db92c6ec5bd15211c49b9b302a127a44cba97691d74d26c69234693036c8ed55

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

@@ -0,0 +1,251 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah",
+    "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 ראש השנה",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "There are two main topics covered in tractate Rosh Hashanah. The first is the sanctification of the new month and the new year.  By “sanctification” I refer to the court’s decision which day shall be the first of the new month or new year—this decision gives the day sanctity.  The second topic is the shofar and the liturgy on Rosh Hashanah.  ",
+            "Today the Jewish lunar calendar is set—the day on which each month will begin is predetermined as are the lengths of each month. In mishnaic times the length of each month was not set. Rather each month they would determine when the new month would begin based on the testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon.  If the witnesses came to testify on the thirtieth day of the previous month, then that day would become Rosh Hodesh (the first of the month) of the next month and it would turn out that the old month had only twenty-nine days. If witnesses did not come, or they came but their testimony was not accepted in time, then the previous month would have thirty days and the new month would begin on the thirty-first day.  Usually, the calendar would alternate between twenty-nine day months and thirty day months because a lunar month is about 29 ½ days long.  ",
+            "The sanctification of the new month was done by an authorized court and it was done with quite a bit of ceremonial flourish, as we shall see.  We will also see some hotly contested disputes within the chapter concerning accepting testimony to sanctify the month. We need to realize that in the Second Temple period the calendar was one of the most divisive issues between sects of Jews. Some Jews used a solar calendar (notably the Dead Sea sect), whereas the Pharisees and subsequently the rabbis used a lunar calendar. This meant that different sect’s holidays fell at different times and it meant that people would have disagreed when holiday sacrifices should be offered at the Temple. ",
+            "According to the Torah, Nisan, the month in which Pesah falls, is the first month of the year and not Tishrei, which is called by the Torah “the seventh month.”  The first day of the seventh month is referred to in Leviticus 23:23-25, “Speak to the children of Israel saying:  In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe complete rest, a sacred occasion commemorated with loud blasts.  You shall not work and you shall bring an offering by fire to the Lord.”  Numbers 29:1-6 further describes the day’s sacrifices, calling it “a day of blasts.”  In the Torah, this day is not called the first of the new year.",
+            "Only in rabbinic tradition is this day called “Rosh Hashanah”, although as we will see in the first mishnah, there are also other days that are considered the beginnings of a new year.  We should also note that the concept that Rosh Hashanah is “the Day of Judgment” appears first in rabbinic literature.  This theme was probably derived from the atonement aspect of Yom Kippur. If Yom Kippur is the “Day of Atonement” then there must be a judgment which needs to be avoided.  In the Bible itself, Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah are unconnected holidays. ",
+            "According to the Torah Rosh Hashanah is only one day.  However, because of the problem of not knowing ahead of time what day Rosh Hashanah falls on, in other words, not knowing whether the previous month (Elul) was twenty-nine days or thirty days, led to Rosh Hashanah always being observed for two days. This is also true for Rosh Hodesh when the previous month was a thirty day month—it too is observed for two days.  The difference is that Rosh Hashanah is observed on the first two days of Tishrei, whereas a two-day Rosh Hodesh is observed on the last day of the previous month and the first day of the new month.  This is at least partly because Elul now has only 29 days.  ",
+            "A major portion of the last two chapters is dedicated to the laws of the shofar and to the special prayers on Rosh Hashanah.  These are still the two aspects of Rosh Hashanah most prominent in our lives.  We shall discuss them in far greater depth when we learn those chapters. ",
+            "Good luck in learning Rosh Hashanah. It is an extremely interesting tractate—I’m sure you will enjoy it.     \n"
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis famous mishnah gives four new years and explains the halakhic significance of each of each of them.",
+                    "<b>There are four new years:<br>The first of Nisan is the new year for kings and for festivals.</b>  The order of the new years in this mishnah reflects the order of the months in the Torah.  In the Torah, Nisan, the month in which Pesah falls, is considered to be the first month of the year, so it is listed here first. The first of Nisan is new year for the kings, which means that we count the years in which a king has ruled from the first of Nisan.  The reason why this is important is that in those times they would date their documents by the years in which the king had ruled.  In order for a document to be valid, therefore, one needed to know if which year of the king’s rule this was.  “For festivals” means that Pesah is considered to be the first festival of the year.   The reason that this is important is that it impacts someone who makes a vow to bring something to the Temple. Rabbi Shimon holds that he has three festivals to bring the vow-offering, and that the count of those three festivals begins on Pesah. So if he makes a vow after Pesah, he doesn’t begin counting the three festival time-limit until the following Pesah.",
+                    "<b>The first of Elul is the new year for the tithe of beasts. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say:  the first of Tishri.</b>  The first of Elul is the Rosh Hashanah for tithing animals. When tithing animals, one groups them by year.  The first of Elul is the beginning of the next year, so any animals born on or after this date count toward the next year’s tithe and not towards those animals that need to be tithed from the previous year.  Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon disagree concerning tithes. They hold that just as tithes for vegetables are fixed on the first of Tishri (see below), so too are tithes for animals.",
+                    "<b>The first of Tishri is the new year for years, for shmitta and jubilee years, for planting and for [tithe of] vegetables.</b>  The first of Tishri, what we today call Rosh Hashanah, is the new year for “years.”  This means that when we count what year it is, we count from the first of Tishri.  This is how we still count the years today.  Many other commentators take this to mean that counts based on the rule of non-Jewish kings are based on Tishri being the start of the new year.  The shmitta (Sabbatical) and Jubilee years begin on the first of Tishri meaning from this date all of the prohibitions and regulations concerning the Sabbatical and Jubilee years begin to take effect.  This is also the new year for “planting” trees, meaning that we count the number of years a tree has grown starting on the first of Tishri. This is important in order to know when it stops being “orlah” fruit which is prohibited during the trees first three years. Finally, the first of Tishri is the Rosh Hashanah for the tithes of vegetables.  Vegetables that were picked before Tishri are not tithed with vegetables picked afterwards.",
+                    "<b>The first of Shevat is the new year for trees, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says:  on the fifteenth of that month.</b>  The two houses debate the date of the new year for trees: Bet Shammai holds that it is on the first of Shevat, and Bet Hillel holds that it is on the fifteenth (Tu B’shvat).  The importance of this new year is that fruit which has begun to sprout on the tree before this date is not tithed with fruit that spouts afterwards."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah lists four points of the year in which the world is judged as to the outcome of certain essential aspects of life.  As we shall see, three of them are connected to agricultural holidays and events, whereas the fourth, the judgment on Rosh Hashanah, is more of a moral/religious judgment.",
+                    "<b>At four set times the world is judged:<br>On Pesah in respect to the produce.</b>  In the land of Israel, the grain harvest begins around Pesah time. Indeed, this is why the Omer offering, which is brought from the first barley harvested, begins to be offered on the second day of Pesah.  The mishnah teaches that on Pesah the world is judged as to how successful the produce harvest will be.",
+                    "<b>On Shavuot in respect to the fruit of the tree.</b>  On Shavuot the harvest of the fruits of the tree begins.  Specifically, this seems to be when grapes begin to ripen. Hence, according to the rabbis this is when the world is judged as to the harvest of fruits which come from the tree.",
+                    "<b>On Rosh Hashanah all the people of the world pass before Him like a division of soldier [a numerus], as it says, “He who fashions the hearts of them all, who discerns all their doings” (Psalms 33:15).</b>  This is the central section in this mishnah, the reason why this mishnah is here in Rosh Hashanah. This is the source where we learn for the first time that on Rosh Hashanah the world is judged.  The image that the mishnah creates is that all the people of the world, perhaps even non-Jews, come in front of God one at a time and God inspects them.  He is like their general and they are his soldiers, standing at attention and being judged by Him.  The word “numerus” was interpreted by Saul Lieberman, the premier Talmudic scholar of the past century, as referring to an army division.  The version in the mishnah was understood by later talmudic scholars who did not know Greek, as “kivne meron”, understood to refer to the sheep on the Meron mountain.  This led to the well-known image of people passing in front of God like sheep passing in front of a shepherd.  The point of the prooftext is that God who is the creator of the human heart, also looks at what a person does and judges each one according to his deeds.",
+                    "<b>And on Sukkot they are judged in respect of rain.</b>  In the land of Israel, the rainy season begins on Sukkot.  Hence, on Sukkot the people of the world are judged as to how much rain will come. To this day, on Sukkot Jews begin to pray for rain and add into the Amidah an acknowledgement that God causes the wind to blow and the rain to come down.  Rain and prayers for rain is a topic to which we will return when we learn tracate Taanit."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>There are six months [at the beginning of which] messengers go out.<br>On Nisan because of Pesah;<br>On Av because of the fast.<br>On Elul because of Rosh Hashanah.<br>On Tishri because of the setting of the festivals.<br>On Kislev because of Hanukah.<br>And on Adar because of Purim.<br>When the Temple stood, they used also to go out to report Iyar because of Pesah Katan (Pesah.</b><br>In order to know what date holidays would fall on, people would need to know on what day the previous month had begun.  This would be simple for those living in and near Jerusalem because they could immediately find out whether the court had decreed the thirtieth day of the previous month to be Rosh Hodesh.  Our mishnah teaches that they used to send out messengers from Jerusalem so that people who lived further away could also find out when Rosh Hodesh had been decreed.  However, they did not send these messengers out every month of the year, only on months which contained holidays.<br>Most of this mishnah is self-explanatory. Note that messengers do not need to go out for Shavuot because once one knows when Pesah falls, the date of Shavuot is known automatically.<br>Section two:  “The fast” refers to Tisha B’av, the Ninth of Av.<br>Section three:  Messengers would go out on Elul so that people would be able to celebrate Rosh Hashanah on the thirtieth day of Elul, lest that day turns out to be the first of Tishri.  They would celebrate Rosh Hashanah on the next day as well, lest Elul has thirty days.<br>Section four: On Tishri the messengers would go out so that people would know when Yom Kippur and Sukkot fall.<br>Section seven:  Pesah Sheni was the second chance for people to offer the pesah sacrifice if they did not offer it the first time (see Numbers 9:10-11 and Mishnah Pesahim 9:1).  After the destruction of the Temple this holiday lost any practical relevance.  We should note that by noting that when the Temple stood messengers went out for Pesah Sheni the mishnah also teaches that for all of the rest of the holidays the messengers still go out.  After the destruction of the Temple only Pesah Sheni has lost its relevance."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAs we stated in the introduction, in mishnaic times they set the calendar each month based on the testimony of witnesses who would come to the central court and testified that they had seen the new moon.  Our mishnah teaches that on two months in order to testify that they had seen the new moon the witnesses may even profane Shabbat.  We shall explain what is special about these two months below.  What is critical is that the rabbis perceived it to be so critical that these witnesses come on time that they even allowed Shabbat to be profaned.  Shabbat might need to be profaned if, for instance, the witnesses had to travel beyond the Shabbat border limit (2000 cubits outside of the city) in order to get to Jerusalem to testify.",
+                    "<b>On account of two months they profane Shabbat: on account of Nissan and Tishri, for on those months messengers go forth to Syria and in them the dates of the festivals are fixed.</b>  There are two months on which witnesses may come to testify even if they need to profane Shabbat Nissan and Tishri.  This is because on those days the dates of the holidays, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Pesah and Shavuot were set. Once we know when the first day of Nissan is we know when Pesah is, and we know when Shavuot will be as well.  Similarly, once we know when the first of Tishri falls, we know when Yom Kippur and Sukkot fall.  The messengers would go forth to Syria, meaning to the Diaspora, and let them know when the festivals would fall.  Therefore, it was critical that they find out what day Rosh Hodesh was as soon as possible.",
+                    "<b>When the Temple stood they used to profane Shabbat for all the months, in order that the sacrifice might be offered on the right day.</b>  In the Temple there was a special sacrifice offered on Rosh Hodesh.  Hence, it was essential that the witnesses testify on time every month so that the sacrifice would be offered on the correct day.  Hence, they could profane Shabbat in order to get to Jerusalem to testify concerning any of the months. ."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah contains a qualification of yesterday’s mishnah, regarding when the witnesses may profane Shabbat in order to travel to Jerusalem to testifythat they had seen the new moon.",
+                    "<b>Whether [the new moon] was seen clearly or was not seen clearly, they profane Shabbat on account of it. Rabbi Yose says:  if it was been seen clearly they do not profane Shabbat on account of it.</b> According to the first opinion in the mishnah, witnesses can profane Shabbat in order to come to Jerusalem and testify regardless of whether the new moon was seen clearly or not.  Rabbi Yose holds that if the new moon was seen clearly in a place somewhat far away from Jerusalem, then it was probably seen clearly in Jerusalem as well.  In such a case witnesses would have seen it in Jerusalem and since they live close, they would not have to profane Shabbat in order to testify. Therefore those outside of Jerusalem should assume that those closer had testified and that they don’t need to come and profane Shabbat. The other sages disagree, reasoning that if you tell witnesses not to profane Shabbat when the new moon is seen clearly, they might end up not profaning Shabbat when the moon is not seen clearly, i.e. when they should profane Shabbat. Anything that might lead to witnesses not coming when their testimony is needed is discouraged."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah illustrates a concept which we mentioned at the end of yesterday’s mishnah-- anything that might lead to witnesses not coming when their testimony is needed is discouraged.",
+                    "<b>It happened that more than forty pairs of witnesses were on their way [to Jerusalem] and Rabbi Akiva detained them in Lod. Rabban Gamaliel sent to him saying: if you prevent the multitude [from coming to provide testimony] it will turn out that you cause them to stumble in the future.</b> The mishnah describes Rabbi Akiva in Lod holding back witnesses who were about to make their way to Jerusalem to testify that they had seen the new moon.  Rabbi Akiva detains the because he reasons that there is no need for so many witnesses to testify; after all, two would seem to be sufficient.  Commentators add that this transpired on Shabbat.  Rabbi Akiva did not think it was necessary for forty pairs of witnesses to profane Shabbat, when only two were needed, so he held the unneeded pairs back. Rabban Gamaliel rebuked Rabbi Akiva for his actions.  Witnesses who were told not to go to Jerusalem to testify would not go next time they see the new moon, and perhaps that time they would actually be needed.  This is what he means when he says, “cause them to stumble.”"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with a father and a son jointly testifying that they had seen the new moon.  In normal cases the testimony of relatives may not be joined in order to add up to the required two witnesses.  However, some sages, as we shall see below, hold that in the case of testifying regarding the new moon the joint testimony of relatives is acceptable.",
+                    "<b>If a father and a son have seen the new moon, they should both go [to Jerusalem], not that they can join together as witnesses but so that if one of them is disqualified the other may join with another witness.</b>  According to the first opinion in this mishnah, a father and son’s testimony is not joined together.  However, they should nevertheless travel together to Jerusalem, for should one of them be disqualified, the other one will be able to testify along with another person.  In tomorrow’s mishnah we will learn what might disqualify a person from testifying.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says that a father and son and all relatives are eligible to testify to the appearance of the new moon.</b>  Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that relatives may indeed testify that they saw the new moon.  According to Rabbi Shimon the testimony for the new moon works differently from testimony in other legal matters where relatives’ testimony is not joined together.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose said: it happened once that Tobias the doctor saw the new moon in Jerusalem along with his son and his freed slave. The priests accepted his evidence and that of his son and disqualified his slave. But when they appeared before the court they accepted his evidence and that of his slave and disqualified his son.</b>  Through the story in this section we learn that there was a debate between the priests and the “court” of sages concerning two issues regarding testimony as to the new moon: the ability of relatives to jointly testify and the ability of a freed slave.  The priests accepted the evidence of the relatives, probably because each of these people is himself fit to testify.  The sages, which the mishnah calls here “the court,” accepted that of the freed slave, because they generally hold that freed slaves were allowed to testify. There is some interesting history which we may glean from this mishnah.  First of all, the mishnah portrays two courts in Jerusalem, one that was made up of priests and one made up of others who evidently were not priests. The non-priest court is portrayed as being more authoritative.  Second, it is noteworthy that the priests reject that of the freed slave while the other court accepts it.  This may connect in general with the high value the priests placed on lineage."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is basically taken word for word from Sanhedrin 3:3.  It is brought here again because the previous mishnah mentioned the possibility that a person would be disqualified from testifying.",
+                    "<b>And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]: A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce, and slaves.</b>  There are five categories of people who are disqualified from acting as witnesses or judges:  1) The first is a dice player, in other words a gambler.  Such a person cannot testify since he is known to be a liar, especially with regards to monetary matters.  Another reason is that he doesn’t participate constructively in building society. 2)  A usurer.  He is also probably considered to not be trustworthy in monetary matters. 3)  A pigeon racer.  Racing pigeons was a form of gambling. 4)  Those who sell produce grown during the Seventh Year. According to Lev. 25:5-7 produce grown in the fields during the Seventh Year may be eaten by its owners, but it may not be sold.  One who therefore sells Seventh Year produce is engaging in forbidden business practices which according to our mishnah make him not trustworthy to testify or act as a judge. 5)  A slave referring to a slave who has not been freed.",
+                    "<b>This is the general rule:  any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they too are not qualified.</b>  The rules of acceptance of testimony from slaves are the same as those for a woman.  Any case where they did allow the testimony of a woman, such as testimony concerning the death of another woman’s husband (see Mishnah Yevamot 15:4), they also allowed the testimony of a slave"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah lists several different ways in which a person might come to profane Shabbat on his way to testify that he saw the new moon. The mishnah is adamant a person on his way to Jerusalem may profane the Shabbat in any way that he needs to in order to ensure that he makes it to Jerusalem in order to testify.",
+                    "<b>If one who has seen the new moon and is not able to walk [to Jerusalem] on foot, he may be brought on a donkey or even in a litter [on Shabbat].</b>  Here we learn that a person may transgress two prohibitions in order to make it to Jerusalem to testify:  he may ride on a donkey and others may carry him on a litter, which is a violation of carrying.",
+                    "<b>If they [the witnesses] are likely to be attacked, they may take sticks [to defend themselves].</b>  They may also carry sticks in order to defend themselves against bandits or highway robbers.",
+                    "<b>If the distance is great [to Jerusalem], they may take provisions with them, since for as much as a night and a day’s journey they were allowed to profane Shabbat and go out to testify concerning the new moon, as it says:  “These are the appointed times of the Lord … which you shall proclaim at their appointed time” (Leviticus 23:4).</b>  They can also carry food with them on their way to Jerusalem.  The witnesses were allowed to travel for up to an entire night and one day in order to get to Jerusalem, meaning if they saw the new moon in the evening when Shabbat began, and they were far enough away that they would have to walk the entire night and all day and then just get there when Shabbat was over, they were still allowed to go.  Of course, if they lived farther away than they couldn’t come because they wouldn’t make it in time anyway. The rabbis’ adamancy that one must go to Jerusalem to testify and that one can break Shabbat in order to do so is justified by a midrash.  The Torah says that the appointed times, the festivals, must be proclaimed at their appointed time.  This is understood by the rabbis to mean that it is essential that the court declare the new moon on time so that the festivals would fall at the correct time. If doing so requires one to profane Shabbat, so be it."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAs I have written on several occasions, the setting of the calendar was a point of great conflict between ancient Jewish sects, namely the Pharisees, Essenes, Sadducees and Dead Sea sect (which may overlap with the Essenes or Sadducees, or perhaps even both).  This mishnah alludes to this strife when it relates that the minim, a generic rabbinic term for sectarians, tried to disrupt the process by sending false witnesses. It sounds like they wanted to trick the Pharisees into declare the new month on the wrong date.  Even though the sectarians in this mishnah probably used a solar calendar, they still wanted to disrupt the Pharisaic/rabbinic calendar.  It’s as if they wanted to say even according to your own system, you’re celebrating on the wrong day.",
+                    "<b>If they don’t know him [the one who came to testify], they send another with him to testify concerning [his reliability].</b>  This section expresses the current halakhah (the halakhah that was valid at the time of the mishnah).  When someone was sent to testify concerning the new moon, if this person was not known to the central court that accepted the testimony, then they would send with him a person who was known to the court to vouch for the witness’s reliability. Basically, he would tell the court that the witness was a “kosher yid” and not a sectarian.",
+                    "<b>Originally testimony concerning the new moon was accepted from anyone. When the minim disrupted this, it was decreed that testimony should be received only from persons known [to the court].</b>  This explains the background to the need for a second person to testify as to the reliability of the witness.  Before the sectarians “ruined” it, everyone was trusted to testify. We should note that this mishnah is probably more “historiographical” than “historical.”  That is to say, the mishnah teaches us how to view history, more than it teaches us what actually happened. The mishnah presents a pre-minim history in which everyone could trust one another; it was a moment of unity between all Jews. The minim came and disrupted this unity and now we have to suspect one another.  Obviously a person hearing this mishnah will know how undesirable the minim really are."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAbove in 1:3 we learned that the court used to send messengers out to let the people in the Diaspora know that the new month had been decreed.  In our mishnah we learn that this custom was the result of another attempt by a non-Pharisaic/rabbinic group of Jews to disrupt the calendar.",
+                    "<b>Originally they used to light torches [to signal that the new month had been decreed]. When the Samaritans disrupted this, they decreed that messengers should go out.</b> In tomorrow’s mishnah we shall learn how they used to light torches, or beacons, in order to let everyone in the Diaspora know that a new month had been decreed.  Here we learn that they stopped doing this because the Samaritans disrupted the process by lighting torches on the night of the thirtieth even though the court had not decreed a new month.  Again we see that one of the sects attempts to have other Jews, Jews who follow a rabbinic calendar, celebrate their holidays on the wrong day."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>How did they light the torches? They used to bring long poles of cedar and reeds and olive wood and flax fluff and they tied them all together with a string. And someone used to go up to the top of a mountain and light them with fire and wave them back and forth and up and down until he saw the next one doing the same thing on the top of the second mountain; and so on the top of the third mountain.</b><br>This mishnah teaches how the torches were made and how the signals were passed from the top of one mountain to another.  The mishnah is simple to understand and so no commentary appears below."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>At what places did they light the torches? From the Mount of Olives [in Jerusalem] to Sartaba, and from Sartaba to Gripina, and from Gripina to Havran, and from Havran to Bet Biltin. From Bet Biltin they did not move, but rather waved [the torch] back and forth and up and down until he saw the whole of the diaspora before him lit up like one bonfire.</b><br>This mishnah continues to discuss the torches used to let the Jews in the Diaspora know that the new month had been declared in Jerusalem.  The mishnah traces a progression from the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem all the way to Babylonia. At Bet Biltin the chain of torches would end for there the one waving the torch in Bet Biltin would be able to see all of the Diaspora lighting their torches in response. The Talmud relates that “Diaspora” here refers to Babylonia.<br>Since the mishnah is self-explanatory, I will again refrain from commenting."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with the witnesses who have come to Jerusalem to testify that they saw the new moon.",
+                    "<b>There was a large courtyard in Jerusalem, and it was called Bet Yazek. There all the witnesses used to assemble and the court would examine them there. They would make large feasts for them there so that they would have an incentive to come.</b>  When the witnesses came to Jerusalem they were directed to a courtyard called Bet Yazek.  The court would examine them there, as we shall see in tomorrow’s mishnah.  Interestingly, they would make a big feast for them there in order to encourage people to come to testify.  We again see how important the testimony concerning the new moon was for the rabbis.",
+                    "<b>Originally they used not to leave the place the whole day, but Rabban Gamaliel decreed that they could go two thousand cubits from it in any direction. And these were not the only ones [who could go two thousand cubits in any direction], but also a midwife who has come to deliver a child, or one who comes to rescue from a fire or from bandits or from a river in flood or from a building that has fallen in   all these are like residents of the town, and may go two thousand cubits [on Shabbat] in any direction.</b>  This section deals with the laws of Shabbat border limits, a subject which we learned in greater depth in Eruvin (see especially 4:1-3, for laws which deal with the topic addressed here.)  A person is not allowed to go more than 2000 cubits outside of the city in which he began Shabbat.  If he does so, he is stuck in his place and can’t walk more than another four cubits.  In the case in our mishnah, witnesses came to Jerusalem to testify on Shabbat. This was permitted and indeed encouraged, as we saw in 1:4-5.  Our mishnah teaches that originally such a person could not leave the courtyard because a person who leaves his Shabbat border cannot move more than four cubits in any direction.  The courtyard which was enclosed was considered to be all within four cubits. However, this would discourage people from coming to Jerusalem to testify because they would know that they would be stuck there the whole day. In order to encourage people to come to testify, Rabban Gamaliel the elder, a sage who lived while the Temple still stood, decreed that they could move about like the rest of the people of the town.  This means that they could move around all of Jerusalem and even go outside of the city 2000 cubits in any direction. The mishnah goes on to say that the same ruling applies to anyone who left his Shabbat border for a permitted reason.  So a midwife who leaves her Shabbat border limit to go and deliver a child may now go all around the city she came into and may go 2000 cubits in all direction.  The same is true for anyone who leaves his Shabbat border limit in order to save property. Since we want to encourage people to do so, they are allowed this concession."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAs we mentioned in yesterday’s mishnah, once the witnesses arrived in Jerusalem they were brought to Bet Yazek where the court would examine them.  Our mishnah teaches how they were examined.",
+                    "<b>How do they test the witnesses?<br>The pair which arrives first, they test them first.</b>  The first pair to get there would be the first pair that would be examined first come, first serve.",
+                    "<b>They bring in the older of them and they say to him, “Tell us, how did you see the moon   in front of the sun or behind the sun?  To the north of it or to the south? How high was it, and in which direction was it inclined?  And how broad was it?” If he says [he saw it] in front of the sun, his evidence is rejected.</b>  As is usual in all court cases, they interrogate the witnesses one at a time.  The examination would consist of several questions which would ascertain that the witnesses had actually seen the new moon.  At the time of the new month (the molad, in Hebrew) the moon is found at sundown in the west near the sun.  From that time on it goes further east away from the sun, until at the fifteenth of the month it is in the east opposite the sun.  Right before the new moon it is west of the sun and it sets before the sun such that it looks as if it is “in front of the sun.”  After the new month (the molad) it sets after the sun and is further from the horizon and it looks as if it is “after the sun.”  Therefore, if he says that he saw it “in front of the sun,” he has not seen the new moon and his testimony is rejected. One who stands looking west at sunset, where he might see the new moon at the right time of the month has the north to his right and the south to his left.  Therefore, when they ask north and south, what they mean is was the moon to the right or left of the sun.",
+                    "<b>After that they would bring in the second and test him. If their accounts were the same, their evidence was accepted.</b>  If the witnesses said the same thing, then there testimony is accepted.",
+                    "<b>And the other pairs were only questioned briefly, not because they were required at all, but so that they should not go out disappointed, so that they would be regular in coming [to testify].</b>  Once two witnesses have testified, there is no need for more testimony from other witnesses.  Nevertheless, the court didn’t want to just turn the rest of the pairs of witnesses away because if they did so they might not come back in the future reasoning that there was no need for their testimony. Therefore, they asked the witnesses a few questions in order to make them feel that their long trip to Jerusalem had not been in vain."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah describes the ceremonial declaration made by the court when they sanctified the new month.  We should note that we have seen several occasions in which ritual was used by the rabbis in order to engage in polemics against a rival Jewish group such as the Sadducees.  For example the ritual of the water libation was emphasized, as was the ritual in which they harvested the new barley, the omer, on the day after the first day of Pesah. Our mishnah may also describe a ritual used for at least slightly polemical purposes.",
+                    "<b>The head of the court says, “Sanctified,” and all the people answer after him, “Sanctified, sanctified.”</b>  The ritual consists of the head of the court announcing that the new moon had been sanctified and the rest of the people responding, “Sanctified, sanctified.”",
+                    "<b>Whether the new moon is seen at its proper time or not at its proper time they sanctify it. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that if it is not seen as its proper time they do not sanctify it for heaven has already sanctified it.</b>  According to the first opinion, this ritual is performed whether or not the court sanctifies the new moon on the thirtieth day of the previous month (the proper time), turning the previous month into a twenty-nine day month, or whether the previous month lasted a full thirty days and the new moon was not declared until the thirty-first day (not its proper time). Remember, a month can have only 29 or 30 days. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that the ceremony was performed only if the month was sanctified at its proper time, meaning on the thirtieth day.  If the new moon was not seen on this day, then it is as if heaven had sanctified the month by allowing it to last the full thirty days. Since heaven sanctified it, the court does not perform the ritual declaration. We should note that beneath the surface of this mishnah we again can detect the conflict between the court determining the new month by making a ritual declaration and the calendar being set by the cycles of nature that is heaven sanctifying the new month.  As we have seen, this was a major debate among Second Temple Jews, and echoes of the debate seem to still be found in post-Temple rabbinic literature."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Rabban Gamaliel had diagrams of the moon on a tablet [hung] on the wall of his upper chamber, and he used to show them to the unlearned and say, “Did it look like this or this?”<br>It happened that two witnesses came and said, “We saw it in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.” Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said:  they are lying witnesses. When they came to Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel accepted them.<br>On another occasion two witnesses came and said, “We saw it at its proper time, but on the night which should have been the new moon it was not seen,” and Rabban Gamaliel accepted their evidence. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: they are lying witnesses. How can they testify that a woman has given birth when on the next day her belly is between her teeth (? Rabbi Joshua to him: I see your argument.</b><br>This mishnah and the next one contain one of the most famous stories in rabbinic literature.  In it Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua clash over accepting what seems to surely be false testimony as to the new moon.<br>Section one: This section sets up the character of Rabban Gamaliel, who will play the lead role in the story.  Rabban Gamaliel was the head of the court in Yavneh and he was the rabbi who would ultimately decide whether the witnesses’ testimony would be accepted and the new month sanctified.  In order to facilitate this, he would have pictures of the moon in its different phases hung up in his upper chamber, where he would interrogate them.<br>Section two:  The story now begins.  Two witnesses come in front of some rabbi (it’s not clear whom they come in front of) and tell him that they saw the new moon in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.  This is impossible and hence Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas calls them lying witnesses.  The witnesses proceed on to Yavneh and come in front of Rabban Gamaliel, who sanctifies the month based on their testimony.  We as readers of the mishnah are properly shocked wasn’t Rabban Gamaliel the very rabbi who was especially fervent in checking the witnesses?<br>The same thing seems to happen a second time.  Again witnesses offer impossible testimony, which Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas promptly rejects, this time using a graphic analogy.  In Hebrew there is a pun which is lost in translation. The word for pregnant and the word for a thirty day month are the same.<br>In the final line of the mishnah, a new character is added, Rabbi Joshua.  Rabbi Joshua agrees with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, setting the stage for his eventual clash with Rabban Gamaliel in tomorrow’s mishnah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is the continuation of yesterday’s story of Rabban Gamaliel, Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas and the sanctification of the new moon based on erroneous testimony.  At the end of yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Joshua agrees with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas that the witnesses’ testimony was false and therefore Rabban Gamaliel should not have accepted it.",
+                    "<b>Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim.</b>  The action begins with Rabban Gamaliel’s response to Rabbi Joshua. Rabban Gamaliel sends one of his messengers (henchmen) to him and demands that he come to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which he believes to be Yom Kippur, the day after Rabban Gamaliel would have celebrated Yom Kippur.  This is a harsh decree, one delivered by the politically potent Rabban Gamaliel, to the wise yet weak Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Joshua would be forced to desecrate the holiest day of the year by carrying his stick and money in the public domain and by going beyond the Shabbat border limit.  Indeed, if Rabbi Joshua believes that that day is Yom Kippur, he would have to ignore Rabban Gamaliel’s demands rather than transgress such a serious prohibition.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are [proclaimed] at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these.</b>  Rabbi Akiva hears about the goings on and comes to Rabbi Joshua to offer him advice.  His advice is based on a midrash. The verse seems to imply, at least according to its midrashic reading, that the holidays are holy whether or not the court decrees them to fall at their “proper” time or at the wrong time.  In other words, Yom Kippur is when the court determines it to be, and not when it really should fall according to some predetermined “heavenly” time.  If the court makes a mistake and sanctifies the new month of Tishri on the wrong day, then ten days later is still Yom Kippur.  Rabbi Akiva is basically telling Rabbi Joshua that even if Rabban Gamaliel is wrong with regard to the new month, the day upon which he declares Yom Kippur to fall is still Yom Kippur.",
+                    "<b>He [Rabbi Joshua] then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9).  Why were the names of the elders not mentioned?  To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses.</b>  Rabbi Joshua now goes to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, the same sage who said in yesterday’s mishnah that the witnesses were lying.  This is a fascinating move.  He is basically going to Rabbi Dosa and asking him, “What should I do?  I agreed with you, and see what a predicament it has gotten me into.”  Rabbi Dosa, like Rabbi Akiva, provides him with a midrash which supports him going to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which he thinks is Yom Kippur.  Rabbi Dosa’s midrash teaches that the court that stands at every generation is equal in authority to that of Moses and his court.  This is the ultimate statement of rabbinic authority.  One shouldn’t think that the current rabbinic courts are inherently of a lesser status. Although the sages that live today may not be as close to the source, God and the Torah, as was Moses, their authority is nevertheless not diminished.",
+                    "<b>He [Rabbi Joshua] took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student   my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision.</b>  Peace is finally made and rabbinic unity is restored.  Rabbi Joshua is either convinced by Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, or he realizes that he has no choice but to go to Rabban Gamaliel.  Rabban Gamaliel greets him with open arms, praising him for both his wisdom and importantly, also for his acceptance of his decree."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAlthough this is the first mishnah of a new chapter, it is really the last mishnah to deal with the sanctification of the new month.  It contains a few final rules governing how the court decides that the new month should be declared.",
+                    "<b>If the court and all of Israel saw it, if the witnesses were examined and there was no time left to say “Sanctified” before it grew dark, then the month is impregnated (it has thirty.</b>  In this case, it was abundantly clear that the new month had arrived, but the court was not able to convene and sanctify it before it grew dark and the thirtieth day of the previous month was over.  The mishnah rules that since the court did not have time to declare the new month sanctified, it is not sanctified and Rosh Hodesh will have to wait for the next day.  We should note that again we see here the ideology that the court, that is humans, are what create the reality of the new month, and not the astronomical phenomenon itself.",
+                    "<b>If the court alone saw it, two of them should stand up and testify before them, and then they can say, “Sanctified, sanctified.”</b>  If the members of the court themselves were the only ones who saw the new moon, then those who saw the new moon should testify in front of the others (at least three others) that the new moon had been sanctified, and then the court may declare, “Sanctified, sanctified.”",
+                    "<b>If three people saw it, and they [themselves] are the court, two [of them] should stand up and they should seat some of their colleagues with the one [remaining judge], and they [the two] should testify before them and they can then say, “Sanctified, sanctified.” For an individual is not trusted [to sanctify the new month] by himself.</b>  Here, only three people see the new moon, and they themselves are the court that is supposed to declare that it is sanctified. Since the same people that function as witnesses cannot function as judges, two of them must find two other people to take their place as judges and then they may testify that they saw the new moon.  The mishnah concludes by noting that one person cannot serve as the sole decision maker with regard to the declaration of the new month."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b> This mishnah opens the second half of tractate Rosh Hashanah, which deals mostly with the laws of the shofar and the shofar blasts, as well as the special mussaf prayers for Rosh Hashanah.  In this mishnah rabbis debate what animals’ horns may be used for the shofar",
+                    "<b>All shofars may be used except for that of a cow, because it is a keren.</b>  According to the first opinion, all shofars can be used on Rosh Hashanah expect for the horn of a cow, because the horn of a cow is not called a shofar but rather a keren, which is a Hebrew word for horn.  The reason that we require a horn called a shofar is that Leviticus 25:9 uses the word shofar in connection with Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year, and the rabbis say that this shofar is the paradigm for the shofar of Rosh Hashanah. The types of shofar that can be used are specifically that of a ram (an ayil in Hebrew), which is usually bent, and that of an ibex (a yael in Hebrew), which is straight.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose said: Are not all shofars called keren as it says, “When they make a long blast with the ram’s keren [horn]?” (Joshua 6:5).</b>  Rabbi Yose points out that the horn of a ram is also called a keren, as proven from the quote from Joshua.  And if a ram’s horn can be used even though it is called a keren, why can’t the horn of a cow be used? The other rabbis don’t respond to Rabbi Yose in the mishnah.  The Talmud, however does provide their reponse.  The rabbis respond to Rabbi Yose that all horns of animals are called both keren and shofar, whereas that of a cow is called only keren. This means that in order for a horn to be used it has to be called a shofar but not necessarily exclusively."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses the shofar used on Rosh Hashanah.",
+                    "<b>The shofar used on Rosh Hashanah was that of an ibex, straight, and its mouth was overlaid with gold.</b>  According to the mishnah, the shofar used on Rosh Hashanah should be from the horn of an ibex.  The Talmud explains that the straightness or simplicity of the shofar is symbolic of the straightness of a person’s prayers.  In the Talmud Rabbi Judah disagrees with this mishnah and says that one should use the bent horn of a ram, symbolic of how a person bends down in humility before God.  The Rambam points out that the horn of the ram also reminds us on Rosh Hashanah of the sacrifice of Isaac, when Isaac was eventually replaced by a ram. The mouthpiece of the shofar was overlaid with gold.  According to the Talmud, this relates to the shofar that was blown in the Temple.  Covering the mouthpiece of the shofar is no longer allowed.",
+                    "<b>There were two trumpets, one on each side of it. The shofar gave a long blast and the trumpets a short one, since the commandment of the day was with the shofar.</b>  The idea that there were trumpets accompanying the shofar is expressed also in Psalms 98:6, “With trumpets and the sound of a shofar you shall make blasts before God the King.”  Again, the Talmud relates that this was done only in the Talmud.  Priority was given to the sounds of the shofar over those made by the trumpets."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with the shofar and trumpet blasts that are sounded on public fast days.  These were fast days that were declared when Israel experienced distress, mostly the distress of not having enough rain.  Tractate Taanit, the next tractate which we shall learn, is dedicated to this subject.",
+                    "<b>On [public] fast days they used shofars of rams, curved, the mouths of which were covered with silver, and there were two trumpets in between them.</b>  The basic function of this mishnah is to distinguish the Rosh Hashanah ritual, described in yesterday’s mishnah, with the public fast day ritual described here.  This distinction was probably created and then emphasized in the Mishnah in order to preserve the integrity of both occasions.  On public fast days the shofar was made from a ram’s horn, which was curved and instead of its mouth being covered with gold, it was covered with silver.  On Rosh Hashanah the trumpets were on the outside, whereas on public fast days they were in between the shofars.",
+                    "<b>A short blast was made with the shofars and a long one with the trumpets, because the mitzvah of the day is with trumpets.</b>  This section again offers a distinction between the Rosh Hashanah practice and the public fast practice.  On Rosh Hashanah the mitzvah is with the shofar so its blasts are longer.  On the public fast day the mitzvah is with the trumpets, so their blasts are longer.  This is derived from Numbers 10:9 according to which the Israelites should blast trumpets when going out to war. From here the rabbis derive that in all cases of public distress, they should sound blasts with trumpets."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nLeviticus 25:8-16 deals with the Jubilee year, the fiftieth year after seven cycles of seven years.  Verse 9 states, “Then you shall sound the horn loud; in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month the Day of Atonement you shall have the horn sounded throughout your land.”  Our mishnah deals with the rituals of this day which begins the Jubilee year.",
+                    "<b>The Jubilee is the same as Rosh Hashanah when it comes to blowing [the shofar] and blessings.</b>  According to the first opinion, the laws of blowing the shofar and the recitation of blessings are the same for the Jubilee year as they are for Rosh Hashanah of every year.  The blessings referred to here are the special blessings recited as part of the Mussaf Amidah. We will learn more about these blessings in chapter four.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: on Rosh Hashanah they blow with [a shofar of] rams and on Jubilees with [a shofar] of ibex.</b>  Rabbi Judah says that different animals’ horns are used for the two shofars.  The one for Rosh Hashanah is that of a ram, whereas on the Jubilee they use the horn of an ibex. We should note that Rabbi Judah disagrees with the opinion in mishnah three above, according to which on Rosh Hashanah we use the horn of an ibex."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with the physical wholeness of the shofar.  It teaches what flaws in the shofar render it invalid.",
+                    "<b>A shofar which has split and then he stuck it together is not valid.</b>  According to the Talmud, this refers to a shofar which has split lengthwise.  One cannot use it by gluing it back together.  This is either because the shofar won’t sound good, or because air will inevitably escape not only from the end but from the sides as well.",
+                    "<b>If he stuck together fragments of shofars, it is not valid.</b>  In this case, someone tries to glue together pieces of a broken shofar to make one whole one. This doesn’t work for the same reasons it doesn’t work to glue together one shofar.",
+                    "<b>If there was a hole in a shofar and he closed it up, if it interferes with the blowing it is not valid, but if it does not it is valid.</b>  In this case the shofar was not cracked, as was the shofar in yesterday’s mishnah, but just had a hole in it.  If after he patches it up the shofar sounds okay, then it may be used.  If not, it may not be used.  Others explain that the words “if it interferes with the blowing” refer to before the hole is closed.  If the hole prevents the sound before it is patched up, he may not use the shofar even after it has been patched up."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches two halakhot:  1) one must hear the sound of the shofar and not an echo of the sound of the shofar; 2) when hearing the shofar one must have intention to hear it for the sake of the fulfillment of the commandment.  The mishnah illustrates cases where one may have heard a shofar blast and nevertheless not fulfilled his obligation",
+                    "<b>One who blows into a pit or a cistern or a jug, if he heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he hears the echo [also], he has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Here someone blows a shofar into an echo-producing chamber, such as a pit, a cistern or a jug. The mishnah rules that in order to fulfill his obligation he must be sure that he heard the sound of the shofar and not the echo of the sound of the shofar. There is a geonic commentary on this mishnah, according to which the mishnah refers to a time of persecution when the Romans outlawed the public observance of commandments. They hid their shofar blasts to avoid the authorities.",
+                    "<b>And also one who was passing behind a synagogue or if his house was next to the synagogue and he heard the sound of the shofar or of the megillah [being read], if he directed his heart (had, then he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. Even though this one heard and this one heard, this one directed his heart and this one did not.</b>  This section teaches that when hearing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, or Megillat Esther on Purim, one must have the intention of hearing them in order to fulfill the commandment.  A person might be walking behind a synagogue and hear them blow the shofar and then think to himself, “Great, I’ve just fulfilled my commandment” (and no need to go to shul today!). The mishnah rules that the act of hearing the shofar is not sufficient.  One must have the intention to hear in the fulfillment of a commandment.  The final section of the mishnah notes how strongly this commandment is connected to intention both the one who walked behind the synagogue and the one who actually went to the synagogue heard the same exact thing, yet one has fulfilled his obligation and one has not.   Tomorrow’s mishnah will contain the central rabbinic statement as to the role that intention plays in halakhah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned that for one to fulfill one’s obligation of hearing the shofar, one must have the proper intention.  The first section of today’s mishnah provides an essential statement with regard to ritual and intention.  While ritual plays an extremely important role in Judaism, it is nevertheless considered only an external sign of internal intention and conviction.  The Mishnah brings up several cases in the Torah where Moses seems to perform a magical ritual that aids Israel. The rabbis understand the magic to be a means to evoke intention and reflection upon God, and not to be a ritual that works regardless of the inner emotions and thoughts of the people of Israel.\nThe second section of the mishnah teaches that those who cannot legally have intention, meaning the law considers them unable to have such thoughts concerning the fulfillment of commandments, cannot aid others in fulfilling their obligation to hear the shofar.",
+                    "<b>“And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand Israel prevailed” etc. (Exodus 17:1.  Did the hands of Moses wage war or break [Israel’s ability] to wage war? Rather this teaches that as long as Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven they prevailed, and if not they fell.</b>  The stories and the lessons of this mishnah are taught quite straightforwardly. Moses’s raising of his hands does not itself cause Israel to conquer Amalek and when his lowering of his hands does not itself cause the Israelites to lose.  Their success and failure in war is a function of their belief in God and their subjecting themselves to God.  We might note that Moses’s hands are held up high, causing Israel to look up at them. This is intended to cause Israel to think about God, who dwells in Heaven.  It might be no accident that the rabbis choose this example and the next to illustrate their attitude towards ritual and intention.",
+                    "<b>Similarly, “Make for yourself a fiery serpent and mount it on a pole.  And if anyone who is bitten shall look at it, he shall live” (Numbers 21:8).  Did the serpent kill or did the serpent keep alive? Rather, when Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven, they were healed, and if not their [flesh] would melt away.</b>  The copper serpent (in Hebrew “seraph”, a word whose meaning is somewhat uncertain) is not a magical charm healing Israel from the wounds of the serpents sent by God to attack them as a punishment for their constant complaining.  Rather the serpent is symbolic again of God it causes Israel to look up and to direct their hearts to God.  Only by having the right intention can Israel be healed.",
+                    "<b>A deaf-mute, a lunatic and a minor cannot cause others to fulfill their religious obligation. This is the general principle: one who is not himself obligated in the matter cannot perform it on behalf of others.</b>  According to rabbinic law, deaf-mutes, lunatics and minors are not in full control of their mental faculties, and hence cannot have proper “intention.”  This causes them to be exempt from the performance of commandments that require intention, such as the hearing of the shofar.  Since they themselves are not obligated to blow the shofar, they cannot blow the shofar in order for others to hear and thereby fulfill their obligation. This is true in all cases a person who is not obligated to perform a commandment cannot himself perform that commandment on behalf of others.  One must be personally obligated in order to fulfill the more communal role of fulfilling a mitzvah for other people."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with blowing the shofar on Shabbat.  It is somewhat unclear why blowing the shofar on Shabbat should be prohibited at all.  After all, as we shall see, some places did blow the shofar on Shabbat. It seems to me that there may have been a desire among the sages to prevent the celebration of Rosh Hashanah from overshadowing that of Shabbat.  In the Talmud they provide a midrashic reason why one shouldn’t blow the shofar on Shabbat.",
+                    "<b>If Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbat, they would blow the shofar in the Temple but not in the country.</b>  There are two different explanations for “Temple” and “country.” Some commentators explain “Temple” to refer to all of Jerusalem and “country” to refer to anywhere outside of Jerusalem. According to this interpretation, they allowed the shofar to be blown in Jerusalem because there they would know whether the new moon had been sanctified.  In other words, they would know for certain whether it was Rosh Hashanah.  Outside of Jerusalem they couldn’t be sure, so they wouldn’t blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah.  Assumedly, at this period there were already two days of Rosh Hashanah so that they could blow the second day. The other explanation is that “Temple” refers to the Temple itself, and “country” refers to all places outside of the Temple. They allowed the shofar to be blown in the Temple because rabbinically prohibited activities are allowed on Shabbat in the Temple.  However, this interpretation does not fit particularly well with the mishnah which we shall learn tomorrow.",
+                    "<b>After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai decreed that it should be blown [on Shabbat] in every place where there was a court.</b>  This begins a series of decrees made by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leaders of the rabbis after the destruction of the Second Temple. The other decrees will appear in the following mishnayot. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the shofar should be blown on Shabbat in all places where a rabbinic court, according to some a Sanhedrin, sat.  This in essence bequeathed the authority of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem on all subsequent courts, no matter where they sat.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer said: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai decreed for Yavneh only. They said to him: both Yavneh and any place where there is a court.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the broad application of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s decree (takkanah) and limits it only to the court in Yavneh.  Rabbi Eliezer may be claiming that it is only Rabban Yohanan’s personal authority that allowed him to make such a decree.  Other courts, which will not be able to count Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai as one of them, will not have such authority. The other rabbis reject Rabbi Eliezer’s statement.  The decree bestowed authority on all subsequent courts and not just on the one in Yavneh. We might say that the authority is vested in the office and not in the individual rabbi, charismatic and learned as he may be."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>There was another way in which Jerusalem was greater than Yavneh, that in every city which could see [Jerusalem] and hear and was near and could get to Jerusalem, they used to blow [on Shabbat], whereas in Yavneh they used to blow in the court only.</b> In Yavneh they blew the shofar on Shabbat only in the place where the court sat.  However, in Jerusalem they would blow the shofar on Shabbat not only in Jerusalem but in all of the surrounding areas as well.  This distinction between Jerusalem and Yavneh may have been an attempt to preserve the uniqueness of the authority of Jerusalem and its court. While Yavneh may have received some of the authority of Jerusalem, it was still not as great. The beginning of the mishnah implies that there was another way in which Jerusalem was greater than Yavneh, besides that listed in the Mishnah.  The Talmud asks what this was, and answers that in Jerusalem they would blow the shofar on Shabbat both in front of the court and not in front of the court.  In Yavneh the shofar was blown on Shabbat only in front of the court.  This may be a way of saying that while the court in Yavneh was authoritative, the city did not have inherent sacredness, as did Jerusalem."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn the previous mishnah we learned of a decree that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai made after the destruction of the Temple.  The next two mishnayot contain other such decrees.\nIf this mishnah seems familiar it is because we just learned it in Sukkah 3:12.  The below commentary is the same as that found there.\nLeviticus 23:40 reads, “On the first day you shall take...and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.”  The beginning of the verse states “on the first day” and the end of the verse says, “seven days.”  From here the rabbis derived that the mitzvah of taking the lulav is for a different amount of time in different places. They read the second half of the verse as applying to the Temple, “before the Lord your God.”  Hence, the lulav was taken up for seven days in the Temple.  Outside of the Temple, or according to other commentaries, outside of Jerusalem, the lulav was taken for only one day.",
+                    "<b>In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only.</b>  When the Temple still stood the lulav was taken in the Temple (or in Jerusalem) for seven days and outside of the Temple for only one day, as explained in the introduction.",
+                    "<b>When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple,</b>  However, when the Temple was destroyed, there was a problem.  If people only observed the commandment for one day, they would soon forget that originally the commandment was observed for seven days, at least in some places.  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leading rabbinic figures after the destruction of the Temple, decreed therefore that the lulav should be taken up for seven days, in memory of the Temple.",
+                    "<b>[He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce].</b>  Having related one of the decrees that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai made after the destruction of the Temple, the mishnah now relates another, similar decree.  We need to note a little bit of background to understand this.  On the second day of Pesah, when the Temple still stood, the Omer offering of barley was harvested and brought to the Temple and waved by a priest.  After this day, it was permitted to eat from the new grain harvest (see Leviticus 23:9-14).  Since people outside of Jerusalem would not know precisely when the Omer had been offered, they would wait at least half of the day before they would eat from the new harvest.  When the Temple was destroyed and they could no longer offer the Omer, the rabbis derived from the Torah that the new produce could be eaten as soon as the second day of Pesah began.  In other words, without an Omer sacrifice the day itself allowed the new harvest.  Again, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai perceived a problem.  If people would eat from the new harvest immediately on the 16th of Nissan, when the Temple is rebuilt they would forget that they need to wait until the Omer is offered.  Therefore he decreed that the new produce could not be eaten for the entire day. It is interesting to note that the rabbis who lived close to the destruction of the Temple believed that it would speedily be rebuilt.  Just as they began working on the rebuilding of the First Temple only 70 years after its destruction, rabbis who lived in the first and early second century probably assumed that their Temple would also be rebuilt in a short time.  However, after the Bar Kokhba revolt was crushed, it probably began to dawn on many that the realistic chances of the Temple being speedily rebuilt were not good.  The hopes of course never died, but this type of legislative activity making decrees lest the Temple be rebuilt quickly, were more characteristic of the pre Bar Kokhba period."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThere are two more decrees mentioned in this mishnah, both which have to do with the testimony concerning the new month.",
+                    "<b>Originally they used to accept testimony with regard to the new moon during the whole day.</b>  Originally, it didn’t matter when during the day the witnesses came to testify that they had seen the new moon there testimony was always accepted.",
+                    "<b>On one occasion the witnesses were late in arriving, and the Levites went wrong in the daily hymn.</b>  The problem with accepting witnesses all day is that when witnesses successfully testify they turn the current day into Rosh Hodesh, or in the case of Tishri, Rosh Hashanah. If they come late in the day, it may be difficult to correctly observe the special Rosh Hodesh rituals because time is simply running.  The mishnah relates that this happened one time.  The witnesses came late in the day and the Levites in the Temple sang the wrong Psalm.  The Levites would sing a Psalm while the Tamid (Daily) sacrifice was being offered.  There was a different song depending on whether it was a regular day or whether it was Rosh Hodesh. In the morning they sang the regular Psalm for that day, and then because the witnesses hadn’t yet come they sang the same Psalm for the afternoon Tamid. When the witnesses came, it turned out that they never sang the correct Psalm.",
+                    "<b>They therefore decreed that testimony should be accepted only until the afternoon [sacrifice].</b>  They therefore decreed that the testimony of the witnesses would only be accepted until minhah time, which was the time when they would offer the tamid sacrifice (see Pesahim 5:1).",
+                    "<b>If witnesses came after the afternoon sacrifice that day should be kept as holy and also the next day.</b>  This section refers to Rosh Hashanah, which is not only Rosh Hodesh but also a sacred holiday.  On Rosh Hashanah they would observe the thirtieth day of the previous month as a holiday meaning they wouldn’t work.  If witnesses came before minhah, then that day would count as Rosh Hashanah, and the next day would not be Rosh Hashanah.  If they came later than minhah, then that day would not have counted as Rosh Hashanah (even though they already refrained from work) and the following day will be observed as Rosh Hashanah.  This is the origins of the custom to observe Rosh Hashanah for two days.",
+                    "<b>After the destruction of the temple Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that testimony with regard to the new moon should be received during the whole day.</b>  After the destruction of the Temple there was no more need to worry about the Levites singing the wrong song.  Therefore, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai restored the rule to its original state, and allowed the acceptance of testimony for the entire day.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Joshua ben Korha said: this further did Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decree, that not matter where the head of the court might be, the witnesses should have to go only to the place of the assembly.</b>  According to Rabbi Joshua ben Korcha there was yet another decree made by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai.  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that when the witnesses came to testify all they had to do was come to the place of assembly, which is where the court sat.  They did not have to chase after the head of the court if he was in another place.  This decree seems to be another way of saying that the authority of the court is determinative and not the individual authority of its leader."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe Amidah prayer said at Mussaf on Rosh Hashanah is the longest and most unique Amidah of the year.  It contains the three blessings which begin every Amidah “patriarchs”, which concludes ‘magen Avraham’; “powers”, which concludes ‘mehayeh hametim’; and “the sanctification of the day”, which concludes ‘hael hakadosh’, or ‘hamelekh hakadosh’ between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.\nThe Amidah ends with the same three prayers with which it always ends, “blessing of the Temple service (begins with R’tzeh) and “thanksgiving” (begins with modim) and the blessing of the priests (sim shalom it is called the blessing of the priests because it begins with the priestly blessing).\nThere are three middle blessings, but the rabbis in our mishnah disagree about what these are.  There are actually four topics which are mentioned in these three blessings. The first is the sanctification of the day, a blessing said on every festival. The other three are unique to Rosh Hashanah. They are “kingship (Malkhuyot)”, “Remembrance (Zikhronot)” and “Shofarot.”  Each of the sections contains the recitation of relevant biblical verses, along with a liturgical composition and a concluding blessing.\nIn our mishnah the rabbis argue about the composition of these three middle blessings.  We should emphasize that they agree concerning the content, and they agree that there are three and not four blessings. They also all agree that we blow the shofar three times during the Amidah.  They also agree that “kingship” is not a separate blessing.  In the points of agreement are far greater than the points of disagreement.  They disagree only concerning which blessing “kingship” is combined with, and when precisely we blow the shofar.\nYou might want to look at a Rosh Hashanah Mahzor while studying this mishnah.",
+                    "<b>The order of blessings [in the Musaf Amidah of Rosh Hashanah]:<br>He says “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verses with them and does not blow [the shofar]. The sanctification of the day and blows [the shofar], the remembrance-verses and blows [the shofar], and the shofar-verses and blows [the shofar].  Then he says the blessing of the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priests, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.</b>  According to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri the special kingship verses are combined with the “sanctification of the day” blessing but the shofar is not blown during this blessing.  He then recites the sanctification of the day blessing (kedushat hayom) and finally the other two special Rosh Hashanah blessings remembrance and shofarot.  He blows the shofar during all three of these blessings.  He then completes the Amidah in the normal fashion.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Akiva said to him: if he does not blow the shofar for the kingship-verses, why should he say them?</b>  The kingship-verses are one of the three sections of the Amidah that are unique to Rosh Hashanah.  According to Rabbi Akiva, it wouldn’t make sense to recite these verses without blowing the shofar.",
+                    "<b>Rather he says:  “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verse with the sanctification of the day and blows the shofar, then he says the remembrance-verses and blows, and the shofar-verses and blows. Then he says the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priest.</b>  Therefore, Rabbi Akiva suggests a different order.  First he should recite the normal three blessings which begin each Amidah, without any deviation. Then he includes “kingship” with the sanctification of the day blessing, and blows the shofar as well. Then he recites the other special Rosh Hashanah blessings remembrance and shofarot. He then completes the Amidah in the normal fashion. Our Rosh Hashanah Mussaf Amidah today follows that of Rabbi Akiva."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAs the core of the three special Mussaf Amidah blessings, “malkhuyot (kingships)”, “zikhronot (remembrances)” and “shofarot” we recite verses from the Torah that use the roots of these three verses.  Our mishnah contains several debates concerning the quantity and order of these verses.",
+                    "<b>They do not recite less than ten kingship [verses], ten remembrance [verses], and ten shofar [verses].</b>  According to the first opinion, each section must include ten verses.  This is the current practice.  We recite three verses from the Torah, three from the Prophets and three from the Writings and then we conclude with a final verse from the Torah.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: if he said three from each set he has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that as long as one has recited three verses, assumedly one from each of the three sections of the Tanakh, he has fulfilled his duty.",
+                    "<b>They do not mention kingship, remembrance and shofar verses of punishment.</b>  The words for “king”, “remember” and “shofar” sometimes appear in connection with punishment. These verses should not be used as part of the liturgy, for what seems like obvious reasons.",
+                    "<b>He begins with [verses] from the Torah and concludes with [verses] from the prophets.</b>  According to the first opinion, he begins by reciting verses from the Torah and ends with verses from the Prophets.  In between the two, he recites verses from the Writings.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: if he concludes with [a verse] from the Torah he has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Rabbi Yose seems to say that while he should conclude with a verse from the Prophets, as was stated in the previous opinion, nevertheless if he concludes with a verse from the Torah he has discharged his obligation. However, the Talmud understands Rabbi Yose as saying that it is actually preferable to end with a verse from the Torah. Due to this understanding of his words, the accepted halakhah is that we conclude with a verse from the Torah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOn days upon which Mussaf is recited (festivals and Rosh Hodesh) there are two people who function as the “shaliah tzibbur”, prayer leader the first does Shacharit and the second does Mussaf.  Our mishnah determines which of these people blows the shofar and which of them recites the Hallel.",
+                    "<b>The one who passes before the ark on the festival of Rosh Hashanah: the second one blows the shofar.</b>  On Rosh Hashanah, the shaliah tzibbur for Mussaf is the one who blows the shofar.  It is interesting that the mishnah needs to dictate this.  It seems that at some early point in the development of Jewish liturgy, the Shacharit Amidah for Rosh Hashanah also included liturgy in which it would have been appropriate to blow the shofar.  In our current liturgy, there is no place in the Shacharit Amidah to do so, and hence it is quite obvious that the shaliah tzibbur for Mussaf blows the shofar.",
+                    "<b>On days when Hallel is said, the first one recites the Hallel.</b>  On days on which Hallel is recited, the Shaliah Tzibbur for Shacharit is the one that recites the Hallel.  Today we practice this by having Hallel fall in between Shacharit and Mussaf."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah contains a few more rules concerning the shofar.",
+                    "<b>[For the sake of] the shofar of Rosh Hashanah one is not allowed to go past the [Shabbat] border, nor remove a pile of rocks, nor climb a tree, nor ride on an animal, nor swim on the water.</b>  In this section there is a list of activities that are rabbinically (derabanan) prohibited on Shabbat. That is to say, they are prohibitions that are less significant than those prohibited by the Torah.  Nevertheless, the mishnah states that one does not transgress these prohibitions in order to be able to blow the shofar.  For instance, if one needs to go past the Shabbat border limit (2000 cubits outside of the city) to get a shofar or to hear one blown, one should not do so.  If the shofar is under a pile of rocks, one may not clear them away in order to get to them.  One may not climb a tree if the shofar was in a tree (this is beginning to sound like a famous Dr. Seuss book I would not hear it under rocks, I would not hear it in a tree). Nor may one ride an animal or swim in water to get to the shofar.  The important issue here is the principle one does not transgress any commandments in order to hear the shofar.",
+                    "<b>One may not cut it, neither with an instrument forbidden because of shevut, nor with an instrument forbidden by a negative commandment.</b>  Should one need to cut the shofar in order to make it usable for blowing, one may not do so, neither with a type of knife prohibited derabanan on account of shevut (mandated resting) nor with a type of knife prohibited deoraita from the Torah.  A knife that is typically used to cut something like a shofar would be prohibited from the Torah, while one not typically used for such purposes would be prohibited derabanan, a lesser prohibition.",
+                    "<b>But if he wants to pour wine or water into it he may do so.</b>  One may pour wine or water into the shofar in order to improve its sound. This is not considered to be a violation of the Shabbat and Yom Tov prohibition of “making a vessel.”",
+                    "<b>They need not prevent children from blowing the shofar [on Rosh Hashanah]; on the contrary, they may help them until they learn how to blow.</b>  Children are not obligated to hear or blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah. Since they are not obligated, we might have thought that they should not blow the shofar at all because the shofar is a form of work on Rosh Hashanah. The mishnah dispels this notion and states that not only do we not stop children from blowing the shofar, but we encourage them to practice and we teach them until they know how to blow.  The Talmud adds that even on Shabbat we can help them practice.",
+                    "<b>One who is just practicing has not fulfilled his obligation, and the one hears [the blast made] by another when practicing has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Since the previous section discussed practicing, this mishnah concludes by teaching that practicing does not count as blowing the shofar in order to fulfill one’s obligation.  A person who on Rosh Hashanah blows the shofar as practice has not fulfilled his obligation because he did not have the proper intention.  Similarly, one who hears the shofar from a person practicing has not fulfilled his obligation, because one must hear the shofar being blown by someone who intends to fulfill his and others’ obligation."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of Rosh Hashanah deals with the order of the shofar blasts.  In the commentary on this mishnah I will note some of the ways in which the halakhah has developed over the centuries.",
+                    "<b>The order of the blasts:  three sets of three each.</b>  There are nine core blasts of the shofar during the Mussaf  Amidah three during each section, malkhuyot, zikhronot and shofarot.  Each set consists of one tekiah, one teruah, followed by another tekiah.  A set therefore consists of a teruah, preceded by and followed by a tekiah.",
+                    "<b>The length of a teki’ah is equal to three teru'ahs, and the length of a teru'ah is equal to three yevavot.</b>  A tekiah is a longer blast than a teruah and a teruah is a longer blast that a yevavah, which is a short staccato blast. In the Talmud there is a doubt about whether a teruah consists of a few medium length notes or a greater number of staccato notes.  Today we call the few medium length notes “shevarim” and we call the shorter notes “teruah.”  Since it is unclear which we should do, we do both (Jews love to compromise).  We also do one set that is “shevarim-teruah” because a teruah may include both the shevarim and the teruah.  This doubt concerning the doubt about how the blasts are to be done is the main way in which the original nine blasts have been expanded.  The service also includes sets of shofar blasts that are not done throughout Mussaf.",
+                    "<b>If one prolonged the first teki'ah so that it went directly into the second, it counts only as one.</b>  At the end of one set of blasts is a tekiah. There is also a tekiah at the beginning of another set. If the shofar blower starts a tekiah at the end of one set and continues to blow long enough that it could have counted for the tekiah at the beginning of the next set, then it only counts as one tekiah.  Each shofar blast must be integral and a doubly long blast counts only as one.",
+                    "<b>One who has blessed [recited the Amidah] and then a shofar is given to him, he sounds a teki'ah teru'ah teki'ah three times.</b>  As we stated above, the shofar blasts are integrated into the Amidah. However, the obligation to blow the shofar is independent of the obligation to recite the Mussaf prayer.  Therefore, if one does not have a shofar while reciting the Amidah, and then gets one later on, he should blow the shofar even though he has already recited the Amidah.",
+                    "<b>Just as the shaliah tzibbur is obligated, so every single individual is obligated. Rabban Gamaliel says:  the shaliah tzibbur (communal prayer causes the whole congregation to fulfill their obligation.</b>  The final section contains an extremely important debate concerning the function of the shaliach tzibbur, literally translated as “the agent of the community.”  According to the first opinion, every person is individually obligated to recite the entire Amidah.  The Talmud comments that according to this opinion, the function of the shaliach tzibbur is to fulfill the obligation for a person who doesn’t know how to recite the Amidah.  One who knows how to recite the Amidah cannot have his obligation fulfilled on his behalf by the shaliah tzibbur. According to Rabban Gamaliel the shaliach tzibbur’s recitation of the Amidah fulfills the obligation of the entire community. The question then must be asked why should the other members of the community even bother reciting the Amidah?  The answer given is that while the rest of the community recites the Amidah, the shaliah tzibbur has time to prepare to recite the Amidah. Congratulations!  We have finished Rosh Hashanah. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Mishnah Rosh Hashanah had two main sections, one about the sanctification of the new month, Rosh Hodesh, and the other about Rosh Hashanah itself.  The Jewish calendar and its connection to the moon should remain an important way in which we connect ourselves to the cycles of nature, to the waxing and the waning of the new moon.  In modern times, women have reclaimed Rosh Hodesh as a woman’s holiday.  I hope that learning this mishnah has aided in these celebrations and as a reminder to everyone that Rosh Hodesh is not just the recitation of Hallel but is a monthly renewal of our calendar. Rosh Hashanah remains one of the central holidays in the Jewish calendar.  I hope that by learning the Mishnah we can help return to the holidays roots which are a reminder of God’s kingship and God’s salvation. And again, as always, congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah.  We are getting close to having finished half of the Mishnah.  May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more! Tomorrow we begin Taanit."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ראש השנה",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

