישראל. ככתוב בתורת משה עבדך לאמר (ויקרא טז, ל) כי ביום הזה יכפר עליכם לטהר אתכם מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה' תטהרו. והכהנים והעם העומדים בעזרה. כשהיו שומעים שם המפורש שהוא יוצא מפי כהן גדול היו כורעים ומשתחוים. ונופלים על פניהם. ואומרים ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד:  ",
+            "מסרו למי שהיה מוליכו. הכל כשרין להוליכו. אלא שעשו הכהנים גדולים קבע ולא היו מניחין את ישראל להוליכו. אמר רבי יוסי מעשה והוליכו ערסלא. וישראל היה:  ",
+            "וכבש עשו לו מפני הבבליים. שהיו מתלשים בשערו ואומרים לו טול וצא טול וצא. מיקירי ירושלם היו מלוין אותו עד סוכה הראשונה. עשר סוכות מירושלם ועד צוק. תשעים ריס. שבעה ומחצה לכל מיל:  ",
+            "על כל סוכה וסוכה אומרים לו הרי מזון והרי מים ומלוין אותו מסוכה לסוכה. חוץ מאחרונה שבהן. שאינו מגיע עמו לצוק אלא עומד מרחוק ורואה את מעשיו:  ",
+            "מה היה עושה. חולק לשון של זהורית. חציו קשר בסלע. וחציו קשר בין שתי קרניו. ודחפו לאחוריו. והוא מתגלגל ויורד ולא היה מגיע לחצי ההר עד שנעשה אברים אברים. בא וישב לו תחת סוכה אחרונה עד שתחשך ומאימתי מטמא בגדים. משיצא חוץ לחומת ירושלם. ר' שמעון אומר משעת דחייתו לצוק:  ",
+            "בא לו אצל פר ושעיר הנשרפין. קרען והוציא את אימוריהן. נתנן במגיס. והקטירן על גבי המזבח. קלען במקלעות והוציאן לבית השריפה ומאימתי מטמאין בגדים משיצאו חוץ לחומת העזרה. ר' שמעון אומר משיצית האור ברובן:  ",
+            "אמרו לו לכהן גדול. הגיע שעיר למדבר ומניין היו יודעין שהגיע שעיר למדבר. דרכיות היו עושין ומניפין בסודרין. ויודעין שהגיע שעיר למדבר. אמר ר' יהודה והלא סימן גדול היה להם. מירושלים ועד בית חדודו שלשה מילין. הולכין מיל. וחוזרין מיל. ושוהין כדי מיל. ויודעין שהגיע שעיר למדבר. ר' ישמעאל אומר והלא סימן אחר היה להם. לשון של זהורית היה קשור על פתחו של היכל. וכשהגיע שעיר למדבר. היה הלשון מלבין שנאמר (ישעיה א, יח) אם יהיו חטאיכם כשנים כשלג ילבינו:  "
+        ],
+        [
+            "בא לו כהן גדול לקרות אם רצה לקרות בבגדי בוץ קורא ואם לא קורא באצטלית לבן משלו חזן הכנסת נוטל ספר תורה ונותנו לראש הכנסת. וראש הכנסת נותנו לסגן. והסגן נותנו לכהן גדול. וכהן גדול עומד ומקבל וקורא עומד וקורא אחרי מות ואך בעשור וגולל ספר תורה ומניחו בחיקו. ואומר יותר ממה שקראתי לפניכם כתוב כאן. ובעשור שבחומש הפקודים קורא על פה. ומברך עליה שמנה ברכות. על התורה. ועל העבודה. ועל ההודאה. ועל מחילת העון ועל המקדש בפני עצמו ועל ישראל בפני עצמן <small>(ועל ירושלים בפני עצמה)</small> ועל הכהנים בפני עצמן ועל שאר התפלה: ",
+            "הרואה כהן גדול כשהוא קורא. אינו רואה פר ושעיר הנשרפים. והרואה פר ושעיר הנשרפים. אינו רואה כהן גדול כשהוא קורא. ולא מפני שאינו רשאי אלא שהיתה דרך רחוקה. ומלאכת שניהן שוה כאחת:  ",
+            "אם בבגדי בוץ קורא קדש ידיו ורגליו פשט. ירד וטבל. עלה ונסתפג. הביאו לו בגדי זהב ולבש וקדש ידיו ורגליו ויצא. ועשה את אילו ואת איל העם. ואת שבעת כבשים תמימים בני שנה. דברי רבי אליעזר. רבי עקיבא אומר עם תמיד של שחר היו קרבין. ופר העולה ושעיר הנעשה בחוץ. היו קרבין עם תמיד של בין הערבים:  ",