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

@@ -0,0 +1,248 @@
+{
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Rosh_Hashanah",
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "There are two main topics covered in tractate Rosh Hashanah. The first is the sanctification of the new month and the new year.  By “sanctification” I refer to the court’s decision which day shall be the first of the new month or new year—this decision gives the day sanctity.  The second topic is the shofar and the liturgy on Rosh Hashanah.  ",
+            "Today the Jewish lunar calendar is set—the day on which each month will begin is predetermined as are the lengths of each month. In mishnaic times the length of each month was not set. Rather each month they would determine when the new month would begin based on the testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon.  If the witnesses came to testify on the thirtieth day of the previous month, then that day would become Rosh Hodesh (the first of the month) of the next month and it would turn out that the old month had only twenty-nine days. If witnesses did not come, or they came but their testimony was not accepted in time, then the previous month would have thirty days and the new month would begin on the thirty-first day.  Usually, the calendar would alternate between twenty-nine day months and thirty day months because a lunar month is about 29 ½ days long.  ",
+            "The sanctification of the new month was done by an authorized court and it was done with quite a bit of ceremonial flourish, as we shall see.  We will also see some hotly contested disputes within the chapter concerning accepting testimony to sanctify the month. We need to realize that in the Second Temple period the calendar was one of the most divisive issues between sects of Jews. Some Jews used a solar calendar (notably the Dead Sea sect), whereas the Pharisees and subsequently the rabbis used a lunar calendar. This meant that different sect’s holidays fell at different times and it meant that people would have disagreed when holiday sacrifices should be offered at the Temple. ",
+            "According to the Torah, Nisan, the month in which Pesah falls, is the first month of the year and not Tishrei, which is called by the Torah “the seventh month.”  The first day of the seventh month is referred to in Leviticus 23:23-25, “Speak to the children of Israel saying:  In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe complete rest, a sacred occasion commemorated with loud blasts.  You shall not work and you shall bring an offering by fire to the Lord.”  Numbers 29:1-6 further describes the day’s sacrifices, calling it “a day of blasts.”  In the Torah, this day is not called the first of the new year.",
+            "Only in rabbinic tradition is this day called “Rosh Hashanah”, although as we will see in the first mishnah, there are also other days that are considered the beginnings of a new year.  We should also note that the concept that Rosh Hashanah is “the Day of Judgment” appears first in rabbinic literature.  This theme was probably derived from the atonement aspect of Yom Kippur. If Yom Kippur is the “Day of Atonement” then there must be a judgment which needs to be avoided.  In the Bible itself, Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah are unconnected holidays. ",
+            "According to the Torah Rosh Hashanah is only one day.  However, because of the problem of not knowing ahead of time what day Rosh Hashanah falls on, in other words, not knowing whether the previous month (Elul) was twenty-nine days or thirty days, led to Rosh Hashanah always being observed for two days. This is also true for Rosh Hodesh when the previous month was a thirty day month—it too is observed for two days.  The difference is that Rosh Hashanah is observed on the first two days of Tishrei, whereas a two-day Rosh Hodesh is observed on the last day of the previous month and the first day of the new month.  This is at least partly because Elul now has only 29 days.  ",
+            "A major portion of the last two chapters is dedicated to the laws of the shofar and to the special prayers on Rosh Hashanah.  These are still the two aspects of Rosh Hashanah most prominent in our lives.  We shall discuss them in far greater depth when we learn those chapters. ",
+            "Good luck in learning Rosh Hashanah. It is an extremely interesting tractate—I’m sure you will enjoy it.     \n"
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis famous mishnah gives four new years and explains the halakhic significance of each of each of them.",
+                    "<b>There are four new years:<br>The first of Nisan is the new year for kings and for festivals.</b>  The order of the new years in this mishnah reflects the order of the months in the Torah.  In the Torah, Nisan, the month in which Pesah falls, is considered to be the first month of the year, so it is listed here first. The first of Nisan is new year for the kings, which means that we count the years in which a king has ruled from the first of Nisan.  The reason why this is important is that in those times they would date their documents by the years in which the king had ruled.  In order for a document to be valid, therefore, one needed to know if which year of the king’s rule this was.  “For festivals” means that Pesah is considered to be the first festival of the year.   The reason that this is important is that it impacts someone who makes a vow to bring something to the Temple. Rabbi Shimon holds that he has three festivals to bring the vow-offering, and that the count of those three festivals begins on Pesah. So if he makes a vow after Pesah, he doesn’t begin counting the three festival time-limit until the following Pesah.",
+                    "<b>The first of Elul is the new year for the tithe of beasts. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say:  the first of Tishri.</b>  The first of Elul is the Rosh Hashanah for tithing animals. When tithing animals, one groups them by year.  The first of Elul is the beginning of the next year, so any animals born on or after this date count toward the next year’s tithe and not towards those animals that need to be tithed from the previous year.  Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon disagree concerning tithes. They hold that just as tithes for vegetables are fixed on the first of Tishri (see below), so too are tithes for animals.",
+                    "<b>The first of Tishri is the new year for years, for shmitta and jubilee years, for planting and for [tithe of] vegetables.</b>  The first of Tishri, what we today call Rosh Hashanah, is the new year for “years.”  This means that when we count what year it is, we count from the first of Tishri.  This is how we still count the years today.  Many other commentators take this to mean that counts based on the rule of non-Jewish kings are based on Tishri being the start of the new year.  The shmitta (Sabbatical) and Jubilee years begin on the first of Tishri meaning from this date all of the prohibitions and regulations concerning the Sabbatical and Jubilee years begin to take effect.  This is also the new year for “planting” trees, meaning that we count the number of years a tree has grown starting on the first of Tishri. This is important in order to know when it stops being “orlah” fruit which is prohibited during the trees first three years. Finally, the first of Tishri is the Rosh Hashanah for the tithes of vegetables.  Vegetables that were picked before Tishri are not tithed with vegetables picked afterwards.",
+                    "<b>The first of Shevat is the new year for trees, according to the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel says:  on the fifteenth of that month.</b>  The two houses debate the date of the new year for trees: Bet Shammai holds that it is on the first of Shevat, and Bet Hillel holds that it is on the fifteenth (Tu B’shvat).  The importance of this new year is that fruit which has begun to sprout on the tree before this date is not tithed with fruit that spouts afterwards."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah lists four points of the year in which the world is judged as to the outcome of certain essential aspects of life.  As we shall see, three of them are connected to agricultural holidays and events, whereas the fourth, the judgment on Rosh Hashanah, is more of a moral/religious judgment.",
+                    "<b>At four set times the world is judged:<br>On Pesah in respect to the produce.</b>  In the land of Israel, the grain harvest begins around Pesah time. Indeed, this is why the Omer offering, which is brought from the first barley harvested, begins to be offered on the second day of Pesah.  The mishnah teaches that on Pesah the world is judged as to how successful the produce harvest will be.",
+                    "<b>On Shavuot in respect to the fruit of the tree.</b>  On Shavuot the harvest of the fruits of the tree begins.  Specifically, this seems to be when grapes begin to ripen. Hence, according to the rabbis this is when the world is judged as to the harvest of fruits which come from the tree.",
+                    "<b>On Rosh Hashanah all the people of the world pass before Him like a division of soldier [a numerus], as it says, “He who fashions the hearts of them all, who discerns all their doings” (Psalms 33:15).</b>  This is the central section in this mishnah, the reason why this mishnah is here in Rosh Hashanah. This is the source where we learn for the first time that on Rosh Hashanah the world is judged.  The image that the mishnah creates is that all the people of the world, perhaps even non-Jews, come in front of God one at a time and God inspects them.  He is like their general and they are his soldiers, standing at attention and being judged by Him.  The word “numerus” was interpreted by Saul Lieberman, the premier Talmudic scholar of the past century, as referring to an army division.  The version in the mishnah was understood by later talmudic scholars who did not know Greek, as “kivne meron”, understood to refer to the sheep on the Meron mountain.  This led to the well-known image of people passing in front of God like sheep passing in front of a shepherd.  The point of the prooftext is that God who is the creator of the human heart, also looks at what a person does and judges each one according to his deeds.",
+                    "<b>And on Sukkot they are judged in respect of rain.</b>  In the land of Israel, the rainy season begins on Sukkot.  Hence, on Sukkot the people of the world are judged as to how much rain will come. To this day, on Sukkot Jews begin to pray for rain and add into the Amidah an acknowledgement that God causes the wind to blow and the rain to come down.  Rain and prayers for rain is a topic to which we will return when we learn tracate Taanit."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>There are six months [at the beginning of which] messengers go out.<br>On Nisan because of Pesah;<br>On Av because of the fast.<br>On Elul because of Rosh Hashanah.<br>On Tishri because of the setting of the festivals.<br>On Kislev because of Hanukah.<br>And on Adar because of Purim.<br>When the Temple stood, they used also to go out to report Iyar because of Pesah Katan (Pesah.</b><br>In order to know what date holidays would fall on, people would need to know on what day the previous month had begun.  This would be simple for those living in and near Jerusalem because they could immediately find out whether the court had decreed the thirtieth day of the previous month to be Rosh Hodesh.  Our mishnah teaches that they used to send out messengers from Jerusalem so that people who lived further away could also find out when Rosh Hodesh had been decreed.  However, they did not send these messengers out every month of the year, only on months which contained holidays.<br>Most of this mishnah is self-explanatory. Note that messengers do not need to go out for Shavuot because once one knows when Pesah falls, the date of Shavuot is known automatically.<br>Section two:  “The fast” refers to Tisha B’av, the Ninth of Av.<br>Section three:  Messengers would go out on Elul so that people would be able to celebrate Rosh Hashanah on the thirtieth day of Elul, lest that day turns out to be the first of Tishri.  They would celebrate Rosh Hashanah on the next day as well, lest Elul has thirty days.<br>Section four: On Tishri the messengers would go out so that people would know when Yom Kippur and Sukkot fall.<br>Section seven:  Pesah Sheni was the second chance for people to offer the pesah sacrifice if they did not offer it the first time (see Numbers 9:10-11 and Mishnah Pesahim 9:1).  After the destruction of the Temple this holiday lost any practical relevance.  We should note that by noting that when the Temple stood messengers went out for Pesah Sheni the mishnah also teaches that for all of the rest of the holidays the messengers still go out.  After the destruction of the Temple only Pesah Sheni has lost its relevance."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAs we stated in the introduction, in mishnaic times they set the calendar each month based on the testimony of witnesses who would come to the central court and testified that they had seen the new moon.  Our mishnah teaches that on two months in order to testify that they had seen the new moon the witnesses may even profane Shabbat.  We shall explain what is special about these two months below.  What is critical is that the rabbis perceived it to be so critical that these witnesses come on time that they even allowed Shabbat to be profaned.  Shabbat might need to be profaned if, for instance, the witnesses had to travel beyond the Shabbat border limit (2000 cubits outside of the city) in order to get to Jerusalem to testify.",
+                    "<b>On account of two months they profane Shabbat: on account of Nissan and Tishri, for on those months messengers go forth to Syria and in them the dates of the festivals are fixed.</b>  There are two months on which witnesses may come to testify even if they need to profane Shabbat Nissan and Tishri.  This is because on those days the dates of the holidays, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Pesah and Shavuot were set. Once we know when the first day of Nissan is we know when Pesah is, and we know when Shavuot will be as well.  Similarly, once we know when the first of Tishri falls, we know when Yom Kippur and Sukkot fall.  The messengers would go forth to Syria, meaning to the Diaspora, and let them know when the festivals would fall.  Therefore, it was critical that they find out what day Rosh Hodesh was as soon as possible.",
+                    "<b>When the Temple stood they used to profane Shabbat for all the months, in order that the sacrifice might be offered on the right day.</b>  In the Temple there was a special sacrifice offered on Rosh Hodesh.  Hence, it was essential that the witnesses testify on time every month so that the sacrifice would be offered on the correct day.  Hence, they could profane Shabbat in order to get to Jerusalem to testify concerning any of the months. ."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah contains a qualification of yesterday’s mishnah, regarding when the witnesses may profane Shabbat in order to travel to Jerusalem to testifythat they had seen the new moon.",
+                    "<b>Whether [the new moon] was seen clearly or was not seen clearly, they profane Shabbat on account of it. Rabbi Yose says:  if it was been seen clearly they do not profane Shabbat on account of it.</b> According to the first opinion in the mishnah, witnesses can profane Shabbat in order to come to Jerusalem and testify regardless of whether the new moon was seen clearly or not.  Rabbi Yose holds that if the new moon was seen clearly in a place somewhat far away from Jerusalem, then it was probably seen clearly in Jerusalem as well.  In such a case witnesses would have seen it in Jerusalem and since they live close, they would not have to profane Shabbat in order to testify. Therefore those outside of Jerusalem should assume that those closer had testified and that they don’t need to come and profane Shabbat. The other sages disagree, reasoning that if you tell witnesses not to profane Shabbat when the new moon is seen clearly, they might end up not profaning Shabbat when the moon is not seen clearly, i.e. when they should profane Shabbat. Anything that might lead to witnesses not coming when their testimony is needed is discouraged."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah illustrates a concept which we mentioned at the end of yesterday’s mishnah-- anything that might lead to witnesses not coming when their testimony is needed is discouraged.",
+                    "<b>It happened that more than forty pairs of witnesses were on their way [to Jerusalem] and Rabbi Akiva detained them in Lod. Rabban Gamaliel sent to him saying: if you prevent the multitude [from coming to provide testimony] it will turn out that you cause them to stumble in the future.</b> The mishnah describes Rabbi Akiva in Lod holding back witnesses who were about to make their way to Jerusalem to testify that they had seen the new moon.  Rabbi Akiva detains the because he reasons that there is no need for so many witnesses to testify; after all, two would seem to be sufficient.  Commentators add that this transpired on Shabbat.  Rabbi Akiva did not think it was necessary for forty pairs of witnesses to profane Shabbat, when only two were needed, so he held the unneeded pairs back. Rabban Gamaliel rebuked Rabbi Akiva for his actions.  Witnesses who were told not to go to Jerusalem to testify would not go next time they see the new moon, and perhaps that time they would actually be needed.  This is what he means when he says, “cause them to stumble.”"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with a father and a son jointly testifying that they had seen the new moon.  In normal cases the testimony of relatives may not be joined in order to add up to the required two witnesses.  However, some sages, as we shall see below, hold that in the case of testifying regarding the new moon the joint testimony of relatives is acceptable.",
+                    "<b>If a father and a son have seen the new moon, they should both go [to Jerusalem], not that they can join together as witnesses but so that if one of them is disqualified the other may join with another witness.</b>  According to the first opinion in this mishnah, a father and son’s testimony is not joined together.  However, they should nevertheless travel together to Jerusalem, for should one of them be disqualified, the other one will be able to testify along with another person.  In tomorrow’s mishnah we will learn what might disqualify a person from testifying.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says that a father and son and all relatives are eligible to testify to the appearance of the new moon.</b>  Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that relatives may indeed testify that they saw the new moon.  According to Rabbi Shimon the testimony for the new moon works differently from testimony in other legal matters where relatives’ testimony is not joined together.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose said: it happened once that Tobias the doctor saw the new moon in Jerusalem along with his son and his freed slave. The priests accepted his evidence and that of his son and disqualified his slave. But when they appeared before the court they accepted his evidence and that of his slave and disqualified his son.</b>  Through the story in this section we learn that there was a debate between the priests and the “court” of sages concerning two issues regarding testimony as to the new moon: the ability of relatives to jointly testify and the ability of a freed slave.  The priests accepted the evidence of the relatives, probably because each of these people is himself fit to testify.  The sages, which the mishnah calls here “the court,” accepted that of the freed slave, because they generally hold that freed slaves were allowed to testify. There is some interesting history which we may glean from this mishnah.  First of all, the mishnah portrays two courts in Jerusalem, one that was made up of priests and one made up of others who evidently were not priests. The non-priest court is portrayed as being more authoritative.  Second, it is noteworthy that the priests reject that of the freed slave while the other court accepts it.  This may connect in general with the high value the priests placed on lineage."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is basically taken word for word from Sanhedrin 3:3.  It is brought here again because the previous mishnah mentioned the possibility that a person would be disqualified from testifying.",
+                    "<b>And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]: A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce, and slaves.</b>  There are five categories of people who are disqualified from acting as witnesses or judges:  1) The first is a dice player, in other words a gambler.  Such a person cannot testify since he is known to be a liar, especially with regards to monetary matters.  Another reason is that he doesn’t participate constructively in building society. 2)  A usurer.  He is also probably considered to not be trustworthy in monetary matters. 3)  A pigeon racer.  Racing pigeons was a form of gambling. 4)  Those who sell produce grown during the Seventh Year. According to Lev. 25:5-7 produce grown in the fields during the Seventh Year may be eaten by its owners, but it may not be sold.  One who therefore sells Seventh Year produce is engaging in forbidden business practices which according to our mishnah make him not trustworthy to testify or act as a judge. 5)  A slave referring to a slave who has not been freed.",
+                    "<b>This is the general rule:  any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they too are not qualified.</b>  The rules of acceptance of testimony from slaves are the same as those for a woman.  Any case where they did allow the testimony of a woman, such as testimony concerning the death of another woman’s husband (see Mishnah Yevamot 15:4), they also allowed the testimony of a slave"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah lists several different ways in which a person might come to profane Shabbat on his way to testify that he saw the new moon. The mishnah is adamant a person on his way to Jerusalem may profane the Shabbat in any way that he needs to in order to ensure that he makes it to Jerusalem in order to testify.",
+                    "<b>If one who has seen the new moon and is not able to walk [to Jerusalem] on foot, he may be brought on a donkey or even in a litter [on Shabbat].</b>  Here we learn that a person may transgress two prohibitions in order to make it to Jerusalem to testify:  he may ride on a donkey and others may carry him on a litter, which is a violation of carrying.",
+                    "<b>If they [the witnesses] are likely to be attacked, they may take sticks [to defend themselves].</b>  They may also carry sticks in order to defend themselves against bandits or highway robbers.",
+                    "<b>If the distance is great [to Jerusalem], they may take provisions with them, since for as much as a night and a day’s journey they were allowed to profane Shabbat and go out to testify concerning the new moon, as it says:  “These are the appointed times of the Lord … which you shall proclaim at their appointed time” (Leviticus 23:4).</b>  They can also carry food with them on their way to Jerusalem.  The witnesses were allowed to travel for up to an entire night and one day in order to get to Jerusalem, meaning if they saw the new moon in the evening when Shabbat began, and they were far enough away that they would have to walk the entire night and all day and then just get there when Shabbat was over, they were still allowed to go.  Of course, if they lived farther away than they couldn’t come because they wouldn’t make it in time anyway. The rabbis’ adamancy that one must go to Jerusalem to testify and that one can break Shabbat in order to do so is justified by a midrash.  The Torah says that the appointed times, the festivals, must be proclaimed at their appointed time.  This is understood by the rabbis to mean that it is essential that the court declare the new moon on time so that the festivals would fall at the correct time. If doing so requires one to profane Shabbat, so be it."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAs I have written on several occasions, the setting of the calendar was a point of great conflict between ancient Jewish sects, namely the Pharisees, Essenes, Sadducees and Dead Sea sect (which may overlap with the Essenes or Sadducees, or perhaps even both).  This mishnah alludes to this strife when it relates that the minim, a generic rabbinic term for sectarians, tried to disrupt the process by sending false witnesses. It sounds like they wanted to trick the Pharisees into declare the new month on the wrong date.  Even though the sectarians in this mishnah probably used a solar calendar, they still wanted to disrupt the Pharisaic/rabbinic calendar.  It’s as if they wanted to say even according to your own system, you’re celebrating on the wrong day.",
+                    "<b>If they don’t know him [the one who came to testify], they send another with him to testify concerning [his reliability].</b>  This section expresses the current halakhah (the halakhah that was valid at the time of the mishnah).  When someone was sent to testify concerning the new moon, if this person was not known to the central court that accepted the testimony, then they would send with him a person who was known to the court to vouch for the witness’s reliability. Basically, he would tell the court that the witness was a “kosher yid” and not a sectarian.",
+                    "<b>Originally testimony concerning the new moon was accepted from anyone. When the minim disrupted this, it was decreed that testimony should be received only from persons known [to the court].</b>  This explains the background to the need for a second person to testify as to the reliability of the witness.  Before the sectarians “ruined” it, everyone was trusted to testify. We should note that this mishnah is probably more “historiographical” than “historical.”  That is to say, the mishnah teaches us how to view history, more than it teaches us what actually happened. The mishnah presents a pre-minim history in which everyone could trust one another; it was a moment of unity between all Jews. The minim came and disrupted this unity and now we have to suspect one another.  Obviously a person hearing this mishnah will know how undesirable the minim really are."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAbove in 1:3 we learned that the court used to send messengers out to let the people in the Diaspora know that the new month had been decreed.  In our mishnah we learn that this custom was the result of another attempt by a non-Pharisaic/rabbinic group of Jews to disrupt the calendar.",
+                    "<b>Originally they used to light torches [to signal that the new month had been decreed]. When the Samaritans disrupted this, they decreed that messengers should go out.</b> In tomorrow’s mishnah we shall learn how they used to light torches, or beacons, in order to let everyone in the Diaspora know that a new month had been decreed.  Here we learn that they stopped doing this because the Samaritans disrupted the process by lighting torches on the night of the thirtieth even though the court had not decreed a new month.  Again we see that one of the sects attempts to have other Jews, Jews who follow a rabbinic calendar, celebrate their holidays on the wrong day."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>How did they light the torches? They used to bring long poles of cedar and reeds and olive wood and flax fluff and they tied them all together with a string. And someone used to go up to the top of a mountain and light them with fire and wave them back and forth and up and down until he saw the next one doing the same thing on the top of the second mountain; and so on the top of the third mountain.</b><br>This mishnah teaches how the torches were made and how the signals were passed from the top of one mountain to another.  The mishnah is simple to understand and so no commentary appears below."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>At what places did they light the torches? From the Mount of Olives [in Jerusalem] to Sartaba, and from Sartaba to Gripina, and from Gripina to Havran, and from Havran to Bet Biltin. From Bet Biltin they did not move, but rather waved [the torch] back and forth and up and down until he saw the whole of the diaspora before him lit up like one bonfire.</b><br>This mishnah continues to discuss the torches used to let the Jews in the Diaspora know that the new month had been declared in Jerusalem.  The mishnah traces a progression from the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem all the way to Babylonia. At Bet Biltin the chain of torches would end for there the one waving the torch in Bet Biltin would be able to see all of the Diaspora lighting their torches in response. The Talmud relates that “Diaspora” here refers to Babylonia.<br>Since the mishnah is self-explanatory, I will again refrain from commenting."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with the witnesses who have come to Jerusalem to testify that they saw the new moon.",
+                    "<b>There was a large courtyard in Jerusalem, and it was called Bet Yazek. There all the witnesses used to assemble and the court would examine them there. They would make large feasts for them there so that they would have an incentive to come.</b>  When the witnesses came to Jerusalem they were directed to a courtyard called Bet Yazek.  The court would examine them there, as we shall see in tomorrow’s mishnah.  Interestingly, they would make a big feast for them there in order to encourage people to come to testify.  We again see how important the testimony concerning the new moon was for the rabbis.",
+                    "<b>Originally they used not to leave the place the whole day, but Rabban Gamaliel decreed that they could go two thousand cubits from it in any direction. And these were not the only ones [who could go two thousand cubits in any direction], but also a midwife who has come to deliver a child, or one who comes to rescue from a fire or from bandits or from a river in flood or from a building that has fallen in   all these are like residents of the town, and may go two thousand cubits [on Shabbat] in any direction.</b>  This section deals with the laws of Shabbat border limits, a subject which we learned in greater depth in Eruvin (see especially 4:1-3, for laws which deal with the topic addressed here.)  A person is not allowed to go more than 2000 cubits outside of the city in which he began Shabbat.  If he does so, he is stuck in his place and can’t walk more than another four cubits.  In the case in our mishnah, witnesses came to Jerusalem to testify on Shabbat. This was permitted and indeed encouraged, as we saw in 1:4-5.  Our mishnah teaches that originally such a person could not leave the courtyard because a person who leaves his Shabbat border cannot move more than four cubits in any direction.  The courtyard which was enclosed was considered to be all within four cubits. However, this would discourage people from coming to Jerusalem to testify because they would know that they would be stuck there the whole day. In order to encourage people to come to testify, Rabban Gamaliel the elder, a sage who lived while the Temple still stood, decreed that they could move about like the rest of the people of the town.  This means that they could move around all of Jerusalem and even go outside of the city 2000 cubits in any direction. The mishnah goes on to say that the same ruling applies to anyone who left his Shabbat border for a permitted reason.  So a midwife who leaves her Shabbat border limit to go and deliver a child may now go all around the city she came into and may go 2000 cubits in all direction.  The same is true for anyone who leaves his Shabbat border limit in order to save property. Since we want to encourage people to do so, they are allowed this concession."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAs we mentioned in yesterday’s mishnah, once the witnesses arrived in Jerusalem they were brought to Bet Yazek where the court would examine them.  Our mishnah teaches how they were examined.",
+                    "<b>How do they test the witnesses?<br>The pair which arrives first, they test them first.</b>  The first pair to get there would be the first pair that would be examined first come, first serve.",
+                    "<b>They bring in the older of them and they say to him, “Tell us, how did you see the moon   in front of the sun or behind the sun?  To the north of it or to the south? How high was it, and in which direction was it inclined?  And how broad was it?” If he says [he saw it] in front of the sun, his evidence is rejected.</b>  As is usual in all court cases, they interrogate the witnesses one at a time.  The examination would consist of several questions which would ascertain that the witnesses had actually seen the new moon.  At the time of the new month (the molad, in Hebrew) the moon is found at sundown in the west near the sun.  From that time on it goes further east away from the sun, until at the fifteenth of the month it is in the east opposite the sun.  Right before the new moon it is west of the sun and it sets before the sun such that it looks as if it is “in front of the sun.”  After the new month (the molad) it sets after the sun and is further from the horizon and it looks as if it is “after the sun.”  Therefore, if he says that he saw it “in front of the sun,” he has not seen the new moon and his testimony is rejected. One who stands looking west at sunset, where he might see the new moon at the right time of the month has the north to his right and the south to his left.  Therefore, when they ask north and south, what they mean is was the moon to the right or left of the sun.",
+                    "<b>After that they would bring in the second and test him. If their accounts were the same, their evidence was accepted.</b>  If the witnesses said the same thing, then there testimony is accepted.",
+                    "<b>And the other pairs were only questioned briefly, not because they were required at all, but so that they should not go out disappointed, so that they would be regular in coming [to testify].</b>  Once two witnesses have testified, there is no need for more testimony from other witnesses.  Nevertheless, the court didn’t want to just turn the rest of the pairs of witnesses away because if they did so they might not come back in the future reasoning that there was no need for their testimony. Therefore, they asked the witnesses a few questions in order to make them feel that their long trip to Jerusalem had not been in vain."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah describes the ceremonial declaration made by the court when they sanctified the new month.  We should note that we have seen several occasions in which ritual was used by the rabbis in order to engage in polemics against a rival Jewish group such as the Sadducees.  For example the ritual of the water libation was emphasized, as was the ritual in which they harvested the new barley, the omer, on the day after the first day of Pesah. Our mishnah may also describe a ritual used for at least slightly polemical purposes.",
+                    "<b>The head of the court says, “Sanctified,” and all the people answer after him, “Sanctified, sanctified.”</b>  The ritual consists of the head of the court announcing that the new moon had been sanctified and the rest of the people responding, “Sanctified, sanctified.”",
+                    "<b>Whether the new moon is seen at its proper time or not at its proper time they sanctify it. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that if it is not seen as its proper time they do not sanctify it for heaven has already sanctified it.</b>  According to the first opinion, this ritual is performed whether or not the court sanctifies the new moon on the thirtieth day of the previous month (the proper time), turning the previous month into a twenty-nine day month, or whether the previous month lasted a full thirty days and the new moon was not declared until the thirty-first day (not its proper time). Remember, a month can have only 29 or 30 days. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says that the ceremony was performed only if the month was sanctified at its proper time, meaning on the thirtieth day.  If the new moon was not seen on this day, then it is as if heaven had sanctified the month by allowing it to last the full thirty days. Since heaven sanctified it, the court does not perform the ritual declaration. We should note that beneath the surface of this mishnah we again can detect the conflict between the court determining the new month by making a ritual declaration and the calendar being set by the cycles of nature that is heaven sanctifying the new month.  As we have seen, this was a major debate among Second Temple Jews, and echoes of the debate seem to still be found in post-Temple rabbinic literature."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Rabban Gamaliel had diagrams of the moon on a tablet [hung] on the wall of his upper chamber, and he used to show them to the unlearned and say, “Did it look like this or this?”<br>It happened that two witnesses came and said, “We saw it in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.” Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said:  they are lying witnesses. When they came to Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel accepted them.<br>On another occasion two witnesses came and said, “We saw it at its proper time, but on the night which should have been the new moon it was not seen,” and Rabban Gamaliel accepted their evidence. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: they are lying witnesses. How can they testify that a woman has given birth when on the next day her belly is between her teeth (? Rabbi Joshua to him: I see your argument.</b><br>This mishnah and the next one contain one of the most famous stories in rabbinic literature.  In it Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua clash over accepting what seems to surely be false testimony as to the new moon.<br>Section one: This section sets up the character of Rabban Gamaliel, who will play the lead role in the story.  Rabban Gamaliel was the head of the court in Yavneh and he was the rabbi who would ultimately decide whether the witnesses’ testimony would be accepted and the new month sanctified.  In order to facilitate this, he would have pictures of the moon in its different phases hung up in his upper chamber, where he would interrogate them.<br>Section two:  The story now begins.  Two witnesses come in front of some rabbi (it’s not clear whom they come in front of) and tell him that they saw the new moon in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.  This is impossible and hence Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas calls them lying witnesses.  The witnesses proceed on to Yavneh and come in front of Rabban Gamaliel, who sanctifies the month based on their testimony.  We as readers of the mishnah are properly shocked wasn’t Rabban Gamaliel the very rabbi who was especially fervent in checking the witnesses?<br>The same thing seems to happen a second time.  Again witnesses offer impossible testimony, which Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas promptly rejects, this time using a graphic analogy.  In Hebrew there is a pun which is lost in translation. The word for pregnant and the word for a thirty day month are the same.<br>In the final line of the mishnah, a new character is added, Rabbi Joshua.  Rabbi Joshua agrees with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, setting the stage for his eventual clash with Rabban Gamaliel in tomorrow’s mishnah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is the continuation of yesterday’s story of Rabban Gamaliel, Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas and the sanctification of the new moon based on erroneous testimony.  At the end of yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Joshua agrees with Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas that the witnesses’ testimony was false and therefore Rabban Gamaliel should not have accepted it.",
+                    "<b>Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim.</b>  The action begins with Rabban Gamaliel’s response to Rabbi Joshua. Rabban Gamaliel sends one of his messengers (henchmen) to him and demands that he come to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which he believes to be Yom Kippur, the day after Rabban Gamaliel would have celebrated Yom Kippur.  This is a harsh decree, one delivered by the politically potent Rabban Gamaliel, to the wise yet weak Rabbi Joshua. Rabbi Joshua would be forced to desecrate the holiest day of the year by carrying his stick and money in the public domain and by going beyond the Shabbat border limit.  Indeed, if Rabbi Joshua believes that that day is Yom Kippur, he would have to ignore Rabban Gamaliel’s demands rather than transgress such a serious prohibition.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are [proclaimed] at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these.</b>  Rabbi Akiva hears about the goings on and comes to Rabbi Joshua to offer him advice.  His advice is based on a midrash. The verse seems to imply, at least according to its midrashic reading, that the holidays are holy whether or not the court decrees them to fall at their “proper” time or at the wrong time.  In other words, Yom Kippur is when the court determines it to be, and not when it really should fall according to some predetermined “heavenly” time.  If the court makes a mistake and sanctifies the new month of Tishri on the wrong day, then ten days later is still Yom Kippur.  Rabbi Akiva is basically telling Rabbi Joshua that even if Rabban Gamaliel is wrong with regard to the new month, the day upon which he declares Yom Kippur to fall is still Yom Kippur.",
+                    "<b>He [Rabbi Joshua] then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9).  Why were the names of the elders not mentioned?  To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses.</b>  Rabbi Joshua now goes to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, the same sage who said in yesterday’s mishnah that the witnesses were lying.  This is a fascinating move.  He is basically going to Rabbi Dosa and asking him, “What should I do?  I agreed with you, and see what a predicament it has gotten me into.”  Rabbi Dosa, like Rabbi Akiva, provides him with a midrash which supports him going to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which he thinks is Yom Kippur.  Rabbi Dosa’s midrash teaches that the court that stands at every generation is equal in authority to that of Moses and his court.  This is the ultimate statement of rabbinic authority.  One shouldn’t think that the current rabbinic courts are inherently of a lesser status. Although the sages that live today may not be as close to the source, God and the Torah, as was Moses, their authority is nevertheless not diminished.",
+                    "<b>He [Rabbi Joshua] took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student   my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision.</b>  Peace is finally made and rabbinic unity is restored.  Rabbi Joshua is either convinced by Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, or he realizes that he has no choice but to go to Rabban Gamaliel.  Rabban Gamaliel greets him with open arms, praising him for both his wisdom and importantly, also for his acceptance of his decree."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAlthough this is the first mishnah of a new chapter, it is really the last mishnah to deal with the sanctification of the new month.  It contains a few final rules governing how the court decides that the new month should be declared.",
+                    "<b>If the court and all of Israel saw it, if the witnesses were examined and there was no time left to say “Sanctified” before it grew dark, then the month is impregnated (it has thirty.</b>  In this case, it was abundantly clear that the new month had arrived, but the court was not able to convene and sanctify it before it grew dark and the thirtieth day of the previous month was over.  The mishnah rules that since the court did not have time to declare the new month sanctified, it is not sanctified and Rosh Hodesh will have to wait for the next day.  We should note that again we see here the ideology that the court, that is humans, are what create the reality of the new month, and not the astronomical phenomenon itself.",
+                    "<b>If the court alone saw it, two of them should stand up and testify before them, and then they can say, “Sanctified, sanctified.”</b>  If the members of the court themselves were the only ones who saw the new moon, then those who saw the new moon should testify in front of the others (at least three others) that the new moon had been sanctified, and then the court may declare, “Sanctified, sanctified.”",
+                    "<b>If three people saw it, and they [themselves] are the court, two [of them] should stand up and they should seat some of their colleagues with the one [remaining judge], and they [the two] should testify before them and they can then say, “Sanctified, sanctified.” For an individual is not trusted [to sanctify the new month] by himself.</b>  Here, only three people see the new moon, and they themselves are the court that is supposed to declare that it is sanctified. Since the same people that function as witnesses cannot function as judges, two of them must find two other people to take their place as judges and then they may testify that they saw the new moon.  The mishnah concludes by noting that one person cannot serve as the sole decision maker with regard to the declaration of the new month."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b> This mishnah opens the second half of tractate Rosh Hashanah, which deals mostly with the laws of the shofar and the shofar blasts, as well as the special mussaf prayers for Rosh Hashanah.  In this mishnah rabbis debate what animals’ horns may be used for the shofar",
+                    "<b>All shofars may be used except for that of a cow, because it is a keren.</b>  According to the first opinion, all shofars can be used on Rosh Hashanah expect for the horn of a cow, because the horn of a cow is not called a shofar but rather a keren, which is a Hebrew word for horn.  The reason that we require a horn called a shofar is that Leviticus 25:9 uses the word shofar in connection with Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year, and the rabbis say that this shofar is the paradigm for the shofar of Rosh Hashanah. The types of shofar that can be used are specifically that of a ram (an ayil in Hebrew), which is usually bent, and that of an ibex (a yael in Hebrew), which is straight.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose said: Are not all shofars called keren as it says, “When they make a long blast with the ram’s keren [horn]?” (Joshua 6:5).</b>  Rabbi Yose points out that the horn of a ram is also called a keren, as proven from the quote from Joshua.  And if a ram’s horn can be used even though it is called a keren, why can’t the horn of a cow be used? The other rabbis don’t respond to Rabbi Yose in the mishnah.  The Talmud, however does provide their reponse.  The rabbis respond to Rabbi Yose that all horns of animals are called both keren and shofar, whereas that of a cow is called only keren. This means that in order for a horn to be used it has to be called a shofar but not necessarily exclusively."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah discusses the shofar used on Rosh Hashanah.",
+                    "<b>The shofar used on Rosh Hashanah was that of an ibex, straight, and its mouth was overlaid with gold.</b>  According to the mishnah, the shofar used on Rosh Hashanah should be from the horn of an ibex.  The Talmud explains that the straightness or simplicity of the shofar is symbolic of the straightness of a person’s prayers.  In the Talmud Rabbi Judah disagrees with this mishnah and says that one should use the bent horn of a ram, symbolic of how a person bends down in humility before God.  The Rambam points out that the horn of the ram also reminds us on Rosh Hashanah of the sacrifice of Isaac, when Isaac was eventually replaced by a ram. The mouthpiece of the shofar was overlaid with gold.  According to the Talmud, this relates to the shofar that was blown in the Temple.  Covering the mouthpiece of the shofar is no longer allowed.",
+                    "<b>There were two trumpets, one on each side of it. The shofar gave a long blast and the trumpets a short one, since the commandment of the day was with the shofar.</b>  The idea that there were trumpets accompanying the shofar is expressed also in Psalms 98:6, “With trumpets and the sound of a shofar you shall make blasts before God the King.”  Again, the Talmud relates that this was done only in the Talmud.  Priority was given to the sounds of the shofar over those made by the trumpets."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with the shofar and trumpet blasts that are sounded on public fast days.  These were fast days that were declared when Israel experienced distress, mostly the distress of not having enough rain.  Tractate Taanit, the next tractate which we shall learn, is dedicated to this subject.",
+                    "<b>On [public] fast days they used shofars of rams, curved, the mouths of which were covered with silver, and there were two trumpets in between them.</b>  The basic function of this mishnah is to distinguish the Rosh Hashanah ritual, described in yesterday’s mishnah, with the public fast day ritual described here.  This distinction was probably created and then emphasized in the Mishnah in order to preserve the integrity of both occasions.  On public fast days the shofar was made from a ram’s horn, which was curved and instead of its mouth being covered with gold, it was covered with silver.  On Rosh Hashanah the trumpets were on the outside, whereas on public fast days they were in between the shofars.",
+                    "<b>A short blast was made with the shofars and a long one with the trumpets, because the mitzvah of the day is with trumpets.</b>  This section again offers a distinction between the Rosh Hashanah practice and the public fast practice.  On Rosh Hashanah the mitzvah is with the shofar so its blasts are longer.  On the public fast day the mitzvah is with the trumpets, so their blasts are longer.  This is derived from Numbers 10:9 according to which the Israelites should blast trumpets when going out to war. From here the rabbis derive that in all cases of public distress, they should sound blasts with trumpets."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nLeviticus 25:8-16 deals with the Jubilee year, the fiftieth year after seven cycles of seven years.  Verse 9 states, “Then you shall sound the horn loud; in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month the Day of Atonement you shall have the horn sounded throughout your land.”  Our mishnah deals with the rituals of this day which begins the Jubilee year.",
+                    "<b>The Jubilee is the same as Rosh Hashanah when it comes to blowing [the shofar] and blessings.</b>  According to the first opinion, the laws of blowing the shofar and the recitation of blessings are the same for the Jubilee year as they are for Rosh Hashanah of every year.  The blessings referred to here are the special blessings recited as part of the Mussaf Amidah. We will learn more about these blessings in chapter four.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: on Rosh Hashanah they blow with [a shofar of] rams and on Jubilees with [a shofar] of ibex.</b>  Rabbi Judah says that different animals’ horns are used for the two shofars.  The one for Rosh Hashanah is that of a ram, whereas on the Jubilee they use the horn of an ibex. We should note that Rabbi Judah disagrees with the opinion in mishnah three above, according to which on Rosh Hashanah we use the horn of an ibex."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with the physical wholeness of the shofar.  It teaches what flaws in the shofar render it invalid.",
+                    "<b>A shofar which has split and then he stuck it together is not valid.</b>  According to the Talmud, this refers to a shofar which has split lengthwise.  One cannot use it by gluing it back together.  This is either because the shofar won’t sound good, or because air will inevitably escape not only from the end but from the sides as well.",
+                    "<b>If he stuck together fragments of shofars, it is not valid.</b>  In this case, someone tries to glue together pieces of a broken shofar to make one whole one. This doesn’t work for the same reasons it doesn’t work to glue together one shofar.",
+                    "<b>If there was a hole in a shofar and he closed it up, if it interferes with the blowing it is not valid, but if it does not it is valid.</b>  In this case the shofar was not cracked, as was the shofar in yesterday’s mishnah, but just had a hole in it.  If after he patches it up the shofar sounds okay, then it may be used.  If not, it may not be used.  Others explain that the words “if it interferes with the blowing” refer to before the hole is closed.  If the hole prevents the sound before it is patched up, he may not use the shofar even after it has been patched up."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches two halakhot:  1) one must hear the sound of the shofar and not an echo of the sound of the shofar; 2) when hearing the shofar one must have intention to hear it for the sake of the fulfillment of the commandment.  The mishnah illustrates cases where one may have heard a shofar blast and nevertheless not fulfilled his obligation",
+                    "<b>One who blows into a pit or a cistern or a jug, if he heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he hears the echo [also], he has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Here someone blows a shofar into an echo-producing chamber, such as a pit, a cistern or a jug. The mishnah rules that in order to fulfill his obligation he must be sure that he heard the sound of the shofar and not the echo of the sound of the shofar. There is a geonic commentary on this mishnah, according to which the mishnah refers to a time of persecution when the Romans outlawed the public observance of commandments. They hid their shofar blasts to avoid the authorities.",
+                    "<b>And also one who was passing behind a synagogue or if his house was next to the synagogue and he heard the sound of the shofar or of the megillah [being read], if he directed his heart (had, then he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. Even though this one heard and this one heard, this one directed his heart and this one did not.</b>  This section teaches that when hearing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, or Megillat Esther on Purim, one must have the intention of hearing them in order to fulfill the commandment.  A person might be walking behind a synagogue and hear them blow the shofar and then think to himself, “Great, I’ve just fulfilled my commandment” (and no need to go to shul today!). The mishnah rules that the act of hearing the shofar is not sufficient.  One must have the intention to hear in the fulfillment of a commandment.  The final section of the mishnah notes how strongly this commandment is connected to intention both the one who walked behind the synagogue and the one who actually went to the synagogue heard the same exact thing, yet one has fulfilled his obligation and one has not.   Tomorrow’s mishnah will contain the central rabbinic statement as to the role that intention plays in halakhah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned that for one to fulfill one’s obligation of hearing the shofar, one must have the proper intention.  The first section of today’s mishnah provides an essential statement with regard to ritual and intention.  While ritual plays an extremely important role in Judaism, it is nevertheless considered only an external sign of internal intention and conviction.  The Mishnah brings up several cases in the Torah where Moses seems to perform a magical ritual that aids Israel. The rabbis understand the magic to be a means to evoke intention and reflection upon God, and not to be a ritual that works regardless of the inner emotions and thoughts of the people of Israel.\nThe second section of the mishnah teaches that those who cannot legally have intention, meaning the law considers them unable to have such thoughts concerning the fulfillment of commandments, cannot aid others in fulfilling their obligation to hear the shofar.",
+                    "<b>“And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand Israel prevailed” etc. (Exodus 17:1.  Did the hands of Moses wage war or break [Israel’s ability] to wage war? Rather this teaches that as long as Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven they prevailed, and if not they fell.</b>  The stories and the lessons of this mishnah are taught quite straightforwardly. Moses’s raising of his hands does not itself cause Israel to conquer Amalek and when his lowering of his hands does not itself cause the Israelites to lose.  Their success and failure in war is a function of their belief in God and their subjecting themselves to God.  We might note that Moses’s hands are held up high, causing Israel to look up at them. This is intended to cause Israel to think about God, who dwells in Heaven.  It might be no accident that the rabbis choose this example and the next to illustrate their attitude towards ritual and intention.",
+                    "<b>Similarly, “Make for yourself a fiery serpent and mount it on a pole.  And if anyone who is bitten shall look at it, he shall live” (Numbers 21:8).  Did the serpent kill or did the serpent keep alive? Rather, when Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven, they were healed, and if not their [flesh] would melt away.</b>  The copper serpent (in Hebrew “seraph”, a word whose meaning is somewhat uncertain) is not a magical charm healing Israel from the wounds of the serpents sent by God to attack them as a punishment for their constant complaining.  Rather the serpent is symbolic again of God it causes Israel to look up and to direct their hearts to God.  Only by having the right intention can Israel be healed.",
+                    "<b>A deaf-mute, a lunatic and a minor cannot cause others to fulfill their religious obligation. This is the general principle: one who is not himself obligated in the matter cannot perform it on behalf of others.</b>  According to rabbinic law, deaf-mutes, lunatics and minors are not in full control of their mental faculties, and hence cannot have proper “intention.”  This causes them to be exempt from the performance of commandments that require intention, such as the hearing of the shofar.  Since they themselves are not obligated to blow the shofar, they cannot blow the shofar in order for others to hear and thereby fulfill their obligation. This is true in all cases a person who is not obligated to perform a commandment cannot himself perform that commandment on behalf of others.  One must be personally obligated in order to fulfill the more communal role of fulfilling a mitzvah for other people."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with blowing the shofar on Shabbat.  It is somewhat unclear why blowing the shofar on Shabbat should be prohibited at all.  After all, as we shall see, some places did blow the shofar on Shabbat. It seems to me that there may have been a desire among the sages to prevent the celebration of Rosh Hashanah from overshadowing that of Shabbat.  In the Talmud they provide a midrashic reason why one shouldn’t blow the shofar on Shabbat.",
+                    "<b>If Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbat, they would blow the shofar in the Temple but not in the country.</b>  There are two different explanations for “Temple” and “country.” Some commentators explain “Temple” to refer to all of Jerusalem and “country” to refer to anywhere outside of Jerusalem. According to this interpretation, they allowed the shofar to be blown in Jerusalem because there they would know whether the new moon had been sanctified.  In other words, they would know for certain whether it was Rosh Hashanah.  Outside of Jerusalem they couldn’t be sure, so they wouldn’t blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah.  Assumedly, at this period there were already two days of Rosh Hashanah so that they could blow the second day. The other explanation is that “Temple” refers to the Temple itself, and “country” refers to all places outside of the Temple. They allowed the shofar to be blown in the Temple because rabbinically prohibited activities are allowed on Shabbat in the Temple.  However, this interpretation does not fit particularly well with the mishnah which we shall learn tomorrow.",
+                    "<b>After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai decreed that it should be blown [on Shabbat] in every place where there was a court.</b>  This begins a series of decrees made by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leaders of the rabbis after the destruction of the Second Temple. The other decrees will appear in the following mishnayot. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the shofar should be blown on Shabbat in all places where a rabbinic court, according to some a Sanhedrin, sat.  This in essence bequeathed the authority of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem on all subsequent courts, no matter where they sat.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer said: Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai decreed for Yavneh only. They said to him: both Yavneh and any place where there is a court.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the broad application of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s decree (takkanah) and limits it only to the court in Yavneh.  Rabbi Eliezer may be claiming that it is only Rabban Yohanan’s personal authority that allowed him to make such a decree.  Other courts, which will not be able to count Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai as one of them, will not have such authority. The other rabbis reject Rabbi Eliezer’s statement.  The decree bestowed authority on all subsequent courts and not just on the one in Yavneh. We might say that the authority is vested in the office and not in the individual rabbi, charismatic and learned as he may be."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.",
+                    "<b>There was another way in which Jerusalem was greater than Yavneh, that in every city which could see [Jerusalem] and hear and was near and could get to Jerusalem, they used to blow [on Shabbat], whereas in Yavneh they used to blow in the court only.</b> In Yavneh they blew the shofar on Shabbat only in the place where the court sat.  However, in Jerusalem they would blow the shofar on Shabbat not only in Jerusalem but in all of the surrounding areas as well.  This distinction between Jerusalem and Yavneh may have been an attempt to preserve the uniqueness of the authority of Jerusalem and its court. While Yavneh may have received some of the authority of Jerusalem, it was still not as great. The beginning of the mishnah implies that there was another way in which Jerusalem was greater than Yavneh, besides that listed in the Mishnah.  The Talmud asks what this was, and answers that in Jerusalem they would blow the shofar on Shabbat both in front of the court and not in front of the court.  In Yavneh the shofar was blown on Shabbat only in front of the court.  This may be a way of saying that while the court in Yavneh was authoritative, the city did not have inherent sacredness, as did Jerusalem."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn the previous mishnah we learned of a decree that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai made after the destruction of the Temple.  The next two mishnayot contain other such decrees.\nIf this mishnah seems familiar it is because we just learned it in Sukkah 3:12.  The below commentary is the same as that found there.\nLeviticus 23:40 reads, “On the first day you shall take...and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.”  The beginning of the verse states “on the first day” and the end of the verse says, “seven days.”  From here the rabbis derived that the mitzvah of taking the lulav is for a different amount of time in different places. They read the second half of the verse as applying to the Temple, “before the Lord your God.”  Hence, the lulav was taken up for seven days in the Temple.  Outside of the Temple, or according to other commentaries, outside of Jerusalem, the lulav was taken for only one day.",
+                    "<b>In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only.</b>  When the Temple still stood the lulav was taken in the Temple (or in Jerusalem) for seven days and outside of the Temple for only one day, as explained in the introduction.",
+                    "<b>When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple,</b>  However, when the Temple was destroyed, there was a problem.  If people only observed the commandment for one day, they would soon forget that originally the commandment was observed for seven days, at least in some places.  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leading rabbinic figures after the destruction of the Temple, decreed therefore that the lulav should be taken up for seven days, in memory of the Temple.",
+                    "<b>[He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce].</b>  Having related one of the decrees that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai made after the destruction of the Temple, the mishnah now relates another, similar decree.  We need to note a little bit of background to understand this.  On the second day of Pesah, when the Temple still stood, the Omer offering of barley was harvested and brought to the Temple and waved by a priest.  After this day, it was permitted to eat from the new grain harvest (see Leviticus 23:9-14).  Since people outside of Jerusalem would not know precisely when the Omer had been offered, they would wait at least half of the day before they would eat from the new harvest.  When the Temple was destroyed and they could no longer offer the Omer, the rabbis derived from the Torah that the new produce could be eaten as soon as the second day of Pesah began.  In other words, without an Omer sacrifice the day itself allowed the new harvest.  Again, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai perceived a problem.  If people would eat from the new harvest immediately on the 16th of Nissan, when the Temple is rebuilt they would forget that they need to wait until the Omer is offered.  Therefore he decreed that the new produce could not be eaten for the entire day. It is interesting to note that the rabbis who lived close to the destruction of the Temple believed that it would speedily be rebuilt.  Just as they began working on the rebuilding of the First Temple only 70 years after its destruction, rabbis who lived in the first and early second century probably assumed that their Temple would also be rebuilt in a short time.  However, after the Bar Kokhba revolt was crushed, it probably began to dawn on many that the realistic chances of the Temple being speedily rebuilt were not good.  The hopes of course never died, but this type of legislative activity making decrees lest the Temple be rebuilt quickly, were more characteristic of the pre Bar Kokhba period."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThere are two more decrees mentioned in this mishnah, both which have to do with the testimony concerning the new month.",
+                    "<b>Originally they used to accept testimony with regard to the new moon during the whole day.</b>  Originally, it didn’t matter when during the day the witnesses came to testify that they had seen the new moon there testimony was always accepted.",
+                    "<b>On one occasion the witnesses were late in arriving, and the Levites went wrong in the daily hymn.</b>  The problem with accepting witnesses all day is that when witnesses successfully testify they turn the current day into Rosh Hodesh, or in the case of Tishri, Rosh Hashanah. If they come late in the day, it may be difficult to correctly observe the special Rosh Hodesh rituals because time is simply running.  The mishnah relates that this happened one time.  The witnesses came late in the day and the Levites in the Temple sang the wrong Psalm.  The Levites would sing a Psalm while the Tamid (Daily) sacrifice was being offered.  There was a different song depending on whether it was a regular day or whether it was Rosh Hodesh. In the morning they sang the regular Psalm for that day, and then because the witnesses hadn’t yet come they sang the same Psalm for the afternoon Tamid. When the witnesses came, it turned out that they never sang the correct Psalm.",
+                    "<b>They therefore decreed that testimony should be accepted only until the afternoon [sacrifice].</b>  They therefore decreed that the testimony of the witnesses would only be accepted until minhah time, which was the time when they would offer the tamid sacrifice (see Pesahim 5:1).",
+                    "<b>If witnesses came after the afternoon sacrifice that day should be kept as holy and also the next day.</b>  This section refers to Rosh Hashanah, which is not only Rosh Hodesh but also a sacred holiday.  On Rosh Hashanah they would observe the thirtieth day of the previous month as a holiday meaning they wouldn’t work.  If witnesses came before minhah, then that day would count as Rosh Hashanah, and the next day would not be Rosh Hashanah.  If they came later than minhah, then that day would not have counted as Rosh Hashanah (even though they already refrained from work) and the following day will be observed as Rosh Hashanah.  This is the origins of the custom to observe Rosh Hashanah for two days.",
+                    "<b>After the destruction of the temple Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that testimony with regard to the new moon should be received during the whole day.</b>  After the destruction of the Temple there was no more need to worry about the Levites singing the wrong song.  Therefore, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai restored the rule to its original state, and allowed the acceptance of testimony for the entire day.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Joshua ben Korha said: this further did Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decree, that not matter where the head of the court might be, the witnesses should have to go only to the place of the assembly.</b>  According to Rabbi Joshua ben Korcha there was yet another decree made by Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai.  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that when the witnesses came to testify all they had to do was come to the place of assembly, which is where the court sat.  They did not have to chase after the head of the court if he was in another place.  This decree seems to be another way of saying that the authority of the court is determinative and not the individual authority of its leader."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe Amidah prayer said at Mussaf on Rosh Hashanah is the longest and most unique Amidah of the year.  It contains the three blessings which begin every Amidah “patriarchs”, which concludes ‘magen Avraham’; “powers”, which concludes ‘mehayeh hametim’; and “the sanctification of the day”, which concludes ‘hael hakadosh’, or ‘hamelekh hakadosh’ between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.\nThe Amidah ends with the same three prayers with which it always ends, “blessing of the Temple service (begins with R’tzeh) and “thanksgiving” (begins with modim) and the blessing of the priests (sim shalom it is called the blessing of the priests because it begins with the priestly blessing).\nThere are three middle blessings, but the rabbis in our mishnah disagree about what these are.  There are actually four topics which are mentioned in these three blessings. The first is the sanctification of the day, a blessing said on every festival. The other three are unique to Rosh Hashanah. They are “kingship (Malkhuyot)”, “Remembrance (Zikhronot)” and “Shofarot.”  Each of the sections contains the recitation of relevant biblical verses, along with a liturgical composition and a concluding blessing.\nIn our mishnah the rabbis argue about the composition of these three middle blessings.  We should emphasize that they agree concerning the content, and they agree that there are three and not four blessings. They also all agree that we blow the shofar three times during the Amidah.  They also agree that “kingship” is not a separate blessing.  In the points of agreement are far greater than the points of disagreement.  They disagree only concerning which blessing “kingship” is combined with, and when precisely we blow the shofar.\nYou might want to look at a Rosh Hashanah Mahzor while studying this mishnah.",
+                    "<b>The order of blessings [in the Musaf Amidah of Rosh Hashanah]:<br>He says “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verses with them and does not blow [the shofar]. The sanctification of the day and blows [the shofar], the remembrance-verses and blows [the shofar], and the shofar-verses and blows [the shofar].  Then he says the blessing of the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priests, the words of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri.</b>  According to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri the special kingship verses are combined with the “sanctification of the day” blessing but the shofar is not blown during this blessing.  He then recites the sanctification of the day blessing (kedushat hayom) and finally the other two special Rosh Hashanah blessings remembrance and shofarot.  He blows the shofar during all three of these blessings.  He then completes the Amidah in the normal fashion.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Akiva said to him: if he does not blow the shofar for the kingship-verses, why should he say them?</b>  The kingship-verses are one of the three sections of the Amidah that are unique to Rosh Hashanah.  According to Rabbi Akiva, it wouldn’t make sense to recite these verses without blowing the shofar.",
+                    "<b>Rather he says:  “patriarchs”, “powers” and the “sanctification of the name” and includes the kingship verse with the sanctification of the day and blows the shofar, then he says the remembrance-verses and blows, and the shofar-verses and blows. Then he says the Temple service and “thanksgiving” and the blessing of the priest.</b>  Therefore, Rabbi Akiva suggests a different order.  First he should recite the normal three blessings which begin each Amidah, without any deviation. Then he includes “kingship” with the sanctification of the day blessing, and blows the shofar as well. Then he recites the other special Rosh Hashanah blessings remembrance and shofarot. He then completes the Amidah in the normal fashion. Our Rosh Hashanah Mussaf Amidah today follows that of Rabbi Akiva."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nAs the core of the three special Mussaf Amidah blessings, “malkhuyot (kingships)”, “zikhronot (remembrances)” and “shofarot” we recite verses from the Torah that use the roots of these three verses.  Our mishnah contains several debates concerning the quantity and order of these verses.",
+                    "<b>They do not recite less than ten kingship [verses], ten remembrance [verses], and ten shofar [verses].</b>  According to the first opinion, each section must include ten verses.  This is the current practice.  We recite three verses from the Torah, three from the Prophets and three from the Writings and then we conclude with a final verse from the Torah.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: if he said three from each set he has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds that as long as one has recited three verses, assumedly one from each of the three sections of the Tanakh, he has fulfilled his duty.",
+                    "<b>They do not mention kingship, remembrance and shofar verses of punishment.</b>  The words for “king”, “remember” and “shofar” sometimes appear in connection with punishment. These verses should not be used as part of the liturgy, for what seems like obvious reasons.",
+                    "<b>He begins with [verses] from the Torah and concludes with [verses] from the prophets.</b>  According to the first opinion, he begins by reciting verses from the Torah and ends with verses from the Prophets.  In between the two, he recites verses from the Writings.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: if he concludes with [a verse] from the Torah he has fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Rabbi Yose seems to say that while he should conclude with a verse from the Prophets, as was stated in the previous opinion, nevertheless if he concludes with a verse from the Torah he has discharged his obligation. However, the Talmud understands Rabbi Yose as saying that it is actually preferable to end with a verse from the Torah. Due to this understanding of his words, the accepted halakhah is that we conclude with a verse from the Torah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOn days upon which Mussaf is recited (festivals and Rosh Hodesh) there are two people who function as the “shaliah tzibbur”, prayer leader the first does Shacharit and the second does Mussaf.  Our mishnah determines which of these people blows the shofar and which of them recites the Hallel.",
+                    "<b>The one who passes before the ark on the festival of Rosh Hashanah: the second one blows the shofar.</b>  On Rosh Hashanah, the shaliah tzibbur for Mussaf is the one who blows the shofar.  It is interesting that the mishnah needs to dictate this.  It seems that at some early point in the development of Jewish liturgy, the Shacharit Amidah for Rosh Hashanah also included liturgy in which it would have been appropriate to blow the shofar.  In our current liturgy, there is no place in the Shacharit Amidah to do so, and hence it is quite obvious that the shaliah tzibbur for Mussaf blows the shofar.",
+                    "<b>On days when Hallel is said, the first one recites the Hallel.</b>  On days on which Hallel is recited, the Shaliah Tzibbur for Shacharit is the one that recites the Hallel.  Today we practice this by having Hallel fall in between Shacharit and Mussaf."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah contains a few more rules concerning the shofar.",
+                    "<b>[For the sake of] the shofar of Rosh Hashanah one is not allowed to go past the [Shabbat] border, nor remove a pile of rocks, nor climb a tree, nor ride on an animal, nor swim on the water.</b>  In this section there is a list of activities that are rabbinically (derabanan) prohibited on Shabbat. That is to say, they are prohibitions that are less significant than those prohibited by the Torah.  Nevertheless, the mishnah states that one does not transgress these prohibitions in order to be able to blow the shofar.  For instance, if one needs to go past the Shabbat border limit (2000 cubits outside of the city) to get a shofar or to hear one blown, one should not do so.  If the shofar is under a pile of rocks, one may not clear them away in order to get to them.  One may not climb a tree if the shofar was in a tree (this is beginning to sound like a famous Dr. Seuss book I would not hear it under rocks, I would not hear it in a tree). Nor may one ride an animal or swim in water to get to the shofar.  The important issue here is the principle one does not transgress any commandments in order to hear the shofar.",
+                    "<b>One may not cut it, neither with an instrument forbidden because of shevut, nor with an instrument forbidden by a negative commandment.</b>  Should one need to cut the shofar in order to make it usable for blowing, one may not do so, neither with a type of knife prohibited derabanan on account of shevut (mandated resting) nor with a type of knife prohibited deoraita from the Torah.  A knife that is typically used to cut something like a shofar would be prohibited from the Torah, while one not typically used for such purposes would be prohibited derabanan, a lesser prohibition.",
+                    "<b>But if he wants to pour wine or water into it he may do so.</b>  One may pour wine or water into the shofar in order to improve its sound. This is not considered to be a violation of the Shabbat and Yom Tov prohibition of “making a vessel.”",
+                    "<b>They need not prevent children from blowing the shofar [on Rosh Hashanah]; on the contrary, they may help them until they learn how to blow.</b>  Children are not obligated to hear or blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah. Since they are not obligated, we might have thought that they should not blow the shofar at all because the shofar is a form of work on Rosh Hashanah. The mishnah dispels this notion and states that not only do we not stop children from blowing the shofar, but we encourage them to practice and we teach them until they know how to blow.  The Talmud adds that even on Shabbat we can help them practice.",
+                    "<b>One who is just practicing has not fulfilled his obligation, and the one hears [the blast made] by another when practicing has not fulfilled his obligation.</b>  Since the previous section discussed practicing, this mishnah concludes by teaching that practicing does not count as blowing the shofar in order to fulfill one’s obligation.  A person who on Rosh Hashanah blows the shofar as practice has not fulfilled his obligation because he did not have the proper intention.  Similarly, one who hears the shofar from a person practicing has not fulfilled his obligation, because one must hear the shofar being blown by someone who intends to fulfill his and others’ obligation."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of Rosh Hashanah deals with the order of the shofar blasts.  In the commentary on this mishnah I will note some of the ways in which the halakhah has developed over the centuries.",
+                    "<b>The order of the blasts:  three sets of three each.</b>  There are nine core blasts of the shofar during the Mussaf  Amidah three during each section, malkhuyot, zikhronot and shofarot.  Each set consists of one tekiah, one teruah, followed by another tekiah.  A set therefore consists of a teruah, preceded by and followed by a tekiah.",
+                    "<b>The length of a teki’ah is equal to three teru'ahs, and the length of a teru'ah is equal to three yevavot.</b>  A tekiah is a longer blast than a teruah and a teruah is a longer blast that a yevavah, which is a short staccato blast. In the Talmud there is a doubt about whether a teruah consists of a few medium length notes or a greater number of staccato notes.  Today we call the few medium length notes “shevarim” and we call the shorter notes “teruah.”  Since it is unclear which we should do, we do both (Jews love to compromise).  We also do one set that is “shevarim-teruah” because a teruah may include both the shevarim and the teruah.  This doubt concerning the doubt about how the blasts are to be done is the main way in which the original nine blasts have been expanded.  The service also includes sets of shofar blasts that are not done throughout Mussaf.",
+                    "<b>If one prolonged the first teki'ah so that it went directly into the second, it counts only as one.</b>  At the end of one set of blasts is a tekiah. There is also a tekiah at the beginning of another set. If the shofar blower starts a tekiah at the end of one set and continues to blow long enough that it could have counted for the tekiah at the beginning of the next set, then it only counts as one tekiah.  Each shofar blast must be integral and a doubly long blast counts only as one.",
+                    "<b>One who has blessed [recited the Amidah] and then a shofar is given to him, he sounds a teki'ah teru'ah teki'ah three times.</b>  As we stated above, the shofar blasts are integrated into the Amidah. However, the obligation to blow the shofar is independent of the obligation to recite the Mussaf prayer.  Therefore, if one does not have a shofar while reciting the Amidah, and then gets one later on, he should blow the shofar even though he has already recited the Amidah.",
+                    "<b>Just as the shaliah tzibbur is obligated, so every single individual is obligated. Rabban Gamaliel says:  the shaliah tzibbur (communal prayer causes the whole congregation to fulfill their obligation.</b>  The final section contains an extremely important debate concerning the function of the shaliach tzibbur, literally translated as “the agent of the community.”  According to the first opinion, every person is individually obligated to recite the entire Amidah.  The Talmud comments that according to this opinion, the function of the shaliach tzibbur is to fulfill the obligation for a person who doesn’t know how to recite the Amidah.  One who knows how to recite the Amidah cannot have his obligation fulfilled on his behalf by the shaliah tzibbur. According to Rabban Gamaliel the shaliach tzibbur’s recitation of the Amidah fulfills the obligation of the entire community. The question then must be asked why should the other members of the community even bother reciting the Amidah?  The answer given is that while the rest of the community recites the Amidah, the shaliah tzibbur has time to prepare to recite the Amidah. Congratulations!  We have finished Rosh Hashanah. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Mishnah Rosh Hashanah had two main sections, one about the sanctification of the new month, Rosh Hodesh, and the other about Rosh Hashanah itself.  The Jewish calendar and its connection to the moon should remain an important way in which we connect ourselves to the cycles of nature, to the waxing and the waning of the new moon.  In modern times, women have reclaimed Rosh Hodesh as a woman’s holiday.  I hope that learning this mishnah has aided in these celebrations and as a reminder to everyone that Rosh Hodesh is not just the recitation of Hallel but is a monthly renewal of our calendar. Rosh Hashanah remains one of the central holidays in the Jewish calendar.  I hope that by learning the Mishnah we can help return to the holidays roots which are a reminder of God’s kingship and God’s salvation. And again, as always, congratulations on learning another tractate of Mishnah.  We are getting close to having finished half of the Mishnah.  May you have the strength and time to keep on learning more! Tomorrow we begin Taanit."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+            "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ראש השנה",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Moed"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ראש השנה",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Rosh Hashanah",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

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

@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot",
+    "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 הוריות",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Nezikin"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "Leviticus 4 discusses sacrifices that must be brought as a result of unintentional sins.  Verses 1-12 discuss the unwitting sins of the high priest (the anointed priest) and verses 13-21 discuss the unwitting sins of the whole community of Israel.  According to the rabbinic interpretation of these passages, they refer to a case where either the high priest or the sanhedrin (a court) permitted a certain action, which when performed unwittingly by an individual causes him to be liable to bring a sin-offering.  In other words the court mistakenly permitted forbidden actions. Verses 1-12, according to the rabbis, refer to a case where the high priest himself performs the sin, and verses 13-21 refer to a case where the majority of the community performed the sin.  In both cases a sacrificial bull must be brought, either by the high priest or by the sanhedrin.  These bulls have different technical names which we will learn throughout the tractate.",
+            "The above is true with regard to all sins except accidental idol worship.  If a court ruled that an action was not idol worship and the majority of the community performed the action, and later it was found that the court ruled wrongly, the court must bring a bull and a goat.  This situation is referred to in Numbers 15:22-29.  If an individual accidentally worshipped idols, he only brings a goat as a sin-offering.  This situation is referred to in Numbers 15:27-29.  ",
+            "With regard to an individual accidentally worshipping idols, there is no distinction made between a high priest, a prince or an individual.  However, with regard to all other sins which are punishable (if done with intent) by kareth (extirpation) if a regular person performs them s/he brings a she-goat or a female ship, but the prince brings a he-goat.",
+            "Tractate Horayoth, which means “teachings” discusses various situations where a court has made a mistake, and in which of these situations the court must bring a bull to atone for its mistake but those who accidentally sinned are not liable to bring a sacrifice.  The tractate also talks about those cases in which the court is not liable but the actual sinners are liable for a sacrifice.  ",
+            "The reason that this tractate is part of Seder Nezikin is that it is directed to judges, the subject of tractate Sanhedrin and Makkot.  It is last in the order because it is the shortest of Nezikin’s tractates.  \n"
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>If the court ruled that one of the commandments mentioned in the Torah may be transgressed, and an individual proceeded and acted through error in accordance with their ruling, whether they acted and he acted with them or they acted and he acted after them or even if they did not act and he acted, he is exempt,  because he relied on the court.<br>If the court ruled [in error], and one of them knew that they had erred, or a disciple who was himself fit to rule on matters of law, and [one of these] proceeded and acted in accordance with their ruling, whether they acted and he acted with them or they acted and he acted after them or even if they did not act and he acted, he is liable, since he did not rely upon the court.<br>This is the general rule: he who is [in a position] to rely upon himself is liable, and he who relies upon the court is exempt.</b><br>Our mishnah discusses a person who follows a ruling that a court made in error, and thereby accidentally transgresses a commandment.<br>Section one:  If a person follows a court ruling that was made in error, and thereby transgresses a negative commandment which carries with it the liability to bring a sin-offering [when done unintentionally], he is not liable, since this was not his error but their error.  This rule is true whether he acted together with them, after them or even if he transgressed and the court itself did not even perform the transgression.  In other words, even if he relied on their words and not their concrete example, he is exempt.  This is not considered to be an unintentional sin that he has committed and therefore he need not bring a sin-offering.<br>Section two: However, if the person who committed the transgression was a member of the court who knew that his fellow judges were in error, or was a student who was fit to be a member of the court and he knew that the court was in error, he is liable if he acts according to the wrong ruling. Note that this person is still considered to be an unintentional sinner and not an intentional one.  His mistake was that he thought that he should listen to the court, even if he knew they were wrong.  Since he did not need to rely on the court, but was fit to rely on his own ruling, he is liable, at least as an unintentional sinner, for his own transgression.  He therefore needs to bring a sin-offering."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If a court ruled, and later discovered that they had erred and changed their decision, whether they brought their offering or whether they did not bring their offering, if an individual proceeded and acted in accordance with their [erroneous] decision, Rabbi Shimon exempts him and Rabb Elazar declares [his case] doubtful.<br>Which case may be regarded doubtful? If he was at home, he is liable. If he went abroad, he is exempt.<br>Rabbi Akiba said: I agree that a person in such a case is nearer to exemption than to culpability. Said Ben Azzai to him: how does such a person differ from one who remains at home? He who remains at home is in a position to ascertain the facts but the other was not in such a position.</b><br>This mishnah discusses a case where a court made a wrong decision and then reversed their decision, thereby correcting it.  The question asked is whether or not one who follows the wrong decision after it has been revoked is exempt from bringing a sin-offering for his accidental transgression.<br>Section one:  The offering referred to in this section will be discussed more fully below in mishnah five, specifically the question of who brings the sacrifice.<br>Rabbi Shimon exempts this person because he relied on the court.  As we learned above in mishnah one, a person who relies on the court is exempt from bringing an individual sin-offering.  Rabbi Elazar declares this case doubtful, for we do not know if he had already heard that the court had reversed its decision.<br>The mishnah now continues to discuss in which specific cases the matter is in doubt.  If the person was at home and could have known that the court reversed its decision, he is responsible for not having followed the new decision.  However, if he had gone abroad, he could not have known of the reversal, and he is therefore exempt.<br>Rabbi Akiva states that this person, who went abroad, is actually closer to being totally exempt, for it is very unlikely that he knew that the court reversed its decision.  As he explains to Ben Azzai, his colleague, the person sitting in his house could have heard, whereas the one who was abroad could not have."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If the court ruled that an entire principle has to be uprooted; if they said that [the law concerning the] menstruant is not found in the Torah or the [law concerning the] Sabbath is not found in the torah or [the law concerning] idolatry is not found in the torah, they are exempt.<br>If, however, they ruled that a part [of a commandment] was to be annulled and a part fulfilled, they are liable. How is this so?  If they said: [the law concerning the] menstruant occurs in the Torah but if a man has relations with a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day he is exempt, [or that the law concerning the] Sabbath occurs in the Torah but if a man carries anything from a private domain to a public domain he is exempt, [or that the law of] idolatry occurs in the Torah, but if a man only bows down to an idol he is exempt, they are liable, for it says, “And if some matter escapes [the notice of the congregation]” (Leviticus 4:13),  “some matter” but not the entire principle.</b><br>Our mishnah teaches that if the court rules that an entire commandment does not exist, they are not liable.  Whereas if they rule that one part of the commandment does not exist, they are liable.<br>This mishnah teaches an important principle for establishing when the court is liable to bring the special sin-offering for having made a wrongful ruling.  If the court were to state that the entirety of a well-known commandment does not exist, and people were to act upon the court’s ruling, the people who actually sin are liable and not the court.  Since these three things, the prohibition of sexual relations with a menstruant, the prohibition of Sabbath laws and the prohibition of idol worship are so clearly stated in the Torah, everyone should have known that the court erred when it ruled that these things don’t exist.  This is not even truly considered a ruling by the court, but merely an empty statement against the Torah.  While interpretation of the Torah is flexible, it does have its limits.<br>However, if the court rules that a certain act which is one part of a larger prohibition, is permitted, and people act upon the court’s ruling, the court is liable and not the people.  For instance, a woman who sees blood at a time when she is not supposed to be menstruating must wait one day for every day that she saw blood before she can resume sexual relations.  If the court ruled that one could have relations with such a woman, they are permitting an act which is against the Torah.  Similarly, if they permit a person to remove an object from one domain to another on Shabbat, they are permitting carrying, which is forbidden.  Finally, if they admit that idol worship is prohibited, but bowing down is not considered idol worship, they have made an errant ruling.  In all of these cases, since they admit that the commandment exists, but have made an error on a detail (these are all well-known and rather large details in rabbinic literature), they are liable if the people listen to their ruling.   People might not have known that such actions were prohibited, even though they knew that the general commandment exists.  Therefore, they are not liable for following the court’s ruling.<br>The mishnah ends with a midrash supporting this view.  One can understand the word davar to mean “part of the matter”; from here the rabbis learn that if the whole matter escapes the court, the court is not liable.<br>Questions<br>Why do you think the rabbis posited this exception to the general rule of the court’s culpability for errors?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah really contains two totally separate mishnayoth.  We will therefore explain each separately.",
+                    "This mishnah teaches three principles.  First of all, if even one judge on the court knew that the court had erred in its ruling and told the rest of the court so, and yet his advice was overrode, the court is not liable to bring an offering if people transgress by obeying their ruling.  For the special law of the erring court to be in effect, the entire court must err. If the mufla was absent when the errant decision was made, the court is not liable.  The mufla was evidently the person who sat on the court and had many, many halakhot memorized.  He was like a human archive who could recite orally from the tradition.  His absence would have impeded the court’s ability to make the correct decision, and therefore they are not liable. The third rule is that all of the members of the court must be “fit” to issue rulings.  Our mishnah lists several categories of people who are not fit for this type of court.  Converts, netinim (Temple slaves) and mamzerim (children born of illicit marriages) cannot act as judges in capital cases (see Sanhedrin 4:2).  The innovation of our mishnah is that an elder who does not have children can also not act as a judge.  This is because we are concerned that he will not have pity on others when it comes to adjudicating capital cases.  In other words having children makes a person more compassionate.  Personally, I can say that when my first child was born I began to look at other human beings differently; everybody is somebody’s child.  Having children can certainly increase a person’s sense of the suffering of others.  [I don’t mean to say that one who doesn’t have children is necessarily not sympathetic to others suffering.  When the mishnah sets qualities for judges it bases itself on the most likely norm and not on the range of possibilities for human characteristics]. This third rule is learned through a midrashic technique called a gezerah shavah, which is a linguistic comparison.  The word “congregation” (edah) is mentioned here in Lev 4 and in Num 35, which discusses capital cases brought before a court.  From those verses the rabbis learn that capital cases are tried before a court of 23 (see Sanhedrin 1:6).  Just as in capital cases, if there are not 23 qualified judges, the judgment is invalid, so too here, in order for the law that requires an offering for an unwitting errant ruling to be applicable, there must be only qualified judges.",
+                    "<b>If the court ruled and one of them knew that they had erred and said to the others, “You are making a mistake”, or if the mufla of the court was not there, or if one of them was a proselyte or a mamzer or a nathin or an elder who did not have children, they are exempt, for it says here (Lev 4:13) “congregation” and it says later on (Num 35:24) “congregation”;  just as the “congregation” further on must be fit to issue rulings, so too the “congregation” mentioned here must be fit to issue rulings<br>If the court issued a [wrong] decision unwittingly and all the people acted unwittingly, they bring a bull.</b>  This first section is the classic case in which the court must bring the bull as a sin-offering (mentioned in Lev 4:14).",
+                    "<b>[If the court ruled wrong] intentionally and [the people] acted unwillingly, they bring a lamb or a goat.</b>  In this case the court intentionally made the wrong ruling.  They therefore cannot bring the bull as a sin-offering because intentional sinners are not allowed to bring offerings to atone for their sins.  Sin-offerings are an opportunity for atonement, and not a punishment.  Only one who sinned accidentally is given this opportunity to atone through sacrifice.  [Intentional sinners can possibly achieve atonement in other ways].  Since the court cannot bring an offering, the people are considered as individual unwitting sinners, and they bring the typical sacrifice for a person in such a category:  a lamb or goat (Lev 4:28, 32).",
+                    "<b>[If the court ruled] unwittingly and [the people] acted willingly accordingly, they are exempt.</b>  If the court unwittingly ruled in error but the congregation knowingly sinned, the court does not bring the bull offering because the congregation did not act based on the court’s ruling.  The congregation knew that the act was wrong, even though the court said it was permitted.  Since they did not act upon the court’s ruling, the court is not held responsible for their transgressions.  The congregation cannot bring an offering since they transgressed intentionally.  As we learned in the previous section, intentional sinners cannot achieve atonement through sacrifice."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn the previous mishnah we learned that if the court issued an errant ruling and everyone acted erroneously in accord with that ruling they bring a bull, as it says in Leviticus 4:14, “The congregation shall offer a bull of the herd as a sin offering.”  Our mishnah discusses who the “congregation” is that brings the bull.\nThroughout this mishnah we will read that there is a distinction made between sins involving idol worship and all other sins.  In the introduction to the tractate I explained that the rabbis understood Leviticus 4 as referring to regular sins and Numbers 15:22-29 as referring to idol worship.  If the sin was idol worship, then the congregation brings a bull and a goat (Numbers 15:24).",
+                    "<b>If the court ruled [in error] and all the people or a majority of them acted accordingly they bring a bull. And in the case of idolatry they bring a bull and a goat; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: the twelve tribes bring twelve bulls;<br>And in the case of idolatry twelve bulls and twelve goats. R. Shimon says: thirteen bullocks;<br>And in the case of idolatry, thirteen bulls and thirteen goats: a bull and a goat for each tribe, and a bull and a goat for the court. If the court ruled [in error] and seven tribes or a majority of them acted accordingly, they bring a bull; And in the case of idolatry, they bring a bull and a goat; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah said: the seven tribes who sinned must bring seven bulls and the rest of the tribes who did not sin must bring bulls on their behalf because even those who did not sin must bring on behalf of the ones who sinned. Rabbi Shimon said: eight bulls;<br>And in the case of idolatry, eight bulls and eight goats, a bull and a goat for every tribe and a bull and a goat for the court. If the court of one of the tribes ruled [in error], and that tribe acted accordingly, that tribe is liable, but all the other tribes are exempt; these are the words of Rabbi Judah. But the Sages say: there is no liability except as a result of the rulings of the highest court; for it says, “And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err”,  but not the congregation of one particular tribe.</b>  In this section we read three opinions as to who the congregation is that brings sin-offerings if all or most of the nation sins according to the courts errant ruling.  According to Rabbi Meir in all sins except idol worship the court brings a bull and if the sin was idol worship they bring a bull and a goat.  Rabbi Meir understands that the court is the “congregation” referred to in the verse who brings the offering. Rabbi Judah understands “congregation” to refer to the people of Israel themselves, namely all twelve tribes.  Therefore each tribe brings its own bull or bull and goat. Rabbi Shimon agrees in essence with both Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir:  each tribe brings its own bull (or bull and goat) and the court brings one as well, bringing the total to thirteen.",
+                    "If only seven of the tribes sin according to the errant ruling, but these seven tribes do not add up to a majority of all of Israel, or a majority of each of the seven tribes sins, Rabbi Meir still holds that the court brings a bull or bull and goat.  Rabbi Judah also holds that all twelve tribes still bring a bull, even though only seven sinned.  Even the tribes that did not sin are responsible to ask for atonement for those that did sin.  Rabbi Shimon, however, holds that only the tribes that actually sinned bring the sacrifices, as well as the court.",
+                    "If the high court of one of the individual tribes ruled in error and that tribe acted according to its ruling, that tribe is held accountable and must bring a bull, according to Rabbi Judah.  Note that if the high court of the entire nation had ruled in error, but only one tribe had followed the ruling, these laws would not be in effect (the individuals who sinned would therefore be regarded as individual sinners and not treated as a collective). The Sages disagree.  According to them all of these laws only apply in the case of the high court of the nation.  The verse states that “the whole congregation of Israel” must sin, or at least a majority thereof.  Therefore, the ruling court must also be the court of all of the congregation of Israel."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nLeviticus 4:3 states, “If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt, so that blame falls upon the people, he shall offer for the sin of which he is guilty a bull of the herd without blemish as a sin offering to the Lord.”  According to the rabbis, this verse refers to a high priest who issues an errant ruling to himself.  If he acts according to his errant ruling then he is not treated as if he was an individual who would have to bring a regular goat sin offering.  Rather in his ruling he is considered parallel to the court and in his acting he is parallel to a community, much in the same way we learned above in mishnah 1:4.  Our mishnah, and the mishnayoth that follow it, takes some of the rules that apply when a court rules and the congregation sins in error, and applies them to the high priest.",
+                    "<b>An anointed priest who rendered a decision for himself in error and acted unwittingly accordingly, must bring a bull. If he rendered the decision in error but acted upon it willfully, or made it willfully but acted upon it unwittingly, he is exempt; for a decision a high priest made for himself is like a ruling issued by the court to the community.</b> If the high priest ruled that something was permitted, and in reality it was punishable by kareth (if done willfully) or the transgression causes one to be liable to bring a sin offering (if done unwittingly) and then he acted upon his ruling, without realizing that he is transgressing, he must bring a bull as a sin offering.  In other words, instead of being just an individual who unwittingly transgresses and therefore brings a goat as a sin offering, the high priest brings a bull. If, however, either the ruling was in error but the action was an intentional transgression, or vice versa, the ruling was intentionally wrong, but the action was unwitting, he is not liable to bring the bull.  As we learned at the end of mishnah four, both the ruling and the act must be done unwittingly for the court, or in this case the high priest to be liable to bring a bull."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah two continues to discuss the anointed high priest who issues an errant ruling.",
+                    "<b>An [anointed high priest] who rendered an errant decision alone and acted accordingly alone, he makes his atonement alone. If he rendered his ruling together with [the court of] the congregation and acted accordingly together with the congregation, he makes his atonement together with the congregation. For the court is not liable unless they ruled to annul part of a commandment and to retain a part of it; and so [it is with] the anointed [high] priest. Nor [are they liable] for idolatry unless they ruled to annul the law in part and to retain it in part.</b>  If the high priest issued an errant ruling on his own, in other words without the court having taken part in the decision making, and then he acted alone, he alone must bring a bull as a sin offering.  This is basically the same rule that we learned in the previous mishnah.  It is summarized here in order to offer a contrast with the following section.",
+                    "If the high priest ruled in error with the court of the congregation, the sanhedrin, and transgressed together with the rest of the congregation, then he need not bring a special bull on his own.  Rather he receives atonement through the same bull that the community brings.",
+                    "The language of this section makes it look as if it is a commentary on the previous section, but its content seems independent.  The section teaches that just as we learned above in chapter one, mishnah three, that a court is not liable to bring the bull sin-offering unless it ruled to annul part of a commandment but retain the rest, the same is true for the high priest.  If he rules, for example, that there is no such thing as Shabbat, he is not liable to bring a bull; but if he rules that a certain forbidden activity is actually permitted on Shabbat, he is liable.  These same rules apply with regard to both regular sins and to sins involving idolatry."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah three continues to teach laws of errant rulings in which the court is treated the same way that a high priest is treated. It also continues to equate errant rulings with regard to idolatry with errant rulings with regard to other sins.",
+                    "<b>The [court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] except where ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action. The court is not obligated unless they ruled concerning a prohibition the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless they ruled concerning a matter the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly.</b>  The court is not obligated to bring a sacrifice except in a case where they did not realize that they were issuing an errant ruling and those that acted did not realize that they were transgressing.  The same is true if the high priest issues an errant ruling. He must rule and act unwittingly for him to be able to bring a bull as a sin offering.  There is no difference in this rule between idolatry and all other commandments.",
+                    "The particular commandment with regard to which the court erred and the people transgressed unwittingly, must be one for which the punishment is kareth (heavenly excommunication) if done intentionally and a sin offering if done unwittingly.  Examples of such commandments are Shabbat, many incest prohibitions, the eating of certain prohibited foods, work on Yom Kippur, and cursing God.  These are all listed in tractate Karetoth 1:1-2. Idol worship is a sin for which one is potentially liable for kareth or a sin offering (if done unwittingly).  However, not all forms of idol worship are punishable by kareth or a sin offering.  If one worships an idol in an unusual manner, a type of worship that is not considered normal for that idol or any other idol, than he is not liable for kareth or a sin offering.  If the court were to issue an errant ruling with regard to one of these types of worship, the court would not be liable to bring a bull as a sin offering."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah four discusses errant rulings with regard to Temple-related laws and compares them with errant rulings made in connection to a menstruating woman (a menstruant).\nThe mishnah also discusses a sacrifice known as the “asham talui” or the “hanging guilt offering”.  The “asham talui” is brought by a person who may or may not have accidentally transgressed a prohibition, the punishment for which is kareth, if transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly.  For instance if a person has two pieces of animal fat in front of him, one is permitted fat and the other is forbidden fat (helev) and he eats one but he doesn’t know which he ate, he brings an asham talui.",
+                    "<b>[The court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple; Nor [does anyone] bring an asham talui  for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple. But they are liable for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the menstruant; And [individuals] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or negative commandment relating to the menstruant.<br>Which is the positive commandment relating to the menstruant?  Separate yourself from the menstruant.</b>  An impure person is not allowed to enter the Temple precincts and if he becomes impure while in the Temple, he must leave immediately.  If the court issued an errant ruling with regard to this law, and an impure person followed their ruling, the court is not liable to bring a sin offering.  This is true both for positive and negative commandments.  A positive commandment is that if a person should become impure while in the Temple he must leave in the quickest, most direct manner possible.  If the court ruled that he can take a longer route, and he does so, the court is not obligated to bring a sin offering. A negative commandment is that an impure person in not allowed to enter the Temple.  If the court ruled that he may, they are not liable to bring a sin offering.  This is because the impurity laws of the Temple are atoned for by sliding scale sacrifices and not by sin offerings (see Shevuoth 2:3).  As we learned above, the court is obligated for errant rulings only if the sin was atoned for by a sin offering. This exact same rule applies to the laws regarding an asham talui.  A person brings an asham talui (explained above in the intro) only if the sin was usually atoned for by a sin offering, and not, as in this case, by a sliding scale sacrifice.",
+                    "<b>And the negative commandment?  Do not have sexual relations with the menstruant.</b>  In contrast to the previous section, where the court was not held liable for their errant ruling, if they make an errant ruling with regard to a menstruant the court is liable, since transgressions of the prohibition of sexual relations with a menstruant are punishable by kareth (if done intentionally) and a sin offering (if done unwittingly).  Similarly, one brings an asham talui for the transgression of positive and negative commandments involving a menstruant (such as a case where he does not know if he had relations with his wife while she was menstruating). The positive commandment with regard to a menstruant is that if a man is having sexual intercourse with his wife and she, in the middle of intercourse, tells him that she has become impure (she has begun to menstruate), he must not separate from her immediately, since his withdrawal is pleasurable (for further details see Shevuoth 2:4).  Rather he must stop and wait until he loses an erection and only then withdraw.  This waiting period is seen as a positive commandment. The negative commandment is the prohibition of having sexual relations with a menstruant.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Why does the mishnah compare the laws of Temple related impurity with those of having relations with a menstruant?  Why doesn’t the mishnah use other prohibitions punishable by kareth and a sin offering as points of reference?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe main topic of our mishnah is the king (a ruler, see below 3:3) who accidentally transgresses.  In Leviticus 4:22-23, we read, “In case it is a chieftain who incurs guilt by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of the Lord his God ought not to be done, and he realizes his guilt or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish.”  The question asked by our mishnah is for what sins does the king bring this type of sacrifice.",
+                    "<b>[The court] is not obligated [to bring an offering] for [an errant ruling relating to] the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or  for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things. And the ruler is similarly [exempt]; these are the words of Rabbi Yose Hagalili. Rabbi Akiva says; the ruler is liable in the case of all these except that of hearing of the voice [of adjuration], because the king may neither judge nor be judged, neither may he testify nor may others testify against him.</b>  This section basically states what we have already learned above.  A court that issues an errant ruling is liable to bring a bull as a sin offering only if the transgression was one which if done unwittingly can be atoned for with a sin offering.  The three transgressions mentioned in this mishnah are atoned for by sliding scale sacrifices (the rich bring a goat, the middle class bring bird and the poor bring grain, see Leviticus 5 and tractate Shevuoth).  The first transgression is the taking of a false oath that he does not know any testimony, called in our mishnah “the hearing of the voice of adjuration”.  It is called this because usually someone adjures someone else to take this oath (“I adjure you that you do not know any testimony concerning me”).  The second transgression is in regard to an oath of expression.  This is when a person swears that he will or will not do something.  The third transgression is either entering the Temple impure, or eating holy food while impure.  If the court makes an errant ruling with regard to any of these laws, the court is not liable to bring a sin offering.",
+                    "According to Rabbi Yose Hagalili, the same is true if the ruler, or king, accidentally transgressed one of these commandments.  The reason is that a sliding scale sacrifice is not applicable to a king, for a king never becomes poor.  Leviticus 5:7, 11 state, “But if his means do not suffice”.  Since this can never be true of a king, who always has financial means, Rabbi Yose Hagalili concludes that the entire law and sacrifice is not applicable to the king.  In other words, the king is not simply in the category of a rich person, because rich people can become poor, while kings do not. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and says that the king can be liable to bring a sliding scale sacrifice for all of these sins, with the exception of oaths of adjuration.  Since the king cannot judge or be judged, testify or be testified against, he is considered outside of the framework of the regular legal system.  If someone adjures him that he doesn’t know testimony and he swears that he does not know testimony, but in reality he does, he is not liable for a false oath.  This is because even if he had admitted that he knows testimony, he cannot testify in a court of law (see Sanhedrin 2:2)."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah summarizes who brings what type of sin offering for transgressions done unwittingly.",
+                    "<b>For all the commandments in the Torah, the penalty for which, if committed intentionally, is kareth and, if committed unwittingly, a sin offering, the individual brings as an offering a lamb or a goat, the ruler brings a goat, and the anointed priest and the court bring a bull. In the case of idolatry, the individual and the ruler and the anointed priest bring a goat while the court bring a bull and a goat: the bull for a burnt offering and the goat for a sin offering.</b>  The first section of the mishnah deals with all commandments except idolatry.  In these cases, if an individual unwittingly transgresses, s/he brings a sin offering of a lamb or a goat.  This is stated in Leviticus 4:27-28, 32. If a ruler (a king) is the unwitting transgressor, he brings a goat (Leviticus 4:22-23). If the anointed priest (the high priest) made an errant ruling and then unwittingly transgressed, he brings a bull.  This is stated in Leviticus 4:3.  The same is true of a court who made an errant ruling (Leviticus 4:13-14).",
+                    "If the transgression was one of idolatry the individual brings a goat.  As I stated in the introduction, the rabbis consider Numbers 15:22-29 to be dealing with sins of idolatry.  Verse 27 states, “In case it is an individual who has sinned unwittingly, he shall offer a she-goat in its first year as a sin offering.”  Since the Torah does not make any exceptions for rulers or high priests, they too bring the same sin offering in this case as does a regular Israelite. Verse 24, “If this was done unwittingly, through the inadvertence of the community, the whole community shall present one bull of the herd as burnt offering of pleasing odor to the Lord, with its proper meal offering and libation, and one he-goat as a sin offering.”  The rabbis consider this verse to be dealing with a case where a court issued an errant ruling and the people followed its ruling.  We saw this discussed above in mishnah 1:5."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah six compared the sin offerings offered for unwitting transgressions that the individual, the ruler, the high priest and the court bring.  Mishnah seven compares these parties with regard to the asham talui (see above 2:4), the asham vadai and the sliding scale sacrifice (see above 2:5).  An asham vadai is a guilt offering.  There are five different situations in which a person must bring an asham vadai:  1) for robbery (Lev 5:21-25; 2) for illegal use of sacred property (Lev 5:14-16); 3) for relations with an betrothed slave woman (Lev 19:20-22); 4) a nazir (Num 6:9-12); 5) a leper (Lev 14:10-12).",
+                    "<b>The individual and the ruler are both obligated to bring an asham talui, but the anointed priest and the court are exempt. The individual and the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated to bring an asham vadai, but the court is exempt. For the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things, the court is not obligated but the individual, the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated. Except that the anointed priest is not liable for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon.<br>What do they bring? A sliding scale sacrifice.</b>  With regard to the asham talui, the king is like any individual Israelite.  If he may (or may not) have transgressed a commandment which is punishable by kareth, he brings an asham talui.  However, the high priest and the court, if they made a ruling and they do not know if they erred, do not bring an asham talui.  In other words, for the court or high priest to be liable for their errant ruling, it must be certain that they did so.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: the ruler brings a goat.</b>  All individuals, even a high priest, who unwittingly transgress one of the five commandments which are atoned for by an asham vadai, must bring the asham.  However, if the court issues an errant ruling with regard to one of these commandments, and the people follow their errant ruling, the court does not bring an asham vadai, nor do they bring any sacrifice.  They are liable to bring a bull as a sin offering only if they issue an errant ruling about a commandment punishable by kareth and atoned for by a sin offering (and not a guilt offering).",
+                    "As we learned in mishnah five, if the court issues an errant ruling with regard to a commandment atoned for by a sliding scale sacrifice, they are not liable.  If, however, if an individual, king or high priest were to transgress one of these commandments, he must bring a sliding scale sacrifice.  The one exception is that the high priest is not obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice if he transgresses a commandment involving the purity of the Temple and its holy things. The mishnah now asks what type of sacrifice the king or the anointed priest brings should he transgress one of these commandments.  According to the first opinion, they bring a sliding scale sacrifice, as do all regular Israelites.  Rabbi Eliezer holds that the king brings a goat."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn the case discussed by our mishnah, a high priest or king issued an errant ruling that was subsequently followed by the people, but before they could bring the appropriate sin-offering, they lost their office.  The question is, are they still obligated to bring the same offering, even though they are no longer high priest or king.\nAs a background to this mishnah, I should point out that the removal of high priests and kings from their office was not an uncommon occurrence in the Second Temple period.  Due to the political pressures of the Roman rulers, kings and especially high priests were often replaced.",
+                    "<b>If an anointed priest transgressed and afterwards relinquished his high priesthood, and similarly if a ruler transgressed and afterwards relinquished his reign, the anointed priest brings a bullock, and the ruler brings a he-goat.</b> The mishnah rules that in the situation where the high priest or king issued an errant ruling but were removed from office before bringing their sin-offering, they still bring the same sin-offering that they would have brought had they still been in office.  The obligation for the offering is set at the time of the errant ruling, and not at the time of the bringing of the sacrifice.  Therefore, the high priest still brings a bull, and the king still brings a goat. In the next mishnah we will see that the high priest brings a bull even if he issued the errant ruling after he was removed from office.  Therefore, our mishnah is not really necessary with regard to the high priest because he in any case brings a bull. The only reason that the mishnah teaches about the high priest is because it wants to teach about the ruler, who brings a goat only if he issues the errant ruling while still a king."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah two teaches the halakhah regarding a high priest or king who issue an errant ruling after having relinquished their office.",
+                    "<b>If the anointed priest relinquished his high priesthood and afterwards transgressed, and similarly if a ruler relinquished his reign and afterwards transgressed, the anointed priest brings a bull while the ruler is like a regular person.</b> When the high priest is removed from office, he does not lose his sacred status (we will discuss this below in mishnah four).  Therefore, even if he issues an errant ruling after having been removed, he is still considered like a high priest, and he brings a bull.  However, the king does lose his status, and is therefore treated like a regular person who unwittingly sins and brings a she-goat or female sheep."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first section of this mishnah discusses a situation where the high priest or king issued an errant ruling before they were appointed to their position.\nSection two defines the word which we have been translating as ruler.  Leviticus 4:22 employs the word “nasi” which is translated occasionally by “chieftain” or “prince”.  In the Torah, it does not usually refer to a king.  However, our mishnah defines it as a king, as we shall see below.  It is worthwhile to note that in the times of the Mishnah, there was an official who used the title “nasi”, usually translated as the patriarch (for example Rabbi Judah Hanasi).  However, the patriarch certainly did not have kingly powers.",
+                    "<b>If they transgressed before they were appointed, and afterwards they were appointed, they are regarded as regular people. Rabbi Shimon said: if their sin came to their knowledge before they were appointed they are liable, but if after they were appointed they are exempt. Who is meant by a ruler? A king; for it says, “Any of all the commandments of the Lord his God” (Leviticus 4:22), a ruler ( who has none above him save the Lord his God.</b>  If the priest or king issued an errant ruling before they were appointed, they are not liable for the special sin offering, since at the time of the ruling they were regular individuals.  As we learned above, their liability is dependent upon the time of the ruling.  In this case, if they transgressed they are liable to bring the same sin-offering as would a regular Israelite. Rabbi Shimon holds that if they found out they had erred before their appointment they are liable to bring a sin offering as would a regular Israelite.  However, if they found out about their sin after they were appointed, they are completely exempt.  Rabbi Shimon holds that their liability is dependent both upon the timing of the errant ruling and the realization that it was errant.  In order for there to be liability, the high priest or king must be of the exact same status at the time of the realization that he was at the time of the ruling and sin.  Evidently, Rabbi Shimon would disagree with the opinion given in the previous mishnah as well, that if the high priest or ruler issued an errant ruling and then relinquished their office they are still liable.  According to R. Shimon, if they realized that the ruling was errant after they left office, they would not be liable.",
+                    "As stated above, according to the mishnah the word “nasi”, which we have been loosely translating as “ruler”, really refers to the king.  This is learned from the phrase, “the Lord his God”.  Only the king is second to God. Note, the simple meaning of “nasi” in Leviticus is probably head of a tribe.  That is the usual usage of the word in the Torah (see for instance Numbers 7)."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nDuring the time of the First Temple (destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C.E.) the high priest was anointed with special anointing oils wore eight special pieces of priestly garments, as opposed to the four worn by regular priests.  From the time of King Josiah (640-609 B.C.E.) there was no anointing oil and therefore the high priest was only distinguished by his wearing more garments.\nThe first part of our mishnah deals with the difference between the high priest who was anointed with the anointing oil and the high priest who only wore more garments.\nThe second part of the mishnah deals with the difference between the high priest who currently holds office, and the high priest who has already relinquished his office.",
+                    "<b>And who is the anointed priest?   He who was anointed with the anointing oil and not he that has more garments. The only difference between a high priest who is anointed with the anointing oil and one who has more garments is the bull that is offered for [the unwitting transgression of] any of the commandments. And the only difference between the acting ( priest and the former ( priest is the bull on the Day of Atonement and the tenth part of the ephah. They are both equal in the service of the Day of Atonement, and both are commanded to marry a virgin and are forbidden to marry a widow; they are both forbidden to become impure for their relatives; they do not let their hair grow long, nor do they rend their clothes; and they return the ( killer (from the city of.</b>  Throughout this tractate we have been talking about the “anointed priest”.  Our mishnah teaches that these laws refer specifically to the anointed high priest, and not merely to a high priest who wears the eight garments.  In other words, all of these laws were no longer applicable during the entire Second Temple period.",
+                    "This section is taught in a familiar literary format for the mishnah: a direct comparison between two similar things.  The only difference between these two types of priests is that an anointed high priest who follows his own errant ruling brings a bull, whereas one who merely wears more clothing brings the same sin-offering that a regular person brings.",
+                    "The mishnah now continues to employ the same literary formula, this time comparing the high priest who has already relinquished office with one who currently holds office.  The only difference between the two is that the high priest who currently holds office offers the bull on Yom Kippur (see Leviticus 16:6) and the tenth of the ephah, which is a grain offering (a minhah) offered daily by the high priest (see Leviticus 6:13).  The former high priest does not make these offerings.",
+                    "With regard to the other laws special to the high priest, they are both the same.  Note that all of these laws are contained in the beginning of chapter 21 of Leviticus and all have to do with the special sanctity of priests and especially the high priest.  Both types of high priests can marry only virgins and not widows (Leviticus 21:13-14).  Neither are allowed to become impure in order to bury any of their relatives, even their mother or father (ibid. 21:11).  They are not allowed to grow their hair long (ibid. 21:10) nor tear their clothes (ibid.).  At the death of either one of them, accidental killers may leave the cities of refuge, as it says in Numbers 35:25, “And he shall dwell their until the death of the high priest” (see Makkot 2:6)."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn the previous mishnah we learned that both acting high priests and former high priests do not rend their clothes when a relative dies.  Our mishnah clarifies that halakhah and teaches that the high priest does rend his clothes but not in the same way that an ordinary priest does.  In section two, the mishnah makes a further comparison between an ordinary and a high priest.",
+                    "<b>A high priest rends [his clothes] from below and an ordinary priest from above. A high priest offers sacrifices while an onen but does not eat them and an ordinary priest neither offers sacrifices nor eats them.</b>  If one of the high priest’s seven close relatives (father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter or wife) for whom he is obligated to mourn dies, he rends his clothes at the bottom.  When Leviticus 21:10 states that the high priest shall not rend his clothes, the interpretation of the rabbis is that he should not rend them in a normal fashion, which is above.  In contrast, an ordinary priest rends his clothes the same way that all people do, above.",
+                    "An onen is one who has had one of his seven close relatives die, but has not yet buried them (after the burial a person is an avel, a mourner).  According to the Torah he is an onen only for the day of the death, but the rabbis extended the status of aninut (being an onen) to include the night after the death, and the entire period until burial.  Our mishnah teaches that a high priest continues to offer sacrifices even while he is an onen, as it says in Leviticus 21:12, “He shall not go outside the sanctuary”.  He stays in the sanctuary in order to offer sacrifices. However, he does not eat sacrifices on that day.  We learn this from Aaron’s words on the day that his sons, Nadav and Avihu, die, “Had I eaten sin offering today would the Lord have approved?” (Leviticus 10:19).  It is clear from here that Aaron did not eat sacrifices on that day. In contrast, an ordinary priest who is an onen may neither offer sacrifices, nor eat them.  Since an ordinary priest is allowed to become impure for one of these seven relatives, his status during this period is basically the same as that of ordinary people."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches which sacrifice takes precedence over other sacrifices, in a case where both are ready to be sacrificed.\nThe importance of this mishnah is that it does not just give specific rules for precedence in sacrificial law, but teaches general principles, which are still applied today, especially in  laws of prayer.",
+                    "<b>Whatever is more frequent than another takes precedence over that other; And whatever is more sacred than another takes precedence over that other. If the bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation are standing [to be sacrificed], the bull of the anointed priest precedes that of the congregation in all its details.</b>  Something that is frequently done is performed before something else that is not frequently done.  This is learned from the fact that in the morning the tamid burnt offering is sacrificed before any of the special festival sacrifices are offered.  Since the tamid is a daily offering and is therefore frequent, it takes precedence over less frequently offered sacrifices. We should note that this principle seems somewhat counterintuitive.  A person would naturally be more inclined to do first that which is special, more unusual, and only afterwards do what is regular and routine.  Judaism teaches that it is the routine which takes precedence and not the special occasion.  Through this mishnah, we learn to appreciate not just what is ordinary, but to take note of the importance of those things that we do regularly.  We should not allow their frequency to diminish their significance. A couple of examples where this principle is still evoked.  During Shabbat and festival kiddush, one first recites the blessing over the wine and only then the blessing over Shabbat.  This is because the blessing over the wine is more frequent than the blessing over the Shabbat.  Another example: in morning prayers we recite a psalm for each day of the week.  On Rosh Hodesh (the first day of the new month) we also recite a special psalm.  The psalm that is recited for the day of the week is done first, because it is more frequently recited than the one for Rosh Hodesh.",
+                    "In cases where one cannot apply the previous rule, then the rule is that whatever is more sacred comes first.  We will see an application of this principle in the next section, and in the next mishnah.",
+                    "If the bull that is offered by the high priest for an errant ruling, and the bull that is offered by the community for their having followed the errant ruling of the court are both waiting to be sacrificed, the bull of the high priest takes precedence.  This is because the high priest is more sanctified than the general populace, and also because he brings atonement for others (see Leviticus 4:16), whereas they are just being atoned for.  This is also hinted at in Leviticus 16:17, “And he (the high priest) will make expiation for himself and his household, and for the whole congregation of Israel.”  He takes precedence over all of Israel."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn the previous mishnah we learned which sacrifice takes precedence in cases where two need to be offered.  In addition, we learned some general principles of which things take precedence over others in halakhah.  Our mishnah contains another such principle.",
+                    "<b>A man takes precedence over a woman in matters concerning the saving of life and the restoration of lost property, and a woman takes precedence over a man in respect of clothing and ransom from captivity. When both are exposed to degradation in their captivity the man takes precedence over the woman.</b> Our mishnah is clearly chauvinistic, and we should acknowledge it as such. As I have stated before when such types of mishnayoth have appeared, while I can understand the mishnah as reflecting common societal values in the ancient world, I cannot internalize the mishnah as reflecting my own values.  Nor do I believe that any Jew reading this mishnah should do so. The mishnah states that if one has the opportunity to save the life of a man or a woman, but only one of them, the man takes precedence.  Similarly, if one has the opportunity to restore lost property to either a man or a woman, he should return that which belongs to the man. For instance if he finds two lost horses, one that he knows belongs to Jacob and one to Rachel, but can only return one, he should return that which belongs to Jacob. However, when it comes to issues of potential degradation, the woman’s modesty comes first.  If one has only enough money to help buy clothing for a man or woman, the woman takes precedence.  This is because it is more embarrassing for a woman to be poorly clothed than for a man.  Similarly, if one has only enough money to redeem one captive, one should redeem the woman, lest she be raped during captivity.  Men are not usually raped during captivity.  We know that this is the reason that women are redeemed first, because the end of the mishnah states that if there is concern that the man might be raped, he is to be redeemed first.  According to the mishnah, it is worse for the man to be raped than for the woman."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe mishnah continues to provide rules of precedence.",
+                    "<b>A priest takes precedence over a levite, a levite over an israelite, an israelite over a mamzer, a mamzer over a natin, a natin over a convert, and a convert over a freed slave. When is this so?  When all these were in other respects equal. However, if the mamzer was a scholar and the high priest an ignoramus, the scholar mamzer takes precedence over the ignorant high priest.</b> According to commentaries, this mishnah deals with precedence in any matter of honor or profit.  The mishnah considers certain genealogical lines of Jews to be inherently more holy than others.  A priest is holier than a levite and a levite is holier than an Israelite.  A mamzer is someone who was born of an illicit sexual union of two Jews, therefore an israelite takes precedence over a mamzer.  A natin is a descendent of the Gibeonites who converted during the time of Joshua (see above 1:4).  Since a mamzer does not have any foreign descent, he is holier than a natin.  A natin is holier than a current convert, because a natin was part of Israel from before his birth, whereas a convert has only just now converted. A convert is holier than a freed slave for a convert was never part of such a lowly occupation. Up until now the mishnah has stated what must be considered something similar to a genealogical caste system.  Each person is born into a certain status, and these separate statuses are ranked.  We might think that at least during a person’s lifetime, he could not move up or down in status. The last clause of the mishnah radically undercuts that ideology.  While in theory a person’s “holiness” is attributed to birth, a person’s true holiness is attained through the study of Torah.  A mamzer who studies Torah is higher than a high priest who does not, even though the latter has the highest pedigree of genealogical status.  In practice, this will become the only criteria for “ranking” individuals, for no two individuals will be exactly the same in their Torah learning. This statement in essence is one of the supreme value statements for the entire Mishnah.  The rabbinic social system was a meritocracy, where one merited one’s position based on commitment to Torah study, and not based on one’s filial connections. Congratulations!  We have finished Horayoth and all of Seder Nezikin. As I have mentioned at the end of every tractate, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to 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.  This time we have not only finished Horayoth, but we have finished all of Seder Nezikin, one sixth of the entire Mishnah.  This is a great accomplishment and for those of you who have been studying with us from the beginning, give yourselves hearty yasher koach, and a big pat on the back (those who haven’t been learning since the beginning may do so as well). The next Seder (order) which we will learn is Nashim.  As you will note, we are not learning the Mishnah in its order.  In truth, there is not really order between different seders of the mishnah, nor even between different tractates.  The only order internal to the Mishnah is inside the tractate.  Therefore, there is no reason to learn or not to learn the Mishnah in the order that its tractates appear. Again, congratulations and good luck with your continuing learning.  Tomorrow we begin tractate Yevamoth."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה הוריות",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+{
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Horayot",
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "Leviticus 4 discusses sacrifices that must be brought as a result of unintentional sins.  Verses 1-12 discuss the unwitting sins of the high priest (the anointed priest) and verses 13-21 discuss the unwitting sins of the whole community of Israel.  According to the rabbinic interpretation of these passages, they refer to a case where either the high priest or the sanhedrin (a court) permitted a certain action, which when performed unwittingly by an individual causes him to be liable to bring a sin-offering.  In other words the court mistakenly permitted forbidden actions. Verses 1-12, according to the rabbis, refer to a case where the high priest himself performs the sin, and verses 13-21 refer to a case where the majority of the community performed the sin.  In both cases a sacrificial bull must be brought, either by the high priest or by the sanhedrin.  These bulls have different technical names which we will learn throughout the tractate.",
+            "The above is true with regard to all sins except accidental idol worship.  If a court ruled that an action was not idol worship and the majority of the community performed the action, and later it was found that the court ruled wrongly, the court must bring a bull and a goat.  This situation is referred to in Numbers 15:22-29.  If an individual accidentally worshipped idols, he only brings a goat as a sin-offering.  This situation is referred to in Numbers 15:27-29.  ",
+            "With regard to an individual accidentally worshipping idols, there is no distinction made between a high priest, a prince or an individual.  However, with regard to all other sins which are punishable (if done with intent) by kareth (extirpation) if a regular person performs them s/he brings a she-goat or a female ship, but the prince brings a he-goat.",
+            "Tractate Horayoth, which means “teachings” discusses various situations where a court has made a mistake, and in which of these situations the court must bring a bull to atone for its mistake but those who accidentally sinned are not liable to bring a sacrifice.  The tractate also talks about those cases in which the court is not liable but the actual sinners are liable for a sacrifice.  ",
+            "The reason that this tractate is part of Seder Nezikin is that it is directed to judges, the subject of tractate Sanhedrin and Makkot.  It is last in the order because it is the shortest of Nezikin’s tractates.  \n"
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>If the court ruled that one of the commandments mentioned in the Torah may be transgressed, and an individual proceeded and acted through error in accordance with their ruling, whether they acted and he acted with them or they acted and he acted after them or even if they did not act and he acted, he is exempt,  because he relied on the court.<br>If the court ruled [in error], and one of them knew that they had erred, or a disciple who was himself fit to rule on matters of law, and [one of these] proceeded and acted in accordance with their ruling, whether they acted and he acted with them or they acted and he acted after them or even if they did not act and he acted, he is liable, since he did not rely upon the court.<br>This is the general rule: he who is [in a position] to rely upon himself is liable, and he who relies upon the court is exempt.</b><br>Our mishnah discusses a person who follows a ruling that a court made in error, and thereby accidentally transgresses a commandment.<br>Section one:  If a person follows a court ruling that was made in error, and thereby transgresses a negative commandment which carries with it the liability to bring a sin-offering [when done unintentionally], he is not liable, since this was not his error but their error.  This rule is true whether he acted together with them, after them or even if he transgressed and the court itself did not even perform the transgression.  In other words, even if he relied on their words and not their concrete example, he is exempt.  This is not considered to be an unintentional sin that he has committed and therefore he need not bring a sin-offering.<br>Section two: However, if the person who committed the transgression was a member of the court who knew that his fellow judges were in error, or was a student who was fit to be a member of the court and he knew that the court was in error, he is liable if he acts according to the wrong ruling. Note that this person is still considered to be an unintentional sinner and not an intentional one.  His mistake was that he thought that he should listen to the court, even if he knew they were wrong.  Since he did not need to rely on the court, but was fit to rely on his own ruling, he is liable, at least as an unintentional sinner, for his own transgression.  He therefore needs to bring a sin-offering."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If a court ruled, and later discovered that they had erred and changed their decision, whether they brought their offering or whether they did not bring their offering, if an individual proceeded and acted in accordance with their [erroneous] decision, Rabbi Shimon exempts him and Rabb Elazar declares [his case] doubtful.<br>Which case may be regarded doubtful? If he was at home, he is liable. If he went abroad, he is exempt.<br>Rabbi Akiba said: I agree that a person in such a case is nearer to exemption than to culpability. Said Ben Azzai to him: how does such a person differ from one who remains at home? He who remains at home is in a position to ascertain the facts but the other was not in such a position.</b><br>This mishnah discusses a case where a court made a wrong decision and then reversed their decision, thereby correcting it.  The question asked is whether or not one who follows the wrong decision after it has been revoked is exempt from bringing a sin-offering for his accidental transgression.<br>Section one:  The offering referred to in this section will be discussed more fully below in mishnah five, specifically the question of who brings the sacrifice.<br>Rabbi Shimon exempts this person because he relied on the court.  As we learned above in mishnah one, a person who relies on the court is exempt from bringing an individual sin-offering.  Rabbi Elazar declares this case doubtful, for we do not know if he had already heard that the court had reversed its decision.<br>The mishnah now continues to discuss in which specific cases the matter is in doubt.  If the person was at home and could have known that the court reversed its decision, he is responsible for not having followed the new decision.  However, if he had gone abroad, he could not have known of the reversal, and he is therefore exempt.<br>Rabbi Akiva states that this person, who went abroad, is actually closer to being totally exempt, for it is very unlikely that he knew that the court reversed its decision.  As he explains to Ben Azzai, his colleague, the person sitting in his house could have heard, whereas the one who was abroad could not have."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If the court ruled that an entire principle has to be uprooted; if they said that [the law concerning the] menstruant is not found in the Torah or the [law concerning the] Sabbath is not found in the torah or [the law concerning] idolatry is not found in the torah, they are exempt.<br>If, however, they ruled that a part [of a commandment] was to be annulled and a part fulfilled, they are liable. How is this so?  If they said: [the law concerning the] menstruant occurs in the Torah but if a man has relations with a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day he is exempt, [or that the law concerning the] Sabbath occurs in the Torah but if a man carries anything from a private domain to a public domain he is exempt, [or that the law of] idolatry occurs in the Torah, but if a man only bows down to an idol he is exempt, they are liable, for it says, “And if some matter escapes [the notice of the congregation]” (Leviticus 4:13),  “some matter” but not the entire principle.</b><br>Our mishnah teaches that if the court rules that an entire commandment does not exist, they are not liable.  Whereas if they rule that one part of the commandment does not exist, they are liable.<br>This mishnah teaches an important principle for establishing when the court is liable to bring the special sin-offering for having made a wrongful ruling.  If the court were to state that the entirety of a well-known commandment does not exist, and people were to act upon the court’s ruling, the people who actually sin are liable and not the court.  Since these three things, the prohibition of sexual relations with a menstruant, the prohibition of Sabbath laws and the prohibition of idol worship are so clearly stated in the Torah, everyone should have known that the court erred when it ruled that these things don’t exist.  This is not even truly considered a ruling by the court, but merely an empty statement against the Torah.  While interpretation of the Torah is flexible, it does have its limits.<br>However, if the court rules that a certain act which is one part of a larger prohibition, is permitted, and people act upon the court’s ruling, the court is liable and not the people.  For instance, a woman who sees blood at a time when she is not supposed to be menstruating must wait one day for every day that she saw blood before she can resume sexual relations.  If the court ruled that one could have relations with such a woman, they are permitting an act which is against the Torah.  Similarly, if they permit a person to remove an object from one domain to another on Shabbat, they are permitting carrying, which is forbidden.  Finally, if they admit that idol worship is prohibited, but bowing down is not considered idol worship, they have made an errant ruling.  In all of these cases, since they admit that the commandment exists, but have made an error on a detail (these are all well-known and rather large details in rabbinic literature), they are liable if the people listen to their ruling.   People might not have known that such actions were prohibited, even though they knew that the general commandment exists.  Therefore, they are not liable for following the court’s ruling.<br>The mishnah ends with a midrash supporting this view.  One can understand the word davar to mean “part of the matter”; from here the rabbis learn that if the whole matter escapes the court, the court is not liable.<br>Questions<br>Why do you think the rabbis posited this exception to the general rule of the court’s culpability for errors?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah really contains two totally separate mishnayoth.  We will therefore explain each separately.",
+                    "This mishnah teaches three principles.  First of all, if even one judge on the court knew that the court had erred in its ruling and told the rest of the court so, and yet his advice was overrode, the court is not liable to bring an offering if people transgress by obeying their ruling.  For the special law of the erring court to be in effect, the entire court must err. If the mufla was absent when the errant decision was made, the court is not liable.  The mufla was evidently the person who sat on the court and had many, many halakhot memorized.  He was like a human archive who could recite orally from the tradition.  His absence would have impeded the court’s ability to make the correct decision, and therefore they are not liable. The third rule is that all of the members of the court must be “fit” to issue rulings.  Our mishnah lists several categories of people who are not fit for this type of court.  Converts, netinim (Temple slaves) and mamzerim (children born of illicit marriages) cannot act as judges in capital cases (see Sanhedrin 4:2).  The innovation of our mishnah is that an elder who does not have children can also not act as a judge.  This is because we are concerned that he will not have pity on others when it comes to adjudicating capital cases.  In other words having children makes a person more compassionate.  Personally, I can say that when my first child was born I began to look at other human beings differently; everybody is somebody’s child.  Having children can certainly increase a person’s sense of the suffering of others.  [I don’t mean to say that one who doesn’t have children is necessarily not sympathetic to others suffering.  When the mishnah sets qualities for judges it bases itself on the most likely norm and not on the range of possibilities for human characteristics]. This third rule is learned through a midrashic technique called a gezerah shavah, which is a linguistic comparison.  The word “congregation” (edah) is mentioned here in Lev 4 and in Num 35, which discusses capital cases brought before a court.  From those verses the rabbis learn that capital cases are tried before a court of 23 (see Sanhedrin 1:6).  Just as in capital cases, if there are not 23 qualified judges, the judgment is invalid, so too here, in order for the law that requires an offering for an unwitting errant ruling to be applicable, there must be only qualified judges.",
+                    "<b>If the court ruled and one of them knew that they had erred and said to the others, “You are making a mistake”, or if the mufla of the court was not there, or if one of them was a proselyte or a mamzer or a nathin or an elder who did not have children, they are exempt, for it says here (Lev 4:13) “congregation” and it says later on (Num 35:24) “congregation”;  just as the “congregation” further on must be fit to issue rulings, so too the “congregation” mentioned here must be fit to issue rulings<br>If the court issued a [wrong] decision unwittingly and all the people acted unwittingly, they bring a bull.</b>  This first section is the classic case in which the court must bring the bull as a sin-offering (mentioned in Lev 4:14).",
+                    "<b>[If the court ruled wrong] intentionally and [the people] acted unwillingly, they bring a lamb or a goat.</b>  In this case the court intentionally made the wrong ruling.  They therefore cannot bring the bull as a sin-offering because intentional sinners are not allowed to bring offerings to atone for their sins.  Sin-offerings are an opportunity for atonement, and not a punishment.  Only one who sinned accidentally is given this opportunity to atone through sacrifice.  [Intentional sinners can possibly achieve atonement in other ways].  Since the court cannot bring an offering, the people are considered as individual unwitting sinners, and they bring the typical sacrifice for a person in such a category:  a lamb or goat (Lev 4:28, 32).",
+                    "<b>[If the court ruled] unwittingly and [the people] acted willingly accordingly, they are exempt.</b>  If the court unwittingly ruled in error but the congregation knowingly sinned, the court does not bring the bull offering because the congregation did not act based on the court’s ruling.  The congregation knew that the act was wrong, even though the court said it was permitted.  Since they did not act upon the court’s ruling, the court is not held responsible for their transgressions.  The congregation cannot bring an offering since they transgressed intentionally.  As we learned in the previous section, intentional sinners cannot achieve atonement through sacrifice."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn the previous mishnah we learned that if the court issued an errant ruling and everyone acted erroneously in accord with that ruling they bring a bull, as it says in Leviticus 4:14, “The congregation shall offer a bull of the herd as a sin offering.”  Our mishnah discusses who the “congregation” is that brings the bull.\nThroughout this mishnah we will read that there is a distinction made between sins involving idol worship and all other sins.  In the introduction to the tractate I explained that the rabbis understood Leviticus 4 as referring to regular sins and Numbers 15:22-29 as referring to idol worship.  If the sin was idol worship, then the congregation brings a bull and a goat (Numbers 15:24).",
+                    "<b>If the court ruled [in error] and all the people or a majority of them acted accordingly they bring a bull. And in the case of idolatry they bring a bull and a goat; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: the twelve tribes bring twelve bulls;<br>And in the case of idolatry twelve bulls and twelve goats. R. Shimon says: thirteen bullocks;<br>And in the case of idolatry, thirteen bulls and thirteen goats: a bull and a goat for each tribe, and a bull and a goat for the court. If the court ruled [in error] and seven tribes or a majority of them acted accordingly, they bring a bull; And in the case of idolatry, they bring a bull and a goat; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah said: the seven tribes who sinned must bring seven bulls and the rest of the tribes who did not sin must bring bulls on their behalf because even those who did not sin must bring on behalf of the ones who sinned. Rabbi Shimon said: eight bulls;<br>And in the case of idolatry, eight bulls and eight goats, a bull and a goat for every tribe and a bull and a goat for the court. If the court of one of the tribes ruled [in error], and that tribe acted accordingly, that tribe is liable, but all the other tribes are exempt; these are the words of Rabbi Judah. But the Sages say: there is no liability except as a result of the rulings of the highest court; for it says, “And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err”,  but not the congregation of one particular tribe.</b>  In this section we read three opinions as to who the congregation is that brings sin-offerings if all or most of the nation sins according to the courts errant ruling.  According to Rabbi Meir in all sins except idol worship the court brings a bull and if the sin was idol worship they bring a bull and a goat.  Rabbi Meir understands that the court is the “congregation” referred to in the verse who brings the offering. Rabbi Judah understands “congregation” to refer to the people of Israel themselves, namely all twelve tribes.  Therefore each tribe brings its own bull or bull and goat. Rabbi Shimon agrees in essence with both Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir:  each tribe brings its own bull (or bull and goat) and the court brings one as well, bringing the total to thirteen.",
+                    "If only seven of the tribes sin according to the errant ruling, but these seven tribes do not add up to a majority of all of Israel, or a majority of each of the seven tribes sins, Rabbi Meir still holds that the court brings a bull or bull and goat.  Rabbi Judah also holds that all twelve tribes still bring a bull, even though only seven sinned.  Even the tribes that did not sin are responsible to ask for atonement for those that did sin.  Rabbi Shimon, however, holds that only the tribes that actually sinned bring the sacrifices, as well as the court.",
+                    "If the high court of one of the individual tribes ruled in error and that tribe acted according to its ruling, that tribe is held accountable and must bring a bull, according to Rabbi Judah.  Note that if the high court of the entire nation had ruled in error, but only one tribe had followed the ruling, these laws would not be in effect (the individuals who sinned would therefore be regarded as individual sinners and not treated as a collective). The Sages disagree.  According to them all of these laws only apply in the case of the high court of the nation.  The verse states that “the whole congregation of Israel” must sin, or at least a majority thereof.  Therefore, the ruling court must also be the court of all of the congregation of Israel."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nLeviticus 4:3 states, “If it is the anointed priest who has incurred guilt, so that blame falls upon the people, he shall offer for the sin of which he is guilty a bull of the herd without blemish as a sin offering to the Lord.”  According to the rabbis, this verse refers to a high priest who issues an errant ruling to himself.  If he acts according to his errant ruling then he is not treated as if he was an individual who would have to bring a regular goat sin offering.  Rather in his ruling he is considered parallel to the court and in his acting he is parallel to a community, much in the same way we learned above in mishnah 1:4.  Our mishnah, and the mishnayoth that follow it, takes some of the rules that apply when a court rules and the congregation sins in error, and applies them to the high priest.",
+                    "<b>An anointed priest who rendered a decision for himself in error and acted unwittingly accordingly, must bring a bull. If he rendered the decision in error but acted upon it willfully, or made it willfully but acted upon it unwittingly, he is exempt; for a decision a high priest made for himself is like a ruling issued by the court to the community.</b> If the high priest ruled that something was permitted, and in reality it was punishable by kareth (if done willfully) or the transgression causes one to be liable to bring a sin offering (if done unwittingly) and then he acted upon his ruling, without realizing that he is transgressing, he must bring a bull as a sin offering.  In other words, instead of being just an individual who unwittingly transgresses and therefore brings a goat as a sin offering, the high priest brings a bull. If, however, either the ruling was in error but the action was an intentional transgression, or vice versa, the ruling was intentionally wrong, but the action was unwitting, he is not liable to bring the bull.  As we learned at the end of mishnah four, both the ruling and the act must be done unwittingly for the court, or in this case the high priest to be liable to bring a bull."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah two continues to discuss the anointed high priest who issues an errant ruling.",
+                    "<b>An [anointed high priest] who rendered an errant decision alone and acted accordingly alone, he makes his atonement alone. If he rendered his ruling together with [the court of] the congregation and acted accordingly together with the congregation, he makes his atonement together with the congregation. For the court is not liable unless they ruled to annul part of a commandment and to retain a part of it; and so [it is with] the anointed [high] priest. Nor [are they liable] for idolatry unless they ruled to annul the law in part and to retain it in part.</b>  If the high priest issued an errant ruling on his own, in other words without the court having taken part in the decision making, and then he acted alone, he alone must bring a bull as a sin offering.  This is basically the same rule that we learned in the previous mishnah.  It is summarized here in order to offer a contrast with the following section.",
+                    "If the high priest ruled in error with the court of the congregation, the sanhedrin, and transgressed together with the rest of the congregation, then he need not bring a special bull on his own.  Rather he receives atonement through the same bull that the community brings.",
+                    "The language of this section makes it look as if it is a commentary on the previous section, but its content seems independent.  The section teaches that just as we learned above in chapter one, mishnah three, that a court is not liable to bring the bull sin-offering unless it ruled to annul part of a commandment but retain the rest, the same is true for the high priest.  If he rules, for example, that there is no such thing as Shabbat, he is not liable to bring a bull; but if he rules that a certain forbidden activity is actually permitted on Shabbat, he is liable.  These same rules apply with regard to both regular sins and to sins involving idolatry."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah three continues to teach laws of errant rulings in which the court is treated the same way that a high priest is treated. It also continues to equate errant rulings with regard to idolatry with errant rulings with regard to other sins.",
+                    "<b>The [court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] except where ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless ignorance of the law was accompanied by an unwitting action. The court is not obligated unless they ruled concerning a prohibition the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly, and so it is with the anointed priest. Nor [is obligation incurred] in the case of idolatry unless they ruled concerning a matter the punishment for which is kareth, if it was transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly.</b>  The court is not obligated to bring a sacrifice except in a case where they did not realize that they were issuing an errant ruling and those that acted did not realize that they were transgressing.  The same is true if the high priest issues an errant ruling. He must rule and act unwittingly for him to be able to bring a bull as a sin offering.  There is no difference in this rule between idolatry and all other commandments.",
+                    "The particular commandment with regard to which the court erred and the people transgressed unwittingly, must be one for which the punishment is kareth (heavenly excommunication) if done intentionally and a sin offering if done unwittingly.  Examples of such commandments are Shabbat, many incest prohibitions, the eating of certain prohibited foods, work on Yom Kippur, and cursing God.  These are all listed in tractate Karetoth 1:1-2. Idol worship is a sin for which one is potentially liable for kareth or a sin offering (if done unwittingly).  However, not all forms of idol worship are punishable by kareth or a sin offering.  If one worships an idol in an unusual manner, a type of worship that is not considered normal for that idol or any other idol, than he is not liable for kareth or a sin offering.  If the court were to issue an errant ruling with regard to one of these types of worship, the court would not be liable to bring a bull as a sin offering."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah four discusses errant rulings with regard to Temple-related laws and compares them with errant rulings made in connection to a menstruating woman (a menstruant).\nThe mishnah also discusses a sacrifice known as the “asham talui” or the “hanging guilt offering”.  The “asham talui” is brought by a person who may or may not have accidentally transgressed a prohibition, the punishment for which is kareth, if transgressed intentionally, and a sin offering if transgressed unwittingly.  For instance if a person has two pieces of animal fat in front of him, one is permitted fat and the other is forbidden fat (helev) and he eats one but he doesn’t know which he ate, he brings an asham talui.",
+                    "<b>[The court] is not obligated [to bring a sacrifice] for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple; Nor [does anyone] bring an asham talui  for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the Temple. But they are liable for the transgression of a positive or a negative commandment relating to the menstruant; And [individuals] bring an asham talui for the transgression of a positive or negative commandment relating to the menstruant.<br>Which is the positive commandment relating to the menstruant?  Separate yourself from the menstruant.</b>  An impure person is not allowed to enter the Temple precincts and if he becomes impure while in the Temple, he must leave immediately.  If the court issued an errant ruling with regard to this law, and an impure person followed their ruling, the court is not liable to bring a sin offering.  This is true both for positive and negative commandments.  A positive commandment is that if a person should become impure while in the Temple he must leave in the quickest, most direct manner possible.  If the court ruled that he can take a longer route, and he does so, the court is not obligated to bring a sin offering. A negative commandment is that an impure person in not allowed to enter the Temple.  If the court ruled that he may, they are not liable to bring a sin offering.  This is because the impurity laws of the Temple are atoned for by sliding scale sacrifices and not by sin offerings (see Shevuoth 2:3).  As we learned above, the court is obligated for errant rulings only if the sin was atoned for by a sin offering. This exact same rule applies to the laws regarding an asham talui.  A person brings an asham talui (explained above in the intro) only if the sin was usually atoned for by a sin offering, and not, as in this case, by a sliding scale sacrifice.",
+                    "<b>And the negative commandment?  Do not have sexual relations with the menstruant.</b>  In contrast to the previous section, where the court was not held liable for their errant ruling, if they make an errant ruling with regard to a menstruant the court is liable, since transgressions of the prohibition of sexual relations with a menstruant are punishable by kareth (if done intentionally) and a sin offering (if done unwittingly).  Similarly, one brings an asham talui for the transgression of positive and negative commandments involving a menstruant (such as a case where he does not know if he had relations with his wife while she was menstruating). The positive commandment with regard to a menstruant is that if a man is having sexual intercourse with his wife and she, in the middle of intercourse, tells him that she has become impure (she has begun to menstruate), he must not separate from her immediately, since his withdrawal is pleasurable (for further details see Shevuoth 2:4).  Rather he must stop and wait until he loses an erection and only then withdraw.  This waiting period is seen as a positive commandment. The negative commandment is the prohibition of having sexual relations with a menstruant.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Why does the mishnah compare the laws of Temple related impurity with those of having relations with a menstruant?  Why doesn’t the mishnah use other prohibitions punishable by kareth and a sin offering as points of reference?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe main topic of our mishnah is the king (a ruler, see below 3:3) who accidentally transgresses.  In Leviticus 4:22-23, we read, “In case it is a chieftain who incurs guilt by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of the Lord his God ought not to be done, and he realizes his guilt or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish.”  The question asked by our mishnah is for what sins does the king bring this type of sacrifice.",
+                    "<b>[The court] is not obligated [to bring an offering] for [an errant ruling relating to] the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or  for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things. And the ruler is similarly [exempt]; these are the words of Rabbi Yose Hagalili. Rabbi Akiva says; the ruler is liable in the case of all these except that of hearing of the voice [of adjuration], because the king may neither judge nor be judged, neither may he testify nor may others testify against him.</b>  This section basically states what we have already learned above.  A court that issues an errant ruling is liable to bring a bull as a sin offering only if the transgression was one which if done unwittingly can be atoned for with a sin offering.  The three transgressions mentioned in this mishnah are atoned for by sliding scale sacrifices (the rich bring a goat, the middle class bring bird and the poor bring grain, see Leviticus 5 and tractate Shevuoth).  The first transgression is the taking of a false oath that he does not know any testimony, called in our mishnah “the hearing of the voice of adjuration”.  It is called this because usually someone adjures someone else to take this oath (“I adjure you that you do not know any testimony concerning me”).  The second transgression is in regard to an oath of expression.  This is when a person swears that he will or will not do something.  The third transgression is either entering the Temple impure, or eating holy food while impure.  If the court makes an errant ruling with regard to any of these laws, the court is not liable to bring a sin offering.",
+                    "According to Rabbi Yose Hagalili, the same is true if the ruler, or king, accidentally transgressed one of these commandments.  The reason is that a sliding scale sacrifice is not applicable to a king, for a king never becomes poor.  Leviticus 5:7, 11 state, “But if his means do not suffice”.  Since this can never be true of a king, who always has financial means, Rabbi Yose Hagalili concludes that the entire law and sacrifice is not applicable to the king.  In other words, the king is not simply in the category of a rich person, because rich people can become poor, while kings do not. Rabbi Akiva disagrees and says that the king can be liable to bring a sliding scale sacrifice for all of these sins, with the exception of oaths of adjuration.  Since the king cannot judge or be judged, testify or be testified against, he is considered outside of the framework of the regular legal system.  If someone adjures him that he doesn’t know testimony and he swears that he does not know testimony, but in reality he does, he is not liable for a false oath.  This is because even if he had admitted that he knows testimony, he cannot testify in a court of law (see Sanhedrin 2:2)."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah summarizes who brings what type of sin offering for transgressions done unwittingly.",
+                    "<b>For all the commandments in the Torah, the penalty for which, if committed intentionally, is kareth and, if committed unwittingly, a sin offering, the individual brings as an offering a lamb or a goat, the ruler brings a goat, and the anointed priest and the court bring a bull. In the case of idolatry, the individual and the ruler and the anointed priest bring a goat while the court bring a bull and a goat: the bull for a burnt offering and the goat for a sin offering.</b>  The first section of the mishnah deals with all commandments except idolatry.  In these cases, if an individual unwittingly transgresses, s/he brings a sin offering of a lamb or a goat.  This is stated in Leviticus 4:27-28, 32. If a ruler (a king) is the unwitting transgressor, he brings a goat (Leviticus 4:22-23). If the anointed priest (the high priest) made an errant ruling and then unwittingly transgressed, he brings a bull.  This is stated in Leviticus 4:3.  The same is true of a court who made an errant ruling (Leviticus 4:13-14).",
+                    "If the transgression was one of idolatry the individual brings a goat.  As I stated in the introduction, the rabbis consider Numbers 15:22-29 to be dealing with sins of idolatry.  Verse 27 states, “In case it is an individual who has sinned unwittingly, he shall offer a she-goat in its first year as a sin offering.”  Since the Torah does not make any exceptions for rulers or high priests, they too bring the same sin offering in this case as does a regular Israelite. Verse 24, “If this was done unwittingly, through the inadvertence of the community, the whole community shall present one bull of the herd as burnt offering of pleasing odor to the Lord, with its proper meal offering and libation, and one he-goat as a sin offering.”  The rabbis consider this verse to be dealing with a case where a court issued an errant ruling and the people followed its ruling.  We saw this discussed above in mishnah 1:5."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah six compared the sin offerings offered for unwitting transgressions that the individual, the ruler, the high priest and the court bring.  Mishnah seven compares these parties with regard to the asham talui (see above 2:4), the asham vadai and the sliding scale sacrifice (see above 2:5).  An asham vadai is a guilt offering.  There are five different situations in which a person must bring an asham vadai:  1) for robbery (Lev 5:21-25; 2) for illegal use of sacred property (Lev 5:14-16); 3) for relations with an betrothed slave woman (Lev 19:20-22); 4) a nazir (Num 6:9-12); 5) a leper (Lev 14:10-12).",
+                    "<b>The individual and the ruler are both obligated to bring an asham talui, but the anointed priest and the court are exempt. The individual and the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated to bring an asham vadai, but the court is exempt. For the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things, the court is not obligated but the individual, the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated. Except that the anointed priest is not liable for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon.<br>What do they bring? A sliding scale sacrifice.</b>  With regard to the asham talui, the king is like any individual Israelite.  If he may (or may not) have transgressed a commandment which is punishable by kareth, he brings an asham talui.  However, the high priest and the court, if they made a ruling and they do not know if they erred, do not bring an asham talui.  In other words, for the court or high priest to be liable for their errant ruling, it must be certain that they did so.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: the ruler brings a goat.</b>  All individuals, even a high priest, who unwittingly transgress one of the five commandments which are atoned for by an asham vadai, must bring the asham.  However, if the court issues an errant ruling with regard to one of these commandments, and the people follow their errant ruling, the court does not bring an asham vadai, nor do they bring any sacrifice.  They are liable to bring a bull as a sin offering only if they issue an errant ruling about a commandment punishable by kareth and atoned for by a sin offering (and not a guilt offering).",
+                    "As we learned in mishnah five, if the court issues an errant ruling with regard to a commandment atoned for by a sliding scale sacrifice, they are not liable.  If, however, if an individual, king or high priest were to transgress one of these commandments, he must bring a sliding scale sacrifice.  The one exception is that the high priest is not obligated to bring a sliding scale sacrifice if he transgresses a commandment involving the purity of the Temple and its holy things. The mishnah now asks what type of sacrifice the king or the anointed priest brings should he transgress one of these commandments.  According to the first opinion, they bring a sliding scale sacrifice, as do all regular Israelites.  Rabbi Eliezer holds that the king brings a goat."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn the case discussed by our mishnah, a high priest or king issued an errant ruling that was subsequently followed by the people, but before they could bring the appropriate sin-offering, they lost their office.  The question is, are they still obligated to bring the same offering, even though they are no longer high priest or king.\nAs a background to this mishnah, I should point out that the removal of high priests and kings from their office was not an uncommon occurrence in the Second Temple period.  Due to the political pressures of the Roman rulers, kings and especially high priests were often replaced.",
+                    "<b>If an anointed priest transgressed and afterwards relinquished his high priesthood, and similarly if a ruler transgressed and afterwards relinquished his reign, the anointed priest brings a bullock, and the ruler brings a he-goat.</b> The mishnah rules that in the situation where the high priest or king issued an errant ruling but were removed from office before bringing their sin-offering, they still bring the same sin-offering that they would have brought had they still been in office.  The obligation for the offering is set at the time of the errant ruling, and not at the time of the bringing of the sacrifice.  Therefore, the high priest still brings a bull, and the king still brings a goat. In the next mishnah we will see that the high priest brings a bull even if he issued the errant ruling after he was removed from office.  Therefore, our mishnah is not really necessary with regard to the high priest because he in any case brings a bull. The only reason that the mishnah teaches about the high priest is because it wants to teach about the ruler, who brings a goat only if he issues the errant ruling while still a king."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah two teaches the halakhah regarding a high priest or king who issue an errant ruling after having relinquished their office.",
+                    "<b>If the anointed priest relinquished his high priesthood and afterwards transgressed, and similarly if a ruler relinquished his reign and afterwards transgressed, the anointed priest brings a bull while the ruler is like a regular person.</b> When the high priest is removed from office, he does not lose his sacred status (we will discuss this below in mishnah four).  Therefore, even if he issues an errant ruling after having been removed, he is still considered like a high priest, and he brings a bull.  However, the king does lose his status, and is therefore treated like a regular person who unwittingly sins and brings a she-goat or female sheep."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first section of this mishnah discusses a situation where the high priest or king issued an errant ruling before they were appointed to their position.\nSection two defines the word which we have been translating as ruler.  Leviticus 4:22 employs the word “nasi” which is translated occasionally by “chieftain” or “prince”.  In the Torah, it does not usually refer to a king.  However, our mishnah defines it as a king, as we shall see below.  It is worthwhile to note that in the times of the Mishnah, there was an official who used the title “nasi”, usually translated as the patriarch (for example Rabbi Judah Hanasi).  However, the patriarch certainly did not have kingly powers.",
+                    "<b>If they transgressed before they were appointed, and afterwards they were appointed, they are regarded as regular people. Rabbi Shimon said: if their sin came to their knowledge before they were appointed they are liable, but if after they were appointed they are exempt. Who is meant by a ruler? A king; for it says, “Any of all the commandments of the Lord his God” (Leviticus 4:22), a ruler ( who has none above him save the Lord his God.</b>  If the priest or king issued an errant ruling before they were appointed, they are not liable for the special sin offering, since at the time of the ruling they were regular individuals.  As we learned above, their liability is dependent upon the time of the ruling.  In this case, if they transgressed they are liable to bring the same sin-offering as would a regular Israelite. Rabbi Shimon holds that if they found out they had erred before their appointment they are liable to bring a sin offering as would a regular Israelite.  However, if they found out about their sin after they were appointed, they are completely exempt.  Rabbi Shimon holds that their liability is dependent both upon the timing of the errant ruling and the realization that it was errant.  In order for there to be liability, the high priest or king must be of the exact same status at the time of the realization that he was at the time of the ruling and sin.  Evidently, Rabbi Shimon would disagree with the opinion given in the previous mishnah as well, that if the high priest or ruler issued an errant ruling and then relinquished their office they are still liable.  According to R. Shimon, if they realized that the ruling was errant after they left office, they would not be liable.",
+                    "As stated above, according to the mishnah the word “nasi”, which we have been loosely translating as “ruler”, really refers to the king.  This is learned from the phrase, “the Lord his God”.  Only the king is second to God. Note, the simple meaning of “nasi” in Leviticus is probably head of a tribe.  That is the usual usage of the word in the Torah (see for instance Numbers 7)."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nDuring the time of the First Temple (destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C.E.) the high priest was anointed with special anointing oils wore eight special pieces of priestly garments, as opposed to the four worn by regular priests.  From the time of King Josiah (640-609 B.C.E.) there was no anointing oil and therefore the high priest was only distinguished by his wearing more garments.\nThe first part of our mishnah deals with the difference between the high priest who was anointed with the anointing oil and the high priest who only wore more garments.\nThe second part of the mishnah deals with the difference between the high priest who currently holds office, and the high priest who has already relinquished his office.",
+                    "<b>And who is the anointed priest?   He who was anointed with the anointing oil and not he that has more garments. The only difference between a high priest who is anointed with the anointing oil and one who has more garments is the bull that is offered for [the unwitting transgression of] any of the commandments. And the only difference between the acting ( priest and the former ( priest is the bull on the Day of Atonement and the tenth part of the ephah. They are both equal in the service of the Day of Atonement, and both are commanded to marry a virgin and are forbidden to marry a widow; they are both forbidden to become impure for their relatives; they do not let their hair grow long, nor do they rend their clothes; and they return the ( killer (from the city of.</b>  Throughout this tractate we have been talking about the “anointed priest”.  Our mishnah teaches that these laws refer specifically to the anointed high priest, and not merely to a high priest who wears the eight garments.  In other words, all of these laws were no longer applicable during the entire Second Temple period.",
+                    "This section is taught in a familiar literary format for the mishnah: a direct comparison between two similar things.  The only difference between these two types of priests is that an anointed high priest who follows his own errant ruling brings a bull, whereas one who merely wears more clothing brings the same sin-offering that a regular person brings.",
+                    "The mishnah now continues to employ the same literary formula, this time comparing the high priest who has already relinquished office with one who currently holds office.  The only difference between the two is that the high priest who currently holds office offers the bull on Yom Kippur (see Leviticus 16:6) and the tenth of the ephah, which is a grain offering (a minhah) offered daily by the high priest (see Leviticus 6:13).  The former high priest does not make these offerings.",
+                    "With regard to the other laws special to the high priest, they are both the same.  Note that all of these laws are contained in the beginning of chapter 21 of Leviticus and all have to do with the special sanctity of priests and especially the high priest.  Both types of high priests can marry only virgins and not widows (Leviticus 21:13-14).  Neither are allowed to become impure in order to bury any of their relatives, even their mother or father (ibid. 21:11).  They are not allowed to grow their hair long (ibid. 21:10) nor tear their clothes (ibid.).  At the death of either one of them, accidental killers may leave the cities of refuge, as it says in Numbers 35:25, “And he shall dwell their until the death of the high priest” (see Makkot 2:6)."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn the previous mishnah we learned that both acting high priests and former high priests do not rend their clothes when a relative dies.  Our mishnah clarifies that halakhah and teaches that the high priest does rend his clothes but not in the same way that an ordinary priest does.  In section two, the mishnah makes a further comparison between an ordinary and a high priest.",
+                    "<b>A high priest rends [his clothes] from below and an ordinary priest from above. A high priest offers sacrifices while an onen but does not eat them and an ordinary priest neither offers sacrifices nor eats them.</b>  If one of the high priest’s seven close relatives (father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter or wife) for whom he is obligated to mourn dies, he rends his clothes at the bottom.  When Leviticus 21:10 states that the high priest shall not rend his clothes, the interpretation of the rabbis is that he should not rend them in a normal fashion, which is above.  In contrast, an ordinary priest rends his clothes the same way that all people do, above.",
+                    "An onen is one who has had one of his seven close relatives die, but has not yet buried them (after the burial a person is an avel, a mourner).  According to the Torah he is an onen only for the day of the death, but the rabbis extended the status of aninut (being an onen) to include the night after the death, and the entire period until burial.  Our mishnah teaches that a high priest continues to offer sacrifices even while he is an onen, as it says in Leviticus 21:12, “He shall not go outside the sanctuary”.  He stays in the sanctuary in order to offer sacrifices. However, he does not eat sacrifices on that day.  We learn this from Aaron’s words on the day that his sons, Nadav and Avihu, die, “Had I eaten sin offering today would the Lord have approved?” (Leviticus 10:19).  It is clear from here that Aaron did not eat sacrifices on that day. In contrast, an ordinary priest who is an onen may neither offer sacrifices, nor eat them.  Since an ordinary priest is allowed to become impure for one of these seven relatives, his status during this period is basically the same as that of ordinary people."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah teaches which sacrifice takes precedence over other sacrifices, in a case where both are ready to be sacrificed.\nThe importance of this mishnah is that it does not just give specific rules for precedence in sacrificial law, but teaches general principles, which are still applied today, especially in  laws of prayer.",
+                    "<b>Whatever is more frequent than another takes precedence over that other; And whatever is more sacred than another takes precedence over that other. If the bull of the anointed priest and the bull of the congregation are standing [to be sacrificed], the bull of the anointed priest precedes that of the congregation in all its details.</b>  Something that is frequently done is performed before something else that is not frequently done.  This is learned from the fact that in the morning the tamid burnt offering is sacrificed before any of the special festival sacrifices are offered.  Since the tamid is a daily offering and is therefore frequent, it takes precedence over less frequently offered sacrifices. We should note that this principle seems somewhat counterintuitive.  A person would naturally be more inclined to do first that which is special, more unusual, and only afterwards do what is regular and routine.  Judaism teaches that it is the routine which takes precedence and not the special occasion.  Through this mishnah, we learn to appreciate not just what is ordinary, but to take note of the importance of those things that we do regularly.  We should not allow their frequency to diminish their significance. A couple of examples where this principle is still evoked.  During Shabbat and festival kiddush, one first recites the blessing over the wine and only then the blessing over Shabbat.  This is because the blessing over the wine is more frequent than the blessing over the Shabbat.  Another example: in morning prayers we recite a psalm for each day of the week.  On Rosh Hodesh (the first day of the new month) we also recite a special psalm.  The psalm that is recited for the day of the week is done first, because it is more frequently recited than the one for Rosh Hodesh.",
+                    "In cases where one cannot apply the previous rule, then the rule is that whatever is more sacred comes first.  We will see an application of this principle in the next section, and in the next mishnah.",
+                    "If the bull that is offered by the high priest for an errant ruling, and the bull that is offered by the community for their having followed the errant ruling of the court are both waiting to be sacrificed, the bull of the high priest takes precedence.  This is because the high priest is more sanctified than the general populace, and also because he brings atonement for others (see Leviticus 4:16), whereas they are just being atoned for.  This is also hinted at in Leviticus 16:17, “And he (the high priest) will make expiation for himself and his household, and for the whole congregation of Israel.”  He takes precedence over all of Israel."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn the previous mishnah we learned which sacrifice takes precedence in cases where two need to be offered.  In addition, we learned some general principles of which things take precedence over others in halakhah.  Our mishnah contains another such principle.",
+                    "<b>A man takes precedence over a woman in matters concerning the saving of life and the restoration of lost property, and a woman takes precedence over a man in respect of clothing and ransom from captivity. When both are exposed to degradation in their captivity the man takes precedence over the woman.</b> Our mishnah is clearly chauvinistic, and we should acknowledge it as such. As I have stated before when such types of mishnayoth have appeared, while I can understand the mishnah as reflecting common societal values in the ancient world, I cannot internalize the mishnah as reflecting my own values.  Nor do I believe that any Jew reading this mishnah should do so. The mishnah states that if one has the opportunity to save the life of a man or a woman, but only one of them, the man takes precedence.  Similarly, if one has the opportunity to restore lost property to either a man or a woman, he should return that which belongs to the man. For instance if he finds two lost horses, one that he knows belongs to Jacob and one to Rachel, but can only return one, he should return that which belongs to Jacob. However, when it comes to issues of potential degradation, the woman’s modesty comes first.  If one has only enough money to help buy clothing for a man or woman, the woman takes precedence.  This is because it is more embarrassing for a woman to be poorly clothed than for a man.  Similarly, if one has only enough money to redeem one captive, one should redeem the woman, lest she be raped during captivity.  Men are not usually raped during captivity.  We know that this is the reason that women are redeemed first, because the end of the mishnah states that if there is concern that the man might be raped, he is to be redeemed first.  According to the mishnah, it is worse for the man to be raped than for the woman."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe mishnah continues to provide rules of precedence.",
+                    "<b>A priest takes precedence over a levite, a levite over an israelite, an israelite over a mamzer, a mamzer over a natin, a natin over a convert, and a convert over a freed slave. When is this so?  When all these were in other respects equal. However, if the mamzer was a scholar and the high priest an ignoramus, the scholar mamzer takes precedence over the ignorant high priest.</b> According to commentaries, this mishnah deals with precedence in any matter of honor or profit.  The mishnah considers certain genealogical lines of Jews to be inherently more holy than others.  A priest is holier than a levite and a levite is holier than an Israelite.  A mamzer is someone who was born of an illicit sexual union of two Jews, therefore an israelite takes precedence over a mamzer.  A natin is a descendent of the Gibeonites who converted during the time of Joshua (see above 1:4).  Since a mamzer does not have any foreign descent, he is holier than a natin.  A natin is holier than a current convert, because a natin was part of Israel from before his birth, whereas a convert has only just now converted. A convert is holier than a freed slave for a convert was never part of such a lowly occupation. Up until now the mishnah has stated what must be considered something similar to a genealogical caste system.  Each person is born into a certain status, and these separate statuses are ranked.  We might think that at least during a person’s lifetime, he could not move up or down in status. The last clause of the mishnah radically undercuts that ideology.  While in theory a person’s “holiness” is attributed to birth, a person’s true holiness is attained through the study of Torah.  A mamzer who studies Torah is higher than a high priest who does not, even though the latter has the highest pedigree of genealogical status.  In practice, this will become the only criteria for “ranking” individuals, for no two individuals will be exactly the same in their Torah learning. This statement in essence is one of the supreme value statements for the entire Mishnah.  The rabbinic social system was a meritocracy, where one merited one’s position based on commitment to Torah study, and not based on one’s filial connections. Congratulations!  We have finished Horayoth and all of Seder Nezikin. As I have mentioned at the end of every tractate, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to 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.  This time we have not only finished Horayoth, but we have finished all of Seder Nezikin, one sixth of the entire Mishnah.  This is a great accomplishment and for those of you who have been studying with us from the beginning, give yourselves hearty yasher koach, and a big pat on the back (those who haven’t been learning since the beginning may do so as well). The next Seder (order) which we will learn is Nashim.  As you will note, we are not learning the Mishnah in its order.  In truth, there is not really order between different seders of the mishnah, nor even between different tractates.  The only order internal to the Mishnah is inside the tractate.  Therefore, there is no reason to learn or not to learn the Mishnah in the order that its tractates appear. Again, congratulations and good luck with your continuing learning.  Tomorrow we begin tractate Yevamoth."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+            "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה הוריות",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Nezikin"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה הוריות",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Horayot",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