+            "קדש ידיו ורגליו. ופשט. וירד וטבל. ועלה ונסתפג. הביאו לו בגדי לבן ולבש. וקדש ידיו ורגליו. נכנס להוציא את הכף. ואת המחתה. קדש ידיו ורגליו. ופשט וירד וטבל. עלה ונסתפג הביאו לו בגדי זהב ולבש. וקדש ידיו ורגליו. ונכנס להקטיר קטורת של בין הערבים. ולהטיב את הנרות. וקדש ידיו ורגליו. ופשט. הביאו לו בגדי עצמו. ולבש. ומלוין אותו עד ביתו. ויום טוב היה עושה לאוהביו. בשעה שיצא בשלום מן הקדש:  ",
+            "כהן גדול משמש בשמנה כלים. וההדיוט בארבעה. בכתונת ומכנסים ומצנפת ואבנט. מוסיף עליו כהן ��דול. חשן ואפוד ומעיל וציץ. באלו נשאלין באורים ותומים. ואין נשאלין אלא למלך. ולבית דין. ולמי שהצבור צריך בו:  "
+        ],
+        [
+            "יום הכפורים אסור באכילה. ובשתיה. וברחיצה. ובסיכה. ובנעילת הסנדל. ובתשמיש המטה. והמלך והכלה ירחצו את פניהם. והחיה תנעול את הסנדל. דברי רבי אליעזר. וחכמים אוסרין:  ",
+            "האוכל ככותבת הגסה. כמוה וכגרעינתה. והשותה מלא לוגמיו. חייב. כל האוכלין מצטרפין לככותבת. וכל המשקין מצטרפין למלא לוגמיו. האוכל ושותה אין מצטרפין:  ",
+            "אכל ושתה בהעלם אחת. אינו חייב אלא חטאת אחת. אכל ועשה מלאכה חייב שני חטאות. אכל אוכלין שאינן ראויין לאכילה. ושתה משקין שאינן ראויין לשתייה. ושתה ציר. או מורייס פטור:  ",
+            "התינוקות. אין מענין אותן ביום הכפורים. אבל מחנכין אותם לפני שנה. ולפני שנתים. בשביל שיהיו רגילין במצות:  ",
+            "עוברה שהריחה מאכילין אותה עד שתשיב נפשה. חולה מאכילין אותו על פי בקיאין. ואם אין שם בקיאין מאכילין אותו על פי עצמו. עד שיאמר די:  ",
+            "מי שאחזו בולמוס. מאכילין אותו אפילו דברים טמאים. עד שיאורו עיניו. מי שנשכו כלב שוטה. אין מאכילין אותו מחצר כבד שלו. ורבי מתיא בן חרש מתיר. ועוד אמר רבי מתיא בן חרש. החושש בגרונו. מטילין לו סם בתוך פיו בשבת. מפני שהוא ספק נפשות. וכל ספק נפשות דוחה את השבת:  ",
+            "מי שנפלה עליו מפולת. ספק הוא שם. ספק אינו שם. ספק חי. ספק מת. ספק עובד כוכבים. ספק ישראל. מפקחין עליו את הגל. מצאוהו חי מפקחין עליו. ואם מת יניחוהו:  ",
+            "חטאת ואשם ודאי מכפרין. מיתה ויום הכפורים מכפרין. עם התשובה. תשובה מכפרת. על עבירות קלות. על עשה. ועל לא תעשה. ועל החמורות. הוא תולה. עד שיבא יום הכפורים ויכפר:  ",
+            "האומר אחטא ואשוב. אחטא ואשוב. אין מספיקין בידו לעשות תשובה. אחטא ויום הכפורים מכפר. אין יום הכפורים מכפר. עבירות שבין אדם למקום. יום הכפורים מכפר. עבירות שבין אדם לחבירו. אין יום הכפורים מכפר. עד שירצה חברו. את זו דרש רבי אלעזר בן עזריה (ויקרא טז, ל) מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה' תטהרו. עבירות שבין אדם למקום יום הכפורים מכפר. עבירות שבין אדם לחברו. אין יום הכפורים מכפר. עד שירצה את חברו. אמר רבי עקיבא אשריכם ישראל לפני מי אתם מיטהרין. מי מטהר אתכם אביכם שבשמים. שנאמר (יחזקאל לו, כה) וזרקתי עליכם מים טהורים וטהרתם. ואומר (ירמיה יד, ח) מקוה ישראל. מה מקוה מטהר את הטמאים. אף הקדוש ברוך הוא מטהר את ישראל:   "
+        ]
+    ],
+    "sectionNames": [
+        "Chapter",
+        "Mishnah"
+    ]
+}