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

@@ -0,0 +1,242 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot",
+    "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 מכות",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Nezikin"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first six mishnayoth of Makkoth deal with perjuring witnesses, who according to Deuteronomy 20:18-19 are to receive the same punishment that they tried to impose upon the accused.  For instance if they testified that a person was guilty of murder and therefore should be executed and then were found to have perjured themselves, they are themselves to be executed.\nThe first mishnah points out cases where this punishment upon the witnesses cannot be carried out, at least not in a simple fashion.",
+                    "Although this mishnah begins with the question, how do witnesses become perjurers, we will not learn the mishnaic definition of perjury until mishnah four.  This mishnah will instead discuss the punishment of perjuring witnesses who do not, for various, reasons, simply receive the punishment they tried to impose upon the accused.",
+                    "<b>How do witnesses become liable [to punishment] as perjurers?<br>[If they say:]  “We testify that so and so [a priest] is a son of a woman who had [formerly] been divorced or a haluzah,”  it is not said that each witness should himself be as if he was born of a divorcee or a haluzah; rather he receives forty  [lashes].</b>  According to Jewish law a kohen (a priest) is not allowed to marry a divorcee or a woman who had undergone the process known as “halitzah”, the refusal of the levirate marriage (marriage to the husband’s brother upon the husband’s death when he had no children, see Deuteronomy 25:5-10).  A child born of the union of a priest and a divorcee or a halutzah loses his priestly status.  If witnesses falsely testify that a priest is really the son of a divorcee or a halutzah, they are attempting to cause him to forfeit his status.  Although in general a perjuring witness is punished with the punishment which he tried to impose, in this case it is impossible to do so.  Rather he is punished by being lashed forty times (Deuteronomy 25:3).",
+                    "<b>[If they say]: “We testify that so and so is guilty of [a crime entailing] exile”,  it is not said that each witness should himself be exiled; rather he receives forty [lashes].</b>  If witnesses falsely testify that another person committed a crime which entails exile (we will learn which crimes entail exile in chapter two), the perjuring witnesses are not themselves exiled.  Rather they received forty lashes.",
+                    "<b>[If they say:] “We testify that so and so divorced his wife and has not paid her kethubah”  seeing that either today or tomorrow he [the husband] will pay her kethubah, the assessment should be made how much a man will be willing to pay [now] for the ownership of her kethubah, on the condition that if she should be widowed or divorced [he will take it over] but if she should die, her husband will inherit her [estate including the kethubah].</b>  If a person falsely testifies that a man divorced his wife and did not pay her kethubah (marriage settlement) it does not make sense to punish him with a fine equal to the kethubah.  Since if the husband should in the future divorce his wife or die and then have to pay the kethubah in any case, by falsely testifying now the perjuring witness didn’t necessarily cause the husband the loss of the kethubah.   Rather we assess how much a person would want to pay to take a risk on buying the woman’s kethubah, on condition that if she would be divorced or widowed he would get the kethubah but if she should die before her husband he would not get the kethubah (since the husband inherits his wife).  This is what he kethubah is worth at the present moment, while she and her husband are still alive, and this is what the perjuring witnesses therefore have to pay.",
+                    "<b>[If they say]:  “We testify that so and so owes his friend one thousand zuz on the condition that he will pay him within thirty days”, while the debtor says “ten years”, the assessment should be made how much a man is willing to pay for the use of a thousand zuz, whether he pays them in thirty days or ten years.</b>  In this scenario the witnesses falsely testify that a certain person borrowed a thousand zuz and must pay them back within thirty days.  The accused does owe the thousand zuz but must pay them back only within ten years and not thirty days.  Again, in this case we cannot merely fine the perjurers one thousand zuz since in the end the accused will have to pay back the zuz.  Rather the witnesses tried to cause him to lose ten years minus thirty days use of the money, and they are therefore fined whatever a person would pay to use one thousand zuz for ten years minus thirty days."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>[If they say]:  “We testify that so and so owes his friend two hundred zuz”, and they are found to be perjurers, they are flogged and ordered to make restitution, because the count which brings upon them the flogging is not the count that brings upon them the necessity to make restitution, these are the words of Rabbi Meir.<br>But the Sages say:  “Anyone who makes restitution is not flogged.”</b><br>This mishnah discusses the punishment for a perjuring witness in a financial case.<br>There is a principle in Jewish law that one cannot receive two penalties for one crime.  By testifying falsely a person is committing two crimes that theoretically carry with them two different penalties:  1) flogging for transgressing the commandment against false testimony (Exodus 20:13); 2) compensation for whatever financial loss he tried to impose upon his fellow (Deuteronomy 19:18-19).  According to Rabbi Meir, since these are two different crimes categorized in two different Biblical verses, a person can be punished by both being flogged and having to make financial restitution, in this case 200 zuz.  However, according to the Sages, anyone who makes restitution cannot be flogged.  In this case the perjuring witnesses would pay the 200 zuz and would not be flogged."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnayoth three continues to discuss the laws of perjuring witnesses.",
+                    "<b>[If they say:]  “We testify that so and so is liable to a flogging of forty lashes, and they are found to be perjurers, they receive eighty lashes, because of, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:13) and “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuternomy 19:19), these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say, “They receive only forty lashes.”</b>  This section is actually a continuation of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages begun in mishnah two.  According to Rabbi Meir one can receive eighty lashes for one false testimony, forty for violating the commandment in Exodus and forty for trying to impose forty lashes upon the accused, the violation mentioned in Deuteronomy.  According to the Sages, since this was only one act he can receive only one punishment, namely forty lashes, as he tried to impose upon the accused.",
+                    "<b>Monetary impositions are shared among the offenders, but the lashes are not shared among the offenders. How so? If they testified that he owed his friend one hundred zuz, and they were found to be perjurers, they divide the corresponding damages proportionately between them. But if they testified that he was liable to a flogging of forty lashes and were found to be perjurers, each one receives forty lashes.</b>  Witnesses who perjure themselves in a monetary case are punished by a fine equal to the financial loss they tried to impose upon the accused.  In this type of case the witnesses may share the burden of the financial penalty.  For instance if they lied with regards to two hundred zuz, each witness will compensate the accused one hundred zuz.  If, however, they lied in a case involving lashes, the witnesses do not share the lashes.  Rather each witness receives the number of lashes that they attempted to impose upon the accused.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Section one:  What is the connection between the dispute in mishnah three and the dispute that we learned yesterday in mishnah two?<br>• Section two:  Why do you think that the witnesses may share the financial penalty but not share the lashes?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah four continues to discuss the laws of perjuring witnesses.",
+                    "<b>Witnesses are not condemned as perjurers until they themselves are incriminated; How so? If they said: “We testify that so and so killed a person” and others said to them: “How could you testify to that, as that murdered person or that [alleged] murderer was with us on that very day, at such and such a place?” [then] the witnesses are not condemned as perjurers. But, if these [other] witnesses said:  “How could you testify to that, as on that very day, you were with us at such and such a place?’ [then] the former are condemned as perjurers, and are executed by their [the other witnesses] word.</b> This mishnah contains the Rabbinic definition of the type of perjuring witnesses referred to in the Torah.  According to the Rabbis witnesses who are contradicted in their testimony are not always to receive the punishment that they tried to impose upon the accused.  If other witnesses come and merely contradict the first witnesses’ testimony, while the testimony of the first witnesses may be invalidated, they do not receive the punishment that they tried to impose.  After all, why should the court believe the testimony of the last witnesses more than it believes the testimony of the first witnesses?  Rather, only if the second set of witnesses testify that the first set of witnesses could not have even seen that which they purport to have seen are the first witnesses punished as perjurers.  This is what the mishnah means when it states that the witnesses themselves must be incriminated.  In other words the form of perjury referred to in the Torah is only a case where the witnesses lie about their own whereabouts at the time of the crime.  If they lie about the crime itself, while they may be punished with lashes for false testimony, they do not receive the punishment they attempted to impose."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If other witnesses came, and they charged them [with perjury]: then [again] others came, and they [again] charged them [with perjury], even a hundred, they are all to be executed.<br>Rabbi Judah says:  “This is a conspiracy and the first set alone is [to be] executed.”</b><br>Mishnah five deals with multiple sets of perjuring witnesses.<br>According to the opinion in the first section of the mishnah every set of witnesses that perjures themselves with regards to a certain crime can be executed for perjury (if the case was a capital case).  If, for instance, Reuven and Shimon testify that Jacob committed a crime which entails the death penalty and then Levi and Judah come and state that at the time of the alleged crime Reuven and Shimon were with them and not at the scene of the crime, Reuven and Shimon are executed.  If afterwards Zevulun and Issachar come and testify to the same crime and again Levi and Judah claim that they were with them at the time of the crime, then Zevulun and Issachar are to be executed as well. Levi and Judah can testify against as many witnesses as they want, and even one hundred witnesses, all saying the same thing, could be executed for perjury.<br>Rabbi Judah claims that in this scenario there is a conspiracy between the accused and those who contradict everyone else’s testimony, namely, Levi and Judah.  While we do accept their testimony, only the first set of witnesses are executed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Perjuring witnesses are not to be put to death until [after] the end of the trial.<br>Because the Sadducees say:  “[Perjurers were put to death] only after the accused had [actually] been executed, as it says, “ A life for a life” (Deuteronomy 19:21).<br>The [Pharisaic] Sages said to them: “But has not it already been said “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuteronomy 19:19)  which implies when his brother is still alive?<br>If so, why does it say “A life for life”?<br>For it might have been that perjurers are liable to be put to death from the moment their testimony had been taken, therefore the Torah states “A life for a life” that is to say that they are not executed until [after] the termination of the trial.</b><br>Mishnah six discusses at one point in the judicial process the witnesses are proven to be perjurers in order for them to receive the penalty that they tried to impose upon the accused.<br>This mishnah contains a dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees, two of the main Jewish sects that competed during the Second  Temple period (until 70 C.E.).  The issue at hand is when are the perjuring witnesses to be executed:  after the trial or only after the accused has been himself executed.  The Sadducees claim that perjuring witnesses are only executed if they have been successful in having the accused actually executed.  In other words, the witnesses are executed not for intending to unjustly execute the accused but for actually doing so.  Just as in a case of murder of person the guilty can be convicted and executed as a murderer only if he actually succeeds and murders the victim, so too in this case, the witnesses are only executed if they succeed and have the accused wrongfully executed.  The Sadducees learn this from the verse that states “A life for a life”.  The witnesses have their lives taken away only if the accused already lost his life.<br>The Sages, who assumedly are Pharisees, the predecessors of the Rabbis of the Mishnah, state that the perjurers are executed once the verdict has been delivered, meaning the wrongful verdict that they attempted to impose upon the accused.  If their testimony is contradicted beforehand then they are not executed because they were not even successful in getting a verdict pronounced against the accused.  The Sages arrive at this conclusion by finding the middle ground between two seemingly contradictory verses.  Verse 19 says that “you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” which sounds like “his fellow” is still alive when the perjurers are executed.  From this verse alone we might have concluded that the perjuring witnesses are executed as soon as their testimony is found to be false, even if the accused has not been convicted.  However, verse 21, “a life for a life” seems to imply that the perjurers are executed only if the accused actually loses his life, as the Sadducees said.  The middle ground is that the perjurers are not executed immediately after they give their testimony (and they are found to be perjuring themselves) nor must the accused have been actually executed for the perjurers to be executed.  Rather they are executed if the trial was completed, the accused found guilty and then the witnesses proven to be perjurers."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nBoth mishnah seven and mishnah eight which we will learn tomorrow contain midrashim, exegeses, of the verse in Deuteronomy 17:6 which states that a person may be executed by the testimony of “two or three witnesses”.  This statement is not a precise legal statement.  If two witnesses are sufficient than the Torah should have stated two.  If three witnesses are necessary the Torah should not have stated two.  Since all of the Sages held that two witnesses were sufficient, they must answer why the Torah also stated three.",
+                    "This mishnah contains three opinions with regards to a perceived problem in the Biblical verse mentioned in the beginning of the mishnah.",
+                    "<b>“A person shall be put to death only on the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6).<br>If the testimony is sufficiently established by two witnesses, why does Scripture [further] specify three? This is to compare two to three: just as three are competent to incriminate two as perjurers, so are two competent to incriminate three as perjurers. How do we know [that two or three can even incriminate] a hundred?  The Torah states “witnesses”.</b>  The first solution is that the Torah teaches that a set of three witnesses can be made into perjurers even by a set of two witnesses.  If the Torah had only taught “two witnesses” we might have thought that two was sufficient to incriminate two other witnesses but not three, since they are more numerous.  Therefore, the Torah teaches that no matter how large the group of witnesses, even one hundred, they do not have more power than a contradictory set of two.  If, therefore, three witnesses were to testify to a capital crime and the person was found guilty and condemned to die and then two witnesses claimed that the three prior witnesses were not present at the time of the alleged crime and rather were with them, the first three are executed as perjurers.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: “Just as two witnesses are not put to death until both have been incriminated as perjurers, so three are not put to death until all three have been incriminated as perjurers. How do we know [that two or three can even incriminate] a hundred?  The Torah states “witnesses”.</b>  Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is that just as when a pair of witnesses testify neither can be executed until both are proven to be perjurers, so too when three witnesses testify, none may be executed until all are proven to be perjurers.  Without the word “three” in the Torah we might have thought that if three or more testify and two are found to be perjurers they may be executed, even if the third was not a perjurer.  After all, the two would have been sufficient to have the accused executed.  Therefore the Torah teaches “three” and “witnesses” to teach that none are executed as perjurers until all are proven to be so.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Akiba says:  “The third witness was only mentioned in order to be stringent upon him and make his judgement the same as the other two. And if Scripture thus penalizes one who consorts with those who commit a transgression, as [if he is actually] one of those who commits the transgression, how much more so shall he who consorts with those who perform commandments receive a reward as [if he is actually] one of those who performs the commandments!”</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva, if three witnesses testify and two are incriminated as perjurers, the third witness is executed even if he was not a perjurer.  He is punished not for his false testimony but for joining in with other perjurers/evildoers.  Although this is a harsh sentence, Rabbi Akiva finds in it a ray of hope.  If those who merely join with evildoers are punished so harshly all the more so will those who join with those who perform commandments be greatly rewarded.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• What would be the practical result of the various interpretations on the procedures of the court?  What type of psychological effect would they have on the witnesses?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah Eight continues to expound upon the verse in Deuteronomy 17:6 which states that a person may be executed by the testimony of “two or three witnesses”.",
+                    "<b>Just as in the case of two witnesses, if one of them was found to be a relative or [otherwise] disqualified, their whole evidence is rendered void, so it is with three, if one of them was found to be a relative or [otherwise] disqualified, the whole evidence is void. How do we know that this is the case even with a hundred?  The Torah states “witnesses”.</b>  This section is a continuation of the previous mishnah’s discussion of the verse in Deuteronomy which stated “two or three witnesses”.  Another reason why the Torah states “two or three” is to teach that if one witness is invalidated (for reasons why witnesses may be invalidated see Sanhedrin 3:4), the entire grouping of witnesses is invalid.  This is obvious when there are two witnesses, for if one is invalidated, obviously the other one’s singular testimony will be invalidated due to its insufficiency.  However, even if there are three or more witnesses, and only one’s testimony is invalidated, and their remain two or more valid witnesses, nevertheless all of their testimony is invalidated.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose said:  “When is this true?  With regards to capital cases;  but in monetary suits, the evidence may be established by the rest. Rabbis says:  “It is one and the same rule, be it in monetary suits or capital cases.”</b>  Rabbi Yose limits this ruling to capital crimes.  In civil/monetary suits if one witness’s testimony is invalidated the other witnesses’ testimony can still stand.  Rabbi Akiva disagrees and claims that there is no difference between monetary and capital cases.",
+                    "<b>This is the rule when both [disqualified] witnesses warned the trasngressor, but when they did not warn him, what could two brothers do that saw someone killing a person?</b>  The mishnah now again limits the ruling in section one.  In order to convict someone of a capital crime he must be warned before he commits the crime.  If a person warns him before he commits the crime and then he commits it anyway, the person who warned him may testify against him. If a relative warned the person before he committed the crime, he will become one of the witnesses, thereby invalidating all of the testimony due to his being a relative or otherwise invalid.  If, however, the witness did not warn the potential offender, he does not necessarily become a witness and he will therefore not invalidate the others’ testimony.  The mishnah points out that if merely by witnessing a crime relatives can invalidate everyone’s testimony, neither of two brothers who saw a murder would be able to testify against the murderer.  If two brothers and a third person saw a murder and the law was that relatives may not join together to testify, and just by seeing the crime they become witnesses, the murderer would not be able to be convicted.  Rather, the mishnah teaches that the third person can join his testimony with one of the brothers and thereby convict the accused."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah nine continues to discuss the laws of witnessing capital crimes.  It deals with the question when are witnesses consider two groups and when are they considered one group.  Furthermore this mishnah deals with the requirement of the witnesses to warn the transgressor before he commits his crime.",
+                    "<b>If two persons see him [the transgressor] from one window and two other persons see him from another window and one standing in the middle warns him, then, if some on one side and some on the other side can see one another,  they constitute together one body of evidence, but if they cannot [see one another], they are two bodies of evidence. Consequently, if one of these is found to be a perjurer, both [the transgressor] and those two witnesses are put to death, while other group of witnesses is exempt.</b>  If a murder is witnessed by two sets of witnesses from two different angles we need to know if they are legally considered one set of witnesses or two sets.  If they constitute one set of witnesses then if any one of the four is caught as a perjurer, or is otherwise invalidated, all of their testimony is invalid, and none of the witnesses can be executed, unless they were all caught as perjurers .  If they are two sets of witnesses, then if one set is caught as a perjurers or otherwise disqualified, there remains a set of valid witnesses, and the transgessor is executed upon their testimony.  According to the mishnah the two sets of witnesses’ testimony is joined only under two conditions:  1)  the two sets can see each other; 2)  the person warning the transgessor stands between the two sets of witnesses such that all may see him.  If the witnesses cannot see each other or the person warning was not seen by all of the witnesses, then they are two different sets.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says:  “He is never put to death unless two witnesses had warned him, as it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses..” (Deut. 17:6).</b>  Rabbi Yose states that two must warn the transgessor before he commits the crime in order to convict him afterwards.  He learns this from the verse in Deut. 17:6, which literally translates, “by the mouth of two witnesses” (which is just idiomatic for “by two witnesses”).  Rabbi Yose understands that not only the verbal testimony but the verbal warning as well must come from two witnesses.",
+                    "<b>Another interpretation:  “By the mouth of two witnesses”:  that the Sanhedrin shall not hear the evidence from the mouth of an interpreter.</b>  Another interpretation of the phrase “by the mouth of” is that testimony may not be given through a translator.  A translator would cause the testimony to come from someone else’s mouth.  If the witness does not speak a language that the sanhedrin understands, his testimony does not count."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah ten discusses a criminal who flees after being convicted.  The final part of mishnah ten contains the famous discussion regarding how often the sanhedrins actually carried out executions.",
+                    "<b>If one fled after having been convicted at a court and again comes up before the same court, the [first] judgment is not set aside. Wherever two witnesses stand up and declare, “We testify that so and so was tried and convicted at a certain court and that so and so were the witnesses” the accused is executed.</b>  If the convicted felon fled and was returned before the same court, he is executed without another trial.  If he was caught and brought before a different court two witnesses must state that this person was already convicted by another court.  They must also name the court and name those who testified against the felon.  If they do so he may be executed by the new court without a full trial.",
+                    "<b>[Trials before] a sanhedrin are customary both in the land [of Israel] and outside it.</b>  The sanhedrin of twenty three is a communal structure that is functional both in the Land of Israel and outside of it.",
+                    "<b>A sanhedrin that executes once in seven years, is called murderous. Rabbi Eliezer b. Azariah Says: once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say:  “Had we been members of a sanhedrin, no person would ever be put to death. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel remarked:  “They would also multiply murderers in Israel.”</b>  This famous piece of mishnah testifies to some of the Rabbis’ deep hesitations with regards to the death penalty.  As we have seen throughout tractate Sanhedrin and tractate Makkoth, convicting a person of a capital crime is no easy matter.  The person must be warned beforehand and then the crime has to be explicitly witnessed by two valid witnesses.  Therefore, the first opinion in our mishnah, concludes that a court that executes once every seven years is a murderous court.  Since the laws of testimony are so strict, any court that executes more often than this is assumed to be illegally suspending the laws and is therefore, in a sense, engaging in murder itself.  Rabbi Elezar ben Azariah says that once in seventy years already makes a court murderous.  Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva brag that had they been on a sanhedrin no one would have ever been executed.  At the end of the mishnah Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, the political leader of the Jews at the time, notes a sound of caution.  The Rabbinic tendency to be overly lenient on executing murderers can take its toll on society.  In his opinion the attitudes of the other Rabbis cause the numbers of murderers to rise.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Section two: Why might one have thought that the sanhedrin was not functional outside of the Land of Israel?<br>• Section three:  Why do the Rabbis feel the need to state how infrequently a court should execute?  What is Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel’s argument with the others?"
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe second chapter of Makkoth discusses the laws regarding accidental killing.  These laws are discussed extensively in Numbers 35:9-28, 32 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13.  According to these passages, if a person killed another person by accident the victim’s relative could exact blood vengeance upon the accidental killer.  If the accidental killer wanted to avoid being killed by the blood avenger he would run to one of the cities of refuge that were to be established when the Land of Israel was conquered.  The accidental killer would have to stay in this city until the death of the High Priest at which point he could return to his former city and the blood avenger would be forbidden from killing him.\nThe mishnah which we will learn today defines what killing is considered accidental such that it allows a killer to escape to a city of refuge.",
+                    "<b>The following go into banishment: one who kills in error. If [for instance] while he was pushing a roller [on the roof] and it fell down and killed somebody; If while he was lowering a cask it fell down and killed somebody; If while coming down a ladder he fell on somebody and killed him, he goes into banishment. But, if while he was pulling up the roller it fell back and killed somebody; If while he was raising a cask and the rope snapped and the cask fell and killed somebody; If while going up a ladder he fell down and killed somebody, he does not go into banishment. (1) This is the general principle: [whenever the death was caused] in the course of a downward movement, he goes into banishment, but [if it was caused] not in the course of a downward movement, he does not go into banishment.</b>  This entire section illustrates the principle that an accidental death which will force the killer to go into exile is a case where a person is lowering a heavy object or he himself is going down a ladder and the object or the person slips and accidentally kills someone.  If however, he was bringing something up or going up a ladder and the object or he fell downward he is not obligated to go into exile.  The difference between the two is that in the first case the likelihood of injuring someone below is relatively high and he therefore should have been more cautious.  In the second case, when he is bringing something up, the likelihood that it will fall below and cause injury is unlikely.  Therefore he does not need to go into exile. This section illustrates an important difference in the Rabbinic understanding of exile from the Biblical understanding of exile.  In the Bible the accidental killer’s fleeing to the refuge city is to his own advantage. If he does not the blood avenger will kill him.  Exile is not a punishment for a crime or for negligence but legal protection offered to an accidental killer.  In the Rabbinic legal system exile is a punishment for negligence.  This is probably partly due to the fact that blood vengeance was not accepted in their society.  The Rabbis understand exile as a punishment for negligence.  Therefore if the killing was totally unanticipated, he need not go to the city of exile.",
+                    "<b>If the iron slipped from its heft and killed [somebody]: Rabbi says, “He does not go into banishment.” And the Sages say:  “He goes into banishment.” If it flew from the log being split: Rabbi says, “He goes into banishment.” And the Sages say:  “He does not go into banishment.”</b>  Deuteronomy 19:5 brings up an example of accidental killing whereby a man goes into the forest with an ax and the “ax flies off the handle and strikes another so that he dies”.  This phrase “ax flies off the handle” is read in two different ways. The Sages read the verse as we have translated it, that the instrument which kills is the metal part of the ax which flies off its handle.  According to Rabbi (Judah the Prince) in this situation the person is not liable for exile.  He reads the verse as if it states that the ax causes a chip to fly off from the tree and the chip kills someone else.  [Rabbi would translate the word handle as “tree”, and they are both indeed the same word.]  According to the Sages, in this situation he is not liable for exile."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah two continues to define what killing is considered accidental such that it allows a killer to escape to a city of refuge.",
+                    "<b>If a man threw a stone into the public domain and killed a person, he goes into banishment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says:  “If after the stone had left his hand another person put out his head and caught it, the thrower is exempt [from banishment].”</b>  One who throws a stone into the public domain has thereby committed a negligent act and is exiled if the stone kills.  According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob the stone must be thrown at the place where a person is standing, before the stone is thrown.  If after the stone is thrown a person moves into its way he is not liable to be exiled.  This is probably because he is less negligent, having thrown a stone to a place where no one was standing.  However, according to the first opinion in the mishnah, merely throwing a stone to a place that might kill is enough to cause the thrower to be exiled.",
+                    "<b>If a man threw a stone into his [own] court and killed a person, then, if the victim had a right of entry there, the thrower goes into banishment, and if not, he does not go into banishment, as it says, “As when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor” (Deut. 19:5): the forest is a domain accessible to the victim and to the slayer and it therefore excludes the court of the householder where the victim has no right of entry.</b>  If a person throws a stone into his own courtyard and it kills a trespasser the thrower is not liable to be exiled.  This is learned from the example of accidental killing mentioned in Deuteronomy 19:5, that of an accidental killing taking place in the forest.  Just as the forest is a place where anyone may enter, so too any accidental killing can only occur in a place where the victim had permission to enter.  An accidental killing which takes place on private property when the victim had not been given permission to enter will not make the killer liable for exile.",
+                    "<b>Abba Shaul says: “Hewing of wood is an optional act and it therefore excludes a father beating his son, or a master disciplining his pupil, or an agent of the court [administering lashes].”</b>  Abba Shaul learns another law from the example given in the Torah, that of a person chopping wood.  Chopping wood is a voluntary activity and therefore any accidental killing which will force the killer to go into exile must also entail voluntary activities.  If however the striking was mandatory such as a father disciplining his son, a master his student or a court agent administering lashes, the accidental killer is exempt.  When reading this mishnah, as harsh as it sounds we must remember that corporal discipline was an accepted part of all ancient societies."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah three discusses categories of accidental killers who do or do not go into exile.",
+                    "<b>The father goes into banishment for [the death of] his son, and the son goes into banishment for [that of] his father.</b>  Although we learned in the previous mishnah that a father does not go into banishment if he accidentally kills his son while disciplining him, he nevertheless does go into banishment if he accidentally kills him under other circumstances.  So too a son goes into banishment if he accidentally kills his father.",
+                    "<b>All go into banishment for [the death of] an Israelite, and Israelites go into banishment on their account, except for a resident alien. And a resident alien does not go into banishment except for [the death of another] resident alien.</b>  Anyone who accidentally kills an Israelite, meaning a Jew, is exiled, including a slave or a Samaritan (a sect that broke away from the Jews).  So too, any Jew who accidentally kills someone goes into exile, even if he accidentally kills a slave or a Samaritan.  The one exception is a resident alien, a person who lives in the Land of Israel and has accepted upon himself to perform the seven Noahide commandments (the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, sexual sins, theft, and eating from a living animal, as well as the injunction to establish a legal system) but has not fully converted to Judaism.  If a Jew accidentally kills a resident alien he is not banished.  However, if a resident alien accidentally kills a Jew he is to be executed.  These laws are learned in the Talmud exegetically from Deuteronomy 19:5.",
+                    "<b>A blind person does not go into banishment, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says:  “He goes into banishment.”</b>  Numbers 35:23 states that if a person drops a stone on someone else “without seeing” he is to be banished.  Based on this verse there is a dispute amongst the Sages with regards to the banishing of a blind person.  According to Rabbi Judah since a blind person can never see he is exempted from the laws of banishment.  According to Rabbi Meir, as long as the killing was accidental the killer is banished.",
+                    "<b>An enemy does not go into banishment. Rabbi Yose bar Judah says:  “An enemy is executed, for it is as if he has been warned.” Rabbi Shimon says:  “There is an enemy that goes into banishment and there is an enemy that does not go into banishment:  wherever it can be said that he had killed [his victim] wittingly, he goes not into banishment,  and where he had slain unwittingly, he goes into banishment.</b>  A person who accidentally kills his enemy is understandably going to be looked at with some suspicion.  Deuteronomy 19:11 states that “If, however, a person who is the enemy of another lies in wait for him and sets upon him and strikes him with a fatal blow” this person is to be executed.  The question our mishnah asks is what to do with the an enemy who claims that he killed accidentally.  According to the first opinion, since he is an enemy, he is not banished.  Neither is he to be executed by a court.  Rather, the blood avenger is allowed to exact revenge upon this person and not be considered guilty of murder himself.  According to Rabbi Yose bar Judah he is to be executed, for we can assume that he murdered with intent, and it is as if he has already been warned not to murder such and such a person.  Rabbi Shimon states that not all situations in which a person kills his enemy are the same.  If it can be stated that the enemy killed with intent than he is not to be banished.  In other words, the cities of refuge will not offer him protection and the blood avenger will be permitted to exact revenge.  If, however, it cannot be stated that he killed with intent he is banished like all other accidental killers.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Section one:  Why would you think that a father doesn’t go into banishment for his son?  Why would you think that a son doesn’t go into banishment for accidentally killing his father?<br>• Section four:  There are three different opinions in this section.  Try to figure out how each opinion might be based on the verse in Deuteronomy."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>To where are they banished? To the cities of refuge, to the three cities situated on the far side of the Jordan and the three cities situated in Canaan, as it says, “Three cities shall be designated beyond the Jordan, and the other three shall be designated in the land of Canaan” (Numbers 35:14).<br>Not until three cities were selected in the land of Israel did the [first] three cities beyond the jordan receive fugitives, as it says, “Six cities of refuge in all” (Numbers 35:13), until all six could simultaneously receive fugitives.</b><br>Mishnah four begins to discuss the refuge cities, those cities to where the accidental killer would flee.<br><br>This mishnah begins to discuss the cities of refuge to where the accidental killer would flee in order to protect himself from the blood avenger.  There were three cities on one side of the Jordan river (where the country of Jordan currently exists) and three in the land of Israel.  Although the land on the other side of the Jordan river was conquered first and assumedly its refuge cities were assigned before the remainder of the land was conquered, nevertheless these refuge cities were not functional until all six had been conquered and assigned."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah five discusses the making of roads to lead to the cities of refuge and the accompaniment of the manslayer as he makes his way.",
+                    "<b>And direct roads were made leading from one to the other, as it says, “You shall prepare the way and divide the borders of your land into three parts” (Deut. 19:3).</b>  Roads were to be made leading to the cities of refuge so that the manslayer would not have a difficult time finding his way.  Remember that if the blood avenger found him before he arrived at the city of refuge he could kill him without incurring penalty.",
+                    "<b>And they delegate to him to disciples of the Sages [as escorts] in case anyone attempted to slay him on the way, and that they might speak to him. Rabbi Meir says:  “He may [even] plead his cause himself, as it says, “And this is the word of the manslayer” (Deut. 19:4).</b>  In order to prevent the blood avenger from finding the manslayer on his way to the city of refuge the court would assign two disciples of the Sages to travel with him and plead with the blood avenger should he try and attack while on the way.  Rabbi Meir’s statement can be read in two ways.  He may be suggesting that not only should the disciples of the Sages plead his case, but he should plead himself.  According to this interpretation, Rabbi Meir does not disagree with the previous opinion, but rather adds upon it. Alternatively, Rabbi Meir may disagree with the previous opinion.  Rabbi Meir may believe that only the manslayer may plead his case, but not the disciples of the Sages.  In either case the act of pleading is learned from the verse in Deuteronomy which states “the word of the manslayer”, understood by Rabbi Meir to hint that the manslayer should plead his own case."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first half of mishnah six states that all killers, accidental or intentional, would initially flee to the city of refuge, before standing trial.  The second half discusses issues concerning the death of the high priest, which according to Numbers 35:25, 28 is what allows the manslayer to leave the city of refuge and return home without fear of the blood avenger.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose bar Judah says:  “Initially a slayer is sent in advance to [one of] the cities of refuge, whether he had slain in error or with intent and then the court sends and brings him out. Whoever was found guilty of a capital crime the court had executed, and whoever was found not guilty of a capital crime they acquitted. Whoever was found liable to banishment they restored to his place [of refuge] as it says, “And the congregation shall restore him to the city of refuge to which he fled” (Numbers 35:25).</b>  Before a trial it is impossible to know whether the killing was done accidentally or with intent.  Therefore, all killers flee to the city of refuge immediately.  Afterwards the court sends for them and puts them on trial.  If they are found guilty of murder they are executed.  If they are found not to have killed with intent and not to have been negligent, then they are totally exempt and incur no penalty.  If they are found to have killed accidentally, without intent but with some degree of negligence, then they are sent back to the city of refuge.",
+                    "<b>All the same are [the deaths of] the high priest who had been anointed with the anointing oil; or had worn many garments, or had retired from his office all make possible the return of the manslayer. Rabbi Judah says also the [death of the] priest who had been anointed for war makes possible the return of the manslayer.</b>  There are several different types of high priests described in our mishnah.  The first are those who have been anointed with oil, a practice that only existed during the First Temple period.  The second are those who wore the high priest’s special clothing, which included more pieces of clothing than a normal priest.  This would have included the high priest during the Second Temple period.  Thirdly, the mishnah mentions a high priest who retires from office.  The manslayer may leave the city of refuge at the death of any one of these types of high priests (see Numbers 35:25, 28).  According to Rabbi Judah, even the priest who has been anointed to charge the people into war, referred to in Deuteronomy 20:2, is considered to be like a high priest, and therefore his death allows the manslayer to return home.",
+                    "<b>Therefore, mothers of high priests would provide food and clothing for them [who had been exiled] that they might not pray for their son’s death.</b>  Naturally, it is in the best interest of the manslayer who has been banished to the refuge city for the high priest to die as quickly as possible.  They may even pray for his speedy death.  In order to encourage them not to pray for their sons’ deaths, the mothers of the high priests would feed and clothe the manslayers who were stuck in the cities of refuge.",
+                    "<b>If the high priest died at the conclusion of the trial, the slayer does not go into banishment. If he died before the trial was concluded and another high priest was appointed in his stead and the trial was then concluded, the slayer returns [home from refuge only] after the latter’s death.</b>  If the high priest were to die after the conclusion of the trial the manslayer does not need to go into banishment, for the high priest has already died.  Although he never reached the city of refuge, once his trial has been concluded it is as if he is already there.  If, however, the high priest dies before the conclusion of the trial and a new one is appointed, the manslayer must wait until the newly appointed high priest dies before he can leave the city of refuge.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Section one:  Why does Rabbi Yose bar Judah suggest that all killers initially flee to the refuge city, even before a trial?<br>• Section three:  What does this section teach us about the nature of prayer in the eyes of the Rabbis?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah seven continues to deal with various law concerning the cities of refuge.",
+                    "<b>If the trial was concluded when there was no high priest [in office], or if one kills a high priest, or a high priest that kills, [in these cases the manslayer] can never come away from that place [of refuge].</b>  This section is a conclusion of the previous mishnah.  If the trial of the manslayer is concluded at a time when there was no high priest he can never leave the city of refuge.  Even when a new high priest is appointed, his death will not free the manslayer since he was not the high priest when the person was convicted of manslaughter.  Similarly, one who kills a high priest or a high priest that kills can never leave the city of refuge, since there would be no existing high priest at the conclusion of the trial.",
+                    "<b>He [the manslayer] may not go out to bear witness, neither for cases having to do with a religious observance, nor to bear witness in a monetary suit, nor to bear witness in a capital case. Even should [all] Israel need him, and even a general like Yoav the son of Zeruiah, he may never go out, as it is said, “to there he fled”:  ‘there’ must be his abode, ‘there’ his death, ‘there’ his burial.</b>  The manslayer may not leave the city of refuge under any circumstance, even to testify to a religious matter, such as the new month.  Neither may he leave to testify in monetary cases nor in capital cases.  Even if he was a general in the army and Israel needed him in war, he may not leave.  The mishnah emphatically states that “there”, i.e. in the city of refuge will be his permanent dwelling, his death and his burial.",
+                    "<b>Just as the city affords asylum so does its Sabbath boundary afford asylum.</b>  Just as the city proper offers the manslayer refuge from the blood avenger, so too does any area within the Sabbath limit (a boundary within which a person may freely travel on the Sabbath).  This is defined as a 2000 amot perimeter of the city.",
+                    "<b>If a manslayer went beyond the boundary [of the city] and the blood avenger found him: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says:  “For the avenger it is a matter of obligation [to kill him]; for everyone else, a matter of option.” Rabbi Akiba says: “It is a matter of option for the avenger, and anyone else [who kills him] is not liable for doing so.”</b>  If he does leave the city of refuge before the high priest dies, he is liable to be killed.  According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, the blood avenger is actually commanded to kill him and any other person is permitted to kill him.  According to Rabbi Akiva the blood avenger may kill him, and other people may not.  However, if other people do kill him they are not liable as murderers.",
+                    "<b>If a tree was standing within the boundary and its boughs extended beyond [the boundary] or if it was standing outside of the boundary and its boughs extended within, it wholly follows [the position of] the boughs.</b>  A tree standing in the city and leaning out of it, or standing outside of the city and leaning in, is judged to be in our out of the city boundaries based on its boughs and not on the position of its trunk.  This will be of import if the manslayer reaches the tree and the blood avenger tries to kill him.  If the tree is in the boundaries the blood avenger may not kill him but if it is outside of the boundaries, he may.",
+                    "<b>If he slew [someone] in that city [of refuge] he is banished from one neighborhood to another neighborhood. And a Levite is banished from one city to another.</b>  A person who accidentally kills someone in a city of refuge presents a legal problem since he is already in the place that protects people from the blood avenger.  The mishnah remedies this problem by stating that he is to be exiled from neighborhood to neighborhood.  A Levite who lives in a city of refuge (see Numbers 35:6) may not stay in the city if he accidentally kills someone.  Rather he must go to a different city of refuge."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah eight deals with the arrival of the manslayer in the city of refuge, his acceptance there, and his eventual leaving of the city.",
+                    "<b>A manslayer who went to his city of his refuge and the men of that city wished to do him honor, should [refuse] by saying to them, “I am a manslayer!”. If they say to him, “Nevertheless” he should accept from them [the proffered honor], as it is said: “and this is the word of the manslayer.”</b>  Upon reaching the city of refuge the manslayer should initially attempt to refuse any honors that the people of the city may offer him.  However, if they insist he may accept.  This is learned from the verse, “and this is the word of the manslayer.”  The mishnah understands the verse as hinting that the manslayer need only speak one word of refusal of honor.  He need not refuse a second time.",
+                    "<b>They used to pay  rent to the Levites, according to the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: “They did not pay them rent.”</b>  According to Numbers 35:6 the cities of refuge are actually owned by the tribe of Levi which was not apportioned a geographical inheritance in Israel as were the other tribes.  Therefore Rabbi Judah states that those who fled to the city of refuge must pay rent to the Levites.  Rabbi Meir hold that they need not.",
+                    "<b>And [on his return home] he returns to the office he formerly held, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “He does not return to the office he formerly held.”</b>  When he returns to his former home after the death of the high priest, Rabbi Meir holds that he returns to his former positions of power and honor.  Rabbi Judah holds that he does not.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• What might be the connection between the two disputes at the end of this mishnah?  Are Rabbis Meir and Judah holding consistent opinions?  If so, what conception of manslaying underlies each of their words?"
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final chapter of Makkoth discussed those who are liable to be flogged.  There are three reasons that a person is flogged:  1)  one who transgresses a Biblical law for which the penalty is kareth (heavenly excommunication).  According to the Rabbis one who was flogged is not penalized by kareth, considered to be a more serious punishment.  2)  One who transgresses a Biblical law which is punishable by death by the hands of Heaven.  3) One who transgresses a Biblical negative commandment, provided the transgression was active.  Our chapter lists many categories of those who are to flogged but the list is not exhaustive.",
+                    "<b>And these are liable to be flogged:<br>One who had relations with his sister, or his father's sister, or his mother's sister, or his wife's sister, or his brother's wife, or his father's brother's wife, or a menstruant;</b>  This mishnah lists sexual offenses which are not punishable by death.  In each of these cases both offenders, the man and the woman will be flogged.  These forbidden relations are discussed in Leviticus chapters eighteen and twenty.",
+                    "<b>A high priest who marries a widow,  an ordinary priest who marries a divorcee  or a halutzah;</b>  This section lists marriages forbidden to high priests and ordinary priests.  They are listed in Leviticus 21:7, 13-15.",
+                    "<b>An Israelite who marries a mamzereth or natinah,  or an Israelite woman who is married to a mamzer  or a  natin.</b>  This section lists marriages forbidden to ordinary Israelites.  A mamzer or mamzereth (a female mamzer), mentioned in Deuteronomy 23:3, is one born of a forbidden union which carries with it a punishment of kareth or death.  A natin or natina (a female natin) is a descendent of the Gibeonites, those who tricked Joshua into accepting them as converts, upon which he declared them to be woodchoppers and water-drawers and forbade them to marry ordinary Israelites (Joshua 9:27).",
+                    "<b>In the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a widow [a high priest] is liable on two counts. But in the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a halutzah, an ordinary priest is liable only on one count.</b>  A widow who is also a divorcee, i.e. her first husband died and her second husband divorced her, is forbidden to a high priest on two counts.  If he were to marry such a woman he would be obligated to be flogged for each transgression, even though he did only one act.  A divorcee and a halutzah (one who has been rejected by her levir, her dead husband’s brother) are forbidden to an ordinary priest.  However, the prohibition of the halutzah to an ordinary priest is only a Rabbinic prohibition, not Biblical, as is the prohibition to a divorcee  Therefore, an ordinary priest who marries a divorcee who is also a halutzah is only flogged for one transgression."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>An unclean person who ate holy meat (Leviticus 7:20, 12:4);<br>One who entered the sanctuary while unclean (Leviticus 12:4, Numbers 5:3, 19:13);<br>One who ate forbidden fat or blood (Leviticus 3:16, 7:23-27);<br>Or leftover sacrificial meats (Leviticus 19:6-8);<br>Or sacrifices that had been offered up with improper intention (Leviticus 7:18);<br>Or [an offering] that has became unclean (Leviticus 7:19);<br>One who slaughters, or offers up a sacrifice, outside the Temple precincts (Leviticus 17:4);<br>One who ate leavened [bread] during Passover (Exodus 12:15, 19);<br>One who partakes of food [or drink] or does work on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:27-31);<br>One who puts together the ingredients for the [anointing] oil, or the ingredients for the incense, or anoints with the oil for anointing (Exodus 30:22-28):<br>One who eats an animal that died a natural death (Deuteronomy 14:21);<br>Or was improperly slaughtered (Exodus 22:30);<br>Or any of the [creatures deemed] ‘abominable’ and ‘teeming’ (Leviticus 11:11, 40).<br>One who eats non-tithed produce, or first-tithe from which heave offering has not been removed, or unredeemed second-tithe, or unredeemed sanctified property.<br>How much untithed produce is one to eat to become liable? Rabbi Shimon says:  “Any amount.” The Sages say:  “An olive's size.” Rabbi Shimon said to them:  “Do you not admit that if one ate the minutest ant that he would be liable? They said to him: “[Only] because it is a whole creature.” He said to them:  “Even a grain of wheat is a whole entity.”</b><br>The first fourteen sections of our mishnah mostly lists different types of forbidden foods and a few other Temple related prohibitions for which one is to be flogged.  Section fifteen discusses the amount of untithed produce that if one eats he is liable for a transgression.<br>Section fifteen:  According to Rabbi Shimon one is liable for flogging if he eats any amount of untithed produce, even a single grain. The Sages disagree and state that only if one eats an olive’s size of untithed produce is he liable for flogging.  Less than that and he is exempt.  Rabbi Shimon attempts to prove his point by making an analogy to eating an entire ant.  All agree that if one eats an entire ant (on purpose) he is liable to be flogged, even though the ant is smaller than an olive.  The Sages respond that one is liable for eating an ant since it is an entire creature.  Since it is a distinct, full entity it is enough to make one who consumes it liable for punishment.  Rabbi Shimon responds that a single grain is also a whole entity, and therefore one who eats a single grain of untithed produce is liable to be flogged as well."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah continues to discuss which transgressions are punishable by flogging.",
+                    "<b>One who eats of first fruits previous to the recital over them (Deut. 26:3-10);</b>  First fruits were to be brought to Jerusalem and given as a gift to the priests.  The bearer of the first fruits was supposed to recite a liturgical text contained in Deuteronomy 26:3-10, which contained a brief history of Israel (the text is now part of the Passover Haggadah).  A priest who ate of the first fruits before the recitation was made was punished by flogging.",
+                    "<b>Of most holy things outside of the Temple curtains (Exodus 27:9);</b>  Certain sacrifices were only to be eaten within the curtains of the Temple.  These included sin offerings and guilt offerings.  One who ate them outside of this area was punished by flogging.",
+                    "<b>Of lesser holy things or of second tithe, outside the city wall (Deut. 12:17-18).</b>  Other sacrifices could be consumed anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem.  These included thanksgiving offerings, offerings of wellbeing and the Passover offering.  The second tithe was to be brought to Jerusalem and consumed there.  One who ate any of these things outside of the walls was punished by flogging.",
+                    "<b>One who breaks a bone of a ritually clean Passover offering receives forty [lashes] (Exodus 12:46); But one who leaves over a clean [Passover offering] (Exodus 12:10), or breaks a bone of an unclean [Passover offering], is not given forty [lashes].</b>  The Torah forbids breaking a bone of the Passover sacrifice.  The mishnah limits this law to a Passover sacrifice brought by a ritually clean person.  Usually unclean people could not bring the Passover sacrifice and they were to wait a month and celebrate what is called Pesach Sheni, or The Second Passover (see Numbers 9:4-13).  However, if most of the congregation was impure at the time of the first Passover (the 14th of Nissan) they were allowed to sacrifice the Passover offering while impure.  Our mishnah teaches that one who breaks a bone of a Passover offering brought while the congregation is impure is not liable to be lashed. The Torah also states that the Passover offering must be consumed that very night.  One who does not consume the Passover offering, while having violated a commandment, is nevertheless not flogged.  We will learn why in the next mishnah.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Why do you think a person who breaks the bone of an impure Passover offering is not to liable for flogging?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If one takes the mother bird with the young (Deuteronomy 22:6-7): Rabbi Judah says he is flogged and need not [then] send the mother free; But the Sages say:  “He lets the mother go and is not flogged.”<br>This is the general principle; any negative commandment which involves a positive deed, one is not liable (for transgressing over.</b><br>Mishnah four discusses the prohibition of taking a mother bird with her young.<br>The last section of the mishnah states the principle that will explain the Sages’ position in the previous section as well as the last section of the previous mishnah.  According to the mishnah any negative commandment which can be immediately remedied by a positive deed is not punishable by lashing.  Our two mishnayoth illustrate commandments of this nature.  Deuteronomy 22:6-7 states:  “Do not take the mother (bird) with the young, Let the mother go”.  The Sages understand the first half of this statement to be a negative commandment and the second half a positive deed which would remedy the violation of the negative commandment.  In other words one who violates the negative commandment by taking the mother and the young can remedy it by doing a positive deed, namely by releasing the mother.  Therefore, the Sages say that since he released the mother, he is not liable to be flogged.<br>Rabbi Judah reads the verse differently.  He understands the second half to mean “Let the mother go” before you take her and the young.  Once the person has taken the mother bird while the young are together with her in the nest he is immediately punishable by flogging, since he cannot remedy the situation.  Since the commandment has already been violated and cannot be remedied, he is not obligated to release the mother bird.<br>This same general rule is also applicable with regards to the end of the previous mishnah which discussed leaving the Passover offering until morning.  Exodus 12:10 states:  “You shall not leave any of it until morning; if any of it is left until morning you shall burn it.”  Again the first half of the verse is a negative commandment and the second half contains a remedy to the violation of that commandment.  Therefore one who violates the prohibition of leaving the sacrifice until morning is not flogged."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah five discusses the various prohibitions of shaving one’s head either as a sign of mourning (Leviticus 21:5, Deuteronomy 14:1) or in general (Leviticus 19:26).  These prohibitions are punishable by flogging.",
+                    "<b>If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners,  one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer  says:  “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.”</b>  Making a baldness on one’s head as a sign of mourning is prohibited in Deuteronomy 14:1 and Leviticus 21:5.  Rounding the corner of one’s head and marring the corner of one’s beard are prohibited in Leviticus 19:27.  Cutting one’s flesh for the dead is prohibited in Leviticus 19:28.  All of these transgressions are punishable by flogging.  Our mishnah now proceeds to list how many violations are contained in each of these commandments.",
+                    "<b>If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners,  one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer  says:  “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.”</b>  Section one, clause a:  With regards to cutting one’s flesh, each cut for each dead counts as a violation.  If he cuts once for five dead he receives five sets of lashes. Likewise, if he cuts five times for one dead he receives five sets of lashes.",
+                    "<b>If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners,  one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer  says:  “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.”</b>  Section one, clause b: Rounding one’s head is considered two violations, one for each side of the head.  Therefore he will receive two sets of lashes.",
+                    "<b>If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners,  one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer  says:  “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.”</b>  Section one, clause c:  Marring the corners of one’s beard is considered five violations, two for marring each side and one for marring the chin.  Therefore he will receive five sets of lashes.",
+                    "<b>If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners,  one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer  says:  “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.”</b>  Section one, clause d:  Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the previous opinion.  In his opinion just because there are separate areas of the head to round or beard to mar does not mean that one is obligated lashes for each section.  What causes a person to receive multiple sets of lashes is his having violated the prohibition on different occasions.  If he mars one part of the beard today and another at a later time, for instance tomorrow, he will be obligated for two sets of lashes.  However, if he violates the prohibition in one sitting he is only obligated for one set of lashes.",
+                    "<b>And he is only liable if he takes off with a razor; Rabbi Eliezer says:  “Even if he picks off the hairs with tweezers, or with pincers, he is liable.</b>  According to the first opinion in the mishnah he is only liable for having marred his beard if he does so with a razor.  Rabbi Eliezer holds that marring even with pincers or tweezers is a violation of the commandment.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Section two:  What might be the basis of Rabbi Eliezer’s disagreement with the previous opinion?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>He who writes an incision on his skin [is flogged].<br>If he writes [on his flesh] without incising, or incises without writing, he is not liable, until he writes and incises with ink, eye-paint or anything that lasts.<br>Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:  “He is not liable until he has written there the name [of a god], as it is says:  “Nor shall you incise any marks on yourselves; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28).</b><br>This mishnah is a continuation of the previous mishnah which discussed the prohibitions in Leviticus 19:27-28.<br>The last half of verse Lev. 19:28 prohibits tattooing, defined in our mishnah as incising with a knife and making a permanent mark.  If he were to incise without using permanent ink, or write on himself with permanent ink without first incising he would not be liable for lashes.<br>The first opinion in the mishnah understood that one is liable to be flogged no matter what he writes.  Rabbi Shimon ben Judah disagrees and states that one is obligated only if he writes the name of another god.  This is learned from the end or verse 28, “I am the Lord”.  Rabbi Shimon understands this to mean God saying, “I am the Lord” and therefore you may not write any other god’s name."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah seven discusses a nazirite who violates the prohibition of drinking wine.",
+                    "<b>If a nazirite has been drinking wine all day, he is liable for only one lashing. If they said to him, “Don’t drink wine”, “Don’t drink wine”, and he kept drinking, he is liable for each instance.</b> A nazirite is forbidden to shave his hair, drink wine or become impure (Numbers 6:1-21).  Our mishnah asks the question about a nazirite who drinks wine all day long.  Is this considered one violation or many violations?  In other words, what splits one act of violation from another, in order to make him liable on multiple counts? The mishnah states that it is his awareness of his crime, proven by others warning him to cease drinking, that separates counts of violations.  If he drinks all day long yet no one warns him, it is only considered one violation.  If others warn him, it is considered a violation every time he continues to drink.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• How does this mishnah compare to Rabbi Eliezer’s statement at the end of mishnah five?  Does this mishnah go according to his opinion or not?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he has been defiling himself for the dead all day, he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not defile yourself! Do not defile yourself!” and he did defile himself [each time], he is liable on each instance.<br>If he was shaving all day he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not shave, Do not shave” and he did shave [each time], he is liable on each instance.<br>If he was wearing a garment of mixed linen and wool all day, he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not put it on!  Do not put it on!” and he takes it off and puts it on, he is liable on each instance.</b><br>Mishnah eight is a continuation of mishnah seven which discussed the punishment for the continuous violation of a negative commandment.<br>All three sections of this mishnah teach the same ruling, which we learned already in the end of mishnah seven.  If a person is violating a prohibition continuously over an entire day he is only punished for one violation.  In other words, even though he may have violated the prohibition several times, it is considered one continuous violation and he is only punished once.  However, if he is warned by others and continues to violate the prohibition he is obligated for each violation.  Since he was warned he cannot claim that he didn’t realize what he was doing.<br>The first two sections deal with two of the prohibitions placed by the Torah on the nazirite:  ritually defile himself through contact with a dead body or shave his hair.  The other prohibition for the nazirite, drinking wine, was the subject of mishnah seven.<br>The final section of the mishnah deals with the wearing of a garment which contains wool and linen.  This is prohibited in Leviticus 19:19."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah nine discusses a case where one can perform one act and thereby violate eight or nine negative commandments and therefore receive eight or nine sets of lashes.",
+                    "Our mishnah lists a situation where a person plows one furrow in the ground and yet has violated eight different negative commandments.  We will describe all eight and their Biblical precedents. (1) It is forbidden to plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together (Deuteronomy 22:10). (2+3) If the animals were sanctified to the Temple then one is forbidden to use them for other purposes.  Since there are two animals that were both sanctified, he has violated two negative commandments not to use sanctified property. (4) It is forbidden to sew ones vineyard with other types of seeds (Deuteronomy 22:9).  If by plowing he overturns seeds in a vineyard, this is considered as if he is sewing them anew and he thereby violates this commandment. (5) It is forbidden to plow the land during the Sabbatical year (Leviticus 25:4). (6) It is forbidden to plow on the Festival (see for instance Leviticus 23:7).  It is also forbidden to plow on the Sabbath.  However, violations of the Sabbath are not punished by lashes, as are the other violations in our mishnah, but rather by death.  Since there is a principle that if one violates two commandments with one act he receives the more serious punishment, if this plowing were to have taken place on the Sabbath he would be executed and not flogged.  Hence our mishnah lists the Festival and not the Sabbath. (7) A priest is forbidden to defile himself by contact with the dead or with a cemetery (Leviticus 21:1).  If the plowing was done in a cemetery he will be obligated for this violation as well. (8) A nazirite is also forbidden to defile himself by contact with the dead (Numbers 6:6).",
+                    "<b>Hanania ben Hakinai says:  “He may also have been wearing a garment mixed of wool and linen.” They said too him: “This is not of the same category.” He said to them:  “Even the nazirite is not in the same category.”</b>  Hananiah ben Hakinai adds another possible violation to the list.  If, while performing all of these activities, he wears the forbidden mixture of wool and linen, he has now violated a ninth prohibition.  The Sages respond that this ninth violation has nothing to do with the plowing and therefore they did not list it in the first section of our mishnah.  Hananiah ben Hakinai responds that being a nazirite (or a priest) who defiles himself is also not a violation that is a result of the plowing, since a nazirite and a priest are forbidden even to enter the cemetery.  Since according to Hananiah the list already includes violations that are not a direct result of plowing, it may be expanded to other violations that are not a result of the plowing, such as wearing wool and linen.  In this way Hananiah ben Hakinai has found a way that a person can be obligated for having violated nine prohibitions in one act.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Why would the authors of the mishnah want to list all of the possible violations involved in plowing one furrow?  What principle does this teach us?  How does it relate to the subject of the previous mishnah?<br>• Section two:  What might the Sages respond to Hananiah ben Hakinai, who received the last word in the mishnah?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah ten discusses the number of lashes a transgressor is to receive.",
+                    "<b>How many lashes is he given? Forty save one, as it says, “By number forty” (Deuteronomy 25:2-3) which means, a number close to forty. Rabbi Judah says: “He is given forty [lashes] in full.” And where does he receive the additional lash? Between his shoulders.</b> Through a clever midrash our mishnah learns from Deuteronomy 25:2-3 that a person can receive up to 39 lashes for a single crime.  The simple reading of those verses is actually that he can receive 40 lashes.  Verse 3 states explicitly, “He may be given up to forty lashes.”  The Rabbis derive 39 from the fact that verse 2 ends with the word “by number” and verse 3 with the word “forty”.  The midrash is that the “number” is before “forty” and therefore he is lashed 39 times.  Interestingly, the Rambam thinks that the midrash in our mishnah is not the derivation of the law but rather merely a Biblical support.  The real reason that he only receives a maximum of 39 lashes is that if the person counting the lashes makes a mistake of one, he will still have only received 40 lashes.  In this way the court will not violate the explicit prohibition in verse 3 not to give more than 40 lashes. Rabbi Judah reads the verse literally, and therefore does prescribe forty full lashes. In mishnah thirteen we will learn that the person receives a third of the lashes on his front and two-thirds on his back.  The end of our mishnah asks where does he receive the fortieth lash, according to Rabbi Judah who says that he gets 40 full lashes.  The mishnah teaches that the fortieth lash is between his shoulders."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah ten continues to discuss the number of lashes a person is to receive.",
+                    "Our mishnah assumes that when the Torah states that a person is to be lashed 40 (39) times, the meaning is that this is the maximum number of lashes any person can receive.  Before a person is lashed, he is to be examined by doctors who will estimate how many lashes he can receive without his life being endangered.  This estimate is the number of lashes that he will actually receive.",
+                    "<b>When they estimate the number of lashes he can stand it must be a number divisible by three.</b>  As we will learn in mishnah thirteen the lashes are divided into three sets, one set on his front and two on his back.  Since they are divided into three sets, the number of lashes that the doctors say that the person can receive must be divisible by three.",
+                    "<b>If they estimated him capable of receiving forty, and after receiving some they said he cannot receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. If they estimated him fit to receive eighteen, and after he was lashed they said he could receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest].</b>  Estimates made by the doctors are not necessarily going to be accurate.  If the doctors err the criminal always receives the benefit of the doubt.  If they prescribe a high number of lashes, and as he is being lashed they see that he will not be able to withstand the prescribed number, they stop lashing him.  If the doctors prescribe a low number, and after having finished lashing him they see that he can withstand more, they do not give him more lashes.  In other words the criminal can never receive more than the prescribed number nor more than they think he can withstand.",
+                    "<b>If he committed a transgression which violated two prohibitions and they made one estimate [for the lashes for both prohibitions],  he is lashed and then exempt [from more]. And if [they had] not [made one estimate for both], he is lashed [for one transgression], is allowed to recover and then is lashed again.</b>  If a person committed two violations with one act then there is the possibility that the lashes he receives for both will be joined together.  If the doctors give one estimate as to how many lashes he can receive, for instance they say he can receive 42, 39 for the first violation and then 3 more for the second, then he receives the 42 lashes and is not lashed any more.  However, if they make separate evaluations, for instance they say he can receive 39 for the first crime and do not state a number for the second, then he receives the lashes for the first crime, is allowed to heal, and then receives the prescribed number of lashes for the second crime.  In other words, since the lashes were not estimated together, they are considered separate sets of lashes, and he must be allowed to recuperate in between.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Section three:  Do you think that the ruling might be different if instead of performing one act whereby he violated two prohibitions, he instead violated two prohibitions by performing two separate acts?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnayoth twelve describes where and how the one being lashed and the one lashing should stand.  It also describes the whip itself.",
+                    "<b>How do they lash him? His two hands are tied to a pillar on either side of it and the minister of the synagogue grabs his clothing, if they are torn, they are torn; if they are ripped open, they are ripped open, until he exposes the offender’s chest. And a stone is placed behind the offender, the minister of the synagogue stands on it, a strap of cowhide in his hands, doubled over into two, and redoubled, and two straps that rise and fall attached to it.</b> While being lashed the victim is tied to a post with his hands spread apart.  The “minister of the synagogue”, who was responsible for most of the administrative duties, would open the offender’s garments, even if this would cause them to rip. The minister would then stand upon a stone and hold a whip in his hand.  The whip was made of cowhide folded twice to make it thicker, and thereby stronger.  From the central piece came out two other straps.  According to the Talmud these two other straps were made of donkey’s hide, which was not as thick as the cowhide."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah thirteen continues to describe the whip and how the lashes are to be administered.",
+                    "<b>The handle is a handbreadth long and a handbreadth wide, its tip reaching to the edge of the [offender’s] abdomen.</b>  Our mishnah continues to describe the whip used for lashing.  Its handle was one handbreadth by one handbreadth.   The tip of the whip, meaning the extra straps, should be long enough to reach the offender’s abdomen when the minister strikes him.  The offender will be struck by the tip and not by the body of the whip, made of the cowhide.",
+                    "<b>He administers one-third [of the lashes] in front and two-thirds behind. He lashes him not in a standing or sitting position but stooping, as it says, “And the judge shall cause him to fall [stoop] down” (Deut. 25:2). He who administers the lashes lashes with his one hand and with his whole force.</b>  As we learned previously, one-third of the lashes are on his front and two-thirds on his back.  The offender, when he is being lashed, is not to stand nor to sit but to lean over. This is learned from the verse which states that the judge should cause him to fall over.  The verse is understood not to mean that the judge should cause him to fall all the way down but to stoop down.  The person lashing can use only one hand but he should use all of his force.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Why do you think that two-thirds of the lashes are given on the back and one-third on the front?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first half of mishnah fourteen lists the Biblical verses that are called out while the lashes are being administered.  The second half of the mishnah discusses the offender either dying or befouling himself while being lashed.",
+                    "<b>And the one who recites, says: “If you fail to observe faithfully all the terms of this Teaching…the Lord will inflict upon you extraordinary plagues (” (Deut. 25:58-59) And then (if time he returns to the beginning of the section.</b>  While the lashes are being administered Biblical verses are read out loud.  These verses function as a warning to the person being lashed and to those witnessing.  The verse in Deuteronomy warns that if Israel fails to observe the Torah (“Teaching”) God will punish Israel with plagues.  In Hebrew the word plagues (makkoth) is the same word as lashes.  This verse can be read to say that one who does not observe the Torah will be punished with lashes. If the reader has finished reciting the verses and there remains more lashes to be administered, the reader begins again to recite the verse from the beginning.",
+                    "<b>[“Therefore observe faithfully all the terms of this covenant” (Deut. 28:9) and he completes by saying, “And He is merciful, forgiving iniquity” (Psalms 78:38).]</b>  This line is missing in many versions of the mishnah, hence it is in brackets.  Those manuscripts which do contain this line do not contain the previous line, section 2a. According to this version, a different verse is also recited and when close to finishing the lashes, the reader calls out a verse which mentions God’s mercy.",
+                    "<b>If the offender dies under his hand, he is exempt [from penalty]. If he gave him one more lash and the offender died, he goes into banishment.</b>  If the offender dies while being lashed the one administering the lashes is not responsible, not even as an accidental killer.  This law was already learned in chapter two, mishnah two.  Our mishnah adds that if the one lashing mistakenly added one lash more than was prescribed, and then the offender died, he is considered a manslayer and hence must go into banishment.  The assumption is that the one lashing did not kill the offender on purpose and therefore he is not judged as an intentional killer but as an accidental one.",
+                    "<b>If the offender befouled himself either with feces or urine, he is exempt. Rabbi Judah says: “Feces in the case of a man and [even] urine in the case of a woman.</b>  If the offender befouls himself, either by defecating or urinating, while being lashed, the lashing ends.  This is a remarkable law, teaching that even at the time when the court is by definition punishing and humiliating the criminal, we are still to be concerned for his honor.  By befouling himself in public the criminal is overwhelmingly shamed, and therefore the court cannot continue to punish him.  Rabbi Judah states that there is a difference between men and women.  Since women are more easily shamed, if they either defecate or urinate while being flogged they are immediately exempt from further lashes.  Men, on the other hand, are exempt only if they defecate, which is for obvious reasons considered to be a greater embarrassment.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• What is the context of the verse in Deuteronomy, quoted in section one?  How might this context effect how the verse is understood when recited during the lashing?<br>• Why do some versions have the reader call out the verse from Psalms?  What message does this verse convey?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final two mishnayoth of Makkoth are in essence the final two mishnayoth of a long tractate, which at one time included both Sanhedrin and Makkoth, a total of 14 chapters.  As is typical of the Mishnah, long tractates are completed with words of “aggadah”, sermonic material, not usually of a legal nature.  Both of these mishnayoth teach how great will be the reward of those who fulfill the commandments and deal with some weighty theological issues.",
+                    "<b>All who have incurred [the penalty of] kareth, on being flogged are exempt from their punishment of kareth, for it says, “[He may be given up to forty lashes, but not more] ... lest your brother shall be dishonored before your eyes” (Deut. 25;3) once he has been lashed he is [considered] “your brother”, the words of Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel.</b>  The punishment of kareth, being cut off from one’s people, while not enforced by a court of law, was considered to be a very serious punishment, one with dire consequences.  The Rabbis taught that by receiving lashes one is expiated from the punishment of kareth.  This is learned from the verse in Deuteronomy which calls the person being lashed “your brother”.  After he has been lashed his punishment of kareth is erased and he returns to his full status as a member of Israel.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel said:  “Just as one who transgresses one transgression forfeits his life, how much more does one who performs one commandment have his life granted him.”</b>  All throughout our tractate and tractate Sanhedrin we have been learning about punishments, including such serious punishments as lashings, kareth and execution.  Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel finds hope in the seriousness of these punishments.  If a person can be so harshly punished for merely one sin, all the more great will be the reward for one who fulfills even one commandment.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: “You can learn this from its own passage;  as it says: “[All who do any of those abhorrent things] such persons shall be cut off from their people” (Lev. 18:29), and it says:  “You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances which if a man do, he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5), which means that one who desists from transgressing is granted reward like one who performs a precept.</b>  Rabbi Shimon claims that an even greater principle can be learned from a verse dealing with kareth itself.  The end of chapter 18 in Leviticus states that one who does one of these sins will be punished by kareth, i.e. cut off from his people.  The beginning of the chapter states that if one performs the commandments he will live through them.  In other words, the end of the chapter discusses those who transgress and the beginning of the chapter mentions those who perform the commandments.  Rabbi Shimon concludes that these are flip sides to the same coin. By merely not transgressing a person is considered as if he had actively performed a commandment and will receive his just reward.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi says:  Behold [the Torah] says, “But makes sure that you do not partake of the blood; for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh…[that it may go well with you and with your descendents to come..” (Deut. 12:23-25”--  now, if in the case of blood which a person’s soul loathes, anyone who refrains from it receives reward, how much more so in regard to robbery and sexual sin for which a person’s soul craves and longs shall one who refrains from them acquire merit for himself and for generations and generations to come, to the end of all generations!</b>  Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi continues to discuss how great the reward is for performing the commandments.  Deuteronomy states that one who refrains from eating the blood of an animal will merit reward, as will all of his descendents.  Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi points out that if a person receives such a great reward for refraining from doing something that he wouldn’t want to do anyway, since most people are disgusted by blood, how much greater will be his reward for refraining from stealing and transgressing sexually, sins which most people crave.  In other words, rewards are based on resistance to evil temptations.  The greater the temptation the greater the reward for resistance."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of the tractate is a continuation of mishnah fifteen.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashia says: “The Holy Blessed One, desired to make Israel worthy, therefore gave He gave them much Torah [to study] and many commandments [to perform]: for it is says, “The Lord desires [his servant’s] vindication, that he may magnify and glorify [His] teaching.”</b> This oft-quoted mishnah responds to an important theological question regarding the performance of commandments.  Why does God care, or how is God affected, by Israel performing ritual commandments, for instance, kashruth, the dietary laws? Many have asked, what does God care how I eat my meat, whether I eat it with milk or not?  The answer that Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashiah gives is that by performing God’s commandment, Israel accrues merit with God.  It is a way for Israel to live up to a covenant, entered into with the infinite divine.  The mitvoth, the commandments, and the learning of Torah, are not magical rites, performed in order to manipulate God into treating us better.  Rather they are a symbol God’s grace to Israel, a means by which Israel can act out the will of the divine.  They are means by which Israel can show God how much they love God. While there are other answers to this question, this answer is one of the most meaningful and often quoted one’s that I have seen. Congratulations!  We have finished Makkoth. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. For those of you who have learned with us the entire tractate, a hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations).  You have accomplished a great deal and you should be proud of yourselves.  Indeed we have now finished together five tractates of Mishnah, and are more than halfway through the entire order of Nezikin.  Of course, we have much more to learn.  We will begin Shevuoth tomorrow!"
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מכות",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,239 @@
+{
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Makkot",
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first six mishnayoth of Makkoth deal with perjuring witnesses, who according to Deuteronomy 20:18-19 are to receive the same punishment that they tried to impose upon the accused.  For instance if they testified that a person was guilty of murder and therefore should be executed and then were found to have perjured themselves, they are themselves to be executed.\nThe first mishnah points out cases where this punishment upon the witnesses cannot be carried out, at least not in a simple fashion.",
+                    "Although this mishnah begins with the question, how do witnesses become perjurers, we will not learn the mishnaic definition of perjury until mishnah four.  This mishnah will instead discuss the punishment of perjuring witnesses who do not, for various, reasons, simply receive the punishment they tried to impose upon the accused.",
+                    "<b>How do witnesses become liable [to punishment] as perjurers?<br>[If they say:]  “We testify that so and so [a priest] is a son of a woman who had [formerly] been divorced or a haluzah,”  it is not said that each witness should himself be as if he was born of a divorcee or a haluzah; rather he receives forty  [lashes].</b>  According to Jewish law a kohen (a priest) is not allowed to marry a divorcee or a woman who had undergone the process known as “halitzah”, the refusal of the levirate marriage (marriage to the husband’s brother upon the husband’s death when he had no children, see Deuteronomy 25:5-10).  A child born of the union of a priest and a divorcee or a halutzah loses his priestly status.  If witnesses falsely testify that a priest is really the son of a divorcee or a halutzah, they are attempting to cause him to forfeit his status.  Although in general a perjuring witness is punished with the punishment which he tried to impose, in this case it is impossible to do so.  Rather he is punished by being lashed forty times (Deuteronomy 25:3).",
+                    "<b>[If they say]: “We testify that so and so is guilty of [a crime entailing] exile”,  it is not said that each witness should himself be exiled; rather he receives forty [lashes].</b>  If witnesses falsely testify that another person committed a crime which entails exile (we will learn which crimes entail exile in chapter two), the perjuring witnesses are not themselves exiled.  Rather they received forty lashes.",
+                    "<b>[If they say:] “We testify that so and so divorced his wife and has not paid her kethubah”  seeing that either today or tomorrow he [the husband] will pay her kethubah, the assessment should be made how much a man will be willing to pay [now] for the ownership of her kethubah, on the condition that if she should be widowed or divorced [he will take it over] but if she should die, her husband will inherit her [estate including the kethubah].</b>  If a person falsely testifies that a man divorced his wife and did not pay her kethubah (marriage settlement) it does not make sense to punish him with a fine equal to the kethubah.  Since if the husband should in the future divorce his wife or die and then have to pay the kethubah in any case, by falsely testifying now the perjuring witness didn’t necessarily cause the husband the loss of the kethubah.   Rather we assess how much a person would want to pay to take a risk on buying the woman’s kethubah, on condition that if she would be divorced or widowed he would get the kethubah but if she should die before her husband he would not get the kethubah (since the husband inherits his wife).  This is what he kethubah is worth at the present moment, while she and her husband are still alive, and this is what the perjuring witnesses therefore have to pay.",
+                    "<b>[If they say]:  “We testify that so and so owes his friend one thousand zuz on the condition that he will pay him within thirty days”, while the debtor says “ten years”, the assessment should be made how much a man is willing to pay for the use of a thousand zuz, whether he pays them in thirty days or ten years.</b>  In this scenario the witnesses falsely testify that a certain person borrowed a thousand zuz and must pay them back within thirty days.  The accused does owe the thousand zuz but must pay them back only within ten years and not thirty days.  Again, in this case we cannot merely fine the perjurers one thousand zuz since in the end the accused will have to pay back the zuz.  Rather the witnesses tried to cause him to lose ten years minus thirty days use of the money, and they are therefore fined whatever a person would pay to use one thousand zuz for ten years minus thirty days."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>[If they say]:  “We testify that so and so owes his friend two hundred zuz”, and they are found to be perjurers, they are flogged and ordered to make restitution, because the count which brings upon them the flogging is not the count that brings upon them the necessity to make restitution, these are the words of Rabbi Meir.<br>But the Sages say:  “Anyone who makes restitution is not flogged.”</b><br>This mishnah discusses the punishment for a perjuring witness in a financial case.<br>There is a principle in Jewish law that one cannot receive two penalties for one crime.  By testifying falsely a person is committing two crimes that theoretically carry with them two different penalties:  1) flogging for transgressing the commandment against false testimony (Exodus 20:13); 2) compensation for whatever financial loss he tried to impose upon his fellow (Deuteronomy 19:18-19).  According to Rabbi Meir, since these are two different crimes categorized in two different Biblical verses, a person can be punished by both being flogged and having to make financial restitution, in this case 200 zuz.  However, according to the Sages, anyone who makes restitution cannot be flogged.  In this case the perjuring witnesses would pay the 200 zuz and would not be flogged."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnayoth three continues to discuss the laws of perjuring witnesses.",
+                    "<b>[If they say:]  “We testify that so and so is liable to a flogging of forty lashes, and they are found to be perjurers, they receive eighty lashes, because of, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:13) and “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuternomy 19:19), these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say, “They receive only forty lashes.”</b>  This section is actually a continuation of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages begun in mishnah two.  According to Rabbi Meir one can receive eighty lashes for one false testimony, forty for violating the commandment in Exodus and forty for trying to impose forty lashes upon the accused, the violation mentioned in Deuteronomy.  According to the Sages, since this was only one act he can receive only one punishment, namely forty lashes, as he tried to impose upon the accused.",
+                    "<b>Monetary impositions are shared among the offenders, but the lashes are not shared among the offenders. How so? If they testified that he owed his friend one hundred zuz, and they were found to be perjurers, they divide the corresponding damages proportionately between them. But if they testified that he was liable to a flogging of forty lashes and were found to be perjurers, each one receives forty lashes.</b>  Witnesses who perjure themselves in a monetary case are punished by a fine equal to the financial loss they tried to impose upon the accused.  In this type of case the witnesses may share the burden of the financial penalty.  For instance if they lied with regards to two hundred zuz, each witness will compensate the accused one hundred zuz.  If, however, they lied in a case involving lashes, the witnesses do not share the lashes.  Rather each witness receives the number of lashes that they attempted to impose upon the accused.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Section one:  What is the connection between the dispute in mishnah three and the dispute that we learned yesterday in mishnah two?<br>• Section two:  Why do you think that the witnesses may share the financial penalty but not share the lashes?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah four continues to discuss the laws of perjuring witnesses.",
+                    "<b>Witnesses are not condemned as perjurers until they themselves are incriminated; How so? If they said: “We testify that so and so killed a person” and others said to them: “How could you testify to that, as that murdered person or that [alleged] murderer was with us on that very day, at such and such a place?” [then] the witnesses are not condemned as perjurers. But, if these [other] witnesses said:  “How could you testify to that, as on that very day, you were with us at such and such a place?’ [then] the former are condemned as perjurers, and are executed by their [the other witnesses] word.</b> This mishnah contains the Rabbinic definition of the type of perjuring witnesses referred to in the Torah.  According to the Rabbis witnesses who are contradicted in their testimony are not always to receive the punishment that they tried to impose upon the accused.  If other witnesses come and merely contradict the first witnesses’ testimony, while the testimony of the first witnesses may be invalidated, they do not receive the punishment that they tried to impose.  After all, why should the court believe the testimony of the last witnesses more than it believes the testimony of the first witnesses?  Rather, only if the second set of witnesses testify that the first set of witnesses could not have even seen that which they purport to have seen are the first witnesses punished as perjurers.  This is what the mishnah means when it states that the witnesses themselves must be incriminated.  In other words the form of perjury referred to in the Torah is only a case where the witnesses lie about their own whereabouts at the time of the crime.  If they lie about the crime itself, while they may be punished with lashes for false testimony, they do not receive the punishment they attempted to impose."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If other witnesses came, and they charged them [with perjury]: then [again] others came, and they [again] charged them [with perjury], even a hundred, they are all to be executed.<br>Rabbi Judah says:  “This is a conspiracy and the first set alone is [to be] executed.”</b><br>Mishnah five deals with multiple sets of perjuring witnesses.<br>According to the opinion in the first section of the mishnah every set of witnesses that perjures themselves with regards to a certain crime can be executed for perjury (if the case was a capital case).  If, for instance, Reuven and Shimon testify that Jacob committed a crime which entails the death penalty and then Levi and Judah come and state that at the time of the alleged crime Reuven and Shimon were with them and not at the scene of the crime, Reuven and Shimon are executed.  If afterwards Zevulun and Issachar come and testify to the same crime and again Levi and Judah claim that they were with them at the time of the crime, then Zevulun and Issachar are to be executed as well. Levi and Judah can testify against as many witnesses as they want, and even one hundred witnesses, all saying the same thing, could be executed for perjury.<br>Rabbi Judah claims that in this scenario there is a conspiracy between the accused and those who contradict everyone else’s testimony, namely, Levi and Judah.  While we do accept their testimony, only the first set of witnesses are executed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Perjuring witnesses are not to be put to death until [after] the end of the trial.<br>Because the Sadducees say:  “[Perjurers were put to death] only after the accused had [actually] been executed, as it says, “ A life for a life” (Deuteronomy 19:21).<br>The [Pharisaic] Sages said to them: “But has not it already been said “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuteronomy 19:19)  which implies when his brother is still alive?<br>If so, why does it say “A life for life”?<br>For it might have been that perjurers are liable to be put to death from the moment their testimony had been taken, therefore the Torah states “A life for a life” that is to say that they are not executed until [after] the termination of the trial.</b><br>Mishnah six discusses at one point in the judicial process the witnesses are proven to be perjurers in order for them to receive the penalty that they tried to impose upon the accused.<br>This mishnah contains a dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees, two of the main Jewish sects that competed during the Second  Temple period (until 70 C.E.).  The issue at hand is when are the perjuring witnesses to be executed:  after the trial or only after the accused has been himself executed.  The Sadducees claim that perjuring witnesses are only executed if they have been successful in having the accused actually executed.  In other words, the witnesses are executed not for intending to unjustly execute the accused but for actually doing so.  Just as in a case of murder of person the guilty can be convicted and executed as a murderer only if he actually succeeds and murders the victim, so too in this case, the witnesses are only executed if they succeed and have the accused wrongfully executed.  The Sadducees learn this from the verse that states “A life for a life”.  The witnesses have their lives taken away only if the accused already lost his life.<br>The Sages, who assumedly are Pharisees, the predecessors of the Rabbis of the Mishnah, state that the perjurers are executed once the verdict has been delivered, meaning the wrongful verdict that they attempted to impose upon the accused.  If their testimony is contradicted beforehand then they are not executed because they were not even successful in getting a verdict pronounced against the accused.  The Sages arrive at this conclusion by finding the middle ground between two seemingly contradictory verses.  Verse 19 says that “you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” which sounds like “his fellow” is still alive when the perjurers are executed.  From this verse alone we might have concluded that the perjuring witnesses are executed as soon as their testimony is found to be false, even if the accused has not been convicted.  However, verse 21, “a life for a life” seems to imply that the perjurers are executed only if the accused actually loses his life, as the Sadducees said.  The middle ground is that the perjurers are not executed immediately after they give their testimony (and they are found to be perjuring themselves) nor must the accused have been actually executed for the perjurers to be executed.  Rather they are executed if the trial was completed, the accused found guilty and then the witnesses proven to be perjurers."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nBoth mishnah seven and mishnah eight which we will learn tomorrow contain midrashim, exegeses, of the verse in Deuteronomy 17:6 which states that a person may be executed by the testimony of “two or three witnesses”.  This statement is not a precise legal statement.  If two witnesses are sufficient than the Torah should have stated two.  If three witnesses are necessary the Torah should not have stated two.  Since all of the Sages held that two witnesses were sufficient, they must answer why the Torah also stated three.",
+                    "This mishnah contains three opinions with regards to a perceived problem in the Biblical verse mentioned in the beginning of the mishnah.",
+                    "<b>“A person shall be put to death only on the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6).<br>If the testimony is sufficiently established by two witnesses, why does Scripture [further] specify three? This is to compare two to three: just as three are competent to incriminate two as perjurers, so are two competent to incriminate three as perjurers. How do we know [that two or three can even incriminate] a hundred?  The Torah states “witnesses”.</b>  The first solution is that the Torah teaches that a set of three witnesses can be made into perjurers even by a set of two witnesses.  If the Torah had only taught “two witnesses” we might have thought that two was sufficient to incriminate two other witnesses but not three, since they are more numerous.  Therefore, the Torah teaches that no matter how large the group of witnesses, even one hundred, they do not have more power than a contradictory set of two.  If, therefore, three witnesses were to testify to a capital crime and the person was found guilty and condemned to die and then two witnesses claimed that the three prior witnesses were not present at the time of the alleged crime and rather were with them, the first three are executed as perjurers.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: “Just as two witnesses are not put to death until both have been incriminated as perjurers, so three are not put to death until all three have been incriminated as perjurers. How do we know [that two or three can even incriminate] a hundred?  The Torah states “witnesses”.</b>  Rabbi Shimon’s opinion is that just as when a pair of witnesses testify neither can be executed until both are proven to be perjurers, so too when three witnesses testify, none may be executed until all are proven to be perjurers.  Without the word “three” in the Torah we might have thought that if three or more testify and two are found to be perjurers they may be executed, even if the third was not a perjurer.  After all, the two would have been sufficient to have the accused executed.  Therefore the Torah teaches “three” and “witnesses” to teach that none are executed as perjurers until all are proven to be so.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Akiba says:  “The third witness was only mentioned in order to be stringent upon him and make his judgement the same as the other two. And if Scripture thus penalizes one who consorts with those who commit a transgression, as [if he is actually] one of those who commits the transgression, how much more so shall he who consorts with those who perform commandments receive a reward as [if he is actually] one of those who performs the commandments!”</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva, if three witnesses testify and two are incriminated as perjurers, the third witness is executed even if he was not a perjurer.  He is punished not for his false testimony but for joining in with other perjurers/evildoers.  Although this is a harsh sentence, Rabbi Akiva finds in it a ray of hope.  If those who merely join with evildoers are punished so harshly all the more so will those who join with those who perform commandments be greatly rewarded.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• What would be the practical result of the various interpretations on the procedures of the court?  What type of psychological effect would they have on the witnesses?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah Eight continues to expound upon the verse in Deuteronomy 17:6 which states that a person may be executed by the testimony of “two or three witnesses”.",
+                    "<b>Just as in the case of two witnesses, if one of them was found to be a relative or [otherwise] disqualified, their whole evidence is rendered void, so it is with three, if one of them was found to be a relative or [otherwise] disqualified, the whole evidence is void. How do we know that this is the case even with a hundred?  The Torah states “witnesses”.</b>  This section is a continuation of the previous mishnah’s discussion of the verse in Deuteronomy which stated “two or three witnesses”.  Another reason why the Torah states “two or three” is to teach that if one witness is invalidated (for reasons why witnesses may be invalidated see Sanhedrin 3:4), the entire grouping of witnesses is invalid.  This is obvious when there are two witnesses, for if one is invalidated, obviously the other one’s singular testimony will be invalidated due to its insufficiency.  However, even if there are three or more witnesses, and only one’s testimony is invalidated, and their remain two or more valid witnesses, nevertheless all of their testimony is invalidated.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose said:  “When is this true?  With regards to capital cases;  but in monetary suits, the evidence may be established by the rest. Rabbis says:  “It is one and the same rule, be it in monetary suits or capital cases.”</b>  Rabbi Yose limits this ruling to capital crimes.  In civil/monetary suits if one witness’s testimony is invalidated the other witnesses’ testimony can still stand.  Rabbi Akiva disagrees and claims that there is no difference between monetary and capital cases.",
+                    "<b>This is the rule when both [disqualified] witnesses warned the trasngressor, but when they did not warn him, what could two brothers do that saw someone killing a person?</b>  The mishnah now again limits the ruling in section one.  In order to convict someone of a capital crime he must be warned before he commits the crime.  If a person warns him before he commits the crime and then he commits it anyway, the person who warned him may testify against him. If a relative warned the person before he committed the crime, he will become one of the witnesses, thereby invalidating all of the testimony due to his being a relative or otherwise invalid.  If, however, the witness did not warn the potential offender, he does not necessarily become a witness and he will therefore not invalidate the others’ testimony.  The mishnah points out that if merely by witnessing a crime relatives can invalidate everyone’s testimony, neither of two brothers who saw a murder would be able to testify against the murderer.  If two brothers and a third person saw a murder and the law was that relatives may not join together to testify, and just by seeing the crime they become witnesses, the murderer would not be able to be convicted.  Rather, the mishnah teaches that the third person can join his testimony with one of the brothers and thereby convict the accused."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah nine continues to discuss the laws of witnessing capital crimes.  It deals with the question when are witnesses consider two groups and when are they considered one group.  Furthermore this mishnah deals with the requirement of the witnesses to warn the transgressor before he commits his crime.",
+                    "<b>If two persons see him [the transgressor] from one window and two other persons see him from another window and one standing in the middle warns him, then, if some on one side and some on the other side can see one another,  they constitute together one body of evidence, but if they cannot [see one another], they are two bodies of evidence. Consequently, if one of these is found to be a perjurer, both [the transgressor] and those two witnesses are put to death, while other group of witnesses is exempt.</b>  If a murder is witnessed by two sets of witnesses from two different angles we need to know if they are legally considered one set of witnesses or two sets.  If they constitute one set of witnesses then if any one of the four is caught as a perjurer, or is otherwise invalidated, all of their testimony is invalid, and none of the witnesses can be executed, unless they were all caught as perjurers .  If they are two sets of witnesses, then if one set is caught as a perjurers or otherwise disqualified, there remains a set of valid witnesses, and the transgessor is executed upon their testimony.  According to the mishnah the two sets of witnesses’ testimony is joined only under two conditions:  1)  the two sets can see each other; 2)  the person warning the transgessor stands between the two sets of witnesses such that all may see him.  If the witnesses cannot see each other or the person warning was not seen by all of the witnesses, then they are two different sets.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says:  “He is never put to death unless two witnesses had warned him, as it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses..” (Deut. 17:6).</b>  Rabbi Yose states that two must warn the transgessor before he commits the crime in order to convict him afterwards.  He learns this from the verse in Deut. 17:6, which literally translates, “by the mouth of two witnesses” (which is just idiomatic for “by two witnesses”).  Rabbi Yose understands that not only the verbal testimony but the verbal warning as well must come from two witnesses.",
+                    "<b>Another interpretation:  “By the mouth of two witnesses”:  that the Sanhedrin shall not hear the evidence from the mouth of an interpreter.</b>  Another interpretation of the phrase “by the mouth of” is that testimony may not be given through a translator.  A translator would cause the testimony to come from someone else’s mouth.  If the witness does not speak a language that the sanhedrin understands, his testimony does not count."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah ten discusses a criminal who flees after being convicted.  The final part of mishnah ten contains the famous discussion regarding how often the sanhedrins actually carried out executions.",
+                    "<b>If one fled after having been convicted at a court and again comes up before the same court, the [first] judgment is not set aside. Wherever two witnesses stand up and declare, “We testify that so and so was tried and convicted at a certain court and that so and so were the witnesses” the accused is executed.</b>  If the convicted felon fled and was returned before the same court, he is executed without another trial.  If he was caught and brought before a different court two witnesses must state that this person was already convicted by another court.  They must also name the court and name those who testified against the felon.  If they do so he may be executed by the new court without a full trial.",
+                    "<b>[Trials before] a sanhedrin are customary both in the land [of Israel] and outside it.</b>  The sanhedrin of twenty three is a communal structure that is functional both in the Land of Israel and outside of it.",
+                    "<b>A sanhedrin that executes once in seven years, is called murderous. Rabbi Eliezer b. Azariah Says: once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say:  “Had we been members of a sanhedrin, no person would ever be put to death. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel remarked:  “They would also multiply murderers in Israel.”</b>  This famous piece of mishnah testifies to some of the Rabbis’ deep hesitations with regards to the death penalty.  As we have seen throughout tractate Sanhedrin and tractate Makkoth, convicting a person of a capital crime is no easy matter.  The person must be warned beforehand and then the crime has to be explicitly witnessed by two valid witnesses.  Therefore, the first opinion in our mishnah, concludes that a court that executes once every seven years is a murderous court.  Since the laws of testimony are so strict, any court that executes more often than this is assumed to be illegally suspending the laws and is therefore, in a sense, engaging in murder itself.  Rabbi Elezar ben Azariah says that once in seventy years already makes a court murderous.  Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva brag that had they been on a sanhedrin no one would have ever been executed.  At the end of the mishnah Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, the political leader of the Jews at the time, notes a sound of caution.  The Rabbinic tendency to be overly lenient on executing murderers can take its toll on society.  In his opinion the attitudes of the other Rabbis cause the numbers of murderers to rise.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Section two: Why might one have thought that the sanhedrin was not functional outside of the Land of Israel?<br>• Section three:  Why do the Rabbis feel the need to state how infrequently a court should execute?  What is Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel’s argument with the others?"
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe second chapter of Makkoth discusses the laws regarding accidental killing.  These laws are discussed extensively in Numbers 35:9-28, 32 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13.  According to these passages, if a person killed another person by accident the victim’s relative could exact blood vengeance upon the accidental killer.  If the accidental killer wanted to avoid being killed by the blood avenger he would run to one of the cities of refuge that were to be established when the Land of Israel was conquered.  The accidental killer would have to stay in this city until the death of the High Priest at which point he could return to his former city and the blood avenger would be forbidden from killing him.\nThe mishnah which we will learn today defines what killing is considered accidental such that it allows a killer to escape to a city of refuge.",
+                    "<b>The following go into banishment: one who kills in error. If [for instance] while he was pushing a roller [on the roof] and it fell down and killed somebody; If while he was lowering a cask it fell down and killed somebody; If while coming down a ladder he fell on somebody and killed him, he goes into banishment. But, if while he was pulling up the roller it fell back and killed somebody; If while he was raising a cask and the rope snapped and the cask fell and killed somebody; If while going up a ladder he fell down and killed somebody, he does not go into banishment. (1) This is the general principle: [whenever the death was caused] in the course of a downward movement, he goes into banishment, but [if it was caused] not in the course of a downward movement, he does not go into banishment.</b>  This entire section illustrates the principle that an accidental death which will force the killer to go into exile is a case where a person is lowering a heavy object or he himself is going down a ladder and the object or the person slips and accidentally kills someone.  If however, he was bringing something up or going up a ladder and the object or he fell downward he is not obligated to go into exile.  The difference between the two is that in the first case the likelihood of injuring someone below is relatively high and he therefore should have been more cautious.  In the second case, when he is bringing something up, the likelihood that it will fall below and cause injury is unlikely.  Therefore he does not need to go into exile. This section illustrates an important difference in the Rabbinic understanding of exile from the Biblical understanding of exile.  In the Bible the accidental killer’s fleeing to the refuge city is to his own advantage. If he does not the blood avenger will kill him.  Exile is not a punishment for a crime or for negligence but legal protection offered to an accidental killer.  In the Rabbinic legal system exile is a punishment for negligence.  This is probably partly due to the fact that blood vengeance was not accepted in their society.  The Rabbis understand exile as a punishment for negligence.  Therefore if the killing was totally unanticipated, he need not go to the city of exile.",
+                    "<b>If the iron slipped from its heft and killed [somebody]: Rabbi says, “He does not go into banishment.” And the Sages say:  “He goes into banishment.” If it flew from the log being split: Rabbi says, “He goes into banishment.” And the Sages say:  “He does not go into banishment.”</b>  Deuteronomy 19:5 brings up an example of accidental killing whereby a man goes into the forest with an ax and the “ax flies off the handle and strikes another so that he dies”.  This phrase “ax flies off the handle” is read in two different ways. The Sages read the verse as we have translated it, that the instrument which kills is the metal part of the ax which flies off its handle.  According to Rabbi (Judah the Prince) in this situation the person is not liable for exile.  He reads the verse as if it states that the ax causes a chip to fly off from the tree and the chip kills someone else.  [Rabbi would translate the word handle as “tree”, and they are both indeed the same word.]  According to the Sages, in this situation he is not liable for exile."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah two continues to define what killing is considered accidental such that it allows a killer to escape to a city of refuge.",
+                    "<b>If a man threw a stone into the public domain and killed a person, he goes into banishment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says:  “If after the stone had left his hand another person put out his head and caught it, the thrower is exempt [from banishment].”</b>  One who throws a stone into the public domain has thereby committed a negligent act and is exiled if the stone kills.  According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob the stone must be thrown at the place where a person is standing, before the stone is thrown.  If after the stone is thrown a person moves into its way he is not liable to be exiled.  This is probably because he is less negligent, having thrown a stone to a place where no one was standing.  However, according to the first opinion in the mishnah, merely throwing a stone to a place that might kill is enough to cause the thrower to be exiled.",
+                    "<b>If a man threw a stone into his [own] court and killed a person, then, if the victim had a right of entry there, the thrower goes into banishment, and if not, he does not go into banishment, as it says, “As when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor” (Deut. 19:5): the forest is a domain accessible to the victim and to the slayer and it therefore excludes the court of the householder where the victim has no right of entry.</b>  If a person throws a stone into his own courtyard and it kills a trespasser the thrower is not liable to be exiled.  This is learned from the example of accidental killing mentioned in Deuteronomy 19:5, that of an accidental killing taking place in the forest.  Just as the forest is a place where anyone may enter, so too any accidental killing can only occur in a place where the victim had permission to enter.  An accidental killing which takes place on private property when the victim had not been given permission to enter will not make the killer liable for exile.",
+                    "<b>Abba Shaul says: “Hewing of wood is an optional act and it therefore excludes a father beating his son, or a master disciplining his pupil, or an agent of the court [administering lashes].”</b>  Abba Shaul learns another law from the example given in the Torah, that of a person chopping wood.  Chopping wood is a voluntary activity and therefore any accidental killing which will force the killer to go into exile must also entail voluntary activities.  If however the striking was mandatory such as a father disciplining his son, a master his student or a court agent administering lashes, the accidental killer is exempt.  When reading this mishnah, as harsh as it sounds we must remember that corporal discipline was an accepted part of all ancient societies."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah three discusses categories of accidental killers who do or do not go into exile.",
+                    "<b>The father goes into banishment for [the death of] his son, and the son goes into banishment for [that of] his father.</b>  Although we learned in the previous mishnah that a father does not go into banishment if he accidentally kills his son while disciplining him, he nevertheless does go into banishment if he accidentally kills him under other circumstances.  So too a son goes into banishment if he accidentally kills his father.",
+                    "<b>All go into banishment for [the death of] an Israelite, and Israelites go into banishment on their account, except for a resident alien. And a resident alien does not go into banishment except for [the death of another] resident alien.</b>  Anyone who accidentally kills an Israelite, meaning a Jew, is exiled, including a slave or a Samaritan (a sect that broke away from the Jews).  So too, any Jew who accidentally kills someone goes into exile, even if he accidentally kills a slave or a Samaritan.  The one exception is a resident alien, a person who lives in the Land of Israel and has accepted upon himself to perform the seven Noahide commandments (the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, sexual sins, theft, and eating from a living animal, as well as the injunction to establish a legal system) but has not fully converted to Judaism.  If a Jew accidentally kills a resident alien he is not banished.  However, if a resident alien accidentally kills a Jew he is to be executed.  These laws are learned in the Talmud exegetically from Deuteronomy 19:5.",
+                    "<b>A blind person does not go into banishment, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says:  “He goes into banishment.”</b>  Numbers 35:23 states that if a person drops a stone on someone else “without seeing” he is to be banished.  Based on this verse there is a dispute amongst the Sages with regards to the banishing of a blind person.  According to Rabbi Judah since a blind person can never see he is exempted from the laws of banishment.  According to Rabbi Meir, as long as the killing was accidental the killer is banished.",
+                    "<b>An enemy does not go into banishment. Rabbi Yose bar Judah says:  “An enemy is executed, for it is as if he has been warned.” Rabbi Shimon says:  “There is an enemy that goes into banishment and there is an enemy that does not go into banishment:  wherever it can be said that he had killed [his victim] wittingly, he goes not into banishment,  and where he had slain unwittingly, he goes into banishment.</b>  A person who accidentally kills his enemy is understandably going to be looked at with some suspicion.  Deuteronomy 19:11 states that “If, however, a person who is the enemy of another lies in wait for him and sets upon him and strikes him with a fatal blow” this person is to be executed.  The question our mishnah asks is what to do with the an enemy who claims that he killed accidentally.  According to the first opinion, since he is an enemy, he is not banished.  Neither is he to be executed by a court.  Rather, the blood avenger is allowed to exact revenge upon this person and not be considered guilty of murder himself.  According to Rabbi Yose bar Judah he is to be executed, for we can assume that he murdered with intent, and it is as if he has already been warned not to murder such and such a person.  Rabbi Shimon states that not all situations in which a person kills his enemy are the same.  If it can be stated that the enemy killed with intent than he is not to be banished.  In other words, the cities of refuge will not offer him protection and the blood avenger will be permitted to exact revenge.  If, however, it cannot be stated that he killed with intent he is banished like all other accidental killers.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Section one:  Why would you think that a father doesn’t go into banishment for his son?  Why would you think that a son doesn’t go into banishment for accidentally killing his father?<br>• Section four:  There are three different opinions in this section.  Try to figure out how each opinion might be based on the verse in Deuteronomy."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>To where are they banished? To the cities of refuge, to the three cities situated on the far side of the Jordan and the three cities situated in Canaan, as it says, “Three cities shall be designated beyond the Jordan, and the other three shall be designated in the land of Canaan” (Numbers 35:14).<br>Not until three cities were selected in the land of Israel did the [first] three cities beyond the jordan receive fugitives, as it says, “Six cities of refuge in all” (Numbers 35:13), until all six could simultaneously receive fugitives.</b><br>Mishnah four begins to discuss the refuge cities, those cities to where the accidental killer would flee.<br><br>This mishnah begins to discuss the cities of refuge to where the accidental killer would flee in order to protect himself from the blood avenger.  There were three cities on one side of the Jordan river (where the country of Jordan currently exists) and three in the land of Israel.  Although the land on the other side of the Jordan river was conquered first and assumedly its refuge cities were assigned before the remainder of the land was conquered, nevertheless these refuge cities were not functional until all six had been conquered and assigned."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah five discusses the making of roads to lead to the cities of refuge and the accompaniment of the manslayer as he makes his way.",
+                    "<b>And direct roads were made leading from one to the other, as it says, “You shall prepare the way and divide the borders of your land into three parts” (Deut. 19:3).</b>  Roads were to be made leading to the cities of refuge so that the manslayer would not have a difficult time finding his way.  Remember that if the blood avenger found him before he arrived at the city of refuge he could kill him without incurring penalty.",
+                    "<b>And they delegate to him to disciples of the Sages [as escorts] in case anyone attempted to slay him on the way, and that they might speak to him. Rabbi Meir says:  “He may [even] plead his cause himself, as it says, “And this is the word of the manslayer” (Deut. 19:4).</b>  In order to prevent the blood avenger from finding the manslayer on his way to the city of refuge the court would assign two disciples of the Sages to travel with him and plead with the blood avenger should he try and attack while on the way.  Rabbi Meir’s statement can be read in two ways.  He may be suggesting that not only should the disciples of the Sages plead his case, but he should plead himself.  According to this interpretation, Rabbi Meir does not disagree with the previous opinion, but rather adds upon it. Alternatively, Rabbi Meir may disagree with the previous opinion.  Rabbi Meir may believe that only the manslayer may plead his case, but not the disciples of the Sages.  In either case the act of pleading is learned from the verse in Deuteronomy which states “the word of the manslayer”, understood by Rabbi Meir to hint that the manslayer should plead his own case."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first half of mishnah six states that all killers, accidental or intentional, would initially flee to the city of refuge, before standing trial.  The second half discusses issues concerning the death of the high priest, which according to Numbers 35:25, 28 is what allows the manslayer to leave the city of refuge and return home without fear of the blood avenger.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose bar Judah says:  “Initially a slayer is sent in advance to [one of] the cities of refuge, whether he had slain in error or with intent and then the court sends and brings him out. Whoever was found guilty of a capital crime the court had executed, and whoever was found not guilty of a capital crime they acquitted. Whoever was found liable to banishment they restored to his place [of refuge] as it says, “And the congregation shall restore him to the city of refuge to which he fled” (Numbers 35:25).</b>  Before a trial it is impossible to know whether the killing was done accidentally or with intent.  Therefore, all killers flee to the city of refuge immediately.  Afterwards the court sends for them and puts them on trial.  If they are found guilty of murder they are executed.  If they are found not to have killed with intent and not to have been negligent, then they are totally exempt and incur no penalty.  If they are found to have killed accidentally, without intent but with some degree of negligence, then they are sent back to the city of refuge.",
+                    "<b>All the same are [the deaths of] the high priest who had been anointed with the anointing oil; or had worn many garments, or had retired from his office all make possible the return of the manslayer. Rabbi Judah says also the [death of the] priest who had been anointed for war makes possible the return of the manslayer.</b>  There are several different types of high priests described in our mishnah.  The first are those who have been anointed with oil, a practice that only existed during the First Temple period.  The second are those who wore the high priest’s special clothing, which included more pieces of clothing than a normal priest.  This would have included the high priest during the Second Temple period.  Thirdly, the mishnah mentions a high priest who retires from office.  The manslayer may leave the city of refuge at the death of any one of these types of high priests (see Numbers 35:25, 28).  According to Rabbi Judah, even the priest who has been anointed to charge the people into war, referred to in Deuteronomy 20:2, is considered to be like a high priest, and therefore his death allows the manslayer to return home.",
+                    "<b>Therefore, mothers of high priests would provide food and clothing for them [who had been exiled] that they might not pray for their son’s death.</b>  Naturally, it is in the best interest of the manslayer who has been banished to the refuge city for the high priest to die as quickly as possible.  They may even pray for his speedy death.  In order to encourage them not to pray for their sons’ deaths, the mothers of the high priests would feed and clothe the manslayers who were stuck in the cities of refuge.",
+                    "<b>If the high priest died at the conclusion of the trial, the slayer does not go into banishment. If he died before the trial was concluded and another high priest was appointed in his stead and the trial was then concluded, the slayer returns [home from refuge only] after the latter’s death.</b>  If the high priest were to die after the conclusion of the trial the manslayer does not need to go into banishment, for the high priest has already died.  Although he never reached the city of refuge, once his trial has been concluded it is as if he is already there.  If, however, the high priest dies before the conclusion of the trial and a new one is appointed, the manslayer must wait until the newly appointed high priest dies before he can leave the city of refuge.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Section one:  Why does Rabbi Yose bar Judah suggest that all killers initially flee to the refuge city, even before a trial?<br>• Section three:  What does this section teach us about the nature of prayer in the eyes of the Rabbis?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah seven continues to deal with various law concerning the cities of refuge.",
+                    "<b>If the trial was concluded when there was no high priest [in office], or if one kills a high priest, or a high priest that kills, [in these cases the manslayer] can never come away from that place [of refuge].</b>  This section is a conclusion of the previous mishnah.  If the trial of the manslayer is concluded at a time when there was no high priest he can never leave the city of refuge.  Even when a new high priest is appointed, his death will not free the manslayer since he was not the high priest when the person was convicted of manslaughter.  Similarly, one who kills a high priest or a high priest that kills can never leave the city of refuge, since there would be no existing high priest at the conclusion of the trial.",
+                    "<b>He [the manslayer] may not go out to bear witness, neither for cases having to do with a religious observance, nor to bear witness in a monetary suit, nor to bear witness in a capital case. Even should [all] Israel need him, and even a general like Yoav the son of Zeruiah, he may never go out, as it is said, “to there he fled”:  ‘there’ must be his abode, ‘there’ his death, ‘there’ his burial.</b>  The manslayer may not leave the city of refuge under any circumstance, even to testify to a religious matter, such as the new month.  Neither may he leave to testify in monetary cases nor in capital cases.  Even if he was a general in the army and Israel needed him in war, he may not leave.  The mishnah emphatically states that “there”, i.e. in the city of refuge will be his permanent dwelling, his death and his burial.",
+                    "<b>Just as the city affords asylum so does its Sabbath boundary afford asylum.</b>  Just as the city proper offers the manslayer refuge from the blood avenger, so too does any area within the Sabbath limit (a boundary within which a person may freely travel on the Sabbath).  This is defined as a 2000 amot perimeter of the city.",
+                    "<b>If a manslayer went beyond the boundary [of the city] and the blood avenger found him: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says:  “For the avenger it is a matter of obligation [to kill him]; for everyone else, a matter of option.” Rabbi Akiba says: “It is a matter of option for the avenger, and anyone else [who kills him] is not liable for doing so.”</b>  If he does leave the city of refuge before the high priest dies, he is liable to be killed.  According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, the blood avenger is actually commanded to kill him and any other person is permitted to kill him.  According to Rabbi Akiva the blood avenger may kill him, and other people may not.  However, if other people do kill him they are not liable as murderers.",
+                    "<b>If a tree was standing within the boundary and its boughs extended beyond [the boundary] or if it was standing outside of the boundary and its boughs extended within, it wholly follows [the position of] the boughs.</b>  A tree standing in the city and leaning out of it, or standing outside of the city and leaning in, is judged to be in our out of the city boundaries based on its boughs and not on the position of its trunk.  This will be of import if the manslayer reaches the tree and the blood avenger tries to kill him.  If the tree is in the boundaries the blood avenger may not kill him but if it is outside of the boundaries, he may.",
+                    "<b>If he slew [someone] in that city [of refuge] he is banished from one neighborhood to another neighborhood. And a Levite is banished from one city to another.</b>  A person who accidentally kills someone in a city of refuge presents a legal problem since he is already in the place that protects people from the blood avenger.  The mishnah remedies this problem by stating that he is to be exiled from neighborhood to neighborhood.  A Levite who lives in a city of refuge (see Numbers 35:6) may not stay in the city if he accidentally kills someone.  Rather he must go to a different city of refuge."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah eight deals with the arrival of the manslayer in the city of refuge, his acceptance there, and his eventual leaving of the city.",
+                    "<b>A manslayer who went to his city of his refuge and the men of that city wished to do him honor, should [refuse] by saying to them, “I am a manslayer!”. If they say to him, “Nevertheless” he should accept from them [the proffered honor], as it is said: “and this is the word of the manslayer.”</b>  Upon reaching the city of refuge the manslayer should initially attempt to refuse any honors that the people of the city may offer him.  However, if they insist he may accept.  This is learned from the verse, “and this is the word of the manslayer.”  The mishnah understands the verse as hinting that the manslayer need only speak one word of refusal of honor.  He need not refuse a second time.",
+                    "<b>They used to pay  rent to the Levites, according to the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: “They did not pay them rent.”</b>  According to Numbers 35:6 the cities of refuge are actually owned by the tribe of Levi which was not apportioned a geographical inheritance in Israel as were the other tribes.  Therefore Rabbi Judah states that those who fled to the city of refuge must pay rent to the Levites.  Rabbi Meir hold that they need not.",
+                    "<b>And [on his return home] he returns to the office he formerly held, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “He does not return to the office he formerly held.”</b>  When he returns to his former home after the death of the high priest, Rabbi Meir holds that he returns to his former positions of power and honor.  Rabbi Judah holds that he does not.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• What might be the connection between the two disputes at the end of this mishnah?  Are Rabbis Meir and Judah holding consistent opinions?  If so, what conception of manslaying underlies each of their words?"
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final chapter of Makkoth discussed those who are liable to be flogged.  There are three reasons that a person is flogged:  1)  one who transgresses a Biblical law for which the penalty is kareth (heavenly excommunication).  According to the Rabbis one who was flogged is not penalized by kareth, considered to be a more serious punishment.  2)  One who transgresses a Biblical law which is punishable by death by the hands of Heaven.  3) One who transgresses a Biblical negative commandment, provided the transgression was active.  Our chapter lists many categories of those who are to flogged but the list is not exhaustive.",
+                    "<b>And these are liable to be flogged:<br>One who had relations with his sister, or his father's sister, or his mother's sister, or his wife's sister, or his brother's wife, or his father's brother's wife, or a menstruant;</b>  This mishnah lists sexual offenses which are not punishable by death.  In each of these cases both offenders, the man and the woman will be flogged.  These forbidden relations are discussed in Leviticus chapters eighteen and twenty.",
+                    "<b>A high priest who marries a widow,  an ordinary priest who marries a divorcee  or a halutzah;</b>  This section lists marriages forbidden to high priests and ordinary priests.  They are listed in Leviticus 21:7, 13-15.",
+                    "<b>An Israelite who marries a mamzereth or natinah,  or an Israelite woman who is married to a mamzer  or a  natin.</b>  This section lists marriages forbidden to ordinary Israelites.  A mamzer or mamzereth (a female mamzer), mentioned in Deuteronomy 23:3, is one born of a forbidden union which carries with it a punishment of kareth or death.  A natin or natina (a female natin) is a descendent of the Gibeonites, those who tricked Joshua into accepting them as converts, upon which he declared them to be woodchoppers and water-drawers and forbade them to marry ordinary Israelites (Joshua 9:27).",
+                    "<b>In the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a widow [a high priest] is liable on two counts. But in the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a halutzah, an ordinary priest is liable only on one count.</b>  A widow who is also a divorcee, i.e. her first husband died and her second husband divorced her, is forbidden to a high priest on two counts.  If he were to marry such a woman he would be obligated to be flogged for each transgression, even though he did only one act.  A divorcee and a halutzah (one who has been rejected by her levir, her dead husband’s brother) are forbidden to an ordinary priest.  However, the prohibition of the halutzah to an ordinary priest is only a Rabbinic prohibition, not Biblical, as is the prohibition to a divorcee  Therefore, an ordinary priest who marries a divorcee who is also a halutzah is only flogged for one transgression."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>An unclean person who ate holy meat (Leviticus 7:20, 12:4);<br>One who entered the sanctuary while unclean (Leviticus 12:4, Numbers 5:3, 19:13);<br>One who ate forbidden fat or blood (Leviticus 3:16, 7:23-27);<br>Or leftover sacrificial meats (Leviticus 19:6-8);<br>Or sacrifices that had been offered up with improper intention (Leviticus 7:18);<br>Or [an offering] that has became unclean (Leviticus 7:19);<br>One who slaughters, or offers up a sacrifice, outside the Temple precincts (Leviticus 17:4);<br>One who ate leavened [bread] during Passover (Exodus 12:15, 19);<br>One who partakes of food [or drink] or does work on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:27-31);<br>One who puts together the ingredients for the [anointing] oil, or the ingredients for the incense, or anoints with the oil for anointing (Exodus 30:22-28):<br>One who eats an animal that died a natural death (Deuteronomy 14:21);<br>Or was improperly slaughtered (Exodus 22:30);<br>Or any of the [creatures deemed] ‘abominable’ and ‘teeming’ (Leviticus 11:11, 40).<br>One who eats non-tithed produce, or first-tithe from which heave offering has not been removed, or unredeemed second-tithe, or unredeemed sanctified property.<br>How much untithed produce is one to eat to become liable? Rabbi Shimon says:  “Any amount.” The Sages say:  “An olive's size.” Rabbi Shimon said to them:  “Do you not admit that if one ate the minutest ant that he would be liable? They said to him: “[Only] because it is a whole creature.” He said to them:  “Even a grain of wheat is a whole entity.”</b><br>The first fourteen sections of our mishnah mostly lists different types of forbidden foods and a few other Temple related prohibitions for which one is to be flogged.  Section fifteen discusses the amount of untithed produce that if one eats he is liable for a transgression.<br>Section fifteen:  According to Rabbi Shimon one is liable for flogging if he eats any amount of untithed produce, even a single grain. The Sages disagree and state that only if one eats an olive’s size of untithed produce is he liable for flogging.  Less than that and he is exempt.  Rabbi Shimon attempts to prove his point by making an analogy to eating an entire ant.  All agree that if one eats an entire ant (on purpose) he is liable to be flogged, even though the ant is smaller than an olive.  The Sages respond that one is liable for eating an ant since it is an entire creature.  Since it is a distinct, full entity it is enough to make one who consumes it liable for punishment.  Rabbi Shimon responds that a single grain is also a whole entity, and therefore one who eats a single grain of untithed produce is liable to be flogged as well."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah continues to discuss which transgressions are punishable by flogging.",
+                    "<b>One who eats of first fruits previous to the recital over them (Deut. 26:3-10);</b>  First fruits were to be brought to Jerusalem and given as a gift to the priests.  The bearer of the first fruits was supposed to recite a liturgical text contained in Deuteronomy 26:3-10, which contained a brief history of Israel (the text is now part of the Passover Haggadah).  A priest who ate of the first fruits before the recitation was made was punished by flogging.",
+                    "<b>Of most holy things outside of the Temple curtains (Exodus 27:9);</b>  Certain sacrifices were only to be eaten within the curtains of the Temple.  These included sin offerings and guilt offerings.  One who ate them outside of this area was punished by flogging.",
+                    "<b>Of lesser holy things or of second tithe, outside the city wall (Deut. 12:17-18).</b>  Other sacrifices could be consumed anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem.  These included thanksgiving offerings, offerings of wellbeing and the Passover offering.  The second tithe was to be brought to Jerusalem and consumed there.  One who ate any of these things outside of the walls was punished by flogging.",
+                    "<b>One who breaks a bone of a ritually clean Passover offering receives forty [lashes] (Exodus 12:46); But one who leaves over a clean [Passover offering] (Exodus 12:10), or breaks a bone of an unclean [Passover offering], is not given forty [lashes].</b>  The Torah forbids breaking a bone of the Passover sacrifice.  The mishnah limits this law to a Passover sacrifice brought by a ritually clean person.  Usually unclean people could not bring the Passover sacrifice and they were to wait a month and celebrate what is called Pesach Sheni, or The Second Passover (see Numbers 9:4-13).  However, if most of the congregation was impure at the time of the first Passover (the 14th of Nissan) they were allowed to sacrifice the Passover offering while impure.  Our mishnah teaches that one who breaks a bone of a Passover offering brought while the congregation is impure is not liable to be lashed. The Torah also states that the Passover offering must be consumed that very night.  One who does not consume the Passover offering, while having violated a commandment, is nevertheless not flogged.  We will learn why in the next mishnah.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Why do you think a person who breaks the bone of an impure Passover offering is not to liable for flogging?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If one takes the mother bird with the young (Deuteronomy 22:6-7): Rabbi Judah says he is flogged and need not [then] send the mother free; But the Sages say:  “He lets the mother go and is not flogged.”<br>This is the general principle; any negative commandment which involves a positive deed, one is not liable (for transgressing over.</b><br>Mishnah four discusses the prohibition of taking a mother bird with her young.<br>The last section of the mishnah states the principle that will explain the Sages’ position in the previous section as well as the last section of the previous mishnah.  According to the mishnah any negative commandment which can be immediately remedied by a positive deed is not punishable by lashing.  Our two mishnayoth illustrate commandments of this nature.  Deuteronomy 22:6-7 states:  “Do not take the mother (bird) with the young, Let the mother go”.  The Sages understand the first half of this statement to be a negative commandment and the second half a positive deed which would remedy the violation of the negative commandment.  In other words one who violates the negative commandment by taking the mother and the young can remedy it by doing a positive deed, namely by releasing the mother.  Therefore, the Sages say that since he released the mother, he is not liable to be flogged.<br>Rabbi Judah reads the verse differently.  He understands the second half to mean “Let the mother go” before you take her and the young.  Once the person has taken the mother bird while the young are together with her in the nest he is immediately punishable by flogging, since he cannot remedy the situation.  Since the commandment has already been violated and cannot be remedied, he is not obligated to release the mother bird.<br>This same general rule is also applicable with regards to the end of the previous mishnah which discussed leaving the Passover offering until morning.  Exodus 12:10 states:  “You shall not leave any of it until morning; if any of it is left until morning you shall burn it.”  Again the first half of the verse is a negative commandment and the second half contains a remedy to the violation of that commandment.  Therefore one who violates the prohibition of leaving the sacrifice until morning is not flogged."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah five discusses the various prohibitions of shaving one’s head either as a sign of mourning (Leviticus 21:5, Deuteronomy 14:1) or in general (Leviticus 19:26).  These prohibitions are punishable by flogging.",
+                    "<b>If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners,  one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer  says:  “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.”</b>  Making a baldness on one’s head as a sign of mourning is prohibited in Deuteronomy 14:1 and Leviticus 21:5.  Rounding the corner of one’s head and marring the corner of one’s beard are prohibited in Leviticus 19:27.  Cutting one’s flesh for the dead is prohibited in Leviticus 19:28.  All of these transgressions are punishable by flogging.  Our mishnah now proceeds to list how many violations are contained in each of these commandments.",
+                    "<b>If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners,  one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer  says:  “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.”</b>  Section one, clause a:  With regards to cutting one’s flesh, each cut for each dead counts as a violation.  If he cuts once for five dead he receives five sets of lashes. Likewise, if he cuts five times for one dead he receives five sets of lashes.",
+                    "<b>If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners,  one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer  says:  “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.”</b>  Section one, clause b: Rounding one’s head is considered two violations, one for each side of the head.  Therefore he will receive two sets of lashes.",
+                    "<b>If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners,  one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer  says:  “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.”</b>  Section one, clause c:  Marring the corners of one’s beard is considered five violations, two for marring each side and one for marring the chin.  Therefore he will receive five sets of lashes.",
+                    "<b>If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners,  one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer  says:  “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.”</b>  Section one, clause d:  Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the previous opinion.  In his opinion just because there are separate areas of the head to round or beard to mar does not mean that one is obligated lashes for each section.  What causes a person to receive multiple sets of lashes is his having violated the prohibition on different occasions.  If he mars one part of the beard today and another at a later time, for instance tomorrow, he will be obligated for two sets of lashes.  However, if he violates the prohibition in one sitting he is only obligated for one set of lashes.",
+                    "<b>And he is only liable if he takes off with a razor; Rabbi Eliezer says:  “Even if he picks off the hairs with tweezers, or with pincers, he is liable.</b>  According to the first opinion in the mishnah he is only liable for having marred his beard if he does so with a razor.  Rabbi Eliezer holds that marring even with pincers or tweezers is a violation of the commandment.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Section two:  What might be the basis of Rabbi Eliezer’s disagreement with the previous opinion?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>He who writes an incision on his skin [is flogged].<br>If he writes [on his flesh] without incising, or incises without writing, he is not liable, until he writes and incises with ink, eye-paint or anything that lasts.<br>Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:  “He is not liable until he has written there the name [of a god], as it is says:  “Nor shall you incise any marks on yourselves; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28).</b><br>This mishnah is a continuation of the previous mishnah which discussed the prohibitions in Leviticus 19:27-28.<br>The last half of verse Lev. 19:28 prohibits tattooing, defined in our mishnah as incising with a knife and making a permanent mark.  If he were to incise without using permanent ink, or write on himself with permanent ink without first incising he would not be liable for lashes.<br>The first opinion in the mishnah understood that one is liable to be flogged no matter what he writes.  Rabbi Shimon ben Judah disagrees and states that one is obligated only if he writes the name of another god.  This is learned from the end or verse 28, “I am the Lord”.  Rabbi Shimon understands this to mean God saying, “I am the Lord” and therefore you may not write any other god’s name."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah seven discusses a nazirite who violates the prohibition of drinking wine.",
+                    "<b>If a nazirite has been drinking wine all day, he is liable for only one lashing. If they said to him, “Don’t drink wine”, “Don’t drink wine”, and he kept drinking, he is liable for each instance.</b> A nazirite is forbidden to shave his hair, drink wine or become impure (Numbers 6:1-21).  Our mishnah asks the question about a nazirite who drinks wine all day long.  Is this considered one violation or many violations?  In other words, what splits one act of violation from another, in order to make him liable on multiple counts? The mishnah states that it is his awareness of his crime, proven by others warning him to cease drinking, that separates counts of violations.  If he drinks all day long yet no one warns him, it is only considered one violation.  If others warn him, it is considered a violation every time he continues to drink.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• How does this mishnah compare to Rabbi Eliezer’s statement at the end of mishnah five?  Does this mishnah go according to his opinion or not?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he has been defiling himself for the dead all day, he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not defile yourself! Do not defile yourself!” and he did defile himself [each time], he is liable on each instance.<br>If he was shaving all day he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not shave, Do not shave” and he did shave [each time], he is liable on each instance.<br>If he was wearing a garment of mixed linen and wool all day, he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not put it on!  Do not put it on!” and he takes it off and puts it on, he is liable on each instance.</b><br>Mishnah eight is a continuation of mishnah seven which discussed the punishment for the continuous violation of a negative commandment.<br>All three sections of this mishnah teach the same ruling, which we learned already in the end of mishnah seven.  If a person is violating a prohibition continuously over an entire day he is only punished for one violation.  In other words, even though he may have violated the prohibition several times, it is considered one continuous violation and he is only punished once.  However, if he is warned by others and continues to violate the prohibition he is obligated for each violation.  Since he was warned he cannot claim that he didn’t realize what he was doing.<br>The first two sections deal with two of the prohibitions placed by the Torah on the nazirite:  ritually defile himself through contact with a dead body or shave his hair.  The other prohibition for the nazirite, drinking wine, was the subject of mishnah seven.<br>The final section of the mishnah deals with the wearing of a garment which contains wool and linen.  This is prohibited in Leviticus 19:19."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah nine discusses a case where one can perform one act and thereby violate eight or nine negative commandments and therefore receive eight or nine sets of lashes.",
+                    "Our mishnah lists a situation where a person plows one furrow in the ground and yet has violated eight different negative commandments.  We will describe all eight and their Biblical precedents. (1) It is forbidden to plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together (Deuteronomy 22:10). (2+3) If the animals were sanctified to the Temple then one is forbidden to use them for other purposes.  Since there are two animals that were both sanctified, he has violated two negative commandments not to use sanctified property. (4) It is forbidden to sew ones vineyard with other types of seeds (Deuteronomy 22:9).  If by plowing he overturns seeds in a vineyard, this is considered as if he is sewing them anew and he thereby violates this commandment. (5) It is forbidden to plow the land during the Sabbatical year (Leviticus 25:4). (6) It is forbidden to plow on the Festival (see for instance Leviticus 23:7).  It is also forbidden to plow on the Sabbath.  However, violations of the Sabbath are not punished by lashes, as are the other violations in our mishnah, but rather by death.  Since there is a principle that if one violates two commandments with one act he receives the more serious punishment, if this plowing were to have taken place on the Sabbath he would be executed and not flogged.  Hence our mishnah lists the Festival and not the Sabbath. (7) A priest is forbidden to defile himself by contact with the dead or with a cemetery (Leviticus 21:1).  If the plowing was done in a cemetery he will be obligated for this violation as well. (8) A nazirite is also forbidden to defile himself by contact with the dead (Numbers 6:6).",
+                    "<b>Hanania ben Hakinai says:  “He may also have been wearing a garment mixed of wool and linen.” They said too him: “This is not of the same category.” He said to them:  “Even the nazirite is not in the same category.”</b>  Hananiah ben Hakinai adds another possible violation to the list.  If, while performing all of these activities, he wears the forbidden mixture of wool and linen, he has now violated a ninth prohibition.  The Sages respond that this ninth violation has nothing to do with the plowing and therefore they did not list it in the first section of our mishnah.  Hananiah ben Hakinai responds that being a nazirite (or a priest) who defiles himself is also not a violation that is a result of the plowing, since a nazirite and a priest are forbidden even to enter the cemetery.  Since according to Hananiah the list already includes violations that are not a direct result of plowing, it may be expanded to other violations that are not a result of the plowing, such as wearing wool and linen.  In this way Hananiah ben Hakinai has found a way that a person can be obligated for having violated nine prohibitions in one act.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Why would the authors of the mishnah want to list all of the possible violations involved in plowing one furrow?  What principle does this teach us?  How does it relate to the subject of the previous mishnah?<br>• Section two:  What might the Sages respond to Hananiah ben Hakinai, who received the last word in the mishnah?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah ten discusses the number of lashes a transgressor is to receive.",
+                    "<b>How many lashes is he given? Forty save one, as it says, “By number forty” (Deuteronomy 25:2-3) which means, a number close to forty. Rabbi Judah says: “He is given forty [lashes] in full.” And where does he receive the additional lash? Between his shoulders.</b> Through a clever midrash our mishnah learns from Deuteronomy 25:2-3 that a person can receive up to 39 lashes for a single crime.  The simple reading of those verses is actually that he can receive 40 lashes.  Verse 3 states explicitly, “He may be given up to forty lashes.”  The Rabbis derive 39 from the fact that verse 2 ends with the word “by number” and verse 3 with the word “forty”.  The midrash is that the “number” is before “forty” and therefore he is lashed 39 times.  Interestingly, the Rambam thinks that the midrash in our mishnah is not the derivation of the law but rather merely a Biblical support.  The real reason that he only receives a maximum of 39 lashes is that if the person counting the lashes makes a mistake of one, he will still have only received 40 lashes.  In this way the court will not violate the explicit prohibition in verse 3 not to give more than 40 lashes. Rabbi Judah reads the verse literally, and therefore does prescribe forty full lashes. In mishnah thirteen we will learn that the person receives a third of the lashes on his front and two-thirds on his back.  The end of our mishnah asks where does he receive the fortieth lash, according to Rabbi Judah who says that he gets 40 full lashes.  The mishnah teaches that the fortieth lash is between his shoulders."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah ten continues to discuss the number of lashes a person is to receive.",
+                    "Our mishnah assumes that when the Torah states that a person is to be lashed 40 (39) times, the meaning is that this is the maximum number of lashes any person can receive.  Before a person is lashed, he is to be examined by doctors who will estimate how many lashes he can receive without his life being endangered.  This estimate is the number of lashes that he will actually receive.",
+                    "<b>When they estimate the number of lashes he can stand it must be a number divisible by three.</b>  As we will learn in mishnah thirteen the lashes are divided into three sets, one set on his front and two on his back.  Since they are divided into three sets, the number of lashes that the doctors say that the person can receive must be divisible by three.",
+                    "<b>If they estimated him capable of receiving forty, and after receiving some they said he cannot receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. If they estimated him fit to receive eighteen, and after he was lashed they said he could receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest].</b>  Estimates made by the doctors are not necessarily going to be accurate.  If the doctors err the criminal always receives the benefit of the doubt.  If they prescribe a high number of lashes, and as he is being lashed they see that he will not be able to withstand the prescribed number, they stop lashing him.  If the doctors prescribe a low number, and after having finished lashing him they see that he can withstand more, they do not give him more lashes.  In other words the criminal can never receive more than the prescribed number nor more than they think he can withstand.",
+                    "<b>If he committed a transgression which violated two prohibitions and they made one estimate [for the lashes for both prohibitions],  he is lashed and then exempt [from more]. And if [they had] not [made one estimate for both], he is lashed [for one transgression], is allowed to recover and then is lashed again.</b>  If a person committed two violations with one act then there is the possibility that the lashes he receives for both will be joined together.  If the doctors give one estimate as to how many lashes he can receive, for instance they say he can receive 42, 39 for the first violation and then 3 more for the second, then he receives the 42 lashes and is not lashed any more.  However, if they make separate evaluations, for instance they say he can receive 39 for the first crime and do not state a number for the second, then he receives the lashes for the first crime, is allowed to heal, and then receives the prescribed number of lashes for the second crime.  In other words, since the lashes were not estimated together, they are considered separate sets of lashes, and he must be allowed to recuperate in between.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Section three:  Do you think that the ruling might be different if instead of performing one act whereby he violated two prohibitions, he instead violated two prohibitions by performing two separate acts?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnayoth twelve describes where and how the one being lashed and the one lashing should stand.  It also describes the whip itself.",
+                    "<b>How do they lash him? His two hands are tied to a pillar on either side of it and the minister of the synagogue grabs his clothing, if they are torn, they are torn; if they are ripped open, they are ripped open, until he exposes the offender’s chest. And a stone is placed behind the offender, the minister of the synagogue stands on it, a strap of cowhide in his hands, doubled over into two, and redoubled, and two straps that rise and fall attached to it.</b> While being lashed the victim is tied to a post with his hands spread apart.  The “minister of the synagogue”, who was responsible for most of the administrative duties, would open the offender’s garments, even if this would cause them to rip. The minister would then stand upon a stone and hold a whip in his hand.  The whip was made of cowhide folded twice to make it thicker, and thereby stronger.  From the central piece came out two other straps.  According to the Talmud these two other straps were made of donkey’s hide, which was not as thick as the cowhide."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMishnah thirteen continues to describe the whip and how the lashes are to be administered.",
+                    "<b>The handle is a handbreadth long and a handbreadth wide, its tip reaching to the edge of the [offender’s] abdomen.</b>  Our mishnah continues to describe the whip used for lashing.  Its handle was one handbreadth by one handbreadth.   The tip of the whip, meaning the extra straps, should be long enough to reach the offender’s abdomen when the minister strikes him.  The offender will be struck by the tip and not by the body of the whip, made of the cowhide.",
+                    "<b>He administers one-third [of the lashes] in front and two-thirds behind. He lashes him not in a standing or sitting position but stooping, as it says, “And the judge shall cause him to fall [stoop] down” (Deut. 25:2). He who administers the lashes lashes with his one hand and with his whole force.</b>  As we learned previously, one-third of the lashes are on his front and two-thirds on his back.  The offender, when he is being lashed, is not to stand nor to sit but to lean over. This is learned from the verse which states that the judge should cause him to fall over.  The verse is understood not to mean that the judge should cause him to fall all the way down but to stoop down.  The person lashing can use only one hand but he should use all of his force.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• Why do you think that two-thirds of the lashes are given on the back and one-third on the front?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first half of mishnah fourteen lists the Biblical verses that are called out while the lashes are being administered.  The second half of the mishnah discusses the offender either dying or befouling himself while being lashed.",
+                    "<b>And the one who recites, says: “If you fail to observe faithfully all the terms of this Teaching…the Lord will inflict upon you extraordinary plagues (” (Deut. 25:58-59) And then (if time he returns to the beginning of the section.</b>  While the lashes are being administered Biblical verses are read out loud.  These verses function as a warning to the person being lashed and to those witnessing.  The verse in Deuteronomy warns that if Israel fails to observe the Torah (“Teaching”) God will punish Israel with plagues.  In Hebrew the word plagues (makkoth) is the same word as lashes.  This verse can be read to say that one who does not observe the Torah will be punished with lashes. If the reader has finished reciting the verses and there remains more lashes to be administered, the reader begins again to recite the verse from the beginning.",
+                    "<b>[“Therefore observe faithfully all the terms of this covenant” (Deut. 28:9) and he completes by saying, “And He is merciful, forgiving iniquity” (Psalms 78:38).]</b>  This line is missing in many versions of the mishnah, hence it is in brackets.  Those manuscripts which do contain this line do not contain the previous line, section 2a. According to this version, a different verse is also recited and when close to finishing the lashes, the reader calls out a verse which mentions God’s mercy.",
+                    "<b>If the offender dies under his hand, he is exempt [from penalty]. If he gave him one more lash and the offender died, he goes into banishment.</b>  If the offender dies while being lashed the one administering the lashes is not responsible, not even as an accidental killer.  This law was already learned in chapter two, mishnah two.  Our mishnah adds that if the one lashing mistakenly added one lash more than was prescribed, and then the offender died, he is considered a manslayer and hence must go into banishment.  The assumption is that the one lashing did not kill the offender on purpose and therefore he is not judged as an intentional killer but as an accidental one.",
+                    "<b>If the offender befouled himself either with feces or urine, he is exempt. Rabbi Judah says: “Feces in the case of a man and [even] urine in the case of a woman.</b>  If the offender befouls himself, either by defecating or urinating, while being lashed, the lashing ends.  This is a remarkable law, teaching that even at the time when the court is by definition punishing and humiliating the criminal, we are still to be concerned for his honor.  By befouling himself in public the criminal is overwhelmingly shamed, and therefore the court cannot continue to punish him.  Rabbi Judah states that there is a difference between men and women.  Since women are more easily shamed, if they either defecate or urinate while being flogged they are immediately exempt from further lashes.  Men, on the other hand, are exempt only if they defecate, which is for obvious reasons considered to be a greater embarrassment.",
+                    "<b>Questions for Further Thought:</b><br>• What is the context of the verse in Deuteronomy, quoted in section one?  How might this context effect how the verse is understood when recited during the lashing?<br>• Why do some versions have the reader call out the verse from Psalms?  What message does this verse convey?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final two mishnayoth of Makkoth are in essence the final two mishnayoth of a long tractate, which at one time included both Sanhedrin and Makkoth, a total of 14 chapters.  As is typical of the Mishnah, long tractates are completed with words of “aggadah”, sermonic material, not usually of a legal nature.  Both of these mishnayoth teach how great will be the reward of those who fulfill the commandments and deal with some weighty theological issues.",
+                    "<b>All who have incurred [the penalty of] kareth, on being flogged are exempt from their punishment of kareth, for it says, “[He may be given up to forty lashes, but not more] ... lest your brother shall be dishonored before your eyes” (Deut. 25;3) once he has been lashed he is [considered] “your brother”, the words of Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel.</b>  The punishment of kareth, being cut off from one’s people, while not enforced by a court of law, was considered to be a very serious punishment, one with dire consequences.  The Rabbis taught that by receiving lashes one is expiated from the punishment of kareth.  This is learned from the verse in Deuteronomy which calls the person being lashed “your brother”.  After he has been lashed his punishment of kareth is erased and he returns to his full status as a member of Israel.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel said:  “Just as one who transgresses one transgression forfeits his life, how much more does one who performs one commandment have his life granted him.”</b>  All throughout our tractate and tractate Sanhedrin we have been learning about punishments, including such serious punishments as lashings, kareth and execution.  Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel finds hope in the seriousness of these punishments.  If a person can be so harshly punished for merely one sin, all the more great will be the reward for one who fulfills even one commandment.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: “You can learn this from its own passage;  as it says: “[All who do any of those abhorrent things] such persons shall be cut off from their people” (Lev. 18:29), and it says:  “You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances which if a man do, he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5), which means that one who desists from transgressing is granted reward like one who performs a precept.</b>  Rabbi Shimon claims that an even greater principle can be learned from a verse dealing with kareth itself.  The end of chapter 18 in Leviticus states that one who does one of these sins will be punished by kareth, i.e. cut off from his people.  The beginning of the chapter states that if one performs the commandments he will live through them.  In other words, the end of the chapter discusses those who transgress and the beginning of the chapter mentions those who perform the commandments.  Rabbi Shimon concludes that these are flip sides to the same coin. By merely not transgressing a person is considered as if he had actively performed a commandment and will receive his just reward.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi says:  Behold [the Torah] says, “But makes sure that you do not partake of the blood; for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh…[that it may go well with you and with your descendents to come..” (Deut. 12:23-25”--  now, if in the case of blood which a person’s soul loathes, anyone who refrains from it receives reward, how much more so in regard to robbery and sexual sin for which a person’s soul craves and longs shall one who refrains from them acquire merit for himself and for generations and generations to come, to the end of all generations!</b>  Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi continues to discuss how great the reward is for performing the commandments.  Deuteronomy states that one who refrains from eating the blood of an animal will merit reward, as will all of his descendents.  Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi points out that if a person receives such a great reward for refraining from doing something that he wouldn’t want to do anyway, since most people are disgusted by blood, how much greater will be his reward for refraining from stealing and transgressing sexually, sins which most people crave.  In other words, rewards are based on resistance to evil temptations.  The greater the temptation the greater the reward for resistance."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of the tractate is a continuation of mishnah fifteen.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashia says: “The Holy Blessed One, desired to make Israel worthy, therefore gave He gave them much Torah [to study] and many commandments [to perform]: for it is says, “The Lord desires [his servant’s] vindication, that he may magnify and glorify [His] teaching.”</b> This oft-quoted mishnah responds to an important theological question regarding the performance of commandments.  Why does God care, or how is God affected, by Israel performing ritual commandments, for instance, kashruth, the dietary laws? Many have asked, what does God care how I eat my meat, whether I eat it with milk or not?  The answer that Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashiah gives is that by performing God’s commandment, Israel accrues merit with God.  It is a way for Israel to live up to a covenant, entered into with the infinite divine.  The mitvoth, the commandments, and the learning of Torah, are not magical rites, performed in order to manipulate God into treating us better.  Rather they are a symbol God’s grace to Israel, a means by which Israel can act out the will of the divine.  They are means by which Israel can show God how much they love God. While there are other answers to this question, this answer is one of the most meaningful and often quoted one’s that I have seen. Congratulations!  We have finished Makkoth. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. For those of you who have learned with us the entire tractate, a hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations).  You have accomplished a great deal and you should be proud of yourselves.  Indeed we have now finished together five tractates of Mishnah, and are more than halfway through the entire order of Nezikin.  Of course, we have much more to learn.  We will begin Shevuoth tomorrow!"
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+            "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מכות",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Nezikin"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה מכות",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

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

@@ -0,0 +1,195 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin",
+    "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 עוקצים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Tahorot"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "The final tractate of Seder Toharot and indeed of the entire mishnah deals with things that are \"stems\" to food. The question is when is something considered to be attached to food such that if one part becomes impure the whole is impure and when are they independent?",
+            "This tractate does not really contain a lot of new information. Rather, most of it has been taught elsewhere. At times these mishnayot add information to the earlier ones and at times they are only repetitive. I think the best reason why these halakhot are found in two places is that the Mishnah's editors thought that these halakhot could belong in two places.",
+            "There is some evidence that already in Talmudic times Tractate Oktzim wasn't all that well learned. For instance there is a story in the Bavli (Horayot 13b) that some students wanted to belittle Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel so they asked him to teach Oktzim, which he didn't know. So consider yourselves lucky to be learning this Tractate—you can learn material that even the greatest of rabbis didn't get to learn all that well.",
+            "Good luck in learning the tractate. It's our last one, so I hope you treasure it. \n"
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>That which serves as a handle but does not protect, both contracts uncleanness and conveys uncleanness; but it is not included.</b>  If the stem of a piece of produce serves as a handle by which to hold the produce, but it doesn't protect the produce from spoiling, then it is considered part of the produce for issues of impurity. If the stem is defiled so is the produce and vice versa, if the produce is defiled so is the stem. However, when determining the size of the piece of produce, this stem doesn't count. So if the produce is less than the size of an egg, it cannot be defiled (see Toharot 2:1).",
+                    "<b>If it protects but is not a handle, it contracts and conveys uncleanness and is included.</b>  If it protects the produce even if it doesn't serve as a stem, then it counts as part of it for all matters, even to be including in reckoning its size.",
+                    "<b>If it neither protects nor serves as a handle, it neither contracts nor conveys uncleanness.</b>  If it neither serves as a handle nor protects the produce, then it is not part of it for any issue of impurity."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Roots of garlic, onions or leeks that are still moist, or their top-parts, whether they are moist or dry, also the central stalk that is within the edible part, the roots of lettuce, the radish and the turnip, the words of Rabbi Meir.<br>Rabbi Judah says: only the large roots of the radish are included, but its fibrous roots are not included.<br>The roots of the mint, rue, wild herbs and garden herbs that have been uprooted in order to be planted elsewhere, and the spine of an ear of grain, and its husk.<br>Rabbi Elazar says: also the earth covering of roots;<br>All these things contract and convey impurity and are included.</b><br>Today's mishnah discusses what parts of certain types of produce are considered to be part of the plant.<br>Sections one through four: In these four sections, various tannaim determine what parts of certain types of produce, specifically the roots and the spines/stalks of root vegetables, count as being part of the produce.  In general roots are part of the plant if they will either be eaten or if they will be used for replanting. Inedible roots are not part of the produce. So too other parts of the produce, and even the dirt accompanying the produce according to Rabbi Elazar, count with the produce if they are necessary to it. I think that most of these are fairly clear from the translation, so I won't explain each one on its own.<br>Section five: All of the parts of produce that are listed above do three things: they contract impurity if the rest of the piece of produce was defiled. If they are defiled they convey their impurity to the other part. Finally, they are reckoned with the remainder of the produce to constitute the requisite amount to become impure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah lists part of produce that are considered part of the produce for matters of defiling and being defiled. If they are defiled, the rest is defiled and vice versa. But they do not join together to make up the requisite minimum because they are not food.",
+                    "<b>The following are both defiled and defile, but do not join together [together with the rest]: Roots of garlic, onions or leeks when they are dry, the stalk that is not within the edible part, the twig of a vine a handbreadth long on either side, the stem of the cluster whatsoever be its length, the tail of the cluster bereft of grapes, the stem of the ‘broom’ of the palm-tree to a length of four handbreadths, the stalk of the ear [of grain] to a length of three handbreadths, and the stalk of all things that are cut, to the length of three handbreadths.</b>  Most of the items listed here can be used to hold the produce but are not edible. Thus they are considered \"handles\" to food but are not \"food\". They are defiled and defile but since they are not \"food\" they are not reckoned to reach the requisite minimum needed to be susceptible to impurity. I will explain just a few of these things that are unclear: The \"broom of the palm-tree\" is the part of the tree that has the dates on its end. It is a \"handle\" for the dates. Stalks are not eaten but are used to handle grains. It's only necessary to have about three handbreadths so only three handbreadths counts as a handle. Beyond that, the stalk is impervious to impurity and doesn't convey impurity.",
+                    "<b>In the case of those things not usually cut, their stalks and roots of any size whatsoever.</b>  If produce is generally not \"cut,\" meaning it is not harvested with something like a scythe, then any sized stalk or root could be used as a handle. Since these parts will not usually be attached, if he leaves them attached then he must have intended them to be used as a handle.",
+                    "<b>As for the outer husks of grains, they defile and are defiled, but do not join together.</b>  The outer husks of grains are not edible but they are \"handles.\""
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The following neither defile nor can they be defiled and they do not join together:<br>The roots of cabbage-stalks,<br>Young shoots of beet growing out of the root, and [similar] such turnip-heads,<br>[And produce whose roots] that are ordinarily cut off but in this case were pulled up [with their roots].<br>Rabbi Yose declares them all susceptible to contract uncleanness, but he declares insusceptible cabbage-stalks and turnip-heads.</b><br>Today's mishnah lists parts of produce that are neither edible nor used as a handle. Therefore, they are not susceptible to impurity nor do they count as part of the volume. Most of the mishnah should be self-explanatory, so I have only explained some sections.<br>Section two: Cabbages are held by the cabbage itself. The roots are neither eaten nor used to hold the cabbage.<br>Section three: These parts too are not eaten nor used as handles.<br>Section four: If it is typical to cut off the vegetable and leave the roots in the ground, but for some reason in this case, he uprooted the roots with the vegetable, the roots are not part of the vegetable.<br>Section five: Rabbi Yose says that all of the above are indeed handles to the vegetable, the only exceptions being the roots cabbage-stalks and turnip heads."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Stalks of all foods that have been threshed on the threshing-floor are clean. Rabbi Yose declares them unclean.</b>  Once produce has been threshed, the edible part has been detached from the stalk. Therefore the stalks no longer serve as handles and they are clean meaning they are not susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose disagrees and says that they are still susceptible.",
+                    "<b>A sprig of a vine when stripped of its grapes is clean, but if one grape alone is left on it, it is unclean. A twig of a date-tree stripped of its dates is clean, but if one date remains on it, it is unclean. Similarly, with beans, if the pods were stripped from the stem it is clean, but if even one pod alone remains, it is unclean. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah declares [the stalk] of the broad bean clean, but declares unclean the stalk of other beans, since it is of use when [the pulse] is handled.</b>  There are three sections here that all basically teach the same thing. Once a grape, date or bean has been removed from that which was holding it, the handle is no longer a handle and it is pure. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah agrees with most of these scenarios but disagrees with regard to the stalk of most types of pulse since these are used when the pulse is picked up."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah is that which gives our tractate its name it deals with stems (oktzim).",
+                    "<b>Stems of figs and dried figs, kelusim, and carobs are both defiled and defile, and they join together. Rabbi Yose says: also the stalks of the gourd.</b>  The stems of these fruits can be eaten. Therefore they are fully considered part of the fruit. Rabbi Yose says that the stem of the gourd is edible, but the other sages hold that while it is a handle, it is not edible.",
+                    "<b>The stems of pears and krutumelin pears, quinces, and crab-apples, the stalks of the gourd and the artichoke [to the length of] one handbreadth. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: two handbreadths; [All] these are defiled and defile; but do not join together.</b>  These stems are used as handles but they are not edible. Therefore, they defile and can be defiled but since they are not food they don't add to the requisite amount.",
+                    "<b>As for other stems, they are neither defiled nor do they defile.</b>  The stems of other types of produce are not used as handles nor are they eaten. Therefore, they are not susceptible to impurity."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Leaves of olives pickled together with the olives remain clean, for their pickling was only for the sake of appearances.</b>  Leaves of olives are not edible. Even if one pickled them with olives, he did so only for appearance sake. Therefore, they are not susceptible to impurity.",
+                    "<b>The fibrous substance on a zucchini and the flower-like substance on it are clean. Rabbi Judah says: that as long as it is still before the merchant, it is unclean.</b>  These substances that are on a zucchini are neither edible nor are they handles. Therefore, they are not susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah holds that since a merchant wants to sell the zucchini (these are not necessarily identical to modern varieties) in as great of a volume as possible, as long as these are with the merchant, these parts are susceptible to impurity. However, once they are sold they are useless so they are no longer susceptible."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>All kinds of pits can be defiled and defile but do not join together.</b>  Pits are part of the fruit in which they are found and therefore they defile and can be defiled. But since they fall out and are not really attached to the fruit, they do not join together to make the requisite amount.",
+                    "<b>The pits of fresh dates, even when detached [from the edible part], do join together; but those of dried dates do not join together.</b>  People suck on the pits of fresh dates. Therefore, they count fully as part of the date. But dried dates are like other pits, they are not counted with the date.",
+                    "<b>Accordingly, the stems of dried dates do join together, but that of fresh dates do not join together.</b>  The stem of a dried date is considered to be something that protects the pit from falling out. Therefore, it is fully considered part of the date. But a person doesn't care if the pit of a fresh date falls out, because it's part of the date. Therefore, the stem does not \"guard\" the fruit and the stem doesn't count.",
+                    "<b>If only part of a pit is detached, then only that part near the edible portion joins together.</b>  If part of a fresh date pit has become detached, only the part next to the date still counts. I really can't imagine how one could actually determine how big the date is, but theoretically it makes sense.",
+                    "<b>[Similarly] with a bone on which there is flesh, only that part that is close to the edible part joins together.</b>  The same thing is true when determining the volume of meat. The bone is part of the meat, but only the part of the bone on which there is still some flesh.",
+                    "<b>[If a bone] has flesh only upon one of its sides: Rabbi Ishmael says: we take it as though [the flesh] encompasses it like a ring; But the sages say: [only] that part close to the edible part is included [as is the case] for example with savory, hyssop and thyme.</b>  The sages debate a case in which there is meat on only one side of the bone. Rabbi Ishmael says that we look at the flesh as if it was a string and if there is enough to go around the bone, it joins together. This would mean even the part of the bone that is not under the flesh would join together. The sages disagree and say that only the part of the bone that has flesh on it joins with the flesh. The other part does not. This is like these three spices that have thin stalks and the spices are on only one side. Whatever has spices on it joins together and whatever does not have spices on it, does not count."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If a pomegranate or melon has rotted in part, [what is rotten] does not join together.</b>  The rotted part of the fruit does not join together to equal the requisite amount.",
+                    "<b>And if [the fruit] is sound at either end but has rotted in the middle, [what is rotten] does not join together.</b>  Even if both ends are okay and only the middle part is rotten, it still is not counted as part of the fruit.",
+                    "<b>The stem of a pomegranate does join together, but the fibrous substance in it does not join together. Rabbi Elazar says: also the comb is not susceptible to uncleanness.</b>  The stem of the pomegranate is treated like other stems and it joins together with the fruit. But the little hairs inside the stem do not. Albeck describes the \"comb\" as being a sort of \"cup\" around the fibrous substance whose edge looks like a comb. This part is clean meaning it doesn't join together and according to the Tosefta it is not even considered part of the fruit such that it could be defiled."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>All kinds of peels defile and are defiled, and join together.</b>  Peels generally protect the fruit that's what they're there for. So they count as part of the fruit, they defile and can be defiled and they join together to add up to the minimal amount.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: an onion has three skins: the innermost one whether it is in its entire state or whether it be pierced with holes joins together; the middle one when it is in a whole state joins together, but when it is pierced with holes does not join together; the outermost skin is in either case insusceptible to uncleanness.</b>  Rabbi Judah distinguishes between the different layers of an onion. The inner part is always considered part of the onion. It's probably edible so why shouldn't it be. The middle part is part of the onion when it is whole. But if it has holes, meaning it's not complete, it is not part of the onion. [This is probably the part I always try to keep because I don't like to waste, but sometimes I can't peel the outer part without taking this off as well]. The outer peel is not part of the onion because the onion is protected even without it."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If one chops up [fruit] for cooking, even if [the chopping had] not been completely finished, it is not regarded as connected.</b>  Once one begins to chop up produce in order to cook it, the pieces are no longer considered connected to one another.",
+                    "<b>If his intention had been to pickle or to boil it, or to set it on the table, then it is regarded as connected.</b>  However, if he intends to either pickle, boil or set aside the pieces, then they are considered connected to one another. If one is defiled, then they are all defiled. It is a bit difficult to understand why or how section two differs from section one. According to Albeck, section two presents cases in which he wants the pieces to stay together until he does something else with them, such as pickle them, put them in a pot or put them in front of those eating.  Therefore, they are considered connected. However, in section one he doesn't care if they stay connected, perhaps because he will cook them separately.",
+                    "<b>If he began to take [the pieces] apart, [only] that part of the food which he began to take apart is not considered connected.</b>  This refers to section two. Once he begins to take the pieces of the fruit apart from the pile that they were in, the stuff he has taken apart is no longer considered connected. But the parts he has not yet taken apart remain connected.",
+                    "<b>Nuts that had been strung together, or onions that had been piled together, count as connected. If he began to take the nuts apart, or to strip the onions, they are not connected.</b>  Nuts or onions strung together, perhaps to bring them to market, count as connected. But once he begins to take them apart, they are not connected.",
+                    "<b>[Shells of] nuts and almonds are considered connected [with the edible part] until they are crushed.</b>  Shells of nuts are connected until they are smashed to get the nuts out. Once they are smashed, they are not considered connected even if he has not yet removed the shells. This is because they no longer protect the nut."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>[The shell of] a roasted egg [is considered connected] until it is cracked. That of a hard-boiled egg [is considered connected] until it is entirely broken up.</b>  The shell of a roasted, soft-boiled egg is considered connected to the egg until the egg is cracked so that someone could scoop out or suck out the egg itself. If the egg was hard-boiled, then the shell is connected until it's all broken up. At this point it no longer guards the eggs. But it is already not considered connected even though it hasn't been removed.",
+                    "<b>A marrow-bone serves as connected until it is wholly crushed.</b>  Until he crushes the bone to get out the marrow, the whole bone is considered connected.",
+                    "<b>A pomegranate that has been divided into sections is connected until it has been knocked with a stick.</b>  It seems that they would remove the seeds of the pomegranate by hitting it with a stick. This is a trick that I would like to learn. In any case, until he knocks on the pomegranate to separate the seeds, it is considered connected.",
+                    "<b>Similarly, loose stitches of laundrymen or a garment that had been stitched together with threads of kilayim, are connected until one begins to loosen them.</b>  If a laundrymen or clothier sold strung garments together with string that are \"kilayim\" with each other meaning the garment is wool and the string is linen or vice versa then they are connected and therefore forbidden from use until he begins to loosen them."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The [outer] leaves of vegetables: if they are green they join together, but if they have whitened they not join together.</b>  If the outer leaves are green, they are still edible and therefore they are included as part of the vegetable. Once they have whitened, they are no longer part and are not included.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: the white leaves of cabbage join together because they are edible.</b>  White outer leaves of cabbage are still edible so they join together.",
+                    "<b>So also those of lettuces, because they preserve the edible part.</b>  While the outer leaves of lettuce may not be eaten, they join together because they protect the inner part."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with foods that have an empty space in them, or that might have an empty space. Does the empty space count as part of the volume of the food?",
+                    "<b>Onion leaves or the offshoots of onions, if there is moisture in them they are to be measured as they are; if there is empty space within them, it must be squeezed tightly together.</b>  \"Onion leaves\" probably refers to leaks. \"Offshoots of onions\" are small onions that sprout from larger onions. In either case, if they are still moist, then they are measured for matters of impurity as they currently are. However, if they have dried out and the inner part is not full of moisture, then we squeeze the air out of them before measuring them.",
+                    "<b>Spongy bread is measured as it is, but if there is empty space within it, it must be pressed firmly.</b>  The same is true for spongy bread. If it is moist, it is measured as it is, but if there is an empty space in it, the empty space is squeezed before it is measured.",
+                    "<b>The flesh of a calf which had swollen, or the flesh of an old [beast] that has shrunken in size, are measured in the condition they are in.</b>  The swelling or shrinking of this meat is after cooking. The mishnah basically teaches that if meat either expands or shrinks when cooked, its volume is measured as it is, and not as it was."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A cucumber planted in a pot which grew until it was out of the pot is pure.</b>  The mishnah refers to a plant growing in a non-perforated pot. Such a plant is treated as if it is no longer attached to the ground and it is susceptible to impurity. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, if the plant grows out of the pot is now considered to be attached to the ground below it. Plants that grow from the ground are not susceptible to impurity and therefore this plant is now pure. Note that the whole plant is pure, not just the parts growing out of the plant.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon said: what is its nature to make it clean? Rather, that which has already become unclean remains unclean, and only that which is pure can be eaten.</b>  Rabbi Shimon questions how something that was impure can all of a sudden become pure. He rejects the tanna kamma and holds that once something is unclean it remains unclean. The part of the plant that remains in the pot is impure; only the part of the plant that grows out of the pot is pure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Vessels made of cattle dung or of earth through which the roots can penetrate, do not render the seeds susceptible.</b>  If a pot is made of cattle dung or earth and the pot has been perforated so that roots can penetrate to the ground do not allow the seeds inside to become susceptible to impurity. This means that if rain water falls into this pot, the seeds are not susceptible to impurity.",
+                    "<b>A perforated plant-pot does not render seeds susceptible; but if it has no hole, the seeds do become susceptible. What should be the hole's dimension? Such that a small root can push its way through.</b>  Produce growing in perforated pots is considered to be attached to the ground. Therefore, anything in it is not susceptible to impurity. But pots without holes are treated as if they are not \"ground\" and produce growing in there is susceptible. To be considered \"perforated\" the hole must be at least wide enough for a small root to push through.",
+                    "<b>If it was filled with earth to its brim, it is deemed as a frame without an edge.</b>  If the pot was completely filled up, all the way to the brim, then it is treated like a \"frame without an edge\" (see Kelim 2:3). This means that there is no \"inside\" to the frame or in this case the pot. So anything that grows in such a pot is not susceptible to impurity."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Some things need to be rendered susceptible [to uncleanness] but they do not need intention,<br>[Other things need] intention and to be rendered susceptible.<br>[Other things] need intention, but do not need to be rendered susceptible,<br>[And other things] need neither to be rendered susceptible nor intention.<br>Any food that is meant for people need to be rendered susceptible, but does not need intention.</b><br>The first four sections of this mishnah divide foods into four categories depending on two factors. First of all, whether they need to have been in contact with water in order to be susceptible to impurity (the topic of Makhshirin). Second, whether a person needs to be think about using them for human food in order for them to be susceptible. Our mishnah introduces these issues and then subsequent mishnayot explain and illustrate them. Sections 1-4 are the introduction, section five is explained below.<br>Section five: This illustrates the rule in section one. Foods that are clearly intended for human use, let's say expensive fruits, need to have been in contact with water to be susceptible. But since they are clearly meant for human consumption, they do not need intention. One doesn't need to actively decide that the food will be used by a human for it to be susceptible."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah lists things that are not human food and therefore are not susceptible to impurity unless someone decides that they are going to eat them (some of these are a bit gross, so beware). They also require contact with water to become susceptible.",
+                    "<b>That which has been severed from a human, beast, wild animal, bird, or from the carrion of an unclean bird, and the fat in villages.</b>  Pieces of flesh cut off of a living human, beast, wild animal or bird are not impure. If one decides to eat them (this is not allowed, but someone might do it) and they come into contact with water, they become susceptible to impurity. The carrion of an unclean bird is not impure (see Toharot 1:3). Therefore, a piece of flesh cut off from it has the same status as the other meat.",
+                    "<b>And all kinds of wild vegetables, except for truffles and mushrooms; Rabbi Judah says, except for field-leeks, purslane and ornithagolum. And Rabbi Shimon says: except for cynara sycaria. Rabbi Yose says: except for muscari comusum.</b>  Wild vegetables generally are not eaten. There are however some exceptions. The first opinion and various other rabbis cite some exceptions. I don't know what some of these are and the translations are mostly from Albeck. Suffice it to say that these are wild grown vegetables that seem to have been eaten.",
+                    "<b>Behold all these need both intention and to be rendered susceptible [to uncleanness].</b>  This is the summary of category two from yesterday's mishnah. In order to be susceptible to impurity these things need to come into contact with liquids and one needs to actively decide that they are going to be eaten."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The carrion of an unclean beast at all places, and of a clean bird in villages, need intention but do not need to be rendered susceptible.</b>  The foods listed in this section are not generally eaten, at least according the first opinion. Therefore, to defile one would need to think about them as food. However, since they are already impure they don't need to be rendered susceptible to impurity. Carrion of an unclean beast, for instance horse carrion, defiles. This mishnah really didn't need to teach this, because it is stated clearly in the Torah. In order to find an innovation in the mishnah the talmud notes that generally less than an olive's worth does not defile because it is too small of an amount. The mishnah is understood as innovating that if 1/2 of an olive's worth of carrion from an unclean beast joins together with a 1/2 of an olive's worth of other unclean food, the two halves join together to defile in the same was as would impure food. If one doesn't think about eating this carrion, it's not considered food because most people don't consider unclean beasts to be food. The carrion of a clean bird is forbidden to eat but it doesn't defile except when in the gullet (see Toharot 1:1). In the villages where there aren't a lot of people evidently most people wouldn't bother eating bird carrion. Therefore, one would specifically have to think about eating it for it to defile.",
+                    "<b>The carrion of a clean beast in all places, and that of a clean bird and also fat in the market places, require neither intention nor to be rendered susceptible.</b>  Carrion of a clean beast is forbidden but since most people do eat such animals, it causes food impurity even if one doesn't specifically think about using it for food. It also doesn't need to be made susceptible because carrion is already impure. In market places people will be found to buy carrion of clean birds and forbidden fat. Therefore, they don't need to be thought of as food to defile. And since they are already impure, they don't need contact with liquid to become susceptible.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: also [the carrion of] the camel, rabbit, hare or pig.</b>  Rabbi Shiomon says that people eat camel, hare, rabbit and pig. Therefore, the same rules that apply to carrion of clean meat (cow, sheep, goats) apply to them."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah discusses what constitutes food such that if it was originally terumah it is still considered terumah and it would still be subject to the laws of food impurity.\nWe should note that the identity of some of these spices is speculative. Nevertheless, the principles are clear.",
+                    "<b>The aneth stalk after having given its taste to a dish is no longer subject to the laws of terumah, and also no longer imparts food uncleanness.</b>  Once a stalk of aneth has given away its taste into a dish, it is no longer considered to be food. It's just a stalk. Therefore, if it was terumah, the stalk can now be eaten by a non-priest. And it is no longer subject to the laws of food impurity.",
+                    "<b>The young sprouts of hawthorn, of lapidum, or leaves of the wild arum, do not impart food uncleanness until they are sweetened.</b>  These sprouts or other agricultural products are not considered human food in their raw form. They are \"food\" only once they've been \"sweetened\" by soaking them in wine, vinegar or salt water, sort of pickling them. There are many foods we eat today that would probably have the same rule for instance raw coffee or chocolate. These are inedible in their raw form and wouldn't be considered food until they've been processed.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: also [the leaves of] the colocynth are like them.</b>  Some say that the vegetable referred to here is a type of wild vine while some say it is a wild melon. In any case, the leaves are not edible until sweetened."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Costus, amomum, principal spices, [roots of] crowfoot, asafoetida, pepper and lozenges made of saffron may be bought with tithe money, but they do not convey food uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiva.</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva these spices and other plant derivatives (some of them are also mentioned in Tevul Yom 1:5) are considered food in that one can use second tithe money to purchase them. As a reminder, second tithe money is supposed to be brought to Jerusalem and used to buy food there (see Deuteronomy 14:26). However, they do not convey food uncleanness, so in this aspect they are considered food. Evidently the reasoning is that these foods aren't foods but they do improve the taste of other foods. Since they improve taste, one can use second tithe money to buy them. But since they are not eaten on their own, they cannot convey food impurity.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri to him: if they may be bought with [second] tithe money, then why should they not impart food uncleanness? And if they do not impart food uncleanness, then they should also not be bought with [second] tithe money?</b>  Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri doesn't like this inconsistency. In his opinion, a plant is either considered a food, in which case it can be bought with second tithe money and it would convey food uncleanness. Or it is not a food in which case it can't be bought with second tithe money and it doesn't convey uncleanness."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Unripe figs or grapes: Rabbi Akiva says: they convey food uncleanness; Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: [this is only] when they have reached the season when they are liable to tithes.</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva, although they are not yet ready to eat, unripe grapes and figs are already considered food and therefore they convey food uncleanness. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that this is so only when they become liable to tithes. Their liability to tithes is discussed in Sheviit 4:7-8.",
+                    "<b>Olives and grapes that have hardened: Bet Shammai says: they are susceptible to uncleanness, Bet Hillel says: they are insusceptible.</b>  The mishnah now moves to the opposite scenario olives and grapes that have hardened. Bet Shammai says that they are nevertheless still considered food. Bet Hillel says that since they are generally no longer eaten, they are no longer considered food.",
+                    "<b>Black cumin: Bet Shammai says: is not susceptible, Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible.</b>  Bet Shammai says that black cumin which is not eaten but just put on the top of bread is not considered food and therefore is not susceptible to impurity. Bet Hillel says that since it is eaten, it is considered food.",
+                    "<b>Similarly [they dispute with regard to their liability to] tithes.</b>  The same dispute occurs with regard to tithing black cumin. Bet Shammai says it is not food and therefore need not be tithed. Bet Hillel says it is liable for tithes because it is food."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The heart of a palm is like wood in every respect, except that it may be bought for [second] tithe money.</b>  Heart of palm is not generally considered food and therefore it is not susceptible to food impurity. This is probably because often it wouldn't be eaten, since the palm grew before the heart could be harvested. However, since it is edible when the palm is still young, one can use second tithe money to buy it.",
+                    "<b>Unripened dates are considered food, but are exempt from tithes.</b>  Unripened dates are almost an opposite case. Whereas the heart of palm begins as food but then becomes inedible, unripened dates are currently inedible but will become edible later. They are considered food as far as impurity goes, but if one eats them before they are ripe, he need not tithe them."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>When do fish become susceptible to uncleanness? Bet Shammai say: after they have been caught. Bet Hillel say: only after they are dead. Rabbi Akiva says: if they can still live.</b>  Fish can be eaten without first being slaughtered. Indeed, theoretically one could catch a fish from the sea and immediately eat it even while it's still alive (there definitely are cultures that do this). Therefore, Bet Shammai says that fish are immediately susceptible to impurity, once they have been caught, for they are immediately considered food. Bet Hillel says they are not food until they are dead, because that's when they are generally eaten. Rabbi Akiva takes a position somewhere between the two houses. If the fish is still currently alive but will die even if it were thrown back into the water, then it is already considered food and is susceptible to impurity. But if the fish has been caught but could still be thrown back into the water and live, then it is not susceptible.",
+                    "<b>If a branch of a fig tree was broken off, but it was still attached by its bark: Rabbi Judah says: [the fruit] is still not susceptible to uncleanness. But the sages say: [it all depends] whether they could still live.</b>  A similar case is brought with regard to branches that have been cut off a tree but are still hanging by their bark. Fruit on a tree is not susceptible to impurity but once it has been cut off it is. Rabbi Judah says that as long as the fruit is hanging by its bark, meaning it is still attached, it is not susceptible. The other sages say that it all depends on whether the fruit is attached enough such that it could live. Like the fish, if the fruit could still live, it is not susceptible to impurity.",
+                    "<b>Grain that had been uprooted, but is still attached to the soil even by the smallest of roots, is not susceptible to uncleanness.</b>  Grain is not susceptible to impurity until it has completely been severed from the soil"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah returns to the topic of whether a food needs to first be made susceptible to impurity or whether it needs \"intention\" in order to be considered food.",
+                    "<b>The fat [of the carcass] of a clean beast is not regarded as unclean with carrion uncleanness; for this reason it must first be made susceptible.</b>  \"Helev,\" a certain type of fat, from a clean animal, cow, goat or sheep, that died without being properly slaughtered, is not impure. Only the \"helev\" of an unclean animal (camel, rabbit, pig, etc.) is impure (as is the whole animal, after it has died). So if one has \"helev\" from an clean animal it must first come into contact with water to be even susceptible to impurity. We should note that such fat is forbidden to eat, even if the animal was properly slaughtered.",
+                    "<b>The fat of an unclean beast, however, is regarded as unclean with carrion uncleanness; for this reason it need not be made at first susceptible.</b>  As stated above, \"helev\" from an unclean animal is already impure. Indeed, the entire animal is impure (see mishnah three). Therefore, even the helev need not come into contact with water for it to be impure.",
+                    "<b>As for unclean fish and unclean locusts, intention is required in villages.</b>  In the villages people don't seem to eat unclean fish and locusts. Therefore, in such places, for the fish or locust to be susceptible to food impurity the person must have the intention to eat it. In contrast, in larger marketplaces people will eat such food. If this food is sold there, it will not require intention for it to be susceptible to impurity. In all places, the fish and locusts are not susceptible to impurity until they have had contact with liquids."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah deals with the halakhic status of a bee-hive. Specifically, the sages debate whether it is considered to have the status of land because it is attached to the land.",
+                    "<b>A bee-hive: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is treated as if it were land; and one can write a prozbul on it security, it is also not susceptible to uncleanness as long as it remains in its own place, and the one who scrapes honey from it on Shabbat is liable to a sin-offering.</b>  According to Rabbi Eliezer, the beehive has the status of land. The mishnah lists three consequences to this determination. a) If the debtor owns a beehive, a prozbul may be written using just the beehive as security, even though he owns no actual land. This is a topic that we covered in yesterday’s mishnah. A prozbul was a document written by the creditor to avoid loan remission in the Sabbatical year (see chapter 10 of Tractate Sheviit). In order to write a prozbul one must own land (see Sheviit 10:6-7). b) Land and anything that is considered attached to it (such as plants or houses) is not susceptible to impurity. Thus, according to Rabbi Eliezer, the beehive cannot become impure. However, this is only true while it remains in its place. If the beehive was picked up and moved elsewhere, it can become susceptible to impurity. c) One who plucks something from the land is liable for having transgressed Shabbat. Hence, according to Rabbi Eliezer, one who removes honey from a beehive on Shabbat is liable.",
+                    "<b>But the sages say: it is not to be treated as if it were land, and one many not write a prozbul on its security; it is susceptible even if it remains in its own place; and the one who scrapes honey from it on Shabbat is exempt [from a sin-offering].</b>  The rabbis do not consider the beehive to be “land” and therefore, in all three of these halakhot, they rule opposite of Rabbi Eliezer."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nHoney is one of the seven liquids that causes food to become susceptible to impurity (see Makhshirin 6:4). Today's mishnah discusses when honey from a honeycomb begins to count as honey.",
+                    "<b>When do honeycombs become susceptible to uncleanness on account of their being regarded as liquids?</b>  As long as the honey is still totally connected to the honeycombs it is still part of its source and liquids that are still part of their source do not cause susceptibility to impurity. Therefore the mishnah asks at what point the honey begins to be considered a \"liquid\" such that it would cause susceptibility.",
+                    "<b>Bet Shammai says: from the moment he begins to smoke the bees out.</b>  Bet Shammai says that as soon as someone begins to smoke the bees out of the honeycomb, the honey counts as liquid. Once the bees are gone, the honey can be eaten.",
+                    "<b>But Bet Hillel says: once he breaks up the honeycomb.</b>  Bet Hillel says he has to actually break up the honeycomb to get the honey out."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe last mishnah in the entire Mishnah is actually not originally a mishnah! It was a late addition to the Mishnah so that the book could end with a word of peace.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In the world to come the Holy One, Blessed be He, will make each righteous person inherit three hundred and ten worlds, for it is written: \"That I may cause those that love me to inherit yesh (numerical value of 310); and that I may fill their treasuries\" (Proverbs 8:2.</b>  The first derashah is based on the word \"yesh\" which in Hebrew has the gematria (numerical) value of 310 (yod is 10, shin is 300). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi understands the word \"yesh\" to mean that tzadikim, the righteous, will inherit 310 worlds. I hope they're good ones!",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta said: the Holy One, Blessed be He, found no vessel that could contain blessing for Israel save that of peace, as it is written: \"The Lord will give strength unto his people; the Lord will bless his people with peace.\"</b>  Shalom, peace, wellbeing, or perhaps completeness, is the vehicle by which God brings berakhah into the world. It is the reason that the last berakhah of the Amidah is \"peace\" and it is the reason that the Mishnah, which has been one of the greatest berakhot the Jews have ever created or received, ends with the same word. Completeness is also an appropriate way of completing the Mishnah, which after more than 12 years, you and I have now done. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Oktzim, Seder Toharot and the Entire Mishnah!! Usually I write, \"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.\" But today, I think I might need to write a bit more. For the past 12 years I have been writing my commentary on the Mishnah and you have been reading and studying it. And now, we've actually reached that moment. We've finished learning the whole Mishnah. So grab yourself a beer, a glass of wine, a shot of whiskey, raise a l'haim, say a berakhah (shehakol over beer and whiskey, hagafen over wine) and drink up. It's been a true privilege to serve as your teacher and it's been an amazing opportunity for me as well. I should say that my feeling is one of utter humility. My commentary was based on the work of others, whose work was based on their predecessors, going all the way back to the Talmud. I hope I have brought to you just a small taste of the amazing rabbinic tradition. The Mishnah is, after all, one of the shortest of rabbinic works. There is much learning to be done, and shortly we will begin Daf Shevui. But for now, one moment of congratulations is in order. I will be reciting the Hebrew siyyum (words of completion) on Sunday at the Conservative Yeshiva. Hopefully, it will be on the internet so that you can see it as well. Congratulations on an amazing amount of learning. And finally thank you to all of the people who've made this possible. Thanks to all of you who have donated money to subsidize the project. Thanks to the many people at USCJ in New York, Dr. Morton Siegel and Rabbi Paul Drazen, and others over the years who've made sure the Mishnah was properly sent out. Thanks to the people at the Conservative Yeshiva, including Rabbi Gail Diamond, who took over the project in recent years. And \"aharon aharon haviv\" I want to extend my warmest gratitude to Rabbi Jerome Epstein who approached me about 12 years ago and asked whether I would be interested and willing to start this project. Without Rabbi Epstein's commitment Mishnah Yomit would never have begun and it would not have been completed. For twelve years he has been my most consistent learner, and without his careful eye, the text would have been full of even more typos than there probably are. I have benefited tremendously from his dedication and I hope it continues for many years."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עוקצים",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
+{
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Oktzin",
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "The final tractate of Seder Toharot and indeed of the entire mishnah deals with things that are \"stems\" to food. The question is when is something considered to be attached to food such that if one part becomes impure the whole is impure and when are they independent?",
+            "This tractate does not really contain a lot of new information. Rather, most of it has been taught elsewhere. At times these mishnayot add information to the earlier ones and at times they are only repetitive. I think the best reason why these halakhot are found in two places is that the Mishnah's editors thought that these halakhot could belong in two places.",
+            "There is some evidence that already in Talmudic times Tractate Oktzim wasn't all that well learned. For instance there is a story in the Bavli (Horayot 13b) that some students wanted to belittle Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel so they asked him to teach Oktzim, which he didn't know. So consider yourselves lucky to be learning this Tractate—you can learn material that even the greatest of rabbis didn't get to learn all that well.",
+            "Good luck in learning the tractate. It's our last one, so I hope you treasure it. \n"
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>That which serves as a handle but does not protect, both contracts uncleanness and conveys uncleanness; but it is not included.</b>  If the stem of a piece of produce serves as a handle by which to hold the produce, but it doesn't protect the produce from spoiling, then it is considered part of the produce for issues of impurity. If the stem is defiled so is the produce and vice versa, if the produce is defiled so is the stem. However, when determining the size of the piece of produce, this stem doesn't count. So if the produce is less than the size of an egg, it cannot be defiled (see Toharot 2:1).",
+                    "<b>If it protects but is not a handle, it contracts and conveys uncleanness and is included.</b>  If it protects the produce even if it doesn't serve as a stem, then it counts as part of it for all matters, even to be including in reckoning its size.",
+                    "<b>If it neither protects nor serves as a handle, it neither contracts nor conveys uncleanness.</b>  If it neither serves as a handle nor protects the produce, then it is not part of it for any issue of impurity."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Roots of garlic, onions or leeks that are still moist, or their top-parts, whether they are moist or dry, also the central stalk that is within the edible part, the roots of lettuce, the radish and the turnip, the words of Rabbi Meir.<br>Rabbi Judah says: only the large roots of the radish are included, but its fibrous roots are not included.<br>The roots of the mint, rue, wild herbs and garden herbs that have been uprooted in order to be planted elsewhere, and the spine of an ear of grain, and its husk.<br>Rabbi Elazar says: also the earth covering of roots;<br>All these things contract and convey impurity and are included.</b><br>Today's mishnah discusses what parts of certain types of produce are considered to be part of the plant.<br>Sections one through four: In these four sections, various tannaim determine what parts of certain types of produce, specifically the roots and the spines/stalks of root vegetables, count as being part of the produce.  In general roots are part of the plant if they will either be eaten or if they will be used for replanting. Inedible roots are not part of the produce. So too other parts of the produce, and even the dirt accompanying the produce according to Rabbi Elazar, count with the produce if they are necessary to it. I think that most of these are fairly clear from the translation, so I won't explain each one on its own.<br>Section five: All of the parts of produce that are listed above do three things: they contract impurity if the rest of the piece of produce was defiled. If they are defiled they convey their impurity to the other part. Finally, they are reckoned with the remainder of the produce to constitute the requisite amount to become impure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah lists part of produce that are considered part of the produce for matters of defiling and being defiled. If they are defiled, the rest is defiled and vice versa. But they do not join together to make up the requisite minimum because they are not food.",
+                    "<b>The following are both defiled and defile, but do not join together [together with the rest]: Roots of garlic, onions or leeks when they are dry, the stalk that is not within the edible part, the twig of a vine a handbreadth long on either side, the stem of the cluster whatsoever be its length, the tail of the cluster bereft of grapes, the stem of the ‘broom’ of the palm-tree to a length of four handbreadths, the stalk of the ear [of grain] to a length of three handbreadths, and the stalk of all things that are cut, to the length of three handbreadths.</b>  Most of the items listed here can be used to hold the produce but are not edible. Thus they are considered \"handles\" to food but are not \"food\". They are defiled and defile but since they are not \"food\" they are not reckoned to reach the requisite minimum needed to be susceptible to impurity. I will explain just a few of these things that are unclear: The \"broom of the palm-tree\" is the part of the tree that has the dates on its end. It is a \"handle\" for the dates. Stalks are not eaten but are used to handle grains. It's only necessary to have about three handbreadths so only three handbreadths counts as a handle. Beyond that, the stalk is impervious to impurity and doesn't convey impurity.",
+                    "<b>In the case of those things not usually cut, their stalks and roots of any size whatsoever.</b>  If produce is generally not \"cut,\" meaning it is not harvested with something like a scythe, then any sized stalk or root could be used as a handle. Since these parts will not usually be attached, if he leaves them attached then he must have intended them to be used as a handle.",
+                    "<b>As for the outer husks of grains, they defile and are defiled, but do not join together.</b>  The outer husks of grains are not edible but they are \"handles.\""
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The following neither defile nor can they be defiled and they do not join together:<br>The roots of cabbage-stalks,<br>Young shoots of beet growing out of the root, and [similar] such turnip-heads,<br>[And produce whose roots] that are ordinarily cut off but in this case were pulled up [with their roots].<br>Rabbi Yose declares them all susceptible to contract uncleanness, but he declares insusceptible cabbage-stalks and turnip-heads.</b><br>Today's mishnah lists parts of produce that are neither edible nor used as a handle. Therefore, they are not susceptible to impurity nor do they count as part of the volume. Most of the mishnah should be self-explanatory, so I have only explained some sections.<br>Section two: Cabbages are held by the cabbage itself. The roots are neither eaten nor used to hold the cabbage.<br>Section three: These parts too are not eaten nor used as handles.<br>Section four: If it is typical to cut off the vegetable and leave the roots in the ground, but for some reason in this case, he uprooted the roots with the vegetable, the roots are not part of the vegetable.<br>Section five: Rabbi Yose says that all of the above are indeed handles to the vegetable, the only exceptions being the roots cabbage-stalks and turnip heads."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Stalks of all foods that have been threshed on the threshing-floor are clean. Rabbi Yose declares them unclean.</b>  Once produce has been threshed, the edible part has been detached from the stalk. Therefore the stalks no longer serve as handles and they are clean meaning they are not susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Yose disagrees and says that they are still susceptible.",
+                    "<b>A sprig of a vine when stripped of its grapes is clean, but if one grape alone is left on it, it is unclean. A twig of a date-tree stripped of its dates is clean, but if one date remains on it, it is unclean. Similarly, with beans, if the pods were stripped from the stem it is clean, but if even one pod alone remains, it is unclean. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah declares [the stalk] of the broad bean clean, but declares unclean the stalk of other beans, since it is of use when [the pulse] is handled.</b>  There are three sections here that all basically teach the same thing. Once a grape, date or bean has been removed from that which was holding it, the handle is no longer a handle and it is pure. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah agrees with most of these scenarios but disagrees with regard to the stalk of most types of pulse since these are used when the pulse is picked up."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah is that which gives our tractate its name it deals with stems (oktzim).",
+                    "<b>Stems of figs and dried figs, kelusim, and carobs are both defiled and defile, and they join together. Rabbi Yose says: also the stalks of the gourd.</b>  The stems of these fruits can be eaten. Therefore they are fully considered part of the fruit. Rabbi Yose says that the stem of the gourd is edible, but the other sages hold that while it is a handle, it is not edible.",
+                    "<b>The stems of pears and krutumelin pears, quinces, and crab-apples, the stalks of the gourd and the artichoke [to the length of] one handbreadth. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: two handbreadths; [All] these are defiled and defile; but do not join together.</b>  These stems are used as handles but they are not edible. Therefore, they defile and can be defiled but since they are not food they don't add to the requisite amount.",
+                    "<b>As for other stems, they are neither defiled nor do they defile.</b>  The stems of other types of produce are not used as handles nor are they eaten. Therefore, they are not susceptible to impurity."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Leaves of olives pickled together with the olives remain clean, for their pickling was only for the sake of appearances.</b>  Leaves of olives are not edible. Even if one pickled them with olives, he did so only for appearance sake. Therefore, they are not susceptible to impurity.",
+                    "<b>The fibrous substance on a zucchini and the flower-like substance on it are clean. Rabbi Judah says: that as long as it is still before the merchant, it is unclean.</b>  These substances that are on a zucchini are neither edible nor are they handles. Therefore, they are not susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah holds that since a merchant wants to sell the zucchini (these are not necessarily identical to modern varieties) in as great of a volume as possible, as long as these are with the merchant, these parts are susceptible to impurity. However, once they are sold they are useless so they are no longer susceptible."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>All kinds of pits can be defiled and defile but do not join together.</b>  Pits are part of the fruit in which they are found and therefore they defile and can be defiled. But since they fall out and are not really attached to the fruit, they do not join together to make the requisite amount.",
+                    "<b>The pits of fresh dates, even when detached [from the edible part], do join together; but those of dried dates do not join together.</b>  People suck on the pits of fresh dates. Therefore, they count fully as part of the date. But dried dates are like other pits, they are not counted with the date.",
+                    "<b>Accordingly, the stems of dried dates do join together, but that of fresh dates do not join together.</b>  The stem of a dried date is considered to be something that protects the pit from falling out. Therefore, it is fully considered part of the date. But a person doesn't care if the pit of a fresh date falls out, because it's part of the date. Therefore, the stem does not \"guard\" the fruit and the stem doesn't count.",
+                    "<b>If only part of a pit is detached, then only that part near the edible portion joins together.</b>  If part of a fresh date pit has become detached, only the part next to the date still counts. I really can't imagine how one could actually determine how big the date is, but theoretically it makes sense.",
+                    "<b>[Similarly] with a bone on which there is flesh, only that part that is close to the edible part joins together.</b>  The same thing is true when determining the volume of meat. The bone is part of the meat, but only the part of the bone on which there is still some flesh.",
+                    "<b>[If a bone] has flesh only upon one of its sides: Rabbi Ishmael says: we take it as though [the flesh] encompasses it like a ring; But the sages say: [only] that part close to the edible part is included [as is the case] for example with savory, hyssop and thyme.</b>  The sages debate a case in which there is meat on only one side of the bone. Rabbi Ishmael says that we look at the flesh as if it was a string and if there is enough to go around the bone, it joins together. This would mean even the part of the bone that is not under the flesh would join together. The sages disagree and say that only the part of the bone that has flesh on it joins with the flesh. The other part does not. This is like these three spices that have thin stalks and the spices are on only one side. Whatever has spices on it joins together and whatever does not have spices on it, does not count."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If a pomegranate or melon has rotted in part, [what is rotten] does not join together.</b>  The rotted part of the fruit does not join together to equal the requisite amount.",
+                    "<b>And if [the fruit] is sound at either end but has rotted in the middle, [what is rotten] does not join together.</b>  Even if both ends are okay and only the middle part is rotten, it still is not counted as part of the fruit.",
+                    "<b>The stem of a pomegranate does join together, but the fibrous substance in it does not join together. Rabbi Elazar says: also the comb is not susceptible to uncleanness.</b>  The stem of the pomegranate is treated like other stems and it joins together with the fruit. But the little hairs inside the stem do not. Albeck describes the \"comb\" as being a sort of \"cup\" around the fibrous substance whose edge looks like a comb. This part is clean meaning it doesn't join together and according to the Tosefta it is not even considered part of the fruit such that it could be defiled."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>All kinds of peels defile and are defiled, and join together.</b>  Peels generally protect the fruit that's what they're there for. So they count as part of the fruit, they defile and can be defiled and they join together to add up to the minimal amount.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: an onion has three skins: the innermost one whether it is in its entire state or whether it be pierced with holes joins together; the middle one when it is in a whole state joins together, but when it is pierced with holes does not join together; the outermost skin is in either case insusceptible to uncleanness.</b>  Rabbi Judah distinguishes between the different layers of an onion. The inner part is always considered part of the onion. It's probably edible so why shouldn't it be. The middle part is part of the onion when it is whole. But if it has holes, meaning it's not complete, it is not part of the onion. [This is probably the part I always try to keep because I don't like to waste, but sometimes I can't peel the outer part without taking this off as well]. The outer peel is not part of the onion because the onion is protected even without it."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If one chops up [fruit] for cooking, even if [the chopping had] not been completely finished, it is not regarded as connected.</b>  Once one begins to chop up produce in order to cook it, the pieces are no longer considered connected to one another.",
+                    "<b>If his intention had been to pickle or to boil it, or to set it on the table, then it is regarded as connected.</b>  However, if he intends to either pickle, boil or set aside the pieces, then they are considered connected to one another. If one is defiled, then they are all defiled. It is a bit difficult to understand why or how section two differs from section one. According to Albeck, section two presents cases in which he wants the pieces to stay together until he does something else with them, such as pickle them, put them in a pot or put them in front of those eating.  Therefore, they are considered connected. However, in section one he doesn't care if they stay connected, perhaps because he will cook them separately.",
+                    "<b>If he began to take [the pieces] apart, [only] that part of the food which he began to take apart is not considered connected.</b>  This refers to section two. Once he begins to take the pieces of the fruit apart from the pile that they were in, the stuff he has taken apart is no longer considered connected. But the parts he has not yet taken apart remain connected.",
+                    "<b>Nuts that had been strung together, or onions that had been piled together, count as connected. If he began to take the nuts apart, or to strip the onions, they are not connected.</b>  Nuts or onions strung together, perhaps to bring them to market, count as connected. But once he begins to take them apart, they are not connected.",
+                    "<b>[Shells of] nuts and almonds are considered connected [with the edible part] until they are crushed.</b>  Shells of nuts are connected until they are smashed to get the nuts out. Once they are smashed, they are not considered connected even if he has not yet removed the shells. This is because they no longer protect the nut."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>[The shell of] a roasted egg [is considered connected] until it is cracked. That of a hard-boiled egg [is considered connected] until it is entirely broken up.</b>  The shell of a roasted, soft-boiled egg is considered connected to the egg until the egg is cracked so that someone could scoop out or suck out the egg itself. If the egg was hard-boiled, then the shell is connected until it's all broken up. At this point it no longer guards the eggs. But it is already not considered connected even though it hasn't been removed.",
+                    "<b>A marrow-bone serves as connected until it is wholly crushed.</b>  Until he crushes the bone to get out the marrow, the whole bone is considered connected.",
+                    "<b>A pomegranate that has been divided into sections is connected until it has been knocked with a stick.</b>  It seems that they would remove the seeds of the pomegranate by hitting it with a stick. This is a trick that I would like to learn. In any case, until he knocks on the pomegranate to separate the seeds, it is considered connected.",
+                    "<b>Similarly, loose stitches of laundrymen or a garment that had been stitched together with threads of kilayim, are connected until one begins to loosen them.</b>  If a laundrymen or clothier sold strung garments together with string that are \"kilayim\" with each other meaning the garment is wool and the string is linen or vice versa then they are connected and therefore forbidden from use until he begins to loosen them."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The [outer] leaves of vegetables: if they are green they join together, but if they have whitened they not join together.</b>  If the outer leaves are green, they are still edible and therefore they are included as part of the vegetable. Once they have whitened, they are no longer part and are not included.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: the white leaves of cabbage join together because they are edible.</b>  White outer leaves of cabbage are still edible so they join together.",
+                    "<b>So also those of lettuces, because they preserve the edible part.</b>  While the outer leaves of lettuce may not be eaten, they join together because they protect the inner part."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah deals with foods that have an empty space in them, or that might have an empty space. Does the empty space count as part of the volume of the food?",
+                    "<b>Onion leaves or the offshoots of onions, if there is moisture in them they are to be measured as they are; if there is empty space within them, it must be squeezed tightly together.</b>  \"Onion leaves\" probably refers to leaks. \"Offshoots of onions\" are small onions that sprout from larger onions. In either case, if they are still moist, then they are measured for matters of impurity as they currently are. However, if they have dried out and the inner part is not full of moisture, then we squeeze the air out of them before measuring them.",
+                    "<b>Spongy bread is measured as it is, but if there is empty space within it, it must be pressed firmly.</b>  The same is true for spongy bread. If it is moist, it is measured as it is, but if there is an empty space in it, the empty space is squeezed before it is measured.",
+                    "<b>The flesh of a calf which had swollen, or the flesh of an old [beast] that has shrunken in size, are measured in the condition they are in.</b>  The swelling or shrinking of this meat is after cooking. The mishnah basically teaches that if meat either expands or shrinks when cooked, its volume is measured as it is, and not as it was."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A cucumber planted in a pot which grew until it was out of the pot is pure.</b>  The mishnah refers to a plant growing in a non-perforated pot. Such a plant is treated as if it is no longer attached to the ground and it is susceptible to impurity. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, if the plant grows out of the pot is now considered to be attached to the ground below it. Plants that grow from the ground are not susceptible to impurity and therefore this plant is now pure. Note that the whole plant is pure, not just the parts growing out of the plant.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon said: what is its nature to make it clean? Rather, that which has already become unclean remains unclean, and only that which is pure can be eaten.</b>  Rabbi Shimon questions how something that was impure can all of a sudden become pure. He rejects the tanna kamma and holds that once something is unclean it remains unclean. The part of the plant that remains in the pot is impure; only the part of the plant that grows out of the pot is pure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Vessels made of cattle dung or of earth through which the roots can penetrate, do not render the seeds susceptible.</b>  If a pot is made of cattle dung or earth and the pot has been perforated so that roots can penetrate to the ground do not allow the seeds inside to become susceptible to impurity. This means that if rain water falls into this pot, the seeds are not susceptible to impurity.",
+                    "<b>A perforated plant-pot does not render seeds susceptible; but if it has no hole, the seeds do become susceptible. What should be the hole's dimension? Such that a small root can push its way through.</b>  Produce growing in perforated pots is considered to be attached to the ground. Therefore, anything in it is not susceptible to impurity. But pots without holes are treated as if they are not \"ground\" and produce growing in there is susceptible. To be considered \"perforated\" the hole must be at least wide enough for a small root to push through.",
+                    "<b>If it was filled with earth to its brim, it is deemed as a frame without an edge.</b>  If the pot was completely filled up, all the way to the brim, then it is treated like a \"frame without an edge\" (see Kelim 2:3). This means that there is no \"inside\" to the frame or in this case the pot. So anything that grows in such a pot is not susceptible to impurity."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Some things need to be rendered susceptible [to uncleanness] but they do not need intention,<br>[Other things need] intention and to be rendered susceptible.<br>[Other things] need intention, but do not need to be rendered susceptible,<br>[And other things] need neither to be rendered susceptible nor intention.<br>Any food that is meant for people need to be rendered susceptible, but does not need intention.</b><br>The first four sections of this mishnah divide foods into four categories depending on two factors. First of all, whether they need to have been in contact with water in order to be susceptible to impurity (the topic of Makhshirin). Second, whether a person needs to be think about using them for human food in order for them to be susceptible. Our mishnah introduces these issues and then subsequent mishnayot explain and illustrate them. Sections 1-4 are the introduction, section five is explained below.<br>Section five: This illustrates the rule in section one. Foods that are clearly intended for human use, let's say expensive fruits, need to have been in contact with water to be susceptible. But since they are clearly meant for human consumption, they do not need intention. One doesn't need to actively decide that the food will be used by a human for it to be susceptible."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah lists things that are not human food and therefore are not susceptible to impurity unless someone decides that they are going to eat them (some of these are a bit gross, so beware). They also require contact with water to become susceptible.",
+                    "<b>That which has been severed from a human, beast, wild animal, bird, or from the carrion of an unclean bird, and the fat in villages.</b>  Pieces of flesh cut off of a living human, beast, wild animal or bird are not impure. If one decides to eat them (this is not allowed, but someone might do it) and they come into contact with water, they become susceptible to impurity. The carrion of an unclean bird is not impure (see Toharot 1:3). Therefore, a piece of flesh cut off from it has the same status as the other meat.",
+                    "<b>And all kinds of wild vegetables, except for truffles and mushrooms; Rabbi Judah says, except for field-leeks, purslane and ornithagolum. And Rabbi Shimon says: except for cynara sycaria. Rabbi Yose says: except for muscari comusum.</b>  Wild vegetables generally are not eaten. There are however some exceptions. The first opinion and various other rabbis cite some exceptions. I don't know what some of these are and the translations are mostly from Albeck. Suffice it to say that these are wild grown vegetables that seem to have been eaten.",
+                    "<b>Behold all these need both intention and to be rendered susceptible [to uncleanness].</b>  This is the summary of category two from yesterday's mishnah. In order to be susceptible to impurity these things need to come into contact with liquids and one needs to actively decide that they are going to be eaten."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The carrion of an unclean beast at all places, and of a clean bird in villages, need intention but do not need to be rendered susceptible.</b>  The foods listed in this section are not generally eaten, at least according the first opinion. Therefore, to defile one would need to think about them as food. However, since they are already impure they don't need to be rendered susceptible to impurity. Carrion of an unclean beast, for instance horse carrion, defiles. This mishnah really didn't need to teach this, because it is stated clearly in the Torah. In order to find an innovation in the mishnah the talmud notes that generally less than an olive's worth does not defile because it is too small of an amount. The mishnah is understood as innovating that if 1/2 of an olive's worth of carrion from an unclean beast joins together with a 1/2 of an olive's worth of other unclean food, the two halves join together to defile in the same was as would impure food. If one doesn't think about eating this carrion, it's not considered food because most people don't consider unclean beasts to be food. The carrion of a clean bird is forbidden to eat but it doesn't defile except when in the gullet (see Toharot 1:1). In the villages where there aren't a lot of people evidently most people wouldn't bother eating bird carrion. Therefore, one would specifically have to think about eating it for it to defile.",
+                    "<b>The carrion of a clean beast in all places, and that of a clean bird and also fat in the market places, require neither intention nor to be rendered susceptible.</b>  Carrion of a clean beast is forbidden but since most people do eat such animals, it causes food impurity even if one doesn't specifically think about using it for food. It also doesn't need to be made susceptible because carrion is already impure. In market places people will be found to buy carrion of clean birds and forbidden fat. Therefore, they don't need to be thought of as food to defile. And since they are already impure, they don't need contact with liquid to become susceptible.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: also [the carrion of] the camel, rabbit, hare or pig.</b>  Rabbi Shiomon says that people eat camel, hare, rabbit and pig. Therefore, the same rules that apply to carrion of clean meat (cow, sheep, goats) apply to them."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah discusses what constitutes food such that if it was originally terumah it is still considered terumah and it would still be subject to the laws of food impurity.\nWe should note that the identity of some of these spices is speculative. Nevertheless, the principles are clear.",
+                    "<b>The aneth stalk after having given its taste to a dish is no longer subject to the laws of terumah, and also no longer imparts food uncleanness.</b>  Once a stalk of aneth has given away its taste into a dish, it is no longer considered to be food. It's just a stalk. Therefore, if it was terumah, the stalk can now be eaten by a non-priest. And it is no longer subject to the laws of food impurity.",
+                    "<b>The young sprouts of hawthorn, of lapidum, or leaves of the wild arum, do not impart food uncleanness until they are sweetened.</b>  These sprouts or other agricultural products are not considered human food in their raw form. They are \"food\" only once they've been \"sweetened\" by soaking them in wine, vinegar or salt water, sort of pickling them. There are many foods we eat today that would probably have the same rule for instance raw coffee or chocolate. These are inedible in their raw form and wouldn't be considered food until they've been processed.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: also [the leaves of] the colocynth are like them.</b>  Some say that the vegetable referred to here is a type of wild vine while some say it is a wild melon. In any case, the leaves are not edible until sweetened."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Costus, amomum, principal spices, [roots of] crowfoot, asafoetida, pepper and lozenges made of saffron may be bought with tithe money, but they do not convey food uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiva.</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva these spices and other plant derivatives (some of them are also mentioned in Tevul Yom 1:5) are considered food in that one can use second tithe money to purchase them. As a reminder, second tithe money is supposed to be brought to Jerusalem and used to buy food there (see Deuteronomy 14:26). However, they do not convey food uncleanness, so in this aspect they are considered food. Evidently the reasoning is that these foods aren't foods but they do improve the taste of other foods. Since they improve taste, one can use second tithe money to buy them. But since they are not eaten on their own, they cannot convey food impurity.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri to him: if they may be bought with [second] tithe money, then why should they not impart food uncleanness? And if they do not impart food uncleanness, then they should also not be bought with [second] tithe money?</b>  Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri doesn't like this inconsistency. In his opinion, a plant is either considered a food, in which case it can be bought with second tithe money and it would convey food uncleanness. Or it is not a food in which case it can't be bought with second tithe money and it doesn't convey uncleanness."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Unripe figs or grapes: Rabbi Akiva says: they convey food uncleanness; Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: [this is only] when they have reached the season when they are liable to tithes.</b>  According to Rabbi Akiva, although they are not yet ready to eat, unripe grapes and figs are already considered food and therefore they convey food uncleanness. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says that this is so only when they become liable to tithes. Their liability to tithes is discussed in Sheviit 4:7-8.",
+                    "<b>Olives and grapes that have hardened: Bet Shammai says: they are susceptible to uncleanness, Bet Hillel says: they are insusceptible.</b>  The mishnah now moves to the opposite scenario olives and grapes that have hardened. Bet Shammai says that they are nevertheless still considered food. Bet Hillel says that since they are generally no longer eaten, they are no longer considered food.",
+                    "<b>Black cumin: Bet Shammai says: is not susceptible, Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible.</b>  Bet Shammai says that black cumin which is not eaten but just put on the top of bread is not considered food and therefore is not susceptible to impurity. Bet Hillel says that since it is eaten, it is considered food.",
+                    "<b>Similarly [they dispute with regard to their liability to] tithes.</b>  The same dispute occurs with regard to tithing black cumin. Bet Shammai says it is not food and therefore need not be tithed. Bet Hillel says it is liable for tithes because it is food."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The heart of a palm is like wood in every respect, except that it may be bought for [second] tithe money.</b>  Heart of palm is not generally considered food and therefore it is not susceptible to food impurity. This is probably because often it wouldn't be eaten, since the palm grew before the heart could be harvested. However, since it is edible when the palm is still young, one can use second tithe money to buy it.",
+                    "<b>Unripened dates are considered food, but are exempt from tithes.</b>  Unripened dates are almost an opposite case. Whereas the heart of palm begins as food but then becomes inedible, unripened dates are currently inedible but will become edible later. They are considered food as far as impurity goes, but if one eats them before they are ripe, he need not tithe them."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>When do fish become susceptible to uncleanness? Bet Shammai say: after they have been caught. Bet Hillel say: only after they are dead. Rabbi Akiva says: if they can still live.</b>  Fish can be eaten without first being slaughtered. Indeed, theoretically one could catch a fish from the sea and immediately eat it even while it's still alive (there definitely are cultures that do this). Therefore, Bet Shammai says that fish are immediately susceptible to impurity, once they have been caught, for they are immediately considered food. Bet Hillel says they are not food until they are dead, because that's when they are generally eaten. Rabbi Akiva takes a position somewhere between the two houses. If the fish is still currently alive but will die even if it were thrown back into the water, then it is already considered food and is susceptible to impurity. But if the fish has been caught but could still be thrown back into the water and live, then it is not susceptible.",
+                    "<b>If a branch of a fig tree was broken off, but it was still attached by its bark: Rabbi Judah says: [the fruit] is still not susceptible to uncleanness. But the sages say: [it all depends] whether they could still live.</b>  A similar case is brought with regard to branches that have been cut off a tree but are still hanging by their bark. Fruit on a tree is not susceptible to impurity but once it has been cut off it is. Rabbi Judah says that as long as the fruit is hanging by its bark, meaning it is still attached, it is not susceptible. The other sages say that it all depends on whether the fruit is attached enough such that it could live. Like the fish, if the fruit could still live, it is not susceptible to impurity.",
+                    "<b>Grain that had been uprooted, but is still attached to the soil even by the smallest of roots, is not susceptible to uncleanness.</b>  Grain is not susceptible to impurity until it has completely been severed from the soil"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah returns to the topic of whether a food needs to first be made susceptible to impurity or whether it needs \"intention\" in order to be considered food.",
+                    "<b>The fat [of the carcass] of a clean beast is not regarded as unclean with carrion uncleanness; for this reason it must first be made susceptible.</b>  \"Helev,\" a certain type of fat, from a clean animal, cow, goat or sheep, that died without being properly slaughtered, is not impure. Only the \"helev\" of an unclean animal (camel, rabbit, pig, etc.) is impure (as is the whole animal, after it has died). So if one has \"helev\" from an clean animal it must first come into contact with water to be even susceptible to impurity. We should note that such fat is forbidden to eat, even if the animal was properly slaughtered.",
+                    "<b>The fat of an unclean beast, however, is regarded as unclean with carrion uncleanness; for this reason it need not be made at first susceptible.</b>  As stated above, \"helev\" from an unclean animal is already impure. Indeed, the entire animal is impure (see mishnah three). Therefore, even the helev need not come into contact with water for it to be impure.",
+                    "<b>As for unclean fish and unclean locusts, intention is required in villages.</b>  In the villages people don't seem to eat unclean fish and locusts. Therefore, in such places, for the fish or locust to be susceptible to food impurity the person must have the intention to eat it. In contrast, in larger marketplaces people will eat such food. If this food is sold there, it will not require intention for it to be susceptible to impurity. In all places, the fish and locusts are not susceptible to impurity until they have had contact with liquids."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah deals with the halakhic status of a bee-hive. Specifically, the sages debate whether it is considered to have the status of land because it is attached to the land.",
+                    "<b>A bee-hive: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is treated as if it were land; and one can write a prozbul on it security, it is also not susceptible to uncleanness as long as it remains in its own place, and the one who scrapes honey from it on Shabbat is liable to a sin-offering.</b>  According to Rabbi Eliezer, the beehive has the status of land. The mishnah lists three consequences to this determination. a) If the debtor owns a beehive, a prozbul may be written using just the beehive as security, even though he owns no actual land. This is a topic that we covered in yesterday’s mishnah. A prozbul was a document written by the creditor to avoid loan remission in the Sabbatical year (see chapter 10 of Tractate Sheviit). In order to write a prozbul one must own land (see Sheviit 10:6-7). b) Land and anything that is considered attached to it (such as plants or houses) is not susceptible to impurity. Thus, according to Rabbi Eliezer, the beehive cannot become impure. However, this is only true while it remains in its place. If the beehive was picked up and moved elsewhere, it can become susceptible to impurity. c) One who plucks something from the land is liable for having transgressed Shabbat. Hence, according to Rabbi Eliezer, one who removes honey from a beehive on Shabbat is liable.",
+                    "<b>But the sages say: it is not to be treated as if it were land, and one many not write a prozbul on its security; it is susceptible even if it remains in its own place; and the one who scrapes honey from it on Shabbat is exempt [from a sin-offering].</b>  The rabbis do not consider the beehive to be “land” and therefore, in all three of these halakhot, they rule opposite of Rabbi Eliezer."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nHoney is one of the seven liquids that causes food to become susceptible to impurity (see Makhshirin 6:4). Today's mishnah discusses when honey from a honeycomb begins to count as honey.",
+                    "<b>When do honeycombs become susceptible to uncleanness on account of their being regarded as liquids?</b>  As long as the honey is still totally connected to the honeycombs it is still part of its source and liquids that are still part of their source do not cause susceptibility to impurity. Therefore the mishnah asks at what point the honey begins to be considered a \"liquid\" such that it would cause susceptibility.",
+                    "<b>Bet Shammai says: from the moment he begins to smoke the bees out.</b>  Bet Shammai says that as soon as someone begins to smoke the bees out of the honeycomb, the honey counts as liquid. Once the bees are gone, the honey can be eaten.",
+                    "<b>But Bet Hillel says: once he breaks up the honeycomb.</b>  Bet Hillel says he has to actually break up the honeycomb to get the honey out."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe last mishnah in the entire Mishnah is actually not originally a mishnah! It was a late addition to the Mishnah so that the book could end with a word of peace.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In the world to come the Holy One, Blessed be He, will make each righteous person inherit three hundred and ten worlds, for it is written: \"That I may cause those that love me to inherit yesh (numerical value of 310); and that I may fill their treasuries\" (Proverbs 8:2.</b>  The first derashah is based on the word \"yesh\" which in Hebrew has the gematria (numerical) value of 310 (yod is 10, shin is 300). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi understands the word \"yesh\" to mean that tzadikim, the righteous, will inherit 310 worlds. I hope they're good ones!",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta said: the Holy One, Blessed be He, found no vessel that could contain blessing for Israel save that of peace, as it is written: \"The Lord will give strength unto his people; the Lord will bless his people with peace.\"</b>  Shalom, peace, wellbeing, or perhaps completeness, is the vehicle by which God brings berakhah into the world. It is the reason that the last berakhah of the Amidah is \"peace\" and it is the reason that the Mishnah, which has been one of the greatest berakhot the Jews have ever created or received, ends with the same word. Completeness is also an appropriate way of completing the Mishnah, which after more than 12 years, you and I have now done. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Oktzim, Seder Toharot and the Entire Mishnah!! Usually I write, \"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.\" But today, I think I might need to write a bit more. For the past 12 years I have been writing my commentary on the Mishnah and you have been reading and studying it. And now, we've actually reached that moment. We've finished learning the whole Mishnah. So grab yourself a beer, a glass of wine, a shot of whiskey, raise a l'haim, say a berakhah (shehakol over beer and whiskey, hagafen over wine) and drink up. It's been a true privilege to serve as your teacher and it's been an amazing opportunity for me as well. I should say that my feeling is one of utter humility. My commentary was based on the work of others, whose work was based on their predecessors, going all the way back to the Talmud. I hope I have brought to you just a small taste of the amazing rabbinic tradition. The Mishnah is, after all, one of the shortest of rabbinic works. There is much learning to be done, and shortly we will begin Daf Shevui. But for now, one moment of congratulations is in order. I will be reciting the Hebrew siyyum (words of completion) on Sunday at the Conservative Yeshiva. Hopefully, it will be on the internet so that you can see it as well. Congratulations on an amazing amount of learning. And finally thank you to all of the people who've made this possible. Thanks to all of you who have donated money to subsidize the project. Thanks to the many people at USCJ in New York, Dr. Morton Siegel and Rabbi Paul Drazen, and others over the years who've made sure the Mishnah was properly sent out. Thanks to the people at the Conservative Yeshiva, including Rabbi Gail Diamond, who took over the project in recent years. And \"aharon aharon haviv\" I want to extend my warmest gratitude to Rabbi Jerome Epstein who approached me about 12 years ago and asked whether I would be interested and willing to start this project. Without Rabbi Epstein's commitment Mishnah Yomit would never have begun and it would not have been completed. For twelve years he has been my most consistent learner, and without his careful eye, the text would have been full of even more typos than there probably are. I have benefited tremendously from his dedication and I hope it continues for many years."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+            "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עוקצים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Tahorot"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה עוקצים",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Oktzin",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json

@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom",
+    "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 טבול יום",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Tahorot"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "The word \"tevul yom\" refers to a person who has immersed in a mikveh but will not become pure until the evening. The concept is derived by the rabbis from the following two verses:",
+            "Leviticus 11:32 And anything on which one of them falls when dead shall be unclean: be it any article of wood, or a cloth, or a skin, or a sack — any such article that can be put to use shall be dipped in water, and it shall remain unclean until evening; then it shall be clean. ",
+            "Leviticus 22:6-7 6 The person who touches such shall be unclean until evening and shall not eat of the sacred donations unless he has washed his body in water. 7 As soon as the sun sets, he shall be clean; and afterward he may eat of the sacred donations, for they are his food. 8 He shall not eat anything that died or was torn by beasts, thereby becoming unclean: I am the Lord. ",
+            "According to rabbinic law, a kohen goes to the mikveh before the sun sets but cannot eat terumah until after the sun has set. This is the meaning of Leviticus 22:7. So too a vessel which has become impure through a sheretz (a creepy crawly thing) is immersed in a mikveh and then can be used with terumah in the evening, when the sun has set. Until the sun has set, both the person and the vessel are called a \"tevul yom.\"",
+            "A \"tevul yom\" is not actually impure. Once he or the vessel has been in the mikveh, he or the vessel is pure. If a tevul yom touches terumah he disqualifies the terumah from being eaten, but it is not impure. Indeed, there is a special leniency with terumah that has been disqualified because it was touched by a tevul yom. Generally, disqualified terumah will disqualify sacred food it touches. But in this case, the terumah does not disqualify sacred food.",
+            "This tractate is highly technical, dealing with the nitty-gritties of impurity law. But by now, those of you who have been following along are real experts in these laws, so it shouldn't be difficult at all ☺. "
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first mishnah in Tevul Yom deals with the issue of whether things that are loosely connected to each other are considered to be one thing, such that if a tevul yom touches one side the whole thing is impure, or many independent things, such that the other side is pure. The issue of \"connectives\" is something we saw several other times in the Mishnah, including chapters 18-21 of Kelim.",
+                    "<b>If one had collected hallah  [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected.</b>  A priest collects pieces of hallah that he has been given by other people. He intends to keep them separate and bake them separately. However, they end up getting stuck together. According to Bet Shammai, since they are stuck together, if one of them is touched by a tevul yom, then they are all impure. Bet Shammai looks at the situation purely by what is going on physically. Since the pieces of hallah are touching each other, they count as one piece of dough. If the tevul yom touches one of them, they are all disqualified. Bet Hillel, in contrast, takes the person's intention into account. Since he intended to bake them separately, the fact that they temporarily made contact with each other does not mean they count as being connected. Only the piece that the tevul yom actually touched is impure.",
+                    "<b>Pieces of dough [of terumah]  that had become stuck together, Or loaves  that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth  on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum  that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of: Bet Shammai say: they are connected  in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected.</b>  In all of the cases described here there are two or more things that could be looked at as connected or not. In all of these cases, the substance is of terumah and the question is if part was touched by the tevul yom, is it all impure? Some of these require a bit more explanation: Or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven: This person will definitely separate the cakes because they will form a crust better when they are separate. Or if there was froth on the water that was bubbling: This refers to a case of a watery dish which is boiling and has bubbles rising from it. Since the dish is watery, the bubbles don't count as being attached to the dish, at least according to Bet Hillel. Or the first froth that rises when boiling groats of beans: the beans were crushed and made into groats. When they are boiled for the first time, a froth comes up. Rabbi Judah says: also that of rice: Boiled terumah rice. In all of these cases Bet Shammai says that all of the parts are considered to be connected. If a tevul yom touches one part, for instance the froth, the whole thing is disqualified. Bet Hillel says that they are considered separate and therefore the part that wasn't touched remains valid terumah.",
+                    "<b>They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades.</b>  The disagreement between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel is with regard to the tevul yom. As I stated in the introduction, the rabbis (at least Bet Hillel) treated a tevul yom somewhat leniently, since he had already been to the mikveh. However, when it comes to other forms of impurity, both serious and lenient forms, all of the things listed in this mishnah are considered to be connected. Bet Hillel was lenient only with regard to the tevul yom."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah contains mostly the opposite scenarios of yesterday's mishnah objects that are considered to be connected, such that if the tevul yom touches one of them, they are all defiled.",
+                    "<b>If one had collected pieces of hallah without the intention of separating them afterwards,</b>  Since he didn't intend to separate them, they count as connected.",
+                    "<b>or a batter-cake that had been baked on another after a crust had formed in the oven,</b>  Since the crust had already formed he won't separate them so that they bake better.",
+                    "<b>or froth had appeared in the water prior to its bubbling up,</b>  Prior to boiling the froth is considered connected to the water.",
+                    "<b>or the second scum that appeared in the boiling of groats of beans,</b>  The second scum that rises on the surface of boiling groats is connected to the dish.",
+                    "<b>or the scum of old wine,</b>  The scum on top of old wine is considered connected only the new scum was considered separate.",
+                    "<b>or that of oil of all kinds,</b>  The scum that emerges on the top of boiling oil is always considered connected to the oil.",
+                    "<b>or of lentils, Rabbi Judah says: also that of beans;</b>  The same is true with lentils and beans, according to Rabbi Judah.",
+                    "<b>All these are defiled when touched by a tevul yom. And there is no need to say, [this is the case if touched] by other sources of uncleanness.</b>  A tevul yom, and all the more so a truly impure person, who touches any of these things defiles the whole thing because all of the parts are considered to be connected."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The nail shaped knob   on the back of the loaf, or the small globule of salt,   or the burnt crust less than a finger's breadth: Rabbi Yose says: whatever is eaten with the loaf becomes unclean [when touched by the tevul yom].</b>  If there is a lump of bread on the back of a loaf of terumah bread, or a small globule of salt or a small burnt piece on the crust, they are all considered as being part of the loaf, because when one goes to eat the loaf, she will eat these parts too. If the tevul yom touches one of these parts, the entire loaf of terumah is disqualified.",
+                    "<b>And one doesn't need to say, this is so [when touched] by other unclean things.</b>  If the law is stringent with regard to the tevul yom, who is really pure, all the more so the law will be stringent with regard to other defiling things. If they touch such parts of the loaf, the entire loaf is impure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah is the opposite of yesterday's mishnah. It describes things that are attached to the loaf but are not considered connected to it for matters of impurity.",
+                    "<b>A pebble in a loaf or a large globule of salt, or a lupine, or a burnt crust larger than a finger's breadth Rabbi Yose says: whatever is not eaten with the loaf remains clean even when touched by a father of impurity;</b>  A person eating a loaf of bread would pick these things out before eating the loaf. A \"lupine\" is a type of bean. One would not generally eat a lupine stuck onto his loaf of bread. If the piece of burnt crust is too big, he wouldn't eat that either. He wouldn't eat a pebble or a big lump of salt. Therefore, if even a \"father of impurity,\" meaning one with a very high level of impurity, touches this part of the loaf of terumah, the remainder stays pure. It is not considered connected to the loaf.",
+                    "<b>And it isn't even necessary to say [is this so when touched] by a tevul yom.</b>  All the more so, if a tevul yom touches this part of the loaf, the rest stays pure. Note how this mishnah is the opposite structure of yesterday's mishnah. Today, since the loaf stays pure, the relationship of the clauses shifts the tevul yom is less defiling than a father of impurity."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Unshelled barley or spelt, root of crowfoot, asafoetida,  silrhium--Rabbi Judah says: even black beans remain clean even [when coming into contact] with a ‘father of uncleanness’, and there is no need to say [if touched] by a tevul yom, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they are clean if touched by a tevul yom, but unclean [when touched] by other sources of impurity.</b>  This section lists pieces of grains or other foods that are not considered to be part of loaf of bread if found mixed up in there. If the loaf is terumah, and a tevul yom or a person with another type of impurity touches them but not the loaf, the loaf remains pure. In other words, these things won't be eaten with the loaf so they are not part of the loaf. I admit that I don't know what some of these things are. But from what we can learn from this mishnah, they are not food commonly consumed. The other sages are lenient when it comes to a tevul yom, for he is not truly impure. However, they rule stringently when it comes to people who are actually impure. If such a person touches these things, he defiles the entire loaf of terumah.",
+                    "<b>Shelled barley or spelt, or wheat whether shelled or unshelled, or black cumin, or sesame or pepper Rabbi Judah says: also white beans become unclean even when touched by a tevul yom, and there is no need to say [when they have come into contact] with other sources of impurity.</b>  This list contrasts with that in section one. These foods will be eaten with the loaf. Therefore if even a tevul yom touches them, the rest of the loaf is defiled. We can see that these foods were considered more edible shelled barley or spelt, wheat, spices. Interesting that Rabbi Judah thinks black beans are less edible than white beans. Bean racism?"
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Liquids that come out of a tevul yom are like those which he has touched: neither of them causes defilement.</b>  Liquids that come out of a person include one's spit and one's urine. Our mishnah deals with the defiling power of such liquids. For a tevul yom, a person who has been to the mikveh but the sun has not yet set, those liquids are pure. They are like liquids that he touches and a tevul yom does not defile liquid such in order to give it first degree impurity. We should note that while a tevul yom would disqualify terumah that he has touched, as we saw in yesterday's chapter, he does not defile non-sacred produce.",
+                    "<b>With regard to all others that are unclean, be they of minor  or major  [degree], the liquids that come out of them are like those they touch; both have first degree impurity.</b>  In contrast, other people who are actually unclean, do defile liquids to give them first degree impurity and the liquids that come out of their body have first degree impurity. It doesn't matter whether these people have high or low levels of impurity. The liquids that they touch or that come out of their body would defile food and vessels but they wouldn't defile people.",
+                    "<b>Except for liquid that is a \"father of impurity.\"</b>  The exception to this rule are the few cases where liquids that come out of a person are themselves considered to be \"fathers of impurity.\" This would include the spit or urine of a zav (see Zavim 5:7). Such liquids would even defile people and things."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean.</b>  As we have learned, a tevul yom disqualifies liquids but he does not cause them to be defiled. So a tevul yom who touches liquid in a pot, the liquids themselves are disqualified (if they are terumah), but they don't have the power to defile the pot. And if the liquids are not terumah, then all is clean, because as we learned in yesterday's mishnah, a tevul yom does not defile non-sacred liquids.",
+                    "<b>If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean.</b>  In contrast, defiled hands (the topic of the next tractate) do defile liquids. These liquids will now in turn defile the pot in which they are in.",
+                    "<b>This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean.</b>  The mishnah now compares the halakhot governing defiled liquids with those governing defiled hands. In the above matter defiled hands were treated more stringently than the tevul yom. However, there is another halakhah in which tevul yom is treated more stringently than defiled hands. Any case of doubt regarding the tevul yom is treated stringently. For instance, if we are not sure if a tevul yom touched something of terumah, the terumah cannot be eaten. However, if a person has unclean hands and we are not sure if he touched something, the thing remains pure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If the porridge was of terumah and the garlic or oil [it contained] was of hullin, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he has disqualified the whole thing;</b>  There is a thick soup, a porridge, made of terumah that has in it hullin (non-sacred) garlic and oil. If a tevul yom touches part of the garlic or oil, all of it is disqualified because the porridge is the main thing. We look at the porridge as if it was all one dish of terumah and the whole thing is disqualified.",
+                    "<b>But if the porridge was of hullin and the garlic or oil it contained was of terumah, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he disqualifies only the part he has touched.</b>  However, if the porridge itself is of hullin and the garlic and oil are terumah, then the garlic or oil are looked at is if they are not connected. If a tevul yom touches part of the garlic or oil, only the part he touches is disqualified.",
+                    "<b>If the greater part was garlic then they go after the majority.</b>  If there is more garlic than oil, then we look at the oil as if it is secondary to the garlic. If he touches the garlic, the oil will also be disqualified.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When it formed one cohesive mass in the pot, but if it was scattered small in the mortar, then it is clean, since he wishes that it should be scattered.</b>  Rabbi Judah says we follow the majority of the garlic or oil only if the garlic has not been mashed and it sticks to the oil and becomes one lump. However, if the garlic has been mashed up and scattered in the pot, then the garlic pieces are not connected to the other pieces.  The part of the garlic he touches is impure, but the rest remains clean.",
+                    "<b>[Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs.</b>  This section is a bit confusing. According to Albeck two different versions of this mishnah have been combined. I will explain according to his commentary. The first version should read thusly: But with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids or those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs. The explanation is that if there was a food that people don't usually mash up with liquids but he nevertheless did mash it up with liquid or if there was a food which is normally mashed up with liquids but he didn't mash it up with liquids, even if they form one cohesive lump in the pot, they are treated like a cake of preserved figs. Only the part he touched is impure. The other version should read: [Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs. The explanation is that other mashed foods that he mashed with liquids are also treated like garlic mashed with oil. If they make a cohesive mass, they are treated as connected. But if they are normally mashed with liquids and he mashed them without liquids, even if they form a cohesive mass, they are not treated as if they are connected."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If the porridge and batter-cake were of hullin and oil of terumah was floating above them, and a tevul yom touched the oil, he disqualifies only the oil.</b>  Since the oil is floating on top of the porridge or batter-cake it doesn't count as being part of the larger base. This is similar to the case in yesterday's mishnah. So if he touches the oil, the rest can be eaten.",
+                    "<b>If he stirred it altogether, all the places where the oil goes are disqualified.</b>  If he mixes the oil into the porridge or batter-cake, then any part of the larger dish that contains the terumah oil is disqualified."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Sanctified meat over which the porridge crusted, and a tevul yom touched the crust, the slices [of meat] are permitted. But if he touched one of the slices, that slice and all [the crust] that comes up with it form a connective the one with the other. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the two of them serve as connectives to each other.</b>  Sanctified meat, meaning meat that was part of a sacrifice, has been cooked in a pot with some porridge. The porridge crusts over the meat. According to the first opinion, the meat is not considered part of the crust. Thus if a tevul yom touches the crust, the meat is still permitted. It has not been disqualified. However, if he touches the meat itself, the meat and any part of the crust that would be lifted out of the dish with the meat is disqualified. The other parts of the porridge can still be eaten. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that the entire porridge and meat is considered connected. Thus if he touches any part of the porridge, the meat is disqualified.",
+                    "<b>Similarly, with [cooked] beans that have formed a layer over pieces of bread.</b>  The same rule as in section one applies to a case where beans have been cooked in a pot with some bread made of terumah.",
+                    "<b>Beans or other foods cooked in a pot: when they are still separate, do not serve as connectives; but when they become a solid pulp, they do act as connectives. If they formed several solid masses, they are to be counted.</b>  Having mentioned beans, the mishnah now discusses general cases of beans or other foods cooked in a pot. If the pieces of the food are still separate from one another, they don't count as connected. But a solid mass is connected and if he touches one part of the mass, it is all disqualified. If there are several solid masses, then the one he touches has first degree impurity. The mass that is next to it and touching it, has second degree impurity and the third mass will be disqualified if it is of terumah. When the mishnah says \"counted\" it means that the usual process of counting impurity begins from the mass he touched.",
+                    "<b>If oil floats on wine and a tevul yom touched the oil, only the oil is disqualified. But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: each serves as a connective with the other.</b>  This is similar to the case in yesterday's mishnah. If the oil floats on the wine, only the oil is disqualified. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri again disagrees and holds that the substances are considered to be connected."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A jug which sunk into a cistern containing wine, and a tevul yom touched it: If [he touched it] from the rim and inwards, it serves as a connective; If from the rim and outwards, it does not serve as a connective.</b>  Our mishnah describes an open jug of terumah wine that sinks into a cistern containing hullin (non-sacred) wine. If the tevul yom touches the wine that is inside the rim of the jug, even if this wine came from the cistern, all of the wine in the jug is connected. The terumah wine will all be disqualified. However, if he touches outside of the rim of the jug, then the wine is not connected to the wine in the jug, even if it is the same height as the jug and may indeed be intermingling. The jug in the wine remains pure and can be used as terumah wine.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even though [the level of wine in the cistern] is the height of a man [above the sunken jar], and he touched [the wine] directly above the mouth of the jar, it serves as a connective.</b>  Again, Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules strictly concerning connectives. Even if there is a tremendous amount of wine in the cistern above the jug of terumah, the entire height of a man, and the tevul yom touched the wine directly above the jug, the wine above the jug and the wine in the jug are disqualified. Basically, this would seem to mean that the entire contents of the cistern are disqualified. If he touched the wine in the cistern on the sides of the jug, the jug's content would not be disqualified."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If a jug had a hole either at its neck, bottom or sides, and a tevul yom touched it [at the hole], it becomes unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if the hole is at its neck or bottom it becomes unclean; but if on its sides, on this side or on that, it remains clean.</b>  The jug has in it terumah wine and is sealed from above, but there is a hole elsewhere on the jug. According to the first opinion, no matter where that hole is, if a tevul yom touches the hole, all of the contents are disqualified. Rabbi Judah says that the contents are disqualified only if he touches either the hole on the top, at its neck, or the whole at the bottom. If he touches the hole at the top, all of the wine below is a base for the upper wine, so it is all considered connected. And if he touches the hole on the bottom of the jug then all of the wine will flow out of the hole below, so all of the wine is connected. But if he touches on one of the sides, the rest of the wine remains pure. Only the wine on the side he touches is disqualified. However, if there is a ratio of 100 parts pure wine to 1 part disqualified wine, then the disqualified wine is nullified and it is all pure, as we will learn in section two.",
+                    "<b>If one poured [liquid] from one vessel into another, and a tevul yom touched the stream, and there was something within the vessel, then [whatsoever he touches] is neutralized in a hundred and one.</b>  If the tevul yom touches the stream flowing from one vessel to the other, he only disqualifies that part that he touches. If there is a 100 to 1 ratio of pure to disqualified liquid, then the part he touched is nullified and it is all pure. This is a similar situation to that in section one."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah discusses a jug that has a bubble in the clay on the side. The bubble is pierced such that there is a passageway from the inside of the jar to the outside. The question is whether or not impurity can come from the outside and get in.",
+                    "<b>A bubble on a jug which was pierced with holes on its inner side and on its outer side, whether above or below:</b>  This section describes the scenario.",
+                    "<b>If [the holes are] opposite one another, it becomes unclean [if touched] by a \"father of uncleanness\" and it becomes unclean if it is in a tent in which there is a corpse.</b>  If the two holes are opposite one another, then the entire contents are susceptible to impurity. If a \"father of uncleanness\" touches the liquids at the hole, then the entire contents of the jug are impure. And if the jug is found in a tent in which there is a corpse, the contents are unclean even if the jug is tightly sealed up top. Since there is an opening, the jug is considered to be open and not protected from impurity.",
+                    "<b>If the inner hole is below and the outer above, it becomes unclean [if touched] by a \"father of uncleanness,\" and it becomes unclean in a tent in which there is a corpse.</b>  The same is true if the inner hole is below and the outer hole is above. This is because the liquid the father of uncleanness touches on the outside would go down and defile all of the liquid on the inside.",
+                    "<b>If the inner hole is above and the outer below, it remains clean if touched by a \"father of uncleanness,\" but it becomes unclean in a tent in which there is a corpse.</b>  However, if the inner hole is above and the outer hole is below, the liquid he touches will not go up and defile the inner liquid. Therefore, the contents remain pure. But in all cases since the jug is open through both sides, the contents are defiled by being in a tent with a corpse."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Handles to food, which count as connectives when touched by a \"father of uncleanness,\" also count as connectives when touched by a tevul yom.</b>  The mishnah refers here to food that is picked up by using a \"handle,\" a piece of the food. We will explain this more when we learn Tractate Oktzin 1:3. If this part is touched by a \"father of uncleanness\" the entire piece of food is defiled. Similarly, if the food was touched by a tevul yom, the entire thing is defiled.",
+                    "<b>If a food was divided into two yet a small part was still attached: Rabbi Meir says: if one takes hold of the larger part and the smaller part is pulled away with it, behold it is like it. Rabbi Judah says: if one takes hold of the smaller part and the greater is also pulled away with it, then behold it is like it.</b>  The mishnah now begins to discuss pieces of food that have been broken into two, and yet are still slightly connected. The question is if one touches part of the disconnected piece, is the entire thing defiled? Rabbi Meir says that for the two parts to be connected all that must occur is that the smaller part would be picked up with the larger part. This would mean that it would be quite to consider the two parts connected. Rabbi Judah rules more leniently. Unless the larger part can be lifted with the smaller part, then the two are not considered connected.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Nehemiah says: [this refers] to the case of the clean portion. But the sages say: [it refers] to the unclean portion.</b>  Rabbi Nehemiah and the sages say that it doesn't matter which part is large or small, what matters is which part was pure and which part was impure. According to Rabbi Nehemiah, we examine the part not touched by the tevul yom. If a person picks up the pure part and the impure part that was touched by the tevul yom comes up with it, it is considered connected. . According to the sages, we examine the part that was touched by the tevul yom. If when one picks up the impure part the pure part comes up with it, then it too is impure.",
+                    "<b>In the case of all other foods, those usually held by the leaf should be taken by the leaf, and those usually held by the stalk should be taken by the stalk.</b>  For other types of food, such as vegetables and fruit, the test is performed by holding the part usually held. If the vegetable/fruit is usually held by the leaf then if he picks it up by the leaf and the vegetable/fruit is lifted up as well, then it is all connected. The same is true if the fruit is usually held by the stalk."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If a beaten egg was on top of vegetables of terumah, and a tevul yom touches the egg, then he disqualifies only that stalk [of the vegetables] that is opposite the part [of the egg] he touched. Rabbi Yose says: the entire upper layer.</b>  The mishnah discusses an egg that was fried and put on top of some terumah vegetables. If the tevul yom touches the egg, he doesn't disqualify all of the vegetables just the stalk that was directly below the part of the egg he touched. Rabbi Yose says that he disqualifies the entire upper layer of vegetables which touch the egg.",
+                    "<b>But if it was arranged like a cap  it does not serve as a connective.</b>  If the egg was arranged like a hat over the vegetables, and the egg did not touch them, then touching the egg doesn’t count as touching the vegetable. They remain pure. I think I'm going to go make myself an egg (I'm writing this on Pesah, and there really isn't much else to eat)."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The streak of an egg that had become congealed on the side of a pan and a tevul yom touched it: If within the rim [of the pan] it serves as a connective; But if outside the rim, it does not serve as a connective.</b>  The streak of an egg is the white of an egg that trailed behind when cracking the egg. It is congealed on the side of a pan and a tevul yom touches it. If he touches the streak that is in the pot, then all of the contents in the pot are disqualified (if they are of terumah). But if the streak is outside the pot, the contents of the pot remain pure.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says that the streak and the part that can be peeled away with it [serves as a connective].</b>  Rabbi Yose says that if the tevul yom touched the streak within the pot, only the parts of the dish that would be picked up with the streak are disqualified. The rest is not considered connected. And if the tevul yom touches the streak outside of the pot, it is never considered connected.",
+                    "<b>The same applies to beans that had congealed on the rim of the pot.</b>  Beans congealed on the rim of the pot have the same rule as does the streak of egg."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit.</b>  This section refers to hullin dough (non-sacred dough) that had been mixed up with some terumah dough or terumah yeast (starter dough). According to the first opinion, this dough is treated as if it were hullin dough and it is not disqualified if a tevul yom touches it. This is another leniency with regard to the rules governing a tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say that since there is terumah mixed in with this dough, it is disqualified.",
+                    "<b>Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Barthotha says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.</b>  The dough was originally made susceptible to impurity by contact with a liquid. Then the dough was kneaded together with fruit juice, which does not cause produce susceptible to impurity. The question is: is all of the dough considered to be connected? According to Rabbi Joshua, this dough is all considered connected and if the tevul yom touches one part, it is all disqualified. Rabbi Akiva disagrees. He holds that just as fruit juice does not cause produce to be susceptible to impurity, it does not cause the dough to be connected. The only part that tevul yom disqualifies is the actual part that he touches."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Vegetables of hullin were cooked with oil of terumah and a tevul yom touched it: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he has disqualified the whole thing. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.</b> This is a very similar mishnah to yesterday's similar debate, similar people arguing. Rabbi Elazar holds that since the oil spread onto each vegetable, they are all disqualified. The vegetables, covered with the oil, now have the status of the oil. Rabbi Akiva says that terumah oil that comes into contact with hullin vegetables does not give the vegetables the status of terumah. However, contact with the tevul yom does disqualify the vegetable that he touches because he might have touched oil. In other words, the oil and vegetables are not considered to have the same status but we do have to be concerned lest he actually touched terumah oil."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah deals with a person who is chewing food and the food falls out of his mouth. First it falls onto his clothes and then onto a terumah loaf of bread (and then my poor meatball, it rolled out the door!). The question is does the moisture on the food cause the loaf of terumah to be susceptible to impurity.",
+                    "<b>A clean person who chewed food and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it [the loaf] is not susceptible to uncleanness.</b>  The person did not want this food to end up on his clothes. Therefore, this is considered a case of liquids that are \"not to his liking.\" For liquid to make food susceptible to impurity it generally has to be that he wanted the liquids to come into contact with his food (see introduction to Makhshirin). We should note that the mishnah describes a terumah loaf even though the same halakhah is true even if the loaf is hullin. As far as liquid causing susceptibility to impurity, it makes no difference whether the food is terumah or hullin. The reason the mishnah mentions a terumah loaf is that in section four the tevul yom is discussed and a tevul yom disqualifies terumah.",
+                    "<b>If he ate crushed olives or moist dates, [or] if his intention was to suck out the pit, and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is susceptible to uncleanness.</b>  In this case he gathered up a lot of spit in his mouth in order to get the pit out of the olives or dates. Thus the spit was originally something he wanted. Even though later he didn't want the food to fall on his clothes, since originally he did want this spit, it causes the loaf to be susceptible.",
+                    "<b>If he ate dried olives, or dried figs or it was not his intention to suck out the pit, and they fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is not susceptible to uncleanness.</b>  In this case, the dates or olives were dry and he didn't want to (or perhaps couldn't) suck out the pit. Since he didn't need the liquid of his own spittle it does not cause the loaf to be susceptible to impurity.",
+                    "<b>This is the case irrespective of whether it was a clean person or a tevul yom [who was eating]. Rabbi Meir says: in either case it becomes susceptible to uncleanness in the case of a tevul yom, since liquids issuing from unclean persons render anything susceptible whether it was to his liking or not. But the sages say: a tevul yom is not regarded as an unclean person.</b>  According to the first opinion, the above halakhot are true even if the person was a tevul yom. A tevul yom is not treated as if he were impure as we see in the sages' response to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir says that a tevul yom is considered like an impure person, and an impure person who causes liquids to come into contact with produce causes the produce to be susceptible (and impure) regardless of whether it was to his liking. This halakhah was taught in Makshirin 1:1. While this debate is about one particular and obscure case, we see here a broad dispute. Rabbi Meir holds that a tevul yom, a person who went to the mikveh but the sun has not yet set, is treated as if he was impure. The sages disagree."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>If food that was tithe had been rendered susceptible to impurity by a liquid, and a tevul yom or one with unwashed hands touched it, terumah of tithe  may still be removed from it in purity, since it only has third degree uncleanness, and third degree uncleanness counts as clean in hullin.</b> A tevul yom or one who has unwashed hands touches tithe. Both of these people are considered as having second degree impurity. They will cause the food to have third degree impurity. However, third degree impurity counts as clean if the food is hullin non sacred. It only disqualifies terumah. Since tithe is considered hullin, the produce remains pure. Therefore, one may remove the terumah from this tithe, as is always done. In other words, although we will separate terumah from it in the future, right now it does not have the status of terumah. Hence it is not disqualified."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A woman who is a tevulat yom may knead dough, cut off the hallah, and set it apart, and she should arrange it on an Egyptian basket,  or on a tray, and then bring it near  and call it by its name. For it [the dough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin.</b> The woman is a tevulat yom (the feminine form of tevul yom). When she touches the dough, it will have third degree uncleanness, which is not unclean when it comes to hullin. The problem is that if she touches the hallah, the part of the dough that is removed and given to the priest, she will disqualify it. Hallah is holy and therefore a tevul yom touching it would defile it and a priest couldn't eat it. To prevent the hallah from being defiled she first separates it but doesn't yet call it hallah. Then she puts it on a type of tray that cannot receive impurity or an Egyptian basket which also cannot become impure. Then she has to bring the other dough near and then, without touching it, she can call the hallah by its name Hallah!  This way she can give pure terumah to the thankful priest. Pretty cool, huh?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis is the third mishnah in which we learn that something that has third degree impurity does not defile hullin.",
+                    "<b>A trough which is a tevulat yom, one may knead dough in it and cut off the portion for hallah and bring it near and call it by name [as hallah]; for it [the trough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin.</b> The kneading trough itself is a \"tevulat yom\" it was immersed in the mikveh to cleanse it, but the sun had not yet set. The person taking the hallah is pure, so she can simply remove the hallah, bring it near the dough without allowing it to touch the trough and call it by its name. Since the person is pure she doesn't need to first arrange it on a vessel that cannot receive impurity. And as we have learned before, since the trough has  third degree impurity, it doesn't defile the dough itself, which is hullin."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A flagon was a tevul yom and they filled it from a cask containing tithes from which terumah had not yet been taken:</b>  There is a cask of tithe of some sort of produce. The terumah which must be taken from tithes has not yet been removed from the produce. They then filled up a flagon which was a tevul yom (it had been immersed but the sun had not yet set). The question is how to separate terumah without defiling it by contact with the tevul yom flagon?",
+                    "<b>If one said, let this be terumah of tithe after nightfall, it becomes terumah of tithe.</b>  The solution is for the person to say that the terumah of tithe will only come into being after nightfall. In such a way the terumah will remain pure because by then the flagon will be pure.",
+                    "<b>But if he said: let this be the food for the eruv, he has said nothing.</b>  In this section, the person wants to use the contents of the flagon as his eruv, the shared meal that will allow him to carry in a courtyard. The problem is that the eruv must be placed before the sun sets and before the sun sets this produce is still tithe from which terumah has not been removed, which cannot be used for an eruv (see Eruvin 3:2). Therefore, if he tries to use this as his eruv, it doesn't work.",
+                    "<b>If the cask was broken, the contents of the flagon still remain tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken. If the flagon was broken, then what is in the cask still remains tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken.</b>  If either the cask or the flagon breaks before the sun sets, before the statement he made in section two has had time to become operative, then the contents of the other container remain tithe that has not had terumah removed. In other words, until the sun sets his statement doesn't succeed in separating terumah from the tithe."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Originally they said: one may redeem [second tithe] for the produce of an am ha-arez. Later they reconsidered and said: also for money of his.<br>Originally they said that if a man was being led out to execution and said, “Write a get for my wife”, they may write a get and give [it to her]. Later they reconsidered and said, even if he were leaving on a sea voyage or on a caravan journey. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if he were dangerously ill.</b>  Originally they said that a \"haver\" a person who observes the tithing and purity laws can take produce from an am haaretz and redeem the second tithe that is in it. Second tithe must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. To make this easier, one is allowed to redeem the second tithe for money and then use that money to buy food in Jerusalem. In this way the produce becomes desacralized. The mishnah describes an am haaretz, one who doesn't observe these laws, who then gives his produce to a haver so that the haver can redeem the second tithe. The haver can then take out the second tithe and redeem it for money. He need not be concerned that all of the produce that the am haaretz gave him was tithe from which second tithe cannot be redeemed.",
+                    "They then were more lenient and said that even if the am haaretz gave him money to redeem, meaning instead of giving him the produce the am haaretz gave him the money so that the haver could turn it into maaser sheni (second tithe) the haver could still do this. We are not concerned that the money the am haaretz gave him was already second tithe money, which could not be used to redeem produce. Besides the particulars of this mishnah, which are always interesting, I think it is interesting that the mishnah portrays an am haaretz coming to the haver to receive help in separating second tithe. While I can't promise that this is historically accurate, it at least shows that the rabbis imagined themselves as providing religious services for the general, uneducated populace.",
+                    "This section is found word for word in Gittin 6:5. My commentary here is the same as there. Usually a husband must state that he wishes the get (the divorce document) to be written and given to the woman.  However, in extenuating circumstances where the husband seems to have been facing immanent death, it is highly unlikely that when he instructed someone to write a get, he wanted the get to be written but not given to his wife.  After all, why else would he want to write a get at this point?  Therefore, one who hears the husband says “Write a get for my wife” may write it and even give it to her.  At first the category of people facing immanent death included only a person being led out to execution. Later, they expanded the category to include one leaving for a sea voyage or a caravan journey.  These men would have wanted to write out a get that would go into effect should they not return, not an unlikely scenario.  This would prevent their wives from being left as “agunot” a woman who doesn’t know if her husband is alive or dead and therefore cannot remarry. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri added that an agent who hears such a statement from a dangerously ill person may also write and give the get.  This man may want to divorce his wife in order to exempt her from levirate marriage (if he was to do childless and with a brother she would have to undergo yibbum or halitzah).  Again, it is very unlikely that a dying man would want to write a get but not give it to his wife, and therefore we are not concerned with such a possibility."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is the same as Kelim 13:7. It deals with vessels that are basically wooden, but have one part made of metal.\nThe reason that this mishnah is placed here is Rabbi Joshua's comments found at the end. According to Albeck, this comment refers to all of the cases in which the sages were lenient in this chapter, and therefore his words are appropriate here. In other words, sections one and two belong in Kelim, which talks about the purity of vessels. And section three belongs more here. Somehow they were paired together and that's why both sections appear in both places.\nMy commentary below is the same as it is there in Kelim.",
+                    "<b>If Ashkelon grappling-irons were broken but their hooks remained, they remain susceptible to impurity.</b>  Since the hooks are the main parts of the grappling-irons, as long as they remain, the vessel is susceptible to impurity. Furthermore, although the vessel is made of wood, since its hooks are of metal, it is susceptible.",
+                    "<b>If a pitch-fork, winnowing-fan, or rake, and the same applies to a hair-comb, lost one of its teeth and it was replaced by one of metal, it is susceptible to impurity.</b>  These are all tools with teeth. Most of the tool is made of wood, but one of the missing wooden teeth was replaced with metal. This one metal tooth gives the entire vessel the status of a metal vessel and it is therefore susceptible to impurity.",
+                    "<b>And concerning all these Rabbi Joshua said: the scribes have here introduced a new principle of law, and I have no explanation to offer.</b>  Rabbi Joshua adds here a fascinating note, one which I don't believe we have encountered elsewhere in the Mishnah. In all of the above cases, since the basic vessel was of wood, and it was a simple vessel without a receptacle, the vessel should not have been susceptible to impurity. The innovation that the earlier scribes innovated was that although only one part was of metal, the entire vessel is susceptible. Rabbi Joshua accepts this innovation, but nevertheless admits that he does not understand it. We can see here his deference to tradition, and yet his striving to understand it, and his sense of frustration when he cannot. This is an attitude that I believe is very typical among rabbis. They have a strong sense of respect for tradition, and yet they do not simply accept all that they have received. Rather, they constantly attempt to understand the early halakhot, to make sense out of them, and to use the principles that they perceive as underlying these halakhot to derive further halakhot."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of Tevul Yom deals with a tevul yom who is separating terumah from a cistern.",
+                    "<b>If one was taking terumah from a cistern and said: \"Let this be terumah provided it comes up safely,\" [it is implied that he meant] safely from being broken or spilled,   but not from becoming impure; But Rabbi Shimon says: also from impurity.</b>  The person was taking terumah from a cistern of wine. He wanted to dip a jug into the cistern, declare the contents of the jug terumah and then have the remainder of the cistern become drinkable. He stipulated that it would be terumah only if the jug came up \"safely.\" The question is what does \"safely\" mean. The first opinion holds that \"safely\" means that the jug didn't break or its contents spill. If the jug did break and the wine fell back into the cistern, it wouldn't give the contents of the cistern the status of terumah and hullin mixed together. However, if he accidentally disqualified the terumah wine (because he was a tevul yom) then his terumah is terumah and it will be disqualified (what the mishnah calls made impure). Rabbi Shimon rules more leniently. His intention of saying \"safely\" was that even if the contents should be defiled, the separation of terumah wouldn't count. If he brought up the jug and accidentally defiled the wine, the jug would not be terumah.",
+                    "<b>If it were broken, it does not render [the contents of the cistern] subject to the restrictions of terumah.</b>  If the jug broke and the contents fell back into the cistern, then the contents of the cistern are not considered to have terumah in them. That is they don't have the rules of doubtful terumah due to the jug's contents, because the jug wasn't terumah.",
+                    "<b>How far away can it be broken and still not make [the contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions?  Only so far that if it rolls back, it can reach the cistern.</b>  The question now is for how long does this stipulation last? In other words, how far away from the cistern can the jug go and still not be considered terumah if it is broken. The mishnah rules that if the jug breaks when it is still close enough to the cistern that it could roll back there in one push, then the terumah is not terumah. But if he takes it further away, and then it breaks, the terumah does count as terumah. If some of it falls into the cistern, the contents of the cistern will have to be considered doubtful terumah.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: even if one had the intention of making such a stipulation, but did not do so, and it broke, it does not make the [contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions, for this is a stipulation laid down by the court.</b>  Finally, the mishnah rules that even if he didn't specifically stipulate that the contents had to come up safely for them to be terumah, the stipulation is still valid. This is because it is a \"court stipulation\" it is something that the court dictates is understood even if not stated explicitly. A person, after all, would only benefit from making such a statement. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Tevul Yom! As I always write, 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. One thing that you might have been wonder about while studying this tractate was what made the sages so interested in this category. Of course you probably know by the now that the answer will not be practical i.e. this was a commonly occurring issue. Rather, I think this is another example of the sort of topic that really interested the rabbis in-between or marginal cases. The tevul yom is sort of pure, for s/he has already been to the mikveh. But s/he is also impure because the sun hasn't set. This type of category seems to have immensely interested the sages, and although we tend to prefer to see practical ramifications for everything the rabbis said, the truth is that much of rabbinic literature, and especially the Mishnah, is interested in the theoretical and not the practical. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Yadayim."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה טבול יום",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
+{
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Tevul_Yom",
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "The word \"tevul yom\" refers to a person who has immersed in a mikveh but will not become pure until the evening. The concept is derived by the rabbis from the following two verses:",
+            "Leviticus 11:32 And anything on which one of them falls when dead shall be unclean: be it any article of wood, or a cloth, or a skin, or a sack — any such article that can be put to use shall be dipped in water, and it shall remain unclean until evening; then it shall be clean. ",
+            "Leviticus 22:6-7 6 The person who touches such shall be unclean until evening and shall not eat of the sacred donations unless he has washed his body in water. 7 As soon as the sun sets, he shall be clean; and afterward he may eat of the sacred donations, for they are his food. 8 He shall not eat anything that died or was torn by beasts, thereby becoming unclean: I am the Lord. ",
+            "According to rabbinic law, a kohen goes to the mikveh before the sun sets but cannot eat terumah until after the sun has set. This is the meaning of Leviticus 22:7. So too a vessel which has become impure through a sheretz (a creepy crawly thing) is immersed in a mikveh and then can be used with terumah in the evening, when the sun has set. Until the sun has set, both the person and the vessel are called a \"tevul yom.\"",
+            "A \"tevul yom\" is not actually impure. Once he or the vessel has been in the mikveh, he or the vessel is pure. If a tevul yom touches terumah he disqualifies the terumah from being eaten, but it is not impure. Indeed, there is a special leniency with terumah that has been disqualified because it was touched by a tevul yom. Generally, disqualified terumah will disqualify sacred food it touches. But in this case, the terumah does not disqualify sacred food.",
+            "This tractate is highly technical, dealing with the nitty-gritties of impurity law. But by now, those of you who have been following along are real experts in these laws, so it shouldn't be difficult at all ☺. "
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first mishnah in Tevul Yom deals with the issue of whether things that are loosely connected to each other are considered to be one thing, such that if a tevul yom touches one side the whole thing is impure, or many independent things, such that the other side is pure. The issue of \"connectives\" is something we saw several other times in the Mishnah, including chapters 18-21 of Kelim.",
+                    "<b>If one had collected hallah  [portions] with the intention of keeping them separate, but in the meantime they had become stuck together: Bet Shammai say: they are connected in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected.</b>  A priest collects pieces of hallah that he has been given by other people. He intends to keep them separate and bake them separately. However, they end up getting stuck together. According to Bet Shammai, since they are stuck together, if one of them is touched by a tevul yom, then they are all impure. Bet Shammai looks at the situation purely by what is going on physically. Since the pieces of hallah are touching each other, they count as one piece of dough. If the tevul yom touches one of them, they are all disqualified. Bet Hillel, in contrast, takes the person's intention into account. Since he intended to bake them separately, the fact that they temporarily made contact with each other does not mean they count as being connected. Only the piece that the tevul yom actually touched is impure.",
+                    "<b>Pieces of dough [of terumah]  that had become stuck together, Or loaves  that had become joined, or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven, or the froth  on the water that was bubbling, or the first scum  that rises when boiling groats of beans, or the scum of new wine (r. Judah says: also that of: Bet Shammai say: they are connected  in the case of a tevul yom. But Bet Hillel say: they are not connected.</b>  In all of the cases described here there are two or more things that could be looked at as connected or not. In all of these cases, the substance is of terumah and the question is if part was touched by the tevul yom, is it all impure? Some of these require a bit more explanation: Or one who bakes a batter-cake on top of another batter-cake before it could form a crust in the oven: This person will definitely separate the cakes because they will form a crust better when they are separate. Or if there was froth on the water that was bubbling: This refers to a case of a watery dish which is boiling and has bubbles rising from it. Since the dish is watery, the bubbles don't count as being attached to the dish, at least according to Bet Hillel. Or the first froth that rises when boiling groats of beans: the beans were crushed and made into groats. When they are boiled for the first time, a froth comes up. Rabbi Judah says: also that of rice: Boiled terumah rice. In all of these cases Bet Shammai says that all of the parts are considered to be connected. If a tevul yom touches one part, for instance the froth, the whole thing is disqualified. Bet Hillel says that they are considered separate and therefore the part that wasn't touched remains valid terumah.",
+                    "<b>They agree [that they serve as connectives] if they come into contact with other kinds of uncleanness, whether they be of minor or major grades.</b>  The disagreement between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel is with regard to the tevul yom. As I stated in the introduction, the rabbis (at least Bet Hillel) treated a tevul yom somewhat leniently, since he had already been to the mikveh. However, when it comes to other forms of impurity, both serious and lenient forms, all of the things listed in this mishnah are considered to be connected. Bet Hillel was lenient only with regard to the tevul yom."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah contains mostly the opposite scenarios of yesterday's mishnah objects that are considered to be connected, such that if the tevul yom touches one of them, they are all defiled.",
+                    "<b>If one had collected pieces of hallah without the intention of separating them afterwards,</b>  Since he didn't intend to separate them, they count as connected.",
+                    "<b>or a batter-cake that had been baked on another after a crust had formed in the oven,</b>  Since the crust had already formed he won't separate them so that they bake better.",
+                    "<b>or froth had appeared in the water prior to its bubbling up,</b>  Prior to boiling the froth is considered connected to the water.",
+                    "<b>or the second scum that appeared in the boiling of groats of beans,</b>  The second scum that rises on the surface of boiling groats is connected to the dish.",
+                    "<b>or the scum of old wine,</b>  The scum on top of old wine is considered connected only the new scum was considered separate.",
+                    "<b>or that of oil of all kinds,</b>  The scum that emerges on the top of boiling oil is always considered connected to the oil.",
+                    "<b>or of lentils, Rabbi Judah says: also that of beans;</b>  The same is true with lentils and beans, according to Rabbi Judah.",
+                    "<b>All these are defiled when touched by a tevul yom. And there is no need to say, [this is the case if touched] by other sources of uncleanness.</b>  A tevul yom, and all the more so a truly impure person, who touches any of these things defiles the whole thing because all of the parts are considered to be connected."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The nail shaped knob   on the back of the loaf, or the small globule of salt,   or the burnt crust less than a finger's breadth: Rabbi Yose says: whatever is eaten with the loaf becomes unclean [when touched by the tevul yom].</b>  If there is a lump of bread on the back of a loaf of terumah bread, or a small globule of salt or a small burnt piece on the crust, they are all considered as being part of the loaf, because when one goes to eat the loaf, she will eat these parts too. If the tevul yom touches one of these parts, the entire loaf of terumah is disqualified.",
+                    "<b>And one doesn't need to say, this is so [when touched] by other unclean things.</b>  If the law is stringent with regard to the tevul yom, who is really pure, all the more so the law will be stringent with regard to other defiling things. If they touch such parts of the loaf, the entire loaf is impure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah is the opposite of yesterday's mishnah. It describes things that are attached to the loaf but are not considered connected to it for matters of impurity.",
+                    "<b>A pebble in a loaf or a large globule of salt, or a lupine, or a burnt crust larger than a finger's breadth Rabbi Yose says: whatever is not eaten with the loaf remains clean even when touched by a father of impurity;</b>  A person eating a loaf of bread would pick these things out before eating the loaf. A \"lupine\" is a type of bean. One would not generally eat a lupine stuck onto his loaf of bread. If the piece of burnt crust is too big, he wouldn't eat that either. He wouldn't eat a pebble or a big lump of salt. Therefore, if even a \"father of impurity,\" meaning one with a very high level of impurity, touches this part of the loaf of terumah, the remainder stays pure. It is not considered connected to the loaf.",
+                    "<b>And it isn't even necessary to say [is this so when touched] by a tevul yom.</b>  All the more so, if a tevul yom touches this part of the loaf, the rest stays pure. Note how this mishnah is the opposite structure of yesterday's mishnah. Today, since the loaf stays pure, the relationship of the clauses shifts the tevul yom is less defiling than a father of impurity."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Unshelled barley or spelt, root of crowfoot, asafoetida,  silrhium--Rabbi Judah says: even black beans remain clean even [when coming into contact] with a ‘father of uncleanness’, and there is no need to say [if touched] by a tevul yom, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they are clean if touched by a tevul yom, but unclean [when touched] by other sources of impurity.</b>  This section lists pieces of grains or other foods that are not considered to be part of loaf of bread if found mixed up in there. If the loaf is terumah, and a tevul yom or a person with another type of impurity touches them but not the loaf, the loaf remains pure. In other words, these things won't be eaten with the loaf so they are not part of the loaf. I admit that I don't know what some of these things are. But from what we can learn from this mishnah, they are not food commonly consumed. The other sages are lenient when it comes to a tevul yom, for he is not truly impure. However, they rule stringently when it comes to people who are actually impure. If such a person touches these things, he defiles the entire loaf of terumah.",
+                    "<b>Shelled barley or spelt, or wheat whether shelled or unshelled, or black cumin, or sesame or pepper Rabbi Judah says: also white beans become unclean even when touched by a tevul yom, and there is no need to say [when they have come into contact] with other sources of impurity.</b>  This list contrasts with that in section one. These foods will be eaten with the loaf. Therefore if even a tevul yom touches them, the rest of the loaf is defiled. We can see that these foods were considered more edible shelled barley or spelt, wheat, spices. Interesting that Rabbi Judah thinks black beans are less edible than white beans. Bean racism?"
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Liquids that come out of a tevul yom are like those which he has touched: neither of them causes defilement.</b>  Liquids that come out of a person include one's spit and one's urine. Our mishnah deals with the defiling power of such liquids. For a tevul yom, a person who has been to the mikveh but the sun has not yet set, those liquids are pure. They are like liquids that he touches and a tevul yom does not defile liquid such in order to give it first degree impurity. We should note that while a tevul yom would disqualify terumah that he has touched, as we saw in yesterday's chapter, he does not defile non-sacred produce.",
+                    "<b>With regard to all others that are unclean, be they of minor  or major  [degree], the liquids that come out of them are like those they touch; both have first degree impurity.</b>  In contrast, other people who are actually unclean, do defile liquids to give them first degree impurity and the liquids that come out of their body have first degree impurity. It doesn't matter whether these people have high or low levels of impurity. The liquids that they touch or that come out of their body would defile food and vessels but they wouldn't defile people.",
+                    "<b>Except for liquid that is a \"father of impurity.\"</b>  The exception to this rule are the few cases where liquids that come out of a person are themselves considered to be \"fathers of impurity.\" This would include the spit or urine of a zav (see Zavim 5:7). Such liquids would even defile people and things."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean.</b>  As we have learned, a tevul yom disqualifies liquids but he does not cause them to be defiled. So a tevul yom who touches liquid in a pot, the liquids themselves are disqualified (if they are terumah), but they don't have the power to defile the pot. And if the liquids are not terumah, then all is clean, because as we learned in yesterday's mishnah, a tevul yom does not defile non-sacred liquids.",
+                    "<b>If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean.</b>  In contrast, defiled hands (the topic of the next tractate) do defile liquids. These liquids will now in turn defile the pot in which they are in.",
+                    "<b>This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean.</b>  The mishnah now compares the halakhot governing defiled liquids with those governing defiled hands. In the above matter defiled hands were treated more stringently than the tevul yom. However, there is another halakhah in which tevul yom is treated more stringently than defiled hands. Any case of doubt regarding the tevul yom is treated stringently. For instance, if we are not sure if a tevul yom touched something of terumah, the terumah cannot be eaten. However, if a person has unclean hands and we are not sure if he touched something, the thing remains pure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If the porridge was of terumah and the garlic or oil [it contained] was of hullin, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he has disqualified the whole thing;</b>  There is a thick soup, a porridge, made of terumah that has in it hullin (non-sacred) garlic and oil. If a tevul yom touches part of the garlic or oil, all of it is disqualified because the porridge is the main thing. We look at the porridge as if it was all one dish of terumah and the whole thing is disqualified.",
+                    "<b>But if the porridge was of hullin and the garlic or oil it contained was of terumah, and a tevul yom touched part of them, he disqualifies only the part he has touched.</b>  However, if the porridge itself is of hullin and the garlic and oil are terumah, then the garlic or oil are looked at is if they are not connected. If a tevul yom touches part of the garlic or oil, only the part he touches is disqualified.",
+                    "<b>If the greater part was garlic then they go after the majority.</b>  If there is more garlic than oil, then we look at the oil as if it is secondary to the garlic. If he touches the garlic, the oil will also be disqualified.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When it formed one cohesive mass in the pot, but if it was scattered small in the mortar, then it is clean, since he wishes that it should be scattered.</b>  Rabbi Judah says we follow the majority of the garlic or oil only if the garlic has not been mashed and it sticks to the oil and becomes one lump. However, if the garlic has been mashed up and scattered in the pot, then the garlic pieces are not connected to the other pieces.  The part of the garlic he touches is impure, but the rest remains clean.",
+                    "<b>[Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs.</b>  This section is a bit confusing. According to Albeck two different versions of this mishnah have been combined. I will explain according to his commentary. The first version should read thusly: But with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids or those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs. The explanation is that if there was a food that people don't usually mash up with liquids but he nevertheless did mash it up with liquid or if there was a food which is normally mashed up with liquids but he didn't mash it up with liquids, even if they form one cohesive lump in the pot, they are treated like a cake of preserved figs. Only the part he touched is impure. The other version should read: [Similarly] with all other mashed foods which were mashed with liquids. But those which are usually mashed with liquids and yet were mashed without liquids, though they formed one cohesive mass in the pot, are regarded as a cake of preserved figs. The explanation is that other mashed foods that he mashed with liquids are also treated like garlic mashed with oil. If they make a cohesive mass, they are treated as connected. But if they are normally mashed with liquids and he mashed them without liquids, even if they form a cohesive mass, they are not treated as if they are connected."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If the porridge and batter-cake were of hullin and oil of terumah was floating above them, and a tevul yom touched the oil, he disqualifies only the oil.</b>  Since the oil is floating on top of the porridge or batter-cake it doesn't count as being part of the larger base. This is similar to the case in yesterday's mishnah. So if he touches the oil, the rest can be eaten.",
+                    "<b>If he stirred it altogether, all the places where the oil goes are disqualified.</b>  If he mixes the oil into the porridge or batter-cake, then any part of the larger dish that contains the terumah oil is disqualified."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Sanctified meat over which the porridge crusted, and a tevul yom touched the crust, the slices [of meat] are permitted. But if he touched one of the slices, that slice and all [the crust] that comes up with it form a connective the one with the other. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: the two of them serve as connectives to each other.</b>  Sanctified meat, meaning meat that was part of a sacrifice, has been cooked in a pot with some porridge. The porridge crusts over the meat. According to the first opinion, the meat is not considered part of the crust. Thus if a tevul yom touches the crust, the meat is still permitted. It has not been disqualified. However, if he touches the meat itself, the meat and any part of the crust that would be lifted out of the dish with the meat is disqualified. The other parts of the porridge can still be eaten. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that the entire porridge and meat is considered connected. Thus if he touches any part of the porridge, the meat is disqualified.",
+                    "<b>Similarly, with [cooked] beans that have formed a layer over pieces of bread.</b>  The same rule as in section one applies to a case where beans have been cooked in a pot with some bread made of terumah.",
+                    "<b>Beans or other foods cooked in a pot: when they are still separate, do not serve as connectives; but when they become a solid pulp, they do act as connectives. If they formed several solid masses, they are to be counted.</b>  Having mentioned beans, the mishnah now discusses general cases of beans or other foods cooked in a pot. If the pieces of the food are still separate from one another, they don't count as connected. But a solid mass is connected and if he touches one part of the mass, it is all disqualified. If there are several solid masses, then the one he touches has first degree impurity. The mass that is next to it and touching it, has second degree impurity and the third mass will be disqualified if it is of terumah. When the mishnah says \"counted\" it means that the usual process of counting impurity begins from the mass he touched.",
+                    "<b>If oil floats on wine and a tevul yom touched the oil, only the oil is disqualified. But Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: each serves as a connective with the other.</b>  This is similar to the case in yesterday's mishnah. If the oil floats on the wine, only the oil is disqualified. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri again disagrees and holds that the substances are considered to be connected."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A jug which sunk into a cistern containing wine, and a tevul yom touched it: If [he touched it] from the rim and inwards, it serves as a connective; If from the rim and outwards, it does not serve as a connective.</b>  Our mishnah describes an open jug of terumah wine that sinks into a cistern containing hullin (non-sacred) wine. If the tevul yom touches the wine that is inside the rim of the jug, even if this wine came from the cistern, all of the wine in the jug is connected. The terumah wine will all be disqualified. However, if he touches outside of the rim of the jug, then the wine is not connected to the wine in the jug, even if it is the same height as the jug and may indeed be intermingling. The jug in the wine remains pure and can be used as terumah wine.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: even though [the level of wine in the cistern] is the height of a man [above the sunken jar], and he touched [the wine] directly above the mouth of the jar, it serves as a connective.</b>  Again, Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules strictly concerning connectives. Even if there is a tremendous amount of wine in the cistern above the jug of terumah, the entire height of a man, and the tevul yom touched the wine directly above the jug, the wine above the jug and the wine in the jug are disqualified. Basically, this would seem to mean that the entire contents of the cistern are disqualified. If he touched the wine in the cistern on the sides of the jug, the jug's content would not be disqualified."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If a jug had a hole either at its neck, bottom or sides, and a tevul yom touched it [at the hole], it becomes unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if the hole is at its neck or bottom it becomes unclean; but if on its sides, on this side or on that, it remains clean.</b>  The jug has in it terumah wine and is sealed from above, but there is a hole elsewhere on the jug. According to the first opinion, no matter where that hole is, if a tevul yom touches the hole, all of the contents are disqualified. Rabbi Judah says that the contents are disqualified only if he touches either the hole on the top, at its neck, or the whole at the bottom. If he touches the hole at the top, all of the wine below is a base for the upper wine, so it is all considered connected. And if he touches the hole on the bottom of the jug then all of the wine will flow out of the hole below, so all of the wine is connected. But if he touches on one of the sides, the rest of the wine remains pure. Only the wine on the side he touches is disqualified. However, if there is a ratio of 100 parts pure wine to 1 part disqualified wine, then the disqualified wine is nullified and it is all pure, as we will learn in section two.",
+                    "<b>If one poured [liquid] from one vessel into another, and a tevul yom touched the stream, and there was something within the vessel, then [whatsoever he touches] is neutralized in a hundred and one.</b>  If the tevul yom touches the stream flowing from one vessel to the other, he only disqualifies that part that he touches. If there is a 100 to 1 ratio of pure to disqualified liquid, then the part he touched is nullified and it is all pure. This is a similar situation to that in section one."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah discusses a jug that has a bubble in the clay on the side. The bubble is pierced such that there is a passageway from the inside of the jar to the outside. The question is whether or not impurity can come from the outside and get in.",
+                    "<b>A bubble on a jug which was pierced with holes on its inner side and on its outer side, whether above or below:</b>  This section describes the scenario.",
+                    "<b>If [the holes are] opposite one another, it becomes unclean [if touched] by a \"father of uncleanness\" and it becomes unclean if it is in a tent in which there is a corpse.</b>  If the two holes are opposite one another, then the entire contents are susceptible to impurity. If a \"father of uncleanness\" touches the liquids at the hole, then the entire contents of the jug are impure. And if the jug is found in a tent in which there is a corpse, the contents are unclean even if the jug is tightly sealed up top. Since there is an opening, the jug is considered to be open and not protected from impurity.",
+                    "<b>If the inner hole is below and the outer above, it becomes unclean [if touched] by a \"father of uncleanness,\" and it becomes unclean in a tent in which there is a corpse.</b>  The same is true if the inner hole is below and the outer hole is above. This is because the liquid the father of uncleanness touches on the outside would go down and defile all of the liquid on the inside.",
+                    "<b>If the inner hole is above and the outer below, it remains clean if touched by a \"father of uncleanness,\" but it becomes unclean in a tent in which there is a corpse.</b>  However, if the inner hole is above and the outer hole is below, the liquid he touches will not go up and defile the inner liquid. Therefore, the contents remain pure. But in all cases since the jug is open through both sides, the contents are defiled by being in a tent with a corpse."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Handles to food, which count as connectives when touched by a \"father of uncleanness,\" also count as connectives when touched by a tevul yom.</b>  The mishnah refers here to food that is picked up by using a \"handle,\" a piece of the food. We will explain this more when we learn Tractate Oktzin 1:3. If this part is touched by a \"father of uncleanness\" the entire piece of food is defiled. Similarly, if the food was touched by a tevul yom, the entire thing is defiled.",
+                    "<b>If a food was divided into two yet a small part was still attached: Rabbi Meir says: if one takes hold of the larger part and the smaller part is pulled away with it, behold it is like it. Rabbi Judah says: if one takes hold of the smaller part and the greater is also pulled away with it, then behold it is like it.</b>  The mishnah now begins to discuss pieces of food that have been broken into two, and yet are still slightly connected. The question is if one touches part of the disconnected piece, is the entire thing defiled? Rabbi Meir says that for the two parts to be connected all that must occur is that the smaller part would be picked up with the larger part. This would mean that it would be quite to consider the two parts connected. Rabbi Judah rules more leniently. Unless the larger part can be lifted with the smaller part, then the two are not considered connected.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Nehemiah says: [this refers] to the case of the clean portion. But the sages say: [it refers] to the unclean portion.</b>  Rabbi Nehemiah and the sages say that it doesn't matter which part is large or small, what matters is which part was pure and which part was impure. According to Rabbi Nehemiah, we examine the part not touched by the tevul yom. If a person picks up the pure part and the impure part that was touched by the tevul yom comes up with it, it is considered connected. . According to the sages, we examine the part that was touched by the tevul yom. If when one picks up the impure part the pure part comes up with it, then it too is impure.",
+                    "<b>In the case of all other foods, those usually held by the leaf should be taken by the leaf, and those usually held by the stalk should be taken by the stalk.</b>  For other types of food, such as vegetables and fruit, the test is performed by holding the part usually held. If the vegetable/fruit is usually held by the leaf then if he picks it up by the leaf and the vegetable/fruit is lifted up as well, then it is all connected. The same is true if the fruit is usually held by the stalk."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If a beaten egg was on top of vegetables of terumah, and a tevul yom touches the egg, then he disqualifies only that stalk [of the vegetables] that is opposite the part [of the egg] he touched. Rabbi Yose says: the entire upper layer.</b>  The mishnah discusses an egg that was fried and put on top of some terumah vegetables. If the tevul yom touches the egg, he doesn't disqualify all of the vegetables just the stalk that was directly below the part of the egg he touched. Rabbi Yose says that he disqualifies the entire upper layer of vegetables which touch the egg.",
+                    "<b>But if it was arranged like a cap  it does not serve as a connective.</b>  If the egg was arranged like a hat over the vegetables, and the egg did not touch them, then touching the egg doesn’t count as touching the vegetable. They remain pure. I think I'm going to go make myself an egg (I'm writing this on Pesah, and there really isn't much else to eat)."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The streak of an egg that had become congealed on the side of a pan and a tevul yom touched it: If within the rim [of the pan] it serves as a connective; But if outside the rim, it does not serve as a connective.</b>  The streak of an egg is the white of an egg that trailed behind when cracking the egg. It is congealed on the side of a pan and a tevul yom touches it. If he touches the streak that is in the pot, then all of the contents in the pot are disqualified (if they are of terumah). But if the streak is outside the pot, the contents of the pot remain pure.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says that the streak and the part that can be peeled away with it [serves as a connective].</b>  Rabbi Yose says that if the tevul yom touched the streak within the pot, only the parts of the dish that would be picked up with the streak are disqualified. The rest is not considered connected. And if the tevul yom touches the streak outside of the pot, it is never considered connected.",
+                    "<b>The same applies to beans that had congealed on the rim of the pot.</b>  Beans congealed on the rim of the pot have the same rule as does the streak of egg."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit.</b>  This section refers to hullin dough (non-sacred dough) that had been mixed up with some terumah dough or terumah yeast (starter dough). According to the first opinion, this dough is treated as if it were hullin dough and it is not disqualified if a tevul yom touches it. This is another leniency with regard to the rules governing a tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon disagree and say that since there is terumah mixed in with this dough, it is disqualified.",
+                    "<b>Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Barthotha says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.</b>  The dough was originally made susceptible to impurity by contact with a liquid. Then the dough was kneaded together with fruit juice, which does not cause produce susceptible to impurity. The question is: is all of the dough considered to be connected? According to Rabbi Joshua, this dough is all considered connected and if the tevul yom touches one part, it is all disqualified. Rabbi Akiva disagrees. He holds that just as fruit juice does not cause produce to be susceptible to impurity, it does not cause the dough to be connected. The only part that tevul yom disqualifies is the actual part that he touches."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Vegetables of hullin were cooked with oil of terumah and a tevul yom touched it: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he has disqualified the whole thing. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.</b> This is a very similar mishnah to yesterday's similar debate, similar people arguing. Rabbi Elazar holds that since the oil spread onto each vegetable, they are all disqualified. The vegetables, covered with the oil, now have the status of the oil. Rabbi Akiva says that terumah oil that comes into contact with hullin vegetables does not give the vegetables the status of terumah. However, contact with the tevul yom does disqualify the vegetable that he touches because he might have touched oil. In other words, the oil and vegetables are not considered to have the same status but we do have to be concerned lest he actually touched terumah oil."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah deals with a person who is chewing food and the food falls out of his mouth. First it falls onto his clothes and then onto a terumah loaf of bread (and then my poor meatball, it rolled out the door!). The question is does the moisture on the food cause the loaf of terumah to be susceptible to impurity.",
+                    "<b>A clean person who chewed food and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it [the loaf] is not susceptible to uncleanness.</b>  The person did not want this food to end up on his clothes. Therefore, this is considered a case of liquids that are \"not to his liking.\" For liquid to make food susceptible to impurity it generally has to be that he wanted the liquids to come into contact with his food (see introduction to Makhshirin). We should note that the mishnah describes a terumah loaf even though the same halakhah is true even if the loaf is hullin. As far as liquid causing susceptibility to impurity, it makes no difference whether the food is terumah or hullin. The reason the mishnah mentions a terumah loaf is that in section four the tevul yom is discussed and a tevul yom disqualifies terumah.",
+                    "<b>If he ate crushed olives or moist dates, [or] if his intention was to suck out the pit, and it fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is susceptible to uncleanness.</b>  In this case he gathered up a lot of spit in his mouth in order to get the pit out of the olives or dates. Thus the spit was originally something he wanted. Even though later he didn't want the food to fall on his clothes, since originally he did want this spit, it causes the loaf to be susceptible.",
+                    "<b>If he ate dried olives, or dried figs or it was not his intention to suck out the pit, and they fell on his garments and on a loaf of terumah, it is not susceptible to uncleanness.</b>  In this case, the dates or olives were dry and he didn't want to (or perhaps couldn't) suck out the pit. Since he didn't need the liquid of his own spittle it does not cause the loaf to be susceptible to impurity.",
+                    "<b>This is the case irrespective of whether it was a clean person or a tevul yom [who was eating]. Rabbi Meir says: in either case it becomes susceptible to uncleanness in the case of a tevul yom, since liquids issuing from unclean persons render anything susceptible whether it was to his liking or not. But the sages say: a tevul yom is not regarded as an unclean person.</b>  According to the first opinion, the above halakhot are true even if the person was a tevul yom. A tevul yom is not treated as if he were impure as we see in the sages' response to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Meir says that a tevul yom is considered like an impure person, and an impure person who causes liquids to come into contact with produce causes the produce to be susceptible (and impure) regardless of whether it was to his liking. This halakhah was taught in Makshirin 1:1. While this debate is about one particular and obscure case, we see here a broad dispute. Rabbi Meir holds that a tevul yom, a person who went to the mikveh but the sun has not yet set, is treated as if he was impure. The sages disagree."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>If food that was tithe had been rendered susceptible to impurity by a liquid, and a tevul yom or one with unwashed hands touched it, terumah of tithe  may still be removed from it in purity, since it only has third degree uncleanness, and third degree uncleanness counts as clean in hullin.</b> A tevul yom or one who has unwashed hands touches tithe. Both of these people are considered as having second degree impurity. They will cause the food to have third degree impurity. However, third degree impurity counts as clean if the food is hullin non sacred. It only disqualifies terumah. Since tithe is considered hullin, the produce remains pure. Therefore, one may remove the terumah from this tithe, as is always done. In other words, although we will separate terumah from it in the future, right now it does not have the status of terumah. Hence it is not disqualified."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A woman who is a tevulat yom may knead dough, cut off the hallah, and set it apart, and she should arrange it on an Egyptian basket,  or on a tray, and then bring it near  and call it by its name. For it [the dough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin.</b> The woman is a tevulat yom (the feminine form of tevul yom). When she touches the dough, it will have third degree uncleanness, which is not unclean when it comes to hullin. The problem is that if she touches the hallah, the part of the dough that is removed and given to the priest, she will disqualify it. Hallah is holy and therefore a tevul yom touching it would defile it and a priest couldn't eat it. To prevent the hallah from being defiled she first separates it but doesn't yet call it hallah. Then she puts it on a type of tray that cannot receive impurity or an Egyptian basket which also cannot become impure. Then she has to bring the other dough near and then, without touching it, she can call the hallah by its name Hallah!  This way she can give pure terumah to the thankful priest. Pretty cool, huh?"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis is the third mishnah in which we learn that something that has third degree impurity does not defile hullin.",
+                    "<b>A trough which is a tevulat yom, one may knead dough in it and cut off the portion for hallah and bring it near and call it by name [as hallah]; for it [the trough] has third degree uncleanness and third degree uncleanness is clean in hullin.</b> The kneading trough itself is a \"tevulat yom\" it was immersed in the mikveh to cleanse it, but the sun had not yet set. The person taking the hallah is pure, so she can simply remove the hallah, bring it near the dough without allowing it to touch the trough and call it by its name. Since the person is pure she doesn't need to first arrange it on a vessel that cannot receive impurity. And as we have learned before, since the trough has  third degree impurity, it doesn't defile the dough itself, which is hullin."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A flagon was a tevul yom and they filled it from a cask containing tithes from which terumah had not yet been taken:</b>  There is a cask of tithe of some sort of produce. The terumah which must be taken from tithes has not yet been removed from the produce. They then filled up a flagon which was a tevul yom (it had been immersed but the sun had not yet set). The question is how to separate terumah without defiling it by contact with the tevul yom flagon?",
+                    "<b>If one said, let this be terumah of tithe after nightfall, it becomes terumah of tithe.</b>  The solution is for the person to say that the terumah of tithe will only come into being after nightfall. In such a way the terumah will remain pure because by then the flagon will be pure.",
+                    "<b>But if he said: let this be the food for the eruv, he has said nothing.</b>  In this section, the person wants to use the contents of the flagon as his eruv, the shared meal that will allow him to carry in a courtyard. The problem is that the eruv must be placed before the sun sets and before the sun sets this produce is still tithe from which terumah has not been removed, which cannot be used for an eruv (see Eruvin 3:2). Therefore, if he tries to use this as his eruv, it doesn't work.",
+                    "<b>If the cask was broken, the contents of the flagon still remain tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken. If the flagon was broken, then what is in the cask still remains tithe from which terumah had not yet been taken.</b>  If either the cask or the flagon breaks before the sun sets, before the statement he made in section two has had time to become operative, then the contents of the other container remain tithe that has not had terumah removed. In other words, until the sun sets his statement doesn't succeed in separating terumah from the tithe."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Originally they said: one may redeem [second tithe] for the produce of an am ha-arez. Later they reconsidered and said: also for money of his.<br>Originally they said that if a man was being led out to execution and said, “Write a get for my wife”, they may write a get and give [it to her]. Later they reconsidered and said, even if he were leaving on a sea voyage or on a caravan journey. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri says: even if he were dangerously ill.</b>  Originally they said that a \"haver\" a person who observes the tithing and purity laws can take produce from an am haaretz and redeem the second tithe that is in it. Second tithe must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. To make this easier, one is allowed to redeem the second tithe for money and then use that money to buy food in Jerusalem. In this way the produce becomes desacralized. The mishnah describes an am haaretz, one who doesn't observe these laws, who then gives his produce to a haver so that the haver can redeem the second tithe. The haver can then take out the second tithe and redeem it for money. He need not be concerned that all of the produce that the am haaretz gave him was tithe from which second tithe cannot be redeemed.",
+                    "They then were more lenient and said that even if the am haaretz gave him money to redeem, meaning instead of giving him the produce the am haaretz gave him the money so that the haver could turn it into maaser sheni (second tithe) the haver could still do this. We are not concerned that the money the am haaretz gave him was already second tithe money, which could not be used to redeem produce. Besides the particulars of this mishnah, which are always interesting, I think it is interesting that the mishnah portrays an am haaretz coming to the haver to receive help in separating second tithe. While I can't promise that this is historically accurate, it at least shows that the rabbis imagined themselves as providing religious services for the general, uneducated populace.",
+                    "This section is found word for word in Gittin 6:5. My commentary here is the same as there. Usually a husband must state that he wishes the get (the divorce document) to be written and given to the woman.  However, in extenuating circumstances where the husband seems to have been facing immanent death, it is highly unlikely that when he instructed someone to write a get, he wanted the get to be written but not given to his wife.  After all, why else would he want to write a get at this point?  Therefore, one who hears the husband says “Write a get for my wife” may write it and even give it to her.  At first the category of people facing immanent death included only a person being led out to execution. Later, they expanded the category to include one leaving for a sea voyage or a caravan journey.  These men would have wanted to write out a get that would go into effect should they not return, not an unlikely scenario.  This would prevent their wives from being left as “agunot” a woman who doesn’t know if her husband is alive or dead and therefore cannot remarry. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri added that an agent who hears such a statement from a dangerously ill person may also write and give the get.  This man may want to divorce his wife in order to exempt her from levirate marriage (if he was to do childless and with a brother she would have to undergo yibbum or halitzah).  Again, it is very unlikely that a dying man would want to write a get but not give it to his wife, and therefore we are not concerned with such a possibility."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah is the same as Kelim 13:7. It deals with vessels that are basically wooden, but have one part made of metal.\nThe reason that this mishnah is placed here is Rabbi Joshua's comments found at the end. According to Albeck, this comment refers to all of the cases in which the sages were lenient in this chapter, and therefore his words are appropriate here. In other words, sections one and two belong in Kelim, which talks about the purity of vessels. And section three belongs more here. Somehow they were paired together and that's why both sections appear in both places.\nMy commentary below is the same as it is there in Kelim.",
+                    "<b>If Ashkelon grappling-irons were broken but their hooks remained, they remain susceptible to impurity.</b>  Since the hooks are the main parts of the grappling-irons, as long as they remain, the vessel is susceptible to impurity. Furthermore, although the vessel is made of wood, since its hooks are of metal, it is susceptible.",
+                    "<b>If a pitch-fork, winnowing-fan, or rake, and the same applies to a hair-comb, lost one of its teeth and it was replaced by one of metal, it is susceptible to impurity.</b>  These are all tools with teeth. Most of the tool is made of wood, but one of the missing wooden teeth was replaced with metal. This one metal tooth gives the entire vessel the status of a metal vessel and it is therefore susceptible to impurity.",
+                    "<b>And concerning all these Rabbi Joshua said: the scribes have here introduced a new principle of law, and I have no explanation to offer.</b>  Rabbi Joshua adds here a fascinating note, one which I don't believe we have encountered elsewhere in the Mishnah. In all of the above cases, since the basic vessel was of wood, and it was a simple vessel without a receptacle, the vessel should not have been susceptible to impurity. The innovation that the earlier scribes innovated was that although only one part was of metal, the entire vessel is susceptible. Rabbi Joshua accepts this innovation, but nevertheless admits that he does not understand it. We can see here his deference to tradition, and yet his striving to understand it, and his sense of frustration when he cannot. This is an attitude that I believe is very typical among rabbis. They have a strong sense of respect for tradition, and yet they do not simply accept all that they have received. Rather, they constantly attempt to understand the early halakhot, to make sense out of them, and to use the principles that they perceive as underlying these halakhot to derive further halakhot."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of Tevul Yom deals with a tevul yom who is separating terumah from a cistern.",
+                    "<b>If one was taking terumah from a cistern and said: \"Let this be terumah provided it comes up safely,\" [it is implied that he meant] safely from being broken or spilled,   but not from becoming impure; But Rabbi Shimon says: also from impurity.</b>  The person was taking terumah from a cistern of wine. He wanted to dip a jug into the cistern, declare the contents of the jug terumah and then have the remainder of the cistern become drinkable. He stipulated that it would be terumah only if the jug came up \"safely.\" The question is what does \"safely\" mean. The first opinion holds that \"safely\" means that the jug didn't break or its contents spill. If the jug did break and the wine fell back into the cistern, it wouldn't give the contents of the cistern the status of terumah and hullin mixed together. However, if he accidentally disqualified the terumah wine (because he was a tevul yom) then his terumah is terumah and it will be disqualified (what the mishnah calls made impure). Rabbi Shimon rules more leniently. His intention of saying \"safely\" was that even if the contents should be defiled, the separation of terumah wouldn't count. If he brought up the jug and accidentally defiled the wine, the jug would not be terumah.",
+                    "<b>If it were broken, it does not render [the contents of the cistern] subject to the restrictions of terumah.</b>  If the jug broke and the contents fell back into the cistern, then the contents of the cistern are not considered to have terumah in them. That is they don't have the rules of doubtful terumah due to the jug's contents, because the jug wasn't terumah.",
+                    "<b>How far away can it be broken and still not make [the contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions?  Only so far that if it rolls back, it can reach the cistern.</b>  The question now is for how long does this stipulation last? In other words, how far away from the cistern can the jug go and still not be considered terumah if it is broken. The mishnah rules that if the jug breaks when it is still close enough to the cistern that it could roll back there in one push, then the terumah is not terumah. But if he takes it further away, and then it breaks, the terumah does count as terumah. If some of it falls into the cistern, the contents of the cistern will have to be considered doubtful terumah.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: even if one had the intention of making such a stipulation, but did not do so, and it broke, it does not make the [contents of the cistern] subject to terumah restrictions, for this is a stipulation laid down by the court.</b>  Finally, the mishnah rules that even if he didn't specifically stipulate that the contents had to come up safely for them to be terumah, the stipulation is still valid. This is because it is a \"court stipulation\" it is something that the court dictates is understood even if not stated explicitly. A person, after all, would only benefit from making such a statement. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Tevul Yom! As I always write, 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. One thing that you might have been wonder about while studying this tractate was what made the sages so interested in this category. Of course you probably know by the now that the answer will not be practical i.e. this was a commonly occurring issue. Rather, I think this is another example of the sort of topic that really interested the rabbis in-between or marginal cases. The tevul yom is sort of pure, for s/he has already been to the mikveh. But s/he is also impure because the sun hasn't set. This type of category seems to have immensely interested the sages, and although we tend to prefer to see practical ramifications for everything the rabbis said, the truth is that much of rabbinic literature, and especially the Mishnah, is interested in the theoretical and not the practical. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Yadayim."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+            "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה טבול יום",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Tahorot"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה טבול יום",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Tevul Yom",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

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

@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim",
+    "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 ידים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Tahorot"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "According to Torah law a person becomes impure only through contact with a \"father of uncleanness\" and not through contact with something that only has first degree or lesser uncleanness. However, the rabbis decreed that if a person touches something with first degree uncleanness his hands become defiled with second degree uncleanness. If he then goes and touches terumah he disqualifies it such that a kohen could not eat it. At a later period in history, the rabbis added to this and stated that even if one is not sure if he touched something that was impure, his hands are impure. People tend to touch many things (in Hebrew this is phrased—hands are busy) and it would be virtually impossible to prevent one's hands from ever touching something that was impure. To remedy this problem the rabbis decreed that one should always wash one's hands before eating any food. This is the source of the custom that remains to this day to ritually wash one's hands before eating. Today we only do this before eating bread, but originally they would have washed their hands ritually before eating any food.",
+            "The issue of washing hands was quite contentious in the ancient world and there are even some passages in the New Testament in which the Pharisees object to the fact that Jesus's student don't wash their hands before eating (see Mark 7 and Matthew 15). Furthermore, people were often meticulous about washing their hands without any ritual connection—it was done purely out of cleanliness. Thus there are many theories as to how the rabbis came up with the idea of ritual hand-washing and the possibility that hands could be purified or defiled as if they were not a part of the body. It is a fascinating topic, one which I partially addressed in my book, The Schechter Haggadah. In my commentary on this tractate we will not explore the origins of ritual hand-washing. Rather we will focus on how these rules manifest themselves in the Mishnah itself."
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first mishnah of Yadayim is about how much water is necessary for the ritual washing of one's hands. A log is about 1/2 a liter of water. So the basic amount of 1/4 log works out to about 100 grams of water, a third of a can of Coke for those who drink that stuff.\nWe should note that the Mishnah expresses washing one's hands by referring to a servant doing the work. The servant literally gives water to the diner's hands. This is expressive of the setting of a formal banquet. In other words the Hebrew phrase \"netilat yadayim\" or \"notnim leyadim\" used in this Mishnah are translations of common Greek words.  It shows how much influence eating customs had on the Jews of the period.",
+                    "<b>[A minimum of] a quarter [of a log] of water must be poured over the hands for one [person] and even for two.</b>  For two people it is sufficient to have one quarter log of water. Although there won't be this amount left for the second person who has water put over his hands, since the second pouring comes from an amount that was originally sufficient, and the original amount was used to purify, the lesser amount of water still remaining is effective. We should note that 1/4 of a log is really a very little amount of water. It would not be effective to truly clean one's hands. It seems to have ritual function only.",
+                    "<b>A minimum of half  a log must be poured over the hands for three or four persons.</b>  For three or four persons they must double the amount to half a log.",
+                    "<b>A minimum of one log [is sufficient] for five, ten, or one hundred persons.</b>  According to this opinion, once we get to a higher number, even 100, one log is sufficient. There need not be 1/4 of a log per person.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: as long as there is not less than a quarter of a log left for the last person among them.</b>  Rabbi Yose disagrees with the previous three sections. There must always be 1/4 of a log left over for each person. Many people could wash from the same washing cup (or whatever they used) but there has to be 1/4 of a log for each and every one.",
+                    "<b>More [water] may be added to the second water, but more may not be added to the first water.</b>  When one pours water over one's hands their need to be 2 pourings. For the first pouring the water must go up to the joint, which is interpreted either as the second joint of the fingers or the joint attaching the fingers to the hand (we will see this in 2:3). The problem is that his fingers now defile the water that is on them. To fix this problem he then washes off the water with more water. We will learn more about this process in chapter two. If the first washing didn't reach all the way to the joint, he is not allowed to pour the second pouring in a place where the first one didn't reach. Rather, he would have to redo the whole thing. But if the second pouring didn't reach the joint, he can just add water to the spots he missed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah deals with what kind of vessel can be used to pour water over one's hands.",
+                    "<b>Water may be poured over the hands out of any kind of vessel, even out of vessels made of animal dung, out of vessels made of stone or out of vessels made of clay.</b>  Any kind of vessel can be used for the ritual washing of hands, even vessels that are not susceptible to impurity such as vessels made of dung or stone (see Kelim 10:1). In other words, one might have thought that since these vessels are not susceptible to impurity they do not count as vessels, therefore the mishnah teaches that they do count as vessels and can be used for handwashing.",
+                    "<b>Water may not be poured from the sides of [broken] vessels or from the bottom of a ladle or from the stopper of a jar.</b>  All of these objects do not count as \"vessels\" and therefore cannot be used for handwashing.",
+                    "<b>Nor may one pour [water] over the hands of his fellow out of his cupped hands.</b>  Cupped hands are also no good (I'll fess up I've tried this a few times when I couldn't find a cup).",
+                    "<b>Because one may not draw, nor sanctify, nor sprinkle the water of purification,   nor pour water over the hands except in a vessel.</b>  The mishnah now lists water rituals that require a vessel. Most of these involve the purification ritual of the red heifer ashes. The first is drawing water from a live spring to be used in the red heifer ritual. The second is putting the ashes into the water this must be done in a vessel. The third is sprinkling the waters of purification (the water which has the ashes of the red heifer) on the impure person. The fourth is handwashing.",
+                    "<b>And only vessels closely covered with a lid protect [their contents from uncleanness].</b>  If an earthenware vessel with a tight-fitting lid is found in a tent with a corpse in it, the vessels contents are not defiled (neither is the vessel). However, only a real vessel acts in this manner.",
+                    "<b>And  only vessels protect [their contents from uncleanness] inside earthenware vessels.</b>  Furthermore, if there is a vessel with food in it and it is in an earthenware vessel in which there is also a sheretz (a creepy crawly defiling thing) the vessel protects the food inside it from becoming impure (see Kelim 8:3). But this protection is only if the inside vessel is really a vessel."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe next three mishnayot deal with the water used for netilat yadayim.",
+                    "<b>Water which had become so unfit that it could not be drunk by a beast: If it was in a vessel it is invalid, But if it was in the ground  it is valid.</b>  If the water that he wants to use for netilat yadayim was so dirty that even a cow or other beast wouldn't drink it, it can't be used if the water has been put in a vessel. Note that this water would have to be pretty dirty, or at least it seems so to me. But if the water is still pooled on the ground, he can use it to immerse his hands for this pool has the status of a mikveh. If he could immerse his whole body in such a pool, all the more so he can immerse his hands.",
+                    "<b>If there fell into [the water], dye, or gum or sulphate of copper and its color changed, it is invalid.</b>  If any inks or dyes fall into the water and thereby change its color, the water can no longer be used.",
+                    "<b>If a person did any work with it or soaked his bread in it, it is invalid.</b>  Water that has used for work (perhaps as a weight on a balance) or for soaking bread, is no longer considered water and cannot be used for netilat yadayim.",
+                    "<b>Shimon of Teman says: even if he intended to soak his bread in one water and it fell into another water the water is valid.</b>  Shimon of Teman (Yemen) holds that the water is disqualified for use only if he intentionally soaked his bread in it. His statement implies that it is obvious that if he didn't intend to soak his bread in the water and the bread simply fell in, the water is still valid for use. He goes one step further. Even if he did intend to use water to soak the bread, but he intended to put the bread in one vessel and it went into another vessel, the vessel with the bread in it can still be used. The water is disqualified only if the bread goes directly into the vessel into which he intended to put it."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he cleansed vessels with the water or scrubbed  measures with it, [the water] is invalid.</b>  If he used the water to clean vessels or scrub measures the water is invalid. This is because the water is considered \"waste water\" which shouldn't be used to ritually clean hands. Furthermore, he has used the water for work, and therefore it can't be used.",
+                    "<b>If he rinsed with it vessels which had already been rinsed or new vessels, it is valid. Rabbi Yose declares [the water] invalid if they were new vessels.</b>  If the vessels didn't need to be washed or scrubbed because they were either clean or new, then the water remains valid because it didn't need to be used. Rabbi Yose says that if the water was used to wash new vessels it is still disqualified since it is customary to wash off new vessels. In other words, something that is customary to do is considered work, even if it is isn't strictly speaking necessary."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Water in which the baker dips his loaves is invalid; But if he moistened his hands in the water it is valid.</b>  If the baker dipped his loaves into the water, the water is invalid. This is the same as the rule in yesterday's mishnah. Today's mishnah adds that if the baker just uses the water to moisten his hands, and then from his hands he puts the water onto the loaves, the water remains valid because he didn't put the loaves directly into the water.",
+                    "<b>All are fit to pour water over the hands, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor.</b>  After having discussed rules concerning the vessel and the water the mishnah now turns its attention to the person or power that pours the water over the hands. As we shall see, the requirement is that some power should cause the water to be poured over the hands. Water which flows on its own, for instance rainwater coming out of a drainage pipe, cannot be used for netilat yadayim. There is no requirement for intention (kavvanah) for netilat yadayim. Therefore, even people who legally are not considered to have kavanah can pour the water.",
+                    "<b>A person may place the jug between his knees and pour out the water Or he may turn the jug on its side and pour it out.</b>  A person puts a jug with water in it between his legs and then tilts it to the side. This is a valid way of performing netilat yadayim because his legs count as having caused the water to be poured onto his hands. He can even tilt the jug on its side and then put his hands under the water pouring out. Even though the water is currently (no pun intended) coming out of the jug on its own, since he tilted the jug on its side, it counts as an outside power.",
+                    "<b>A monkey may pour water over the hands.</b>  Even a monkey could pour water over someone's hands. In other words, there must be an outside power, but that power need not be human.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose declares these [latter] two cases invalid.</b>  Rabbi Yose says that the final two cases are invalid because the water needs to be poured by a force initiated by a person. So if the water flows from the barrel on its own or a monkey pours the water, the hand-washing is invalid."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>If he poured water over one of his hands with a single rinsing his hand becomes clean.</b>  The person poured water over only one hand, because he intended to eat with only one hand. He also only poured one pouring, and not two. His hand is pure even if he didn't pour the full 1/4 log because the water comes from a vessel with a pure 1/4 log. However, if the water came from a vessel with a lesser amount, his hand would not be pure.",
+                    "<b>If over both his hands with a single rinsing: Rabbi Meir declares them to be unclean until he pours a minimum of a quarter of a log of water over them.</b>  If he tries to do this with both hands, meaning pour water over them only once, there must be at least 1/4 of a log poured over the two hands. Rabbi Meir holds that if one uses the full 1/4 log, he doesn't need to wash off the first water that he poured onto his hands. However, if he pours water twice over his hands, then his hands are pure even if he didn't pour a full 1/4 log as long as they came from a vessel with at least 1/4 of a log in it.",
+                    "<b>If a loaf of terumah fell on the water the loaf is clean. Rabbi Yose declares it to be unclean.</b>  If a loaf of terumah falls on the water that he used to wash his hand, the first opinion holds that the loaf is still clean. According to this opinion the water is clean. Rabbi Yose holds that the water purified the hands, but it itself has become impure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he poured the first water over his hands [while standing] in one place, and the second water over his hands [while standing] in another place, and a loaf of terumah fell on the first water, the loaf becomes unclean. But if it fell on the second water it remains clean.</b>  The first water that pours off his hands is impure. Therefore, if a pure loaf of terumah falls onto this water, it is impure. But the second water is pure and purifies the water on his hands. Therefore if the loaf falls onto this water, it is pure.",
+                    "<b>If he poured the first and the second water [while standing] in one place, and a loaf of terumah fell onto the water, the loaf becomes unclean.</b>  In this case, both the first and second water fall onto the same place on the ground. If a loaf falls into this water, it is defiled because the second water cleanses only the water that is on his hands. It does not cleanse the water that is on the ground.",
+                    "<b>If he poured the first water over his hands and a splinter or a piece of gravel is found on his hands, [his hands] remain unclean, because the latter water only makes the first water on the hands clean.</b>  In this case there is something on his hands when he washes them. The second washing purifies only the water that is on his hands, not the water that is on something else, such as a splinter or piece of gravel. This water remains impure and it would go back and defile his hands.",
+                    "<b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if any creature from the water [was on the hands while they are being cleaned] they are clean.</b>  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel seems to think that creatures that are from the water, like a little worm, count as if they were water. So if one finds a worm on his hand after washing, the water that's on the worm doesn't go back and defile his hands. It might be a bit yucky though."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Hands become unclean and are made clean as far as the joint.</b>  For matters of purity, the hand goes up to the \"joint.\" There are two explanations of this. The first is the middle joint of the fingers and the second is the joint where the fingers join the hand. Below, I will simply use the word \"joint.\"",
+                    "<b>How so? If he poured the first water over the hands as far as the joint and poured the second water over the hands beyond the joint and the latter flowed back to the hands, the hands are clean.</b>  The mishnah now explains some ramifications of this ruling. If he pours water the first time over his hands as far as the joint and then the second time beyond the joint, and the second water goes back onto his hand, his hands are pure. This is because beyond the joint the hand is not impure. So the second water was not made impure by going beyond the joint.",
+                    "<b>If he poured the first and the second water over the hands beyond the joint and they flowed back to the hands, the hands remain unclean.</b>  In this case he pours both beyond the joint and then the water flows back onto his hands. His hands remain impure because the first water that went beyond the joint wasn't purified by the second water that was also beyond the joint, because this water is only purified when it is on the hand. When the water goes back it defiles his hand again.",
+                    "<b>If he poured the first water over one of his hands and then changed his mind and poured the second water over both his hands, they are unclean.</b>  The mishnah now deals with a different subject one who changes his mind about how many hands to wash. If the first time he washes, he washes only one hand and then the second time he washes both hands and the water from the second hand goes on to the first hand, the first hand is defiled. This is because the water that went on the second hand was only there for the first time.",
+                    "<b>If he poured the first water over both his hands and then changed his mind and poured the second water over one of his hands, his one hand becomes clean.</b>  However, in the opposite case, where he first washed both hands and then only one, the one hand that was washed twice is pure.",
+                    "<b>If he poured water over one of his hands and rubbed it on the other hand it remains unclean.</b>  If he washes one hand (even twice) and then rubs it on the other, the water becomes impure on the second hand. This water then goes back and defiles the first hand.",
+                    "<b>If he rubbed it on his head or on the wall it is clean.</b>  However, if he rubs his hands on his head or the wall, the water is not defiled. The water that then goes back onto his hands does not defile them again.",
+                    "<b>Water may be poured over the hands of four or five persons, each hand being by the side of the other, or being one above the other, provided that the hands are held loosely so that the water flows between them.</b>  One can pour water over several people's hands at once and we are not concerned that one person's hands would defile another person's. The only important rule is that the hands shouldn't be tightly clenched with one another. Water must be allowed to flow in-between."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis long mishnah is about cases of doubtful impurity involving hands. While the mishnah is quite long, it is not actually too difficult.",
+                    "<b>If there was a doubt whether any work has been done with the water or not, A doubt whether the water contains the requisite quantity or not, A doubt whether it is unclean or clean, In these cases the doubt is considered to be clean because they have said in a case of doubt concerning hands as to whether they have become unclean or have conveyed uncleanness or have become clean, they are considered to be clean. Rabbi Yose says: in a case [of doubt as to] whether they have become clean they are considered to be unclean.</b>  There are three types of \"doubts\" that could cause the water not to have purified his hands. As we learned in 1:3, if work was done with the water it cannot be used to wash his hands. There must be a quarter of a log (1:1) and the water must be pure. In all of these cases, if there is a doubt as to whether his hands were purified, the law is lenient and we treat them as pure. Below the mishnah will explain the meaning of \"become unclean\" and \"convey uncleanness.\" To become pure means that if he isn't sure whether he effectively purified his hands, they are considered pure. This refers to the cases in the beginning of the mishnah cases where there was a doubt whether the water he used could purify his hands. Rabbi Yose disagrees with the ruling concerning doubt over whether his hands have become pure. Because his hands are presumed to be impure, they cannot be considered pure unless we are sure that they have been purified. The status quo remains.",
+                    "<b>How so? If his hands were clean and there were two unclean loaves before him and there was a doubt whether he touched them or not; Or if his hands were unclean and there were two clean loaves before him and there was a doubt whether he touched them or not; Or if one of his hands was unclean and the other clean and there were two clean loaves before him and he touched one of them and there was a doubt whether he touched it with the unclean hand or with the clean hand; Or if his hands were clean and there were two loaves before him one of which was unclean and the other clean and he touched one of them and there was a doubt whether he touched the unclean one or the clean one; Or if one of his hands was unclean and the other clean and there were two loaves before him one of which was unclean and the other clean, and he touched both of them, and there is a doubt whether the unclean hand touched the unclean loaf or whether the clean hand touched the clean loaf or whether the clean hand touched the unclean loaf or whether the unclean hand touched the clean loaf The hands remain in the same state as they were before and the loaves remain in the same state as they were before.</b>  The mishnah now goes through a long list of cases in which an impure hand might have touched a pure loaf of terumah or vice versa. Note that this is a different type of doubt than in section one. In section one, the doubt was whether his hands had been purified. Here the doubt is whether he defiled a loaf of terumah. The mishnah rules that in all of these cases his hands and the loaves remain in their previously assumed state. The hand or hands that were pure remain pure and the loaf or loaves that were pure remain pure. In other words, in cases of doubt the status quo remains."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness.<br>Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness.<br>They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness].<br>Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.<br>Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, \"My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel.\"  He said to her: \"My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?\"  But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.</b><br>Section one: In Tractate Negaim we learned about the house that has some sort of scale disease. Rabbi Akiva says that if someone puts just his hands into such a house, the hands have first degree uncleanness. The other sages say that his hands only have second degree uncleanness.<br>Second two: There is a similar dispute concerning a person who defiles garments. This is a about whom the Torah says that he must wash his clothes: for instance one who touches a zav or one who touches something a zav lied upon, or who touches a zavah or a menstruant. According to Rabbi Akiva when such a person is touching the source of uncleanness, another person who touches him will get first degree uncleanness in his hands. The other sages say that he will get second degree uncleanness.<br>Section three: The other sages now argue with Rabbi Akiva, asking him where we find that hands can have first degree impurity.<br>Rabbi Akiva responds that in essence they are right. Hands can only have first degree impurity if the whole body also has first degree impurity. However, these cases in sections one and two are exceptions for in these cases the body wasn't defiled at all. Only in these cases can someone's hands have first degree impurity while the rest of his body remains pure.<br>Section four: We find a similar dispute regarding foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids. These foods now have second degree impurity (see Zavim 5:12). According to Rabbi Joshua they defile hands such that the hands have second degree impurity. The other rabbis say that only foods or vessels that were defiled by a father of uncleanness and thereby have first degree impurity can defile hands. But if foods have only second degree impurity, they don't defile hands at all.<br>Section five: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel now cites a story about a woman who came in front of Rabban Gamaliel, his father. The woman's hands had gone into the air-space of an impure earthenware vessel. Such vessels convey impurity through their air-space. Rabban Gamaliel asks her if the vessel had received its impurity from contact with a father of uncleanness or whether the vessel was defiled by something with first degree uncleanness? Unfortunately, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel never heard the response (those kids, they're never listening!).<br>The sages say that their halakhah from section four is applicable here. If the earthenware vessel had received impurity from a father of uncleanness then her hands would have second degree uncleanness. But if the vessel had been defiled by something with first degree uncleanness, her hands would be pure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues with a dispute between Rabbi Joshua and the sages. As part of their argument they mention the concept that the Holy Scriptures, meaning the Tanakh or Bible, defile the hands. This is a topic that will be discussed throughout the remainder of the chapter. There are two explanations for this halakhah. The traditional explanation is a bit strange and convoluted but it goes like this. People used to store their terumah near the same place that they stored holy scrolls (the Tanakh). Mice would come to eat the terumah and would also eat through the scrolls. To prevent this, the rabbis declared that the scrolls would defile the terumah. This would discourage people from storing terumah near their scrolls. One can clearly sense that this simply does not seem likely to have been the origins of this idea.\nRecently, academic scholars have explained that according to some laws in the Torah holiness can \"rub off\" on an item with which it has contact. This rubbing off on the item works a little bit like impurity, except the terminology is not that the item becomes \"impure\" rather it becomes \"holy.\" The rabbis inherited the concept that scrolls of Scripture were so holy that anything they touched would become \"holy\" as well. Since this was the only such situation that the rabbis encountered, they used the normal term for such \"rubbing off\" which is impurity. In other words, what really seems to happen is that the hands become holy by virtue of contact with the scrolls. Nevertheless, by the time of the Mishnah these laws are part of the general purity system.",
+                    "<b>Anything which disqualifies terumah defiles hands with a second degree of uncleanness.</b>  Anything that has even second degree uncleanness will defile the hands so that they too have second degree uncleanness. This accords with Rabbi Joshua's opinion in yesterday's mishnah. The other rabbis disagree.",
+                    "<b>One [unwashed] hand defiles the other hand, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has second degree of uncleanness cannot convey second degree of uncleanness.</b>  An unwashed hand has second degree uncleanness and therefore it disqualifies terumah. According to Rabbi Joshua this means that if one hand is unwashed and it touches a washed hand it will defile it. The sages reject his opinion, as they did in yesterday's mishnah, holding that something that has second degree impurity cannot convey impurity to anything else. All it can do is disqualify terumah.",
+                    "<b>He said to them: But do not the Holy Scriptures which have second degree of uncleanness defile the hands? They said to him: the laws of the Torah may not be argued from the laws of the scribes, nor may the laws of the scribes be argued from the laws of the Torah, nor may the laws of the scribes be argued from [other] laws of the scribes.</b>  Rabbi Joshua uses the concept of the Holy Scriptures defiling the hands as proof for his opinion that anything with second degree uncleanness conveys uncleanness to hands. According to the rabbis, the Tanakh has second degree uncleanness and it defiles the hands. Therefore, everything that has second degree uncleanness should similarly defile the hands. The other rabbis reject learning from one category of rabbinic law to another. The idea that the Tanakh defiles the hands is a \"law of the scribes\" it is of rabbinic origin. Similarly, the halakhah that unwashed hands defile terumah is also of rabbinic origin (see the introduction). One cannot use one halakhah of rabbinic origin to prove another halakhah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The straps of the tefillin [when connected] with the tefillin [boxes] defile the hands.</b>  Tefillin boxes have scrolls of Scripture in them. Therefore, they clearly would defile the hands. According to the first opinion, the straps do as well, as long as they are tied to the tefillin boxes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: the straps of the tefillin do not defile the hands.</b>  Rabbi Shimon says that the straps do not defile the hands, since they are only connected to the boxes they don't have the scrolls in them."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The margin on a scroll   which is above or below or at the beginning or at the end defiles the hands.</b>  Although there is nothing written in the margins of the Tanakh scrolls, they still defile the hands because they are part of the scroll.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: the margin at the end does not render unclean [the hands] until a handle is fastened to it.</b>  Rabbi Judah says that the margin at the end of the scroll doesn't defile because it could always be cut off. It only defiles once they have used that extra piece of scroll to attach a handle. Once a handle has been attached the end margin has become a necessary part of the scroll and it too defiles."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, \"And it came to pass when the ark set forward\" (Numbers 10:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, \"And it came to pass when the ark set forward\", defiles the hands.<br>All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands.<br>The Song of Songs and Kohelet ( defile the hands.<br>Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet.<br>Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs.<br>Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel.<br>Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands.<br>Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet.<br>Rabbi Yohanan ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision.</b><br>Today's mishnah contains a fascinating argument over whether two books from the Tanakh, Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) and the Song of Songs (Shir Hashirim) defile the hands. This is basically an argument over whether these books should be included in the Biblical canon. We cannot be certain why there was an argument over these specific books. Probably the content of these books caused certain sages to wish to cut them out of the canon. Kohelet is a deeply skeptical work, one which frequently questions whether the world works justly. One central message of the book is that the righteous and the evil receive the same lot in this world. Sometimes life is even worse for the righteous than it is for the evil. Song of Songs seems to be a love song between a man and a woman. What place does such literature have, some rabbis asked, in the biblical canon? In the end, both books were accepted into the canon and have been found in Jewish (and non-Jewish) bibles ever since.<br>Section one: The smallest \"parsha\" in the Torah is Numbers 11:35-36. These two verses, which contain 85 letters, are set off as a \"parsha\" in the traditional writing of the Torah. The mishnah uses this number as a paradigm for what constitutes a \"scroll\" such that it would defile the hands. There either have to remain 85 letters from a scroll that used to have more, or a new scroll has to already have 85 letters. Less than 85 letters and the scroll will not defile the hands.<br>Sections 2-9: The remainder of the mishnah is an extended discussion/argument over whether two books, Kohelet and Shir Hashirim (Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs) defile the hands (i.e. are they part of the canon).<br>Ultimately, we know that both of these books were accepted into the Jewish Bible, and indeed were rich sources for rabbinic midrashim. There are probably several reasons why they were accepted. First and foremost, Shir Hashirim is explicitly attributed to King Solomon and Kohelet is ascribed to a king in Jerusalem, traditionally understood as King Solomon. While modern scholars do not accept the historical accuracy of these ascriptions, rabbis certainly didn't doubt them. Being ascribed to an ancient king certainly helps if you want to be part of the Bible!<br>Secondly, Shir Hashirim merited a metaphorical interpretation. The love story was not between a man and a woman but rather between the people of Israel and God. It is this metaphorical, mystical and at times erotic poetry between God and Israel that causes Rabbi Akiva to call it the holiest book.<br>And while Kohelet does express deep skepticism concerning justice in the world, it ultimately ends with the famous verse, \"The sum of the matter, when all is said and done: Revere God and observe His commandments! For this applies to all mankind.\" The rabbis too certainly would have ascribed to this directive."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nYesterday's mishnah ended with the statement that the sages voted on whether to include Kohelet and Shir Hashirim in the canon. This is taken as referring to a vote that occurred in the academy in Yavneh on a momentous day in history. Today's mishnah continues with other momentous issues they voted on on that famous day.",
+                    "<b>On that day the votes were counted and they decided that a footbath holding from two logs to nine kavs which was cracked could contract midras  uncleanness.</b>  You just have to love this transition. In yesterday's mishnah we hear of a vote over whether a book should be part of the Bible. It's hard to think of a more fateful issue than this if the vote had turned the other way, these two books might have been lost, or at least cut out of the Jewish tradition. The second issue was over the purity of a cracked footbath and whether it can still receive midras uncleanness. Since it can no longer hold liquids, it doesn't count as a vessel for bathing. But since people could still sit in it, it is still susceptible to \"midras\" uncleanness, the kind of impurity that is given to items that are meant to be sat or laid upon.",
+                    "<b>Because Rabbi Akiva said a footbath [must be considered] according to its designation.</b>  Rabbi Akiva holds that anything that is called \"a footbath,\" even if it can hold more than nine kavs, is still susceptible to midras impurity."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMost of this mishnah is found word for word in Zevahim 1:1 and 1:3. Most of my commentary here is the same as that there. It is brought here as well because according to this mishnah, those halakhot from Zevahim originated on that same famous day.",
+                    "<b>On that day they said: all animal sacrifices  which have been sacrificed under the name of some other offering  are [nevertheless] valid,  but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations,  with the exception of the pesah  and the sin-offering.</b>  For most sacrifices, if the priest offering them thinks that he is offering a different sacrifice than he is really supposed to be offering, the sacrifice is still valid. This means that its blood can be spilled on the altar and the sacrifice can be eaten by those who would have been able to eat it had it been offered properly. However, the sacrifice does not count as far as fulfilling the obligation of its owner. Thus if the owner was obligated to bring an olah, for instance, and it was sacrificed with the intent of it being another sacrifice, the owner must bring another olah in its place. The exception to this is the pesah and the hatat. If either of these two sacrifices is offered with the intent of its being a different type of sacrifices, not only does it not count for the owner who brought it, it is completely disqualified. Its blood cannot be spilled on the altar, nor can it be eaten.",
+                    "<b>[This is true of] the pesah in its correct time and the sin-offering at any time.</b>  The pesah is only disqualified if it is slaughtered with the wrong intent at the time that it is supposed to be slaughtered, on second half of the day on the fourteenth of Nissan. If it is slaughtered on the wrong day, for the wrong purpose, then paradoxically, it is valid, although it would obviously not count for its owner. Its as if the mishnah is saying that in this case, two negatives can make a positive. When it comes to the hatat, there is no specific time in which it must be offered. Therefore, no matter when it is offered, if the intention is for the wrong sacrifice, it is disqualified.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: [with the exception] also of the guilt-offering; [so that this refers to] the pesah in its correct time and to the sin- and guilt-offerings at any time.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer argues that the same rule that applies to the hatat applies to the asham, also a sacrifice brought to atone for sin. If it is slaughtered for the sake of it being a different sacrifice, it is disqualified.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the college that all animal sacrifices which are eaten and which have not been sacrificed under their own name are nevertheless valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. Ben Azzai only added [to these exceptions] the wholly burnt-offering, but the sages did not agree with him.</b>  This section is found in Zevahim 1:3. My commentary here is the same as it is there.",
+                    "<b>[This is true of] the pesah in its correct time and the sin-offering at any time.</b>  In section two we learned that the two exceptional sacrifices that are disqualified if offered with the wrong intent are the pesah and the hatat. All other sacrifices are valid if slaughtered with the intent of their being different sacrifices. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai quotes this tradition as being true only for sacrifices that are eaten. This would not include the olah, which is wholly burnt. According to ben Azzai’s tradition, the olah is disqualified if it is slaughtered with the intent of it being a different sacrifice. The final line of the mishnah notes that ben Azzai added the olah to the pesah and hatat, but that the sages (whose opinion is found in mishnah one) did not agree with this tradition. Rabbi Shimon Ben Azzai states that he received this tradition on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was appointed a member of the yeshiva (academy). This seems to be a famous day in rabbinic recollection and there is a significant amount of aggadah concerning the background to this appointment. The most expansive version of this aggadah is found in Bavli Berakhot 27b, where Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah is appointed head of the academy after Rabban Gamaliel is deposed. The historical accuracy of that legendary account is a bit suspect, but here in the Mishnah we can see that although we might not know exactly what happened that day, it was a memorable day, one which later rabbis used as a reference point."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn today's extraordinarily long mishnah there is a dispute concerning what tithes are given from produce grown in the land of Ammon and Moab on the sabbatical year. Inside the land of Israel seventh year produce is ownerless and no tithes are separated. Ammon and Moab are borderline lands. The sabbatical year is not operative in them but the rabbis did decree that one has to separate tithes from produce grown there. This creates the question of what type of tithes must be separated in the sabbatical year.\nAs further background, we should remember that there are two tithes. First tithes are given to the Levites. This tithe would be separated in Ammon and Moab during the sabbatical year. The other tithe alternates between second tithe, which is taken to Jerusalem and eaten there by its owners and the poor tithe which is given to the poor. Second tithe is taken out in the 1, 2, 4 and 5 years of the seven year cycle and poor tithe on the 3 and 6 year. This is the tithe that is debated in our mishnah.\nAlong with the particular content discussion, the argument in this mishnah reveals an unusual amount concerning rabbinic discourse. It offers us a fascinating glimpse into the inner workings of the early rabbinic academy.",
+                    "<b>On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe.</b>  Rabbi Tarfon rules that in these two lands they should separate poor tithes on the sabbatical year, whereas Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah rules that they should separate second tithe.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof.</b>  Rabbi Yishmael seems to act as a sort of moderator for the dispute. He tells Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah that the burden of proof is upon him, for he rules strictly. The reason that his opinion is considered \"strict\" is that second tithe is treated as holy, whereas poor tithe is not holy. As far as how much is given, there is no difference both are tithes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof.</b>  Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah responds that the burden of proof should be upon Rabbi Tarfon, and not upon him. In the third and sixth years one gives poor tithes. The year that immediately follows is second tithe (at least in the fourth year).  Therefore, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah has not deviated from the normal order of second tithe always following after a year of poor tithe. So Rabbi Tarfon must first give proof for why we should deviate from the normal order. [This section kind of reminds me of the coin flip at the beginning of a football game arguing over who starts.]",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year,   so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.</b>  Having lost the coin flip, Rabbi Tarfon kicks off. He compares Ammon and Moab with Egypt. Just as Egypt gives poor tithes in the seventh year, so should Ammon and Moab. Later in the Mishnah we shall see that everyone agrees that the earlier sages decreed that Egypt should give poor tithe.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year.</b>  Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah responds by saying that the laws outside of Israel are not all the same. Babylon is also outside of Israel and there they separate second tithe during the seventh year, not poor tithe. So if you're going to compare Ammon and Moab to something, compare them to Babylon!",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year.</b>  The fight is truly getting brutal my friends! Rabbi Tarfon now explains why he compared Ammon and Moab to Egypt and not Babylon. Ammon, Moab and Egypt are both close to the land of Israel. Therefore the sages declared that they should give poor tithes so that the poor of Israel could benefit. In other words, Rabbi Tarfon feels that the sages adjusted the halakhah so that it would most benefit the poor.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend?   As it is said, \"Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings\" (Malakhi 3:8).</b>  Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah counterattacks. Giving tithes to the poor might provide them with some temporary relief. But if people should really be giving second tithe then they in the end will be causing destruction and death. For the verses from Malakhi state that people have cheated God by not bringing tithes. As a punishment, God will stop the rains and dew (this is made even more explicit in v. 10, not quoted in the Mishnah). Thus, perverting tithe laws in order to give to the poor ultimately will cause drought.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets.</b>  Rabbi Joshua now jumps into the debate. He defends Rabbi Tarfon but using different reasoning. That Egypt should give poor tithe is a \"new act,\" decreed by the sages of the Second Temple period, when Egypt again flourished as a center for Judaism. That Babylon should give second tithe is an \"old act,\" decreed by the prophets. Since Ammon and Moab are both new acts, they should be like the other \"new act\" and give poor tithe. A related factor is that Egypt is a \"decree of the sages,\" whereas Babylon is a \"decree of the prophets.\" Since Ammon and Moab will obviously be a decree of the sages, they should be like the other decree of the sages and give poor tithe.",
+                    "<b>The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.</b>  After all of the arguments have been made, the sages take a vote and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Tarfon win.",
+                    "<b>And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit  visited Rabbi Eliezer  in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: \"The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covenant, to make them know it\" (Psalms 25:14).  Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.</b>  There is a fascinating epitaph to this story. Rabbi Eliezer was evidently not there when this vote was taken. According to later legends he was excommunicated. Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit, an otherwise unknown sage, goes to Rabbi Eliezer to report to him about what happened in the academy. Rabbi Eliezer agrees with the content of the vote, but vehemently seems to disagree with the process. Rabbi Eliezer is saying I don't need your vote because I have a tradition that goes all the way back to Sinai that Ammon and Moab give poor tithe on the sabbatical year. The argument here is between Rabbi Eliezer's way of determining halakhah and that of the other rabbis. The other rabbis, at whose forefront stands Rabbi Joshua, hold that whenever a new situation arises sages must argue about it, present opposing points of view, and then bring the matter up for a vote. There are indeed innovations in halakhah and they are arrived upon through a process of dispute and voting. Rabbi Eliezer is the arch-conservative. Even obviously new situations such as this, Jews living in the lands of Ammon and Moab, were addressed at Sinai. There is no need for a vote and no need for argumentation.  Everything that ever will be was already there in the original revelation."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nDeuteronomy 23:4 states that an Ammonite or Moabite \"cannot enter the assembly of the Lord.\" The rabbis interpret this to mean that even if an Ammonite or Moabite convert, they still cannot marry a regular Israelite.\nOur mishnah, whose discussion also occurred \"on that day,\" deals with an Ammonite convert who comes before the sages asking if he is part of this prohibition. It sounds like the story was probably placed in this chapter because the previous mishnah also discussed Ammon and Moab.",
+                    "<b>On that day Judah, an Ammonite convert, came and stood before them in the house of study. He said to them: Do I have the right to enter into the assembly? Rabban Gamaliel said to him: you are forbidden. Rabbi Joshua said to him: you are permitted.</b>  Judah the Ammonite, who seems to have already converted to Judaism, comes in front of Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua asking to be allowed to marry an Israelite woman (not another Ammonite convert).",
+                    "<b>Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, \"An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord: even to the tenth generation\" (Deuteronomy 23:4).</b>  Rabban Gamaliel refuses to allow him to do so based on the verse from Deuteronomy. This would seem to be an open and shut case. Deuteronomy prohibits Ammonites from marrying into the assembly, so Judah should have to go marry someone else.",
+                    "<b>R. Joshua said to him: But are the Ammonites and Moabites still in their own territory? Sanheriv, the king of Assyria, has long since come up and mingled all the nations, as it is said: \"In that I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants\" (Isaiah 10:1.</b>  However, Rabbi Joshua responds by saying that those who identify today (i.e. in his day) as Ammonites are no longer the same Ammonites of yore. King Sanheriv, the same Assyrian king who destroyed the northern kingdom, came and mixed up all of the peoples, forcibly transferring them from one place to another, as he did with the 10 northern tribes. Therefore, the rules of the Torah that applied to the Ammonites back then, no longer apply now.",
+                    "<b>Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, \"But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon,\" (Jeremiah 49:6) they have already returned.</b>  Rabban Gamaliel actually accepts Rabbi Joshua's argument but responds that there is another verse that shows that God brought back the Ammonites from their exile. According to Rabban Gamaliel the verse from Jeremiah does not refer to the \"end of days\" as do the verses regarding the Moabites (Jeremiah 48:47) and Elam (49:39). Rather, God has already restored the Ammonites, so the prohibition from Deuteronomy applies again.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Joshua said to him: [another] verse says, \"I will return the captivity of my people Israel and Judah\" (Amos 9:14).  Yet they have not yet returned.</b>  The argument now turns on the meaning of a verse that says, \"And I have returned\" a certain people to their place. The prophet Amos uses the same language with regard to Israel and nevertheless Israel has not returned to its homeland, at least not all of Israel. So too, when it comes to Ammon, just because someone is currently an \"Ammonite\" does not mean that they are prohibited by the verse in Deuternomy.",
+                    "<b>So they permitted him to enter the assembly.</b>  The mishnah concludes with good news for our friend Judah. He is allowed into the community, meaning he can go find himself a good Yiddishe mamma! Sign the boy up for JDate!"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah returns to the subject of scrolls defiling the hands.",
+                    "<b>The Aramaic sections in Ezra and Daniel defile the hands. If an Aramaic section was written in Hebrew, or a Hebrew section was written in Aramaic, or [Hebrew which was written with] Hebrew script, it does not defile the hands. It never defiles the hands until it is written in the Assyrian script, on parchment, and in ink.</b>  There are some portions of the book of Ezra and the book of Daniel that are in Aramaic, not Hebrew. These sections defile the hands just as do other portions of the Bible. The fact that they are in Aramaic does not make them less holy.",
+                    "This section seems to teach that Aramaic and Hebrew are not inherently holy languages such that they should defile the hands. If a portion of the Bible that is in Hebrew was translated into Aramaic (targum) it doesn't defile the hands. Neither do Hebrew translations of the Aramaic parts of the Bible. The Hebrew script we use is called Assyrian script. The older script is called by scholars  \"Phoenician script\" and is called by the rabbis \"Hebrew script.\" According to the Talmud, Ezra switched the script from the ancient Hebrew to the Assyrian. If a scroll of the Tanakh was written in this ancient script, it does not defile the hands.",
+                    "Only Tanakh scrolls written with the proper script, Assyrian, on parchment (made from the hides of an animal) and with ink are valid as ritual objects. Therefore, only these scrolls defile the hands."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final three mishnayot of the tractate contain disputes between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Our knowledge of these groups is quite vague. We know that the rabbis sided with the Pharisees, although the rabbis don't exactly see themselves as Pharisees. Assumedly this is because this division mostly ceased after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Josephus, the first century historian, divides the Jews into three \"philosophies\" Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. The New Testament mentions both the Pharisees and Sadducees. And there is a bitter argument over who the Dead Sea Sect was some believe they were Sadducees, but this is not generally accepted.\nIn these mishnayot the Sadducees complain against various halakhot of the Pharisees. There is an echo of this in a text called \"The Halakhic Letter\" found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In this letter, the Jews living in Qumran write of their halakhic disagreements with those Jews running the show in Jerusalem. There is some affinity between the halakhot of the writers living in Qumran and the Sadducees as presented in rabbinic literature. Rather than conclude that this means that these Jews were \"Sadducees\" I think it is more appropriate to say that these Jews had a halakhic system similar to the Sadducees. They may indeed have been Essenes (this is the general consensus); the differences between Essenes and Sadducees may be based on other issues besides halakhah.\nIn any case, these three mishnayot are fascinating because they afford us a glimpse into what kinds of things Second Temple religious leaders were arguing about.",
+                    "<b>The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer  do not defile the hands.</b>  The reason these complaints against the Pharisees are found in tractate Yadayim is that the first of the Sadducees' complaints is the subject at hand (pun intended). The Sadducees seem to know of two types of books, the works of Homer (not Simpson) and the Holy Scriptures. Clearly the latter are holy while the former are not. So why then do the Pharisees say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands whereas the works of Homer do not?",
+                    "<b>Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this?   Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yohanan the high priest are unclean.</b>  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai explains by playing devil's advocate. All agree that the bones of a donkey do not defile. Only the flesh of a dead impure animal defiles, not the bones (see Toharot 1:4). Interestingly, Rabbi Yohanan seems to mention the \"donkey\" because in Hebrew \"donkey\" is \"hamor\" which sounds like Homer pun intended! In any case, a donkey's bones do not defile but human bones, even those of one's parents do. Why should this be, he rhetorically asks?",
+                    "<b>They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother.</b>  Rabbi Yohanan's words force the Sadducees to admit to a principle. Defilement is a way to force people not to make profane use out of a beloved object. If human bones were ritually clean, people might make spoons out of the bones of their parents (okay, I admit this sounds strange would people really do such a thing?).",
+                    "<b>He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands.</b>  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai now uses that very principle to respond to the Sadducees. Homer's works are not beloved and therefore they don't defile the hands. But clearly the Holy Scriptures are beloved and therefore they do. This is similar to how I explained the prohibition at the outset of this issue (3:2)."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean. The Pharisees say: we complain against you, Sadducees, that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean?</b>  The Sadducees complain that the Pharisees declare that an uninterrupted flow is clean. What this means is that if one pours from a clean vessel into an unclean vessel what remains in the clean vessel is still clean (see Makhshirin 5:9). Interestingly, this very issue is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Pharisees respond with a precedent showing that water connected to a source of impurity does not necessarily become impure. Water that flows out of a cemetery is pure, even though it is still attached to the source. So too with the flow from one vessel to the other, even though the water is attached to something unclean, the upper vessel is still clean.",
+                    "<b>The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you say, my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable, yet my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable. Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties, yet I am responsible for their damages, in the case of my male or female slave for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot, how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages?</b>  The second argument in this mishnah compares damages or injury done by one's animals with injury or damage done by one's slaves. According to rabbinic law, a master is liable for damages done by his animals but not his slaves (see Bava Kamma 8:4). The Sadducees complain that this is illogical, for one is not liable to make sure that his animals perform mitzvoth, whereas one is liable to make sure that his slaves perform mitzvoth, such as brit milah (see Genesis 17:12) and eating the pesah sacrifice (Exodus 12:44).",
+                    "<b>They said to them: No, if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding, can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding? So that if I were to anger either of them and they would go and burn another person's stack, should I be liable to make restitution?</b>  The Pharisees respond that a master's liability for his animals is only because animals have no intelligence/understanding. Since an animal has no intelligence, at least legally speaking, his master is usually liable for damages performed by the animal. In contrast, a slave may be owned by his/her master, but the slave has intelligence and independent will. Even if one angers his slave and the slave damages some property, the owner is not liable. We should note that this Pharisaic law was probably unusual and perhaps even their own invention. Most law systems of the time, including other ancient near eastern laws, would have held a master liable for damages done by a slave. But for the rabbis, the operative principle in many matters of law is \"legal awareness\" or \"understanding.\" Since slaves have such capacity, they are independent and liable for damages they perform."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn this mishnah the argument is no longer with a Sadducee but a Galilean \"min.\" The word \"min\" is found in manuscripts of this mishnah, although in printed editions it says \"Sadducee.\" A \"min\" is somewhat akin to heretic. The \"min\" is clearly a Jew, but is part of a group that is opposed to the rabbis/Pharisees. In later literature it could be used to refer to a Christian but it clearly does not refer to a Christian here. Nevertheless, Christian censors in the Middle Ages did not like this word and therefore they forced the Jews to change it.",
+                    "<b>A Galilean min said: I complain against you Pharisees, that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document.</b>  The \"min\" complains against the Pharisees that they write the name of Moses and the current Roman ruler together in the divorce document, the get. What this means is that they would date the document by referring to the year of the ruling of the current king (see Gittin 8:5) and at the end, they would write, \"as is the religion of Moses Israel.\" This \"min\" seems to be attacking the Pharisees for accommodating themselves to Roman rule. Interestingly, this \"min\" is found in the Galilee, where the rabbis seemed to have lived in harmony with the Romans after the destruction of the Temple.",
+                    "<b>The Pharisees said: we complain against you, Galilean min, that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page [of Torah]? And furthermore that you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below? As it is said, \"And Pharoah said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?\" (Exodus 5:2) But when he was smitten what did he say? \"The Lord is righteous\" (Exodus 9:27).</b>  The Pharisees offer a cynical response. In Torah scrolls not only is the name of God and the name of Pharaoh written on the same page, but the name of Pharaoh comes first. Obviously, this is unavoidable, as can be shown from the verse in Exodus 5:2. So too, it is not a problem to write Moses's name in the same document as the Roman ruler's name. Our mishnah concludes with another verse \"The Lord is righteous.\" This verse is brought here so that the tractate does not conclude with a verse that says, \"Who is God.\" It is missing in some manuscripts. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Yadayim! As I always write, 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. Yadayim was interesting, wasn't it? Among all of the issues in Seder Toharot this may have been the most practical. In addition, this last chapter was simply fascinating (and I think I'm going to teach it in my Mishnah class tomorrow!). The issue of hand-washing and the impurity of scrolls were both innovations of the sages or their predecessors, the Pharisees. So we get to learn some Second Temple halakhic history on the side. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Oktzin the last tractate of the Mishnah!"
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ידים",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,189 @@
+{
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Yadayim",
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "According to Torah law a person becomes impure only through contact with a \"father of uncleanness\" and not through contact with something that only has first degree or lesser uncleanness. However, the rabbis decreed that if a person touches something with first degree uncleanness his hands become defiled with second degree uncleanness. If he then goes and touches terumah he disqualifies it such that a kohen could not eat it. At a later period in history, the rabbis added to this and stated that even if one is not sure if he touched something that was impure, his hands are impure. People tend to touch many things (in Hebrew this is phrased—hands are busy) and it would be virtually impossible to prevent one's hands from ever touching something that was impure. To remedy this problem the rabbis decreed that one should always wash one's hands before eating any food. This is the source of the custom that remains to this day to ritually wash one's hands before eating. Today we only do this before eating bread, but originally they would have washed their hands ritually before eating any food.",
+            "The issue of washing hands was quite contentious in the ancient world and there are even some passages in the New Testament in which the Pharisees object to the fact that Jesus's student don't wash their hands before eating (see Mark 7 and Matthew 15). Furthermore, people were often meticulous about washing their hands without any ritual connection—it was done purely out of cleanliness. Thus there are many theories as to how the rabbis came up with the idea of ritual hand-washing and the possibility that hands could be purified or defiled as if they were not a part of the body. It is a fascinating topic, one which I partially addressed in my book, The Schechter Haggadah. In my commentary on this tractate we will not explore the origins of ritual hand-washing. Rather we will focus on how these rules manifest themselves in the Mishnah itself."
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe first mishnah of Yadayim is about how much water is necessary for the ritual washing of one's hands. A log is about 1/2 a liter of water. So the basic amount of 1/4 log works out to about 100 grams of water, a third of a can of Coke for those who drink that stuff.\nWe should note that the Mishnah expresses washing one's hands by referring to a servant doing the work. The servant literally gives water to the diner's hands. This is expressive of the setting of a formal banquet. In other words the Hebrew phrase \"netilat yadayim\" or \"notnim leyadim\" used in this Mishnah are translations of common Greek words.  It shows how much influence eating customs had on the Jews of the period.",
+                    "<b>[A minimum of] a quarter [of a log] of water must be poured over the hands for one [person] and even for two.</b>  For two people it is sufficient to have one quarter log of water. Although there won't be this amount left for the second person who has water put over his hands, since the second pouring comes from an amount that was originally sufficient, and the original amount was used to purify, the lesser amount of water still remaining is effective. We should note that 1/4 of a log is really a very little amount of water. It would not be effective to truly clean one's hands. It seems to have ritual function only.",
+                    "<b>A minimum of half  a log must be poured over the hands for three or four persons.</b>  For three or four persons they must double the amount to half a log.",
+                    "<b>A minimum of one log [is sufficient] for five, ten, or one hundred persons.</b>  According to this opinion, once we get to a higher number, even 100, one log is sufficient. There need not be 1/4 of a log per person.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: as long as there is not less than a quarter of a log left for the last person among them.</b>  Rabbi Yose disagrees with the previous three sections. There must always be 1/4 of a log left over for each person. Many people could wash from the same washing cup (or whatever they used) but there has to be 1/4 of a log for each and every one.",
+                    "<b>More [water] may be added to the second water, but more may not be added to the first water.</b>  When one pours water over one's hands their need to be 2 pourings. For the first pouring the water must go up to the joint, which is interpreted either as the second joint of the fingers or the joint attaching the fingers to the hand (we will see this in 2:3). The problem is that his fingers now defile the water that is on them. To fix this problem he then washes off the water with more water. We will learn more about this process in chapter two. If the first washing didn't reach all the way to the joint, he is not allowed to pour the second pouring in a place where the first one didn't reach. Rather, he would have to redo the whole thing. But if the second pouring didn't reach the joint, he can just add water to the spots he missed."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah deals with what kind of vessel can be used to pour water over one's hands.",
+                    "<b>Water may be poured over the hands out of any kind of vessel, even out of vessels made of animal dung, out of vessels made of stone or out of vessels made of clay.</b>  Any kind of vessel can be used for the ritual washing of hands, even vessels that are not susceptible to impurity such as vessels made of dung or stone (see Kelim 10:1). In other words, one might have thought that since these vessels are not susceptible to impurity they do not count as vessels, therefore the mishnah teaches that they do count as vessels and can be used for handwashing.",
+                    "<b>Water may not be poured from the sides of [broken] vessels or from the bottom of a ladle or from the stopper of a jar.</b>  All of these objects do not count as \"vessels\" and therefore cannot be used for handwashing.",
+                    "<b>Nor may one pour [water] over the hands of his fellow out of his cupped hands.</b>  Cupped hands are also no good (I'll fess up I've tried this a few times when I couldn't find a cup).",
+                    "<b>Because one may not draw, nor sanctify, nor sprinkle the water of purification,   nor pour water over the hands except in a vessel.</b>  The mishnah now lists water rituals that require a vessel. Most of these involve the purification ritual of the red heifer ashes. The first is drawing water from a live spring to be used in the red heifer ritual. The second is putting the ashes into the water this must be done in a vessel. The third is sprinkling the waters of purification (the water which has the ashes of the red heifer) on the impure person. The fourth is handwashing.",
+                    "<b>And only vessels closely covered with a lid protect [their contents from uncleanness].</b>  If an earthenware vessel with a tight-fitting lid is found in a tent with a corpse in it, the vessels contents are not defiled (neither is the vessel). However, only a real vessel acts in this manner.",
+                    "<b>And  only vessels protect [their contents from uncleanness] inside earthenware vessels.</b>  Furthermore, if there is a vessel with food in it and it is in an earthenware vessel in which there is also a sheretz (a creepy crawly defiling thing) the vessel protects the food inside it from becoming impure (see Kelim 8:3). But this protection is only if the inside vessel is really a vessel."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe next three mishnayot deal with the water used for netilat yadayim.",
+                    "<b>Water which had become so unfit that it could not be drunk by a beast: If it was in a vessel it is invalid, But if it was in the ground  it is valid.</b>  If the water that he wants to use for netilat yadayim was so dirty that even a cow or other beast wouldn't drink it, it can't be used if the water has been put in a vessel. Note that this water would have to be pretty dirty, or at least it seems so to me. But if the water is still pooled on the ground, he can use it to immerse his hands for this pool has the status of a mikveh. If he could immerse his whole body in such a pool, all the more so he can immerse his hands.",
+                    "<b>If there fell into [the water], dye, or gum or sulphate of copper and its color changed, it is invalid.</b>  If any inks or dyes fall into the water and thereby change its color, the water can no longer be used.",
+                    "<b>If a person did any work with it or soaked his bread in it, it is invalid.</b>  Water that has used for work (perhaps as a weight on a balance) or for soaking bread, is no longer considered water and cannot be used for netilat yadayim.",
+                    "<b>Shimon of Teman says: even if he intended to soak his bread in one water and it fell into another water the water is valid.</b>  Shimon of Teman (Yemen) holds that the water is disqualified for use only if he intentionally soaked his bread in it. His statement implies that it is obvious that if he didn't intend to soak his bread in the water and the bread simply fell in, the water is still valid for use. He goes one step further. Even if he did intend to use water to soak the bread, but he intended to put the bread in one vessel and it went into another vessel, the vessel with the bread in it can still be used. The water is disqualified only if the bread goes directly into the vessel into which he intended to put it."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he cleansed vessels with the water or scrubbed  measures with it, [the water] is invalid.</b>  If he used the water to clean vessels or scrub measures the water is invalid. This is because the water is considered \"waste water\" which shouldn't be used to ritually clean hands. Furthermore, he has used the water for work, and therefore it can't be used.",
+                    "<b>If he rinsed with it vessels which had already been rinsed or new vessels, it is valid. Rabbi Yose declares [the water] invalid if they were new vessels.</b>  If the vessels didn't need to be washed or scrubbed because they were either clean or new, then the water remains valid because it didn't need to be used. Rabbi Yose says that if the water was used to wash new vessels it is still disqualified since it is customary to wash off new vessels. In other words, something that is customary to do is considered work, even if it is isn't strictly speaking necessary."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Water in which the baker dips his loaves is invalid; But if he moistened his hands in the water it is valid.</b>  If the baker dipped his loaves into the water, the water is invalid. This is the same as the rule in yesterday's mishnah. Today's mishnah adds that if the baker just uses the water to moisten his hands, and then from his hands he puts the water onto the loaves, the water remains valid because he didn't put the loaves directly into the water.",
+                    "<b>All are fit to pour water over the hands, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor.</b>  After having discussed rules concerning the vessel and the water the mishnah now turns its attention to the person or power that pours the water over the hands. As we shall see, the requirement is that some power should cause the water to be poured over the hands. Water which flows on its own, for instance rainwater coming out of a drainage pipe, cannot be used for netilat yadayim. There is no requirement for intention (kavvanah) for netilat yadayim. Therefore, even people who legally are not considered to have kavanah can pour the water.",
+                    "<b>A person may place the jug between his knees and pour out the water Or he may turn the jug on its side and pour it out.</b>  A person puts a jug with water in it between his legs and then tilts it to the side. This is a valid way of performing netilat yadayim because his legs count as having caused the water to be poured onto his hands. He can even tilt the jug on its side and then put his hands under the water pouring out. Even though the water is currently (no pun intended) coming out of the jug on its own, since he tilted the jug on its side, it counts as an outside power.",
+                    "<b>A monkey may pour water over the hands.</b>  Even a monkey could pour water over someone's hands. In other words, there must be an outside power, but that power need not be human.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose declares these [latter] two cases invalid.</b>  Rabbi Yose says that the final two cases are invalid because the water needs to be poured by a force initiated by a person. So if the water flows from the barrel on its own or a monkey pours the water, the hand-washing is invalid."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>If he poured water over one of his hands with a single rinsing his hand becomes clean.</b>  The person poured water over only one hand, because he intended to eat with only one hand. He also only poured one pouring, and not two. His hand is pure even if he didn't pour the full 1/4 log because the water comes from a vessel with a pure 1/4 log. However, if the water came from a vessel with a lesser amount, his hand would not be pure.",
+                    "<b>If over both his hands with a single rinsing: Rabbi Meir declares them to be unclean until he pours a minimum of a quarter of a log of water over them.</b>  If he tries to do this with both hands, meaning pour water over them only once, there must be at least 1/4 of a log poured over the two hands. Rabbi Meir holds that if one uses the full 1/4 log, he doesn't need to wash off the first water that he poured onto his hands. However, if he pours water twice over his hands, then his hands are pure even if he didn't pour a full 1/4 log as long as they came from a vessel with at least 1/4 of a log in it.",
+                    "<b>If a loaf of terumah fell on the water the loaf is clean. Rabbi Yose declares it to be unclean.</b>  If a loaf of terumah falls on the water that he used to wash his hand, the first opinion holds that the loaf is still clean. According to this opinion the water is clean. Rabbi Yose holds that the water purified the hands, but it itself has become impure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he poured the first water over his hands [while standing] in one place, and the second water over his hands [while standing] in another place, and a loaf of terumah fell on the first water, the loaf becomes unclean. But if it fell on the second water it remains clean.</b>  The first water that pours off his hands is impure. Therefore, if a pure loaf of terumah falls onto this water, it is impure. But the second water is pure and purifies the water on his hands. Therefore if the loaf falls onto this water, it is pure.",
+                    "<b>If he poured the first and the second water [while standing] in one place, and a loaf of terumah fell onto the water, the loaf becomes unclean.</b>  In this case, both the first and second water fall onto the same place on the ground. If a loaf falls into this water, it is defiled because the second water cleanses only the water that is on his hands. It does not cleanse the water that is on the ground.",
+                    "<b>If he poured the first water over his hands and a splinter or a piece of gravel is found on his hands, [his hands] remain unclean, because the latter water only makes the first water on the hands clean.</b>  In this case there is something on his hands when he washes them. The second washing purifies only the water that is on his hands, not the water that is on something else, such as a splinter or piece of gravel. This water remains impure and it would go back and defile his hands.",
+                    "<b>Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if any creature from the water [was on the hands while they are being cleaned] they are clean.</b>  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel seems to think that creatures that are from the water, like a little worm, count as if they were water. So if one finds a worm on his hand after washing, the water that's on the worm doesn't go back and defile his hands. It might be a bit yucky though."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Hands become unclean and are made clean as far as the joint.</b>  For matters of purity, the hand goes up to the \"joint.\" There are two explanations of this. The first is the middle joint of the fingers and the second is the joint where the fingers join the hand. Below, I will simply use the word \"joint.\"",
+                    "<b>How so? If he poured the first water over the hands as far as the joint and poured the second water over the hands beyond the joint and the latter flowed back to the hands, the hands are clean.</b>  The mishnah now explains some ramifications of this ruling. If he pours water the first time over his hands as far as the joint and then the second time beyond the joint, and the second water goes back onto his hand, his hands are pure. This is because beyond the joint the hand is not impure. So the second water was not made impure by going beyond the joint.",
+                    "<b>If he poured the first and the second water over the hands beyond the joint and they flowed back to the hands, the hands remain unclean.</b>  In this case he pours both beyond the joint and then the water flows back onto his hands. His hands remain impure because the first water that went beyond the joint wasn't purified by the second water that was also beyond the joint, because this water is only purified when it is on the hand. When the water goes back it defiles his hand again.",
+                    "<b>If he poured the first water over one of his hands and then changed his mind and poured the second water over both his hands, they are unclean.</b>  The mishnah now deals with a different subject one who changes his mind about how many hands to wash. If the first time he washes, he washes only one hand and then the second time he washes both hands and the water from the second hand goes on to the first hand, the first hand is defiled. This is because the water that went on the second hand was only there for the first time.",
+                    "<b>If he poured the first water over both his hands and then changed his mind and poured the second water over one of his hands, his one hand becomes clean.</b>  However, in the opposite case, where he first washed both hands and then only one, the one hand that was washed twice is pure.",
+                    "<b>If he poured water over one of his hands and rubbed it on the other hand it remains unclean.</b>  If he washes one hand (even twice) and then rubs it on the other, the water becomes impure on the second hand. This water then goes back and defiles the first hand.",
+                    "<b>If he rubbed it on his head or on the wall it is clean.</b>  However, if he rubs his hands on his head or the wall, the water is not defiled. The water that then goes back onto his hands does not defile them again.",
+                    "<b>Water may be poured over the hands of four or five persons, each hand being by the side of the other, or being one above the other, provided that the hands are held loosely so that the water flows between them.</b>  One can pour water over several people's hands at once and we are not concerned that one person's hands would defile another person's. The only important rule is that the hands shouldn't be tightly clenched with one another. Water must be allowed to flow in-between."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis long mishnah is about cases of doubtful impurity involving hands. While the mishnah is quite long, it is not actually too difficult.",
+                    "<b>If there was a doubt whether any work has been done with the water or not, A doubt whether the water contains the requisite quantity or not, A doubt whether it is unclean or clean, In these cases the doubt is considered to be clean because they have said in a case of doubt concerning hands as to whether they have become unclean or have conveyed uncleanness or have become clean, they are considered to be clean. Rabbi Yose says: in a case [of doubt as to] whether they have become clean they are considered to be unclean.</b>  There are three types of \"doubts\" that could cause the water not to have purified his hands. As we learned in 1:3, if work was done with the water it cannot be used to wash his hands. There must be a quarter of a log (1:1) and the water must be pure. In all of these cases, if there is a doubt as to whether his hands were purified, the law is lenient and we treat them as pure. Below the mishnah will explain the meaning of \"become unclean\" and \"convey uncleanness.\" To become pure means that if he isn't sure whether he effectively purified his hands, they are considered pure. This refers to the cases in the beginning of the mishnah cases where there was a doubt whether the water he used could purify his hands. Rabbi Yose disagrees with the ruling concerning doubt over whether his hands have become pure. Because his hands are presumed to be impure, they cannot be considered pure unless we are sure that they have been purified. The status quo remains.",
+                    "<b>How so? If his hands were clean and there were two unclean loaves before him and there was a doubt whether he touched them or not; Or if his hands were unclean and there were two clean loaves before him and there was a doubt whether he touched them or not; Or if one of his hands was unclean and the other clean and there were two clean loaves before him and he touched one of them and there was a doubt whether he touched it with the unclean hand or with the clean hand; Or if his hands were clean and there were two loaves before him one of which was unclean and the other clean and he touched one of them and there was a doubt whether he touched the unclean one or the clean one; Or if one of his hands was unclean and the other clean and there were two loaves before him one of which was unclean and the other clean, and he touched both of them, and there is a doubt whether the unclean hand touched the unclean loaf or whether the clean hand touched the clean loaf or whether the clean hand touched the unclean loaf or whether the unclean hand touched the clean loaf The hands remain in the same state as they were before and the loaves remain in the same state as they were before.</b>  The mishnah now goes through a long list of cases in which an impure hand might have touched a pure loaf of terumah or vice versa. Note that this is a different type of doubt than in section one. In section one, the doubt was whether his hands had been purified. Here the doubt is whether he defiled a loaf of terumah. The mishnah rules that in all of these cases his hands and the loaves remain in their previously assumed state. The hand or hands that were pure remain pure and the loaf or loaves that were pure remain pure. In other words, in cases of doubt the status quo remains."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness.<br>Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness.<br>They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness].<br>Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.<br>Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, \"My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel.\"  He said to her: \"My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?\"  But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.</b><br>Section one: In Tractate Negaim we learned about the house that has some sort of scale disease. Rabbi Akiva says that if someone puts just his hands into such a house, the hands have first degree uncleanness. The other sages say that his hands only have second degree uncleanness.<br>Second two: There is a similar dispute concerning a person who defiles garments. This is a about whom the Torah says that he must wash his clothes: for instance one who touches a zav or one who touches something a zav lied upon, or who touches a zavah or a menstruant. According to Rabbi Akiva when such a person is touching the source of uncleanness, another person who touches him will get first degree uncleanness in his hands. The other sages say that he will get second degree uncleanness.<br>Section three: The other sages now argue with Rabbi Akiva, asking him where we find that hands can have first degree impurity.<br>Rabbi Akiva responds that in essence they are right. Hands can only have first degree impurity if the whole body also has first degree impurity. However, these cases in sections one and two are exceptions for in these cases the body wasn't defiled at all. Only in these cases can someone's hands have first degree impurity while the rest of his body remains pure.<br>Section four: We find a similar dispute regarding foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids. These foods now have second degree impurity (see Zavim 5:12). According to Rabbi Joshua they defile hands such that the hands have second degree impurity. The other rabbis say that only foods or vessels that were defiled by a father of uncleanness and thereby have first degree impurity can defile hands. But if foods have only second degree impurity, they don't defile hands at all.<br>Section five: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel now cites a story about a woman who came in front of Rabban Gamaliel, his father. The woman's hands had gone into the air-space of an impure earthenware vessel. Such vessels convey impurity through their air-space. Rabban Gamaliel asks her if the vessel had received its impurity from contact with a father of uncleanness or whether the vessel was defiled by something with first degree uncleanness? Unfortunately, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel never heard the response (those kids, they're never listening!).<br>The sages say that their halakhah from section four is applicable here. If the earthenware vessel had received impurity from a father of uncleanness then her hands would have second degree uncleanness. But if the vessel had been defiled by something with first degree uncleanness, her hands would be pure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah continues with a dispute between Rabbi Joshua and the sages. As part of their argument they mention the concept that the Holy Scriptures, meaning the Tanakh or Bible, defile the hands. This is a topic that will be discussed throughout the remainder of the chapter. There are two explanations for this halakhah. The traditional explanation is a bit strange and convoluted but it goes like this. People used to store their terumah near the same place that they stored holy scrolls (the Tanakh). Mice would come to eat the terumah and would also eat through the scrolls. To prevent this, the rabbis declared that the scrolls would defile the terumah. This would discourage people from storing terumah near their scrolls. One can clearly sense that this simply does not seem likely to have been the origins of this idea.\nRecently, academic scholars have explained that according to some laws in the Torah holiness can \"rub off\" on an item with which it has contact. This rubbing off on the item works a little bit like impurity, except the terminology is not that the item becomes \"impure\" rather it becomes \"holy.\" The rabbis inherited the concept that scrolls of Scripture were so holy that anything they touched would become \"holy\" as well. Since this was the only such situation that the rabbis encountered, they used the normal term for such \"rubbing off\" which is impurity. In other words, what really seems to happen is that the hands become holy by virtue of contact with the scrolls. Nevertheless, by the time of the Mishnah these laws are part of the general purity system.",
+                    "<b>Anything which disqualifies terumah defiles hands with a second degree of uncleanness.</b>  Anything that has even second degree uncleanness will defile the hands so that they too have second degree uncleanness. This accords with Rabbi Joshua's opinion in yesterday's mishnah. The other rabbis disagree.",
+                    "<b>One [unwashed] hand defiles the other hand, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has second degree of uncleanness cannot convey second degree of uncleanness.</b>  An unwashed hand has second degree uncleanness and therefore it disqualifies terumah. According to Rabbi Joshua this means that if one hand is unwashed and it touches a washed hand it will defile it. The sages reject his opinion, as they did in yesterday's mishnah, holding that something that has second degree impurity cannot convey impurity to anything else. All it can do is disqualify terumah.",
+                    "<b>He said to them: But do not the Holy Scriptures which have second degree of uncleanness defile the hands? They said to him: the laws of the Torah may not be argued from the laws of the scribes, nor may the laws of the scribes be argued from the laws of the Torah, nor may the laws of the scribes be argued from [other] laws of the scribes.</b>  Rabbi Joshua uses the concept of the Holy Scriptures defiling the hands as proof for his opinion that anything with second degree uncleanness conveys uncleanness to hands. According to the rabbis, the Tanakh has second degree uncleanness and it defiles the hands. Therefore, everything that has second degree uncleanness should similarly defile the hands. The other rabbis reject learning from one category of rabbinic law to another. The idea that the Tanakh defiles the hands is a \"law of the scribes\" it is of rabbinic origin. Similarly, the halakhah that unwashed hands defile terumah is also of rabbinic origin (see the introduction). One cannot use one halakhah of rabbinic origin to prove another halakhah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The straps of the tefillin [when connected] with the tefillin [boxes] defile the hands.</b>  Tefillin boxes have scrolls of Scripture in them. Therefore, they clearly would defile the hands. According to the first opinion, the straps do as well, as long as they are tied to the tefillin boxes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: the straps of the tefillin do not defile the hands.</b>  Rabbi Shimon says that the straps do not defile the hands, since they are only connected to the boxes they don't have the scrolls in them."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The margin on a scroll   which is above or below or at the beginning or at the end defiles the hands.</b>  Although there is nothing written in the margins of the Tanakh scrolls, they still defile the hands because they are part of the scroll.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: the margin at the end does not render unclean [the hands] until a handle is fastened to it.</b>  Rabbi Judah says that the margin at the end of the scroll doesn't defile because it could always be cut off. It only defiles once they have used that extra piece of scroll to attach a handle. Once a handle has been attached the end margin has become a necessary part of the scroll and it too defiles."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, \"And it came to pass when the ark set forward\" (Numbers 10:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, \"And it came to pass when the ark set forward\", defiles the hands.<br>All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands.<br>The Song of Songs and Kohelet ( defile the hands.<br>Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet.<br>Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs.<br>Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel.<br>Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands.<br>Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet.<br>Rabbi Yohanan ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision.</b><br>Today's mishnah contains a fascinating argument over whether two books from the Tanakh, Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) and the Song of Songs (Shir Hashirim) defile the hands. This is basically an argument over whether these books should be included in the Biblical canon. We cannot be certain why there was an argument over these specific books. Probably the content of these books caused certain sages to wish to cut them out of the canon. Kohelet is a deeply skeptical work, one which frequently questions whether the world works justly. One central message of the book is that the righteous and the evil receive the same lot in this world. Sometimes life is even worse for the righteous than it is for the evil. Song of Songs seems to be a love song between a man and a woman. What place does such literature have, some rabbis asked, in the biblical canon? In the end, both books were accepted into the canon and have been found in Jewish (and non-Jewish) bibles ever since.<br>Section one: The smallest \"parsha\" in the Torah is Numbers 11:35-36. These two verses, which contain 85 letters, are set off as a \"parsha\" in the traditional writing of the Torah. The mishnah uses this number as a paradigm for what constitutes a \"scroll\" such that it would defile the hands. There either have to remain 85 letters from a scroll that used to have more, or a new scroll has to already have 85 letters. Less than 85 letters and the scroll will not defile the hands.<br>Sections 2-9: The remainder of the mishnah is an extended discussion/argument over whether two books, Kohelet and Shir Hashirim (Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs) defile the hands (i.e. are they part of the canon).<br>Ultimately, we know that both of these books were accepted into the Jewish Bible, and indeed were rich sources for rabbinic midrashim. There are probably several reasons why they were accepted. First and foremost, Shir Hashirim is explicitly attributed to King Solomon and Kohelet is ascribed to a king in Jerusalem, traditionally understood as King Solomon. While modern scholars do not accept the historical accuracy of these ascriptions, rabbis certainly didn't doubt them. Being ascribed to an ancient king certainly helps if you want to be part of the Bible!<br>Secondly, Shir Hashirim merited a metaphorical interpretation. The love story was not between a man and a woman but rather between the people of Israel and God. It is this metaphorical, mystical and at times erotic poetry between God and Israel that causes Rabbi Akiva to call it the holiest book.<br>And while Kohelet does express deep skepticism concerning justice in the world, it ultimately ends with the famous verse, \"The sum of the matter, when all is said and done: Revere God and observe His commandments! For this applies to all mankind.\" The rabbis too certainly would have ascribed to this directive."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nYesterday's mishnah ended with the statement that the sages voted on whether to include Kohelet and Shir Hashirim in the canon. This is taken as referring to a vote that occurred in the academy in Yavneh on a momentous day in history. Today's mishnah continues with other momentous issues they voted on on that famous day.",
+                    "<b>On that day the votes were counted and they decided that a footbath holding from two logs to nine kavs which was cracked could contract midras  uncleanness.</b>  You just have to love this transition. In yesterday's mishnah we hear of a vote over whether a book should be part of the Bible. It's hard to think of a more fateful issue than this if the vote had turned the other way, these two books might have been lost, or at least cut out of the Jewish tradition. The second issue was over the purity of a cracked footbath and whether it can still receive midras uncleanness. Since it can no longer hold liquids, it doesn't count as a vessel for bathing. But since people could still sit in it, it is still susceptible to \"midras\" uncleanness, the kind of impurity that is given to items that are meant to be sat or laid upon.",
+                    "<b>Because Rabbi Akiva said a footbath [must be considered] according to its designation.</b>  Rabbi Akiva holds that anything that is called \"a footbath,\" even if it can hold more than nine kavs, is still susceptible to midras impurity."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nMost of this mishnah is found word for word in Zevahim 1:1 and 1:3. Most of my commentary here is the same as that there. It is brought here as well because according to this mishnah, those halakhot from Zevahim originated on that same famous day.",
+                    "<b>On that day they said: all animal sacrifices  which have been sacrificed under the name of some other offering  are [nevertheless] valid,  but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations,  with the exception of the pesah  and the sin-offering.</b>  For most sacrifices, if the priest offering them thinks that he is offering a different sacrifice than he is really supposed to be offering, the sacrifice is still valid. This means that its blood can be spilled on the altar and the sacrifice can be eaten by those who would have been able to eat it had it been offered properly. However, the sacrifice does not count as far as fulfilling the obligation of its owner. Thus if the owner was obligated to bring an olah, for instance, and it was sacrificed with the intent of it being another sacrifice, the owner must bring another olah in its place. The exception to this is the pesah and the hatat. If either of these two sacrifices is offered with the intent of its being a different type of sacrifices, not only does it not count for the owner who brought it, it is completely disqualified. Its blood cannot be spilled on the altar, nor can it be eaten.",
+                    "<b>[This is true of] the pesah in its correct time and the sin-offering at any time.</b>  The pesah is only disqualified if it is slaughtered with the wrong intent at the time that it is supposed to be slaughtered, on second half of the day on the fourteenth of Nissan. If it is slaughtered on the wrong day, for the wrong purpose, then paradoxically, it is valid, although it would obviously not count for its owner. Its as if the mishnah is saying that in this case, two negatives can make a positive. When it comes to the hatat, there is no specific time in which it must be offered. Therefore, no matter when it is offered, if the intention is for the wrong sacrifice, it is disqualified.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Eliezer says: [with the exception] also of the guilt-offering; [so that this refers to] the pesah in its correct time and to the sin- and guilt-offerings at any time.</b>  Rabbi Eliezer argues that the same rule that applies to the hatat applies to the asham, also a sacrifice brought to atone for sin. If it is slaughtered for the sake of it being a different sacrifice, it is disqualified.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the college that all animal sacrifices which are eaten and which have not been sacrificed under their own name are nevertheless valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. Ben Azzai only added [to these exceptions] the wholly burnt-offering, but the sages did not agree with him.</b>  This section is found in Zevahim 1:3. My commentary here is the same as it is there.",
+                    "<b>[This is true of] the pesah in its correct time and the sin-offering at any time.</b>  In section two we learned that the two exceptional sacrifices that are disqualified if offered with the wrong intent are the pesah and the hatat. All other sacrifices are valid if slaughtered with the intent of their being different sacrifices. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai quotes this tradition as being true only for sacrifices that are eaten. This would not include the olah, which is wholly burnt. According to ben Azzai’s tradition, the olah is disqualified if it is slaughtered with the intent of it being a different sacrifice. The final line of the mishnah notes that ben Azzai added the olah to the pesah and hatat, but that the sages (whose opinion is found in mishnah one) did not agree with this tradition. Rabbi Shimon Ben Azzai states that he received this tradition on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was appointed a member of the yeshiva (academy). This seems to be a famous day in rabbinic recollection and there is a significant amount of aggadah concerning the background to this appointment. The most expansive version of this aggadah is found in Bavli Berakhot 27b, where Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah is appointed head of the academy after Rabban Gamaliel is deposed. The historical accuracy of that legendary account is a bit suspect, but here in the Mishnah we can see that although we might not know exactly what happened that day, it was a memorable day, one which later rabbis used as a reference point."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn today's extraordinarily long mishnah there is a dispute concerning what tithes are given from produce grown in the land of Ammon and Moab on the sabbatical year. Inside the land of Israel seventh year produce is ownerless and no tithes are separated. Ammon and Moab are borderline lands. The sabbatical year is not operative in them but the rabbis did decree that one has to separate tithes from produce grown there. This creates the question of what type of tithes must be separated in the sabbatical year.\nAs further background, we should remember that there are two tithes. First tithes are given to the Levites. This tithe would be separated in Ammon and Moab during the sabbatical year. The other tithe alternates between second tithe, which is taken to Jerusalem and eaten there by its owners and the poor tithe which is given to the poor. Second tithe is taken out in the 1, 2, 4 and 5 years of the seven year cycle and poor tithe on the 3 and 6 year. This is the tithe that is debated in our mishnah.\nAlong with the particular content discussion, the argument in this mishnah reveals an unusual amount concerning rabbinic discourse. It offers us a fascinating glimpse into the inner workings of the early rabbinic academy.",
+                    "<b>On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe.</b>  Rabbi Tarfon rules that in these two lands they should separate poor tithes on the sabbatical year, whereas Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah rules that they should separate second tithe.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof.</b>  Rabbi Yishmael seems to act as a sort of moderator for the dispute. He tells Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah that the burden of proof is upon him, for he rules strictly. The reason that his opinion is considered \"strict\" is that second tithe is treated as holy, whereas poor tithe is not holy. As far as how much is given, there is no difference both are tithes.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof.</b>  Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah responds that the burden of proof should be upon Rabbi Tarfon, and not upon him. In the third and sixth years one gives poor tithes. The year that immediately follows is second tithe (at least in the fourth year).  Therefore, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah has not deviated from the normal order of second tithe always following after a year of poor tithe. So Rabbi Tarfon must first give proof for why we should deviate from the normal order. [This section kind of reminds me of the coin flip at the beginning of a football game arguing over who starts.]",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year,   so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.</b>  Having lost the coin flip, Rabbi Tarfon kicks off. He compares Ammon and Moab with Egypt. Just as Egypt gives poor tithes in the seventh year, so should Ammon and Moab. Later in the Mishnah we shall see that everyone agrees that the earlier sages decreed that Egypt should give poor tithe.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year.</b>  Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah responds by saying that the laws outside of Israel are not all the same. Babylon is also outside of Israel and there they separate second tithe during the seventh year, not poor tithe. So if you're going to compare Ammon and Moab to something, compare them to Babylon!",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year.</b>  The fight is truly getting brutal my friends! Rabbi Tarfon now explains why he compared Ammon and Moab to Egypt and not Babylon. Ammon, Moab and Egypt are both close to the land of Israel. Therefore the sages declared that they should give poor tithes so that the poor of Israel could benefit. In other words, Rabbi Tarfon feels that the sages adjusted the halakhah so that it would most benefit the poor.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend?   As it is said, \"Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings\" (Malakhi 3:8).</b>  Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah counterattacks. Giving tithes to the poor might provide them with some temporary relief. But if people should really be giving second tithe then they in the end will be causing destruction and death. For the verses from Malakhi state that people have cheated God by not bringing tithes. As a punishment, God will stop the rains and dew (this is made even more explicit in v. 10, not quoted in the Mishnah). Thus, perverting tithe laws in order to give to the poor ultimately will cause drought.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets.</b>  Rabbi Joshua now jumps into the debate. He defends Rabbi Tarfon but using different reasoning. That Egypt should give poor tithe is a \"new act,\" decreed by the sages of the Second Temple period, when Egypt again flourished as a center for Judaism. That Babylon should give second tithe is an \"old act,\" decreed by the prophets. Since Ammon and Moab are both new acts, they should be like the other \"new act\" and give poor tithe. A related factor is that Egypt is a \"decree of the sages,\" whereas Babylon is a \"decree of the prophets.\" Since Ammon and Moab will obviously be a decree of the sages, they should be like the other decree of the sages and give poor tithe.",
+                    "<b>The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.</b>  After all of the arguments have been made, the sages take a vote and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Tarfon win.",
+                    "<b>And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit  visited Rabbi Eliezer  in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: \"The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covenant, to make them know it\" (Psalms 25:14).  Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.</b>  There is a fascinating epitaph to this story. Rabbi Eliezer was evidently not there when this vote was taken. According to later legends he was excommunicated. Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit, an otherwise unknown sage, goes to Rabbi Eliezer to report to him about what happened in the academy. Rabbi Eliezer agrees with the content of the vote, but vehemently seems to disagree with the process. Rabbi Eliezer is saying I don't need your vote because I have a tradition that goes all the way back to Sinai that Ammon and Moab give poor tithe on the sabbatical year. The argument here is between Rabbi Eliezer's way of determining halakhah and that of the other rabbis. The other rabbis, at whose forefront stands Rabbi Joshua, hold that whenever a new situation arises sages must argue about it, present opposing points of view, and then bring the matter up for a vote. There are indeed innovations in halakhah and they are arrived upon through a process of dispute and voting. Rabbi Eliezer is the arch-conservative. Even obviously new situations such as this, Jews living in the lands of Ammon and Moab, were addressed at Sinai. There is no need for a vote and no need for argumentation.  Everything that ever will be was already there in the original revelation."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nDeuteronomy 23:4 states that an Ammonite or Moabite \"cannot enter the assembly of the Lord.\" The rabbis interpret this to mean that even if an Ammonite or Moabite convert, they still cannot marry a regular Israelite.\nOur mishnah, whose discussion also occurred \"on that day,\" deals with an Ammonite convert who comes before the sages asking if he is part of this prohibition. It sounds like the story was probably placed in this chapter because the previous mishnah also discussed Ammon and Moab.",
+                    "<b>On that day Judah, an Ammonite convert, came and stood before them in the house of study. He said to them: Do I have the right to enter into the assembly? Rabban Gamaliel said to him: you are forbidden. Rabbi Joshua said to him: you are permitted.</b>  Judah the Ammonite, who seems to have already converted to Judaism, comes in front of Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua asking to be allowed to marry an Israelite woman (not another Ammonite convert).",
+                    "<b>Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, \"An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord: even to the tenth generation\" (Deuteronomy 23:4).</b>  Rabban Gamaliel refuses to allow him to do so based on the verse from Deuteronomy. This would seem to be an open and shut case. Deuteronomy prohibits Ammonites from marrying into the assembly, so Judah should have to go marry someone else.",
+                    "<b>R. Joshua said to him: But are the Ammonites and Moabites still in their own territory? Sanheriv, the king of Assyria, has long since come up and mingled all the nations, as it is said: \"In that I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants\" (Isaiah 10:1.</b>  However, Rabbi Joshua responds by saying that those who identify today (i.e. in his day) as Ammonites are no longer the same Ammonites of yore. King Sanheriv, the same Assyrian king who destroyed the northern kingdom, came and mixed up all of the peoples, forcibly transferring them from one place to another, as he did with the 10 northern tribes. Therefore, the rules of the Torah that applied to the Ammonites back then, no longer apply now.",
+                    "<b>Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, \"But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon,\" (Jeremiah 49:6) they have already returned.</b>  Rabban Gamaliel actually accepts Rabbi Joshua's argument but responds that there is another verse that shows that God brought back the Ammonites from their exile. According to Rabban Gamaliel the verse from Jeremiah does not refer to the \"end of days\" as do the verses regarding the Moabites (Jeremiah 48:47) and Elam (49:39). Rather, God has already restored the Ammonites, so the prohibition from Deuteronomy applies again.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Joshua said to him: [another] verse says, \"I will return the captivity of my people Israel and Judah\" (Amos 9:14).  Yet they have not yet returned.</b>  The argument now turns on the meaning of a verse that says, \"And I have returned\" a certain people to their place. The prophet Amos uses the same language with regard to Israel and nevertheless Israel has not returned to its homeland, at least not all of Israel. So too, when it comes to Ammon, just because someone is currently an \"Ammonite\" does not mean that they are prohibited by the verse in Deuternomy.",
+                    "<b>So they permitted him to enter the assembly.</b>  The mishnah concludes with good news for our friend Judah. He is allowed into the community, meaning he can go find himself a good Yiddishe mamma! Sign the boy up for JDate!"
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah returns to the subject of scrolls defiling the hands.",
+                    "<b>The Aramaic sections in Ezra and Daniel defile the hands. If an Aramaic section was written in Hebrew, or a Hebrew section was written in Aramaic, or [Hebrew which was written with] Hebrew script, it does not defile the hands. It never defiles the hands until it is written in the Assyrian script, on parchment, and in ink.</b>  There are some portions of the book of Ezra and the book of Daniel that are in Aramaic, not Hebrew. These sections defile the hands just as do other portions of the Bible. The fact that they are in Aramaic does not make them less holy.",
+                    "This section seems to teach that Aramaic and Hebrew are not inherently holy languages such that they should defile the hands. If a portion of the Bible that is in Hebrew was translated into Aramaic (targum) it doesn't defile the hands. Neither do Hebrew translations of the Aramaic parts of the Bible. The Hebrew script we use is called Assyrian script. The older script is called by scholars  \"Phoenician script\" and is called by the rabbis \"Hebrew script.\" According to the Talmud, Ezra switched the script from the ancient Hebrew to the Assyrian. If a scroll of the Tanakh was written in this ancient script, it does not defile the hands.",
+                    "Only Tanakh scrolls written with the proper script, Assyrian, on parchment (made from the hides of an animal) and with ink are valid as ritual objects. Therefore, only these scrolls defile the hands."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final three mishnayot of the tractate contain disputes between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Our knowledge of these groups is quite vague. We know that the rabbis sided with the Pharisees, although the rabbis don't exactly see themselves as Pharisees. Assumedly this is because this division mostly ceased after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Josephus, the first century historian, divides the Jews into three \"philosophies\" Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. The New Testament mentions both the Pharisees and Sadducees. And there is a bitter argument over who the Dead Sea Sect was some believe they were Sadducees, but this is not generally accepted.\nIn these mishnayot the Sadducees complain against various halakhot of the Pharisees. There is an echo of this in a text called \"The Halakhic Letter\" found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In this letter, the Jews living in Qumran write of their halakhic disagreements with those Jews running the show in Jerusalem. There is some affinity between the halakhot of the writers living in Qumran and the Sadducees as presented in rabbinic literature. Rather than conclude that this means that these Jews were \"Sadducees\" I think it is more appropriate to say that these Jews had a halakhic system similar to the Sadducees. They may indeed have been Essenes (this is the general consensus); the differences between Essenes and Sadducees may be based on other issues besides halakhah.\nIn any case, these three mishnayot are fascinating because they afford us a glimpse into what kinds of things Second Temple religious leaders were arguing about.",
+                    "<b>The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer  do not defile the hands.</b>  The reason these complaints against the Pharisees are found in tractate Yadayim is that the first of the Sadducees' complaints is the subject at hand (pun intended). The Sadducees seem to know of two types of books, the works of Homer (not Simpson) and the Holy Scriptures. Clearly the latter are holy while the former are not. So why then do the Pharisees say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands whereas the works of Homer do not?",
+                    "<b>Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this?   Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yohanan the high priest are unclean.</b>  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai explains by playing devil's advocate. All agree that the bones of a donkey do not defile. Only the flesh of a dead impure animal defiles, not the bones (see Toharot 1:4). Interestingly, Rabbi Yohanan seems to mention the \"donkey\" because in Hebrew \"donkey\" is \"hamor\" which sounds like Homer pun intended! In any case, a donkey's bones do not defile but human bones, even those of one's parents do. Why should this be, he rhetorically asks?",
+                    "<b>They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother.</b>  Rabbi Yohanan's words force the Sadducees to admit to a principle. Defilement is a way to force people not to make profane use out of a beloved object. If human bones were ritually clean, people might make spoons out of the bones of their parents (okay, I admit this sounds strange would people really do such a thing?).",
+                    "<b>He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands.</b>  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai now uses that very principle to respond to the Sadducees. Homer's works are not beloved and therefore they don't defile the hands. But clearly the Holy Scriptures are beloved and therefore they do. This is similar to how I explained the prohibition at the outset of this issue (3:2)."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean. The Pharisees say: we complain against you, Sadducees, that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean?</b>  The Sadducees complain that the Pharisees declare that an uninterrupted flow is clean. What this means is that if one pours from a clean vessel into an unclean vessel what remains in the clean vessel is still clean (see Makhshirin 5:9). Interestingly, this very issue is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Pharisees respond with a precedent showing that water connected to a source of impurity does not necessarily become impure. Water that flows out of a cemetery is pure, even though it is still attached to the source. So too with the flow from one vessel to the other, even though the water is attached to something unclean, the upper vessel is still clean.",
+                    "<b>The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you say, my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable, yet my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable. Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties, yet I am responsible for their damages, in the case of my male or female slave for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot, how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages?</b>  The second argument in this mishnah compares damages or injury done by one's animals with injury or damage done by one's slaves. According to rabbinic law, a master is liable for damages done by his animals but not his slaves (see Bava Kamma 8:4). The Sadducees complain that this is illogical, for one is not liable to make sure that his animals perform mitzvoth, whereas one is liable to make sure that his slaves perform mitzvoth, such as brit milah (see Genesis 17:12) and eating the pesah sacrifice (Exodus 12:44).",
+                    "<b>They said to them: No, if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding, can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding? So that if I were to anger either of them and they would go and burn another person's stack, should I be liable to make restitution?</b>  The Pharisees respond that a master's liability for his animals is only because animals have no intelligence/understanding. Since an animal has no intelligence, at least legally speaking, his master is usually liable for damages performed by the animal. In contrast, a slave may be owned by his/her master, but the slave has intelligence and independent will. Even if one angers his slave and the slave damages some property, the owner is not liable. We should note that this Pharisaic law was probably unusual and perhaps even their own invention. Most law systems of the time, including other ancient near eastern laws, would have held a master liable for damages done by a slave. But for the rabbis, the operative principle in many matters of law is \"legal awareness\" or \"understanding.\" Since slaves have such capacity, they are independent and liable for damages they perform."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nIn this mishnah the argument is no longer with a Sadducee but a Galilean \"min.\" The word \"min\" is found in manuscripts of this mishnah, although in printed editions it says \"Sadducee.\" A \"min\" is somewhat akin to heretic. The \"min\" is clearly a Jew, but is part of a group that is opposed to the rabbis/Pharisees. In later literature it could be used to refer to a Christian but it clearly does not refer to a Christian here. Nevertheless, Christian censors in the Middle Ages did not like this word and therefore they forced the Jews to change it.",
+                    "<b>A Galilean min said: I complain against you Pharisees, that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document.</b>  The \"min\" complains against the Pharisees that they write the name of Moses and the current Roman ruler together in the divorce document, the get. What this means is that they would date the document by referring to the year of the ruling of the current king (see Gittin 8:5) and at the end, they would write, \"as is the religion of Moses Israel.\" This \"min\" seems to be attacking the Pharisees for accommodating themselves to Roman rule. Interestingly, this \"min\" is found in the Galilee, where the rabbis seemed to have lived in harmony with the Romans after the destruction of the Temple.",
+                    "<b>The Pharisees said: we complain against you, Galilean min, that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page [of Torah]? And furthermore that you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below? As it is said, \"And Pharoah said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?\" (Exodus 5:2) But when he was smitten what did he say? \"The Lord is righteous\" (Exodus 9:27).</b>  The Pharisees offer a cynical response. In Torah scrolls not only is the name of God and the name of Pharaoh written on the same page, but the name of Pharaoh comes first. Obviously, this is unavoidable, as can be shown from the verse in Exodus 5:2. So too, it is not a problem to write Moses's name in the same document as the Roman ruler's name. Our mishnah concludes with another verse \"The Lord is righteous.\" This verse is brought here so that the tractate does not conclude with a verse that says, \"Who is God.\" It is missing in some manuscripts. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Yadayim! As I always write, 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. Yadayim was interesting, wasn't it? Among all of the issues in Seder Toharot this may have been the most practical. In addition, this last chapter was simply fascinating (and I think I'm going to teach it in my Mishnah class tomorrow!). The issue of hand-washing and the impurity of scrolls were both innovations of the sages or their predecessors, the Pharisees. So we get to learn some Second Temple halakhic history on the side. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Oktzin the last tractate of the Mishnah!"
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+            "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ידים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Tahorot"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה ידים",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

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

@@ -0,0 +1,237 @@
+{
+    "language": "en",
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim",
+    "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 זבים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Tahorot"
+    ],
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "A \"zav\" is a man who had a non-seminal genital discharge, assumedly do to some illness. When a man has two such discharges, he must count seven days before he can go to the mikveh and become pure, however he is not obligated to bring a sacrifice unless he sees three times in one day or for three days straight.  A zav and a zavah (a woman who had non-menstrual blood), a niddah and a woman who gave birth defile things by contact, by carrying and by shifting. This is true whether the pure person carries or shifts the impure person without contact or vice versa, the impure person carries or shifts the pure person. This is unique to the category of zavim for in other cases of impurity, the impurity is conveyed only if the pure person carries the impure.  The following words will consistently be written in transliteration: 1) Zav—male with non-seminal genital discharge. 2) Zavah—female with non-menstrual blood. 3) Zivah—the discharge itself. 4) Zov—same as zivah. "
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes day a for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission.</b>  The two houses disagree in this mishnah concerning a man who had one emission of discharge of zov (see intro for all terms). According to Bet Shammai his status is like a woman who had an emission of zivah one time. Such a woman must wait a day and if she is pure that day, she will be pure at the end of the day. If she sees zivah for three straight days then she will be a full zavah. So too a man who saw one issue of zov must wait a day to see if he sees another issue. If he does, he is a zav and he will retroactively defile everything he touched, laid upon or sat upon from the time he saw the first issue. One who shifts the zov itself is also defiled. Bet Hillel says that a man who has had one issue of zov has the same status as one who has had a seminal emission. He does not defile things by laying on them or sitting on them and one who shifts the semen is not defiled. If he sees a second time, then he is a zav, but only from that point and onward.",
+                    "<b>Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.</b>  As we learned in the introduction, a full zav is one who saw three issues in one day or one issue for three straight days. The two houses here debate concerning a man who saw three issues, but not in one day or in three straight days. According to Bet Shammai this person is considered a full zav, for the first sighting of zov counts with the second two. Not only is he impure and must immerse in living water, but he is also liable to bring a sacrifice. Bet Hillel says that the discharge on the first day does not count together with the discharges that came two days later. Therefore, he is considered as if he had seen discharge only twice. He defiles through lying or sitting and he must immerse in living waters (a live spring, not a mikveh), as must a zav, but he is not liable for a sacrifice.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav.</b>  Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah disagrees with the version of this dispute contained in section two. According to him since he only saw zov once and then had a day in which he was pure, the sightings on the third day do not join the sighting on the first day.",
+                    "<b>What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.</b>  Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah says that the disagreement is concerning a slightly different situation. He saw zov twice on the first day, or one discharge that counted as twice. Now he is clearly a zav, although he is not yet liable for a sacrifice. If he sees discharge again on the third day, Bet Shammai says that since he is already a zav, this sighting joins with the first two and he is a full zav. Bet Hillel maintains their opinion that unless he sees for three straight days or three times on one day, he is not a full zav."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nA zav must wait for seven clean days to become pure. Our mishnah deals with a man who during those seven days in which he is supposed to be clean sees a discharge of semen.",
+                    "<b>If one sees an issue of semen on the third day of counting his zov: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; But Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day.</b>  Bet Shammai holds that if he has a seminal discharge on the third day of waiting to become clean from his zov, the first two days of cleanness are undone. He must now start his count over again. Bet Hillel says it only undoes the day on which he experienced the discharge. After that day he may resume his count.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Ishmael says: one who sees it on the second day, it undoes the preceding day.</b>  Rabbi Ishmael says that even Bet Hillel agrees that if one sees a seminal discharge on the second day, it undoes the first day. He must have two days of cleanness for them not to be undone.",
+                    "<b>But Rabbi Akiva says: it matters not whether he saw it on the second day or on the third day: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; And Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day.</b>  Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Ishmael and maintains that according to Bet Hillel it doesn't matter whether the seminal discharge occurred on the third or second day; in both cases Bet Hillel holds that it causes only that day not to count.",
+                    "<b>But they agree that if he saw it on the fourth day [of counting] it undoes only that day.</b>  The two houses agree that if he counted three full days of cleanness, they are not undone by seeing a seminal discharge. This is because three days is the amount of time it takes one to become a zav in the first place.",
+                    "<b>This is if he saw semen; but he saw zov, then even if this had occurred on the seventh day, it undoes all the days that had preceded.</b>  However, this is only true if he had a discharge of semen. The two houses argue whether and when a discharge of semen undoes the clean period for a zav. But if he sees another issue of zov, clearly this undoes the entire clean period and he must start the count all over again."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he saw one issue on one day and two on the next day, or two on one day and one on the next day, or three on three [consecutive] days, or three nights, he is a full zav.</b> This mishnah lays out the bottom line rule with regard to what is required for a person to become a full zav. If he has a three discharges on up to three days or nights straight, no matter what the combo, he is a full zav. He must bring a sacrifice at the end of his period of cleanness. We should note that this is different from a zavah. For a woman to become a zavah she must have non-menstrual blood flow on three consecutive days.  Three times on one day does not make her a zavah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he saw one [issue] and it stopped long enough for an immersion and a drying, and after that he saw two issues, or one as copious as two;<br>Or if he saw two [issues] or one as copious as two, and it stopped long enough for an immersion and a drying, and after that he again saw an issue, he is a full zav.</b><br>This mishnah deals with the question of how to determine if one discharge should be divided into two. In other words, how long must there be between discharges for them to count as two?<br>The answer in both of these cases is that if the flow stops long enough for him to have immersed and then dried off, the second flow is considered to be new."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he saw one issue which was as copious as three, lasting as long [as it takes to go] from Gad-Yav to Shiloah, which is the time it would take to bathe and dry twice, he becomes a full zav.</b>  The mishnah now mentions the possibility that a man could have one issue of zov (discharge) and it would be sufficient to count as all three issues necessary to become a full zav. The discharge would have to last long enough to bathe and dry twice, once in between each issue, had they been separate. In addition, the mishnah defines this as the time it would take to walk from a place called Gad Yavan to the Shiloah spring in Jerusalem. Unfortunately, we don't know where \"Gad Yavan\" is. But assumedly it is near the Shiloah spring, the source of water for the ancient city of Jerusalem.",
+                    "<b>If he saw one issue which was as copious as two, he defiles [objects] on which he lies or sits and he must immerse in running water, but he is exempt from bringing a sacrifice.</b>  One issue can count as two to make a man into a zav, but not a full zav. The difference between a full zav and a zav is that a full zav must bring a sacrifice at the end of his period of cleanness.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose said: they have not spoken of \"one issue as copious\" unless there was sufficient to make up three.</b>  Rabbi Yose said that there is no legal consequences to seeing one issue of zov that is as copious as two. Either the issue was as copious as three, in which case he would be a full zav, or it would count as only one. This means that Rabbi Yose would disagree with most of the mishnayot that we have seen so far in this chapter."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with a man who has an issue at twilight. The question is does the change of day divide one issue into two issues?",
+                    "<b>If he saw one issue during the day and another at twilight, or one at twilight and the other the next day: If he knew that part of the issue occurred at day-time and part the next day, he is certain with regard to a sacrifice and uncleanness. But if it is in doubt whether part [of the issue] occurred at day-time and part on the next day he is certain with regard to uncleanness, but in one of doubt in with regard a sacrifice.</b>  In this case a person had an issue of zov during the day and then another at twilight, a time which is not easy to determine as either night or day. Or he had an issue at twilight and then another the following day. We need to determine whether the issue he had at twilight counts as two issues, such that he is now a full zav. Or does it count as only one, such that he is a zav, but not a full zav? If he knew that part of the issue that happened at twilight occurred during one day and part the next, then he would certainly be impure and he would certainly be liable for a sacrifice. We learn here that a new day causes one issue to be legally considered two. [We should note that I'm not sure if it's all that possible to know whether it occurred during one day or the next day. The mishnah wants to teach the principle, the turn of a day separates one sighting from another]. However, if he is not certain whether one occurred one day and the other the next, then there is doubt as to whether he has seen three issues or two. Since in any case he has seen two issues, he is certainly unclean for seven days, as is always the case with a person who saw two issues. However, since it is uncertain whether he has seen two issues or three, he is not liable to bring a sacrifice.",
+                    "<b>If he had seen issues on two separate days at twilight, he is in doubt both with regard to defilement and with regard to a sacrifice.</b>  In this case, he saw an issue for two days straight at twilight. It is possible therefore that an entire day interrupted between the first issue and the second. In such a case he wouldn't even be impure. His purity status is therefore doubtful. On the other hand, he might have seen three issues, one of them being divided by the turn of the day into two. Therefore, he might be liable for a sacrifice. His status vis a vis a sacrifice is therefore also doubtful.",
+                    "<b>If [he had seen only] one issue at twilight, he is in doubt [also] with regard to [his] defilement.</b>  One issue seen at twilight is enough to create a doubt with regard to his purity status, for the turn of the day could divide the issue into being considered two issues. However, there is no possibility to consider this to be three sightings. Clearly, he is not liable for a sacrifice."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>All persons become unclean through zivah, even converts, even slaves whether freed or not, a deaf-mute, a person of unsound senses, and a minor, a eunuch whether [he had been castrated] by man, or was a eunuch from [the time of seeing] the sun.</b>  The laws of becoming unclean through seeing zivah (zov) apply to any Jew of any status, including converts, freed and non-freed slaves and people who legally are considered as lacking awareness. They apply to all males, even those who have been castrated, either by another human being or were born as eunuchs.",
+                    "<b>With regard to a tumtum and an androgynous [person], they place upon him the stringencies for a man and the stringencies for a woman: they defile through blood like a woman, and through eggy [substance]  like a man. Their uncleanness still remains in doubt.</b>  The laws of being a zav apply only to a man and the laws of being a zavah apply only to a woman. They also work differently. Our mishnah asks what to do with two categories of people who exist somewhere in between, neither male nor female? A tumtum does not have signs of being either male or female whereas an androgynous person has both (according to the rabbinic definition). The rule with regard to the stringencies that apply to either sex apply to them. So if they have blood flow, it defiles as it does for a woman. And if they have zov discharge (eggy substance) then they defile as it does for a man. However, the status of their defilement is doubtful. For if they see blood, they might be a male for whom blood does not defile. And if they see a discharge of zov, they might be female for whom such discharge does not defile. Therefore, in either case they only doubtfully defile."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nZivah comes only from a genital disease or dysfunction. The rabbis considered it to be in a sense diseased semen (I know, this sounds a bit humorous). It has a different color from semen. If the rabbis could establish that the zivah came from another cause besides some genital disease, then they didn't consider it be zivah. Our mishnah talks about what else we could attribute the zivah to.",
+                    "<b>There are seven ways in which a zav is examined as long as he had not become subject to zivah:</b>  When a person sees zivah, he can come to an expert and the expert could tell him that the appearance of the zivah is due to some other cause, not actual genital disease. If they find another reason as to why it occurred, they can keep him from becoming pure. However, this only works before he has become a zav, as we shall see at the end of this mishnah. Once he has already been declared a zav, the zivah can't be attributed to anything else.",
+                    "<b>With regard to food, drink, as [to what] he had carried, whether he had jumped, whether he had been ill, what he had seen, or what he had thought.</b>  There are seven other things to which the rabbis attribute the appearance of zivah. Most of these are self-explanatory. Seeing refers to seeing a woman and having some sexual thoughts about her. \"What he had thought\" refers to having sexual thoughts about a woman. The rabbis also thought that the zivah could have been a result of eating some food, drink or carrying something, perhaps heavy.",
+                    "<b>[It doesn't matter] whether he had thoughts before seeing [a woman], or whether he had seen [a woman] before his thoughts.</b>  It doesn't matter whether he had the sexual thoughts before or after he saw the woman in both cases, we can attribute the appearance of zivah to his sexual thoughts and not to genital disease.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: even if he had watched beasts, wild animals or birds having intercourse with each other, and even when he had seen a woman's dyed garments.</b>  Evidently, Rabbi Judah assumes that a man might be sexually aroused by seeing animals have sex or by seeing colored women's clothing. Therefore, if he saw any of these and then saw zivah, we can attribute it to sexual arousal and not disease.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Akiva says: even if he had eaten any kind of food, be it good or bad, or had drunk any kind of liquid. They said to him: Then there will be no zavim in the world!’ He replied to them: you are not held responsible for the existence of zavim!’</b>  Rabbi Akiva is willing to attribute the appearance of zivah to anything whatsoever. As his students note, this will make it so there will never be any more zavim in the world. Remarkably, Rabbi Akiva responds that if his definition of zivah and why it occurs should make it such that there are no more zavim, then so be it. To me, this is the ultimate statement of Rabbi Akiva's belief that law trumps reality. If he, the rabbi, dictates that we can attribute zivah to eating or drinking anything and it results in there never being any more zavim, then so be it.",
+                    "<b>Once he had become subject to zivah, no further examination takes place.</b>  If he has already seen zivah twice, then there is no more room to attribute it to anything else. In other words, these questions must be asked immediately, not after he is already considered a zav.",
+                    "<b>[Zov] resulting from an accident, or that was at all doubtful, or an issue of semen, these are unclean, since there are grounds for the assumption [that it is zivah].</b>  If he has a seminal emission at the outset and a little bit of zivah also comes out, this zivah is not impure for one who has an emission does not defile through zivah for a 24 hour period. In other words, until he is decidedly impure the semen purifies the zivah, which is considered to have been an \"accident.\" However, after he has already seen zivah, a seminal emission does not purify the zivah, for we can't assume that the zivah was a result of the semen. Therefore, in this case it counts as seeing zivah.",
+                    "<b>If he had at a first [issue] they examine him; On the second [issue] they examine him, but on the third [issue] they don't examine him. Rabbi Eliezer says: even on the third [issue] they examine him because of the sacrifice.</b>  If he saw zivah one time, they examine him as we explained above. If he saw it again, they can examine him again to see if they can attribute it to something else. But if he saw it a third time (without having been examined the first two times), they don't examine him, for after the second time he was already a zav. Rabbi Eliezer says they even examine him after the third time to ascertain that he is truly liable for a sacrifice. If he experienced the third issue for some other reason, then he is not liable for the sacrifice, even though he is a zav."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>One who had [a discharge of] semen does not defile due to zivah for a period of twenty-four hours. Rabbi Yose says: [only] that day.</b>  As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, if a man has a seminal emission, for the next twenty-four hours any zivah is attributed to the semen; he does not defile as does a zav. Rabbi Yose says that this \"grace\" period is just during that day, the day on which he had a seminal emission. If the following day he has a flow of zov, he is impure, even if this is less than 24 hours after the seminal emission.",
+                    "<b>A non-Jew who had a discharge of semen and then converted, he immediately becomes unclean due to zivah.</b>  When a non-Jew converts, all of the things that happened to him as a non-Jew no longer count towards his status. So if he had a seminal emission before he converted, and then he converted, the seminal emission does not purify the zivah that he sees after he has converted (welcome to Judaism!). This is summed up by the saying that \"a person who converts is like a newborn child.\" He starts afresh and seminal emissions that he had as a non-Jew no longer count (bet you never knew that one before!).",
+                    "<b>[A woman] who had [an issue] of blood, or had experienced difficulty [in childbirth], [the time prescribed] is twenty-four hours.</b>  A woman who sees menstrual blood defiles things that she has had contact with in the past 24 hours. This is a halakhah we saw throughout tractate Niddah. A woman who has labor pains cannot be a zavah even if she has seen zivah. However, if there are 24 hours in which she doesn't have pains and then she sees zivah, then she can be considered a woman who has childbirth while she is a zavah (there are special rules concerning this scenario, see Niddah 4:4).",
+                    "<b>One who strikes his slave, the \"day or two\" is twenty-four hours.</b>  The next two sections are here only because they deal with other cases in which a 24 hour waiting period is relevant. If a person strikes his slave and the slave is okay for 24 hours, and then he dies, the owner is exempt (Exodus 21:21). The rabbis understand \"a day or two\" to be a 24 hour waiting period.",
+                    "<b>A dog that eats a corpse's flesh, for three days from one time of day to the same time of day, it is considered to be in its natural state.</b>  If a dog eats the flesh of a human corpse, the flesh continues to defile as human flesh for three days, from the time of day in which it was eaten. After that, it no longer defiles because it is no longer considered to be human flesh."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah deals with how a zav defiles things.",
+                    "<b>A zav defiles the objects that are lain upon (or sat in five ways, so that they defile people and garments: by standing, sitting, lying, hanging or leaning.</b>  A zav can defile things that are lain upon or sat upon (such as chairs and couches) even though he hasn't touched them. The things that he defiles will then defile other people and clothing (see Leviticus 15:5-6). The five ways are: standing (he stands on the object, even if he doesn't touch it. Sitting and lying (even without touching). \"Hanging\" refers to a case where the zav is hanging because of the couch or chair. For instance, the chair is on one end of a balance and the zav on the other. If the zav is lifted up by the heavier chair, the chair is now impure. These five things are called \"midras hazav.\" The chair or couch is now a \"father of impurity\" and it will defile other people and garments. Note that simply touching something is not sufficient he must do one of these five things.",
+                    "<b>What he lies upon defiles a person in seven ways, so that he [in turn] defiles garments: by standing, sitting, lying, hanging, or leaning upon it, or by touching or carrying it.</b>  The couch or chair (or other such instrument) upon which he lied or sat (or one of the other ways of conveying impurity listed above) will defile people such that they in turn defile garments. Note that if it defiles garments, these garments do not defile people. The couch or chair defiles by standing on a person, by sitting or lying on a person, by being hanged by a person (see previous section) or by leaning on a person. These five are the same as those above. In addition, it also defiles by touching or by being carried by a pure person."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>A zav and a clean person who sat together in a boat, or on a raft, or rode together on a beast, even though their garments did not touch, behold they are impure through midras.</b>  In this case the zav and a clean person are traveling together on a boat, raft or animal. The clothes of the pure person are defiled by the zav even if they didn't touch. There are two possible explanations for why. First of all, since these things are all moving, it is possible and even likely that the zav did indeed lean upon the clean person's clothing. Alternatively, the clean person could have caused the ship, raft or animal to lean in his direction which would cause the zav to go up. This is \"hanging\" explained in yesterday's mishnah.",
+                    "<b>If they sat together on a plank, on a bench or on a bed-frame, or on a beam, when these were not fixed tightly, [Or] if they had both climbed a weak tree, or [were swaying] on a weak branch of a strong tree; Or if they were both [climbing] on an Egyptian ladder which was not secured by a nail; Or if they sat together on a bridge, rafter or door, not secured by clay, they are unclean. Rabbi Judah says that they are clean.</b>  In all of these cases, the zav and the clean person sit on something loose. Since the zav's moving would cause the clean person to move as well, the clean person is defiled. This is called defilement through shifting. An alternative explanation is that this is the same as the case in section one. The clean person might cause the zav to go up and this is considered \"hanging.\""
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah deals with a series of cases in which a zav and a clean person are jointly performing some action. In each case, there is one opinion that holds that the clean person has been defiled, or might have been defiled, and there is one opinion that holds that only if the act was done under specific conditions is he considered defiled.",
+                    "<b>If they were both closing or opening [a door], [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. But the sages say: [he is not unclean] unless one was shutting and the other opening [it].</b>  According to the first opinion, if they were both either opening or closing a door then the zav has shifted the clean person by applying pressure to the door. The clean person and his clothes are defiled. The sages hold that this is true only if they are pushing against each other. In such a case, it is likely that one has moved the other. But if both are opening or closing, then it is more likely that neither has moved the other, so the clean person remains pure.",
+                    "<b>If one was lifting the other out of a pit [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. Rabbi Judah says: only if the clean person was pulling out the unclean one.</b>  According to the first opinion, if the zav and pure person are helping each other climb out of a pit, then it is likely that the zav has lifted or shifted in some way the pure person. Therefore, he is defiled. Rabbi Judah says that the pure person is defiled only if the pure person is helping the zav get out of the pit. In such a case, the zav may have leaned on the pure person and defiled him. But if the zav is helping the pure person out of the pit, he is not defiled. Evidently, Rabbi Judah is lenient and holds that the zav must lean on the pure person to defile him. Simply moving him does not cause defilement. Note that Rabbi Judah was also lenient in yesterday's mishnah.",
+                    "<b>If they were twisting ropes together [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. But the sages say: unless the one pulled one way and the other pulled the other way.</b>  Again, the first opinion holds that by twisting ropes together the zav may have leaned upon or shifted the clean person and thereby defiled him. The sages rule that they have to be pulling in opposite directions, as was the case with the door in section one.",
+                    "<b>If they were both weaving together, whether they were standing or sitting, or grinding wheat, [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. Rabbi Shimon says [the clean person] in every case is pure, except where they [both] were grinding with a hand-mill.</b>  The first opinion holds that weaving or grinding together causes the zav to defile the clean person, either because he leans on him or he shifts him. Rabbi Shimon rules more leniently. The only case of defilement is when they grind together with a hand-mill.",
+                    "<b>If they [both] were unloading or loading a donkey, they are unclean if the load was heavy, but clean if the load was light.</b>  If they are both unloading a donkey and the load is heavy, then the zav would likely have leaned on the pure person and defiled him. But if the load is light, they could both unload independently and one has not leaned on the other.",
+                    "<b>In all cases, however, they are clean for members of the synagogue, but are unclean for terumah.</b>  In all of these cases, we can't be certain that the pure person is defiled. Therefore, he can sit with other members of the synagogue who are eating their non-sacred food in a state of purity. Since this behavior is only a stringency, and is not required by law, we can be lenient and let him eat with them. However, the Torah prohibits eating defiled terumah. Therefore, he cannot eat terumah. This last clause basically serves to clarify that in all of these cases the status of his impurity is doubtful, not certain."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If the zav and the clean person sat together in a large boat: (what is considered a large boat? Rabbi Judah said: one that does not sway with a man's, or if they sat on a plank, bench, bed-frame, or beam when these were firmly secured; Or if they both climbed a strong tree, a firm branch, or a Tyrian ladder, or an Egyptian ladder fixed by a nail; Or if they sat on a bridge, rafter or door, when these were fastened with clay, even if only at one end, they remain clean.</b>  In all of these cases, since the things upon which the zav and clean person sat were stable, the zav has not moved the clean person. Therefore, the clean person remains clean. Note that most of this list is simply the opposite of those things listed in mishnah one. Either they were firmly secured, they were fixed by a nail or they were fastened in place by clay. In mishnah one, the opposite was always the case the various items were loose. Therefore the pure person became defiled.",
+                    "<b>If the clean one struck the unclean one, he still remains clean. But if the unclean one struck the clean one, he is impure; for [in that case] if the clean one drew back, the unclean one would have fallen.</b>  A clean person who strikes a zav remains clean because the zav has not moved the clean person. While it is possible that when hitting him the clean person leaned on the zav, since this is not certain, he remains clean. However, if the zav strikes the clean person he is in a sense leaning on the clean person, for if the clean person moves when the zav strikes him, the zav would fall down (and be embarrassed). Leaning on the clean person defiles him."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Rabbi Joshua said: if a menstruant sat in a bed with a clean woman, [even] the cap on her head contracts midras uncleanness. And if she sat in a boat, the vessels on the top of the mast [also] contract midras uncleanness.</b>  A niddah defiles in the same way that a zav and a zavah do. According to the rabbis in 3:1, when a niddah (or a zav) sits in the same bed (or boat or carriage) as does a pure person she defiles the other person's clothes because she might have stepped on them. Rabbi Joshua says that even the cap on the other person's head is defiled, even though the niddah definitely didn't step on the other woman's head. Similarly, if she sits in a boat, even the vessels on the top of the mast are unclean, even though she clearly didn't step on them. Rabbi Joshua rules more strictly than do the other sages.",
+                    "<b>If there was [on the boat] a tub full of clothes: If their weight was heavy, they become unclean, But if their weight was light, they remain clean.</b>  This section is also part of Rabbi Joshua's opinion. I have explained the section according to Albeck. If the clothes were heavy, then there is a possibility that they pushed the boat down on one side and therefore lifted up the niddah who was on the other side. As we learned in 2:4, if a zav (or zavah or niddah) is \"hung\" by something, the other thing becomes impure. However, if the tub of clothes is light, they remain pure because they wouldn't have caused the boat to shift. Note that Rabbi Judah does not automatically make the clothes impure, as he did in section one. Albeck explains that Rabbi Judah rules strictly only with regard to single pieces of clothing. When it comes to a tub of clothing, he rules more in line with the other sages.",
+                    "<b>If a zav knocked against a balcony and thereby caused a loaf of terumah to fall down, it remains clean.</b>  Although it seems that the zav caused the loaf of terumah to fall and thereby defiled it, the rabbis don't think that the zav really could have caused the stone balcony to shift. Rather, it must have been some movement in the ground that caused the loaf to fall. Therefore, it remains pure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he knocked against a strong beam, a window-frame, water-pipe, a shelf, even though it was fixed with ropes, or an oven, a flour container, the lower mill-stone, the base of a hand-mill, or the se'ah measure  of an olive-grinder, [the loaf remains clean].</b>  In all of these cases there was a loaf of terumah bread sitting on one of these large items. A zav knocked against one of them and the loaf fell down. Since all of these items are set in their place we can attribute the loaf falling down to some force other than the zav. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, we can assume that the ground shifted.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose adds: also [if he knocks] against the beam of the bath-keeper, it remains clean.</b>  Rabbi Yose adds that the same halakhah applies to the \"beam of a bath-keeper.\" This is the beam upon which it was customary for the bath-keeper to sit."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he knocked against a door, doorbolt, lock, oar, mill basket,   or against a weak tree, or weak branch of a strong tree, or against an Egyptian ladder unsecured by nails, or against a bridge, beam or door, not made secure with clay, they become unclean.</b>  In all of these cases the zav knocks against something and thereby causes an object to fall off of it. Since these things are loose or weak, we can assume that the zav caused the object to fall and therefore the object becomes unclean. Many of these items were mentioned in mishnah 3:1 (and their opposites in 3:3). [Note that door seems to have crept into this mishnah twice. Clearly a mistake it probably belongs in the first half and not the second].",
+                    "<b>[If he knocked] against a chest, box or cupboard, they become unclean. Rabbi Nehemiah and Rabbi Shimon declare them clean in these cases.</b>  According to the first opinion these objects are not so sturdy and therefore it is likely that the zav caused them to fall. Rabbi Nehemiah and Rabbi Shimon believe that they are sturdy and therefore if something falls off of them, it probably was not due to the zav."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nA zav who lies on something makes it unclean. Our mishnah deals with cases where a zav lies on multiple items do they all become impure, or can we isolate which one(s) he really laid upon?",
+                    "<b>A zav who lays across five benches, or five money-belts: If lengthwise, he [makes them] unclean; But breadthwise, they are clean.</b>  If the zav lies across the length of five benches or money-belts it is possible that at any one time most of his weight was on one of the benches or belts. Therefore, they are all impure. However, if he lies on them across their breadth then his weight is distributed equally among them all. Since he didn't lie on any one of them, they all remain pure.",
+                    "<b>If he slept [on them],   and it was doubful that he had turned over onto them, they are unclean.</b>  If he slept on the benches or the money-belts then they are impure even if he slept across their breadth because we don't know if he turned around a lot while sleeping. Since he might have put all of his weight on one, they are all impure.",
+                    "<b>If he was lying on six seats, with two hands on two [seats], two feet on another two, his head on one, with his body on another one, only that one on which his body lay   is rendered unclean.</b>  Since the majority of his mass was on one of the seats, only that seat is unclean.",
+                    "<b>If [a zav] stood on two seats: Rabbi Shimon says: if these were distant one from the other, they remain clean.</b>  If the two seats are far apart from the other, then the zav would need both of them to stand on. Take one away and he would fall down. Since neither would support the full weight of the zav each remains pure. But if they were close together, at times the zav could shift all of his weight to one and then it would be defiled."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Ten cloaks one on top of the other, if he sat on the uppermost one, all are unclean.</b>  When a zav sits (other versions read sleeps) on a pile of something, all of the things upon which he sat become impure, even though he only touched the upper most one.",
+                    "<b>A zav who was one one scale of a balance and in the other scale opposite there were objects fit to sit or lie upon: If the zav pushed them up, they are clean. But if they pushed him up, they are unclean. Rabbi Shimon says:   if there was one object it becomes unclean, but if there were many   they remain clean, since none of them had borne the greater part [of the zav's weight].</b>  In mishnah 2:4 we learned that if another object causes a zav to be lifted up, that object becomes impure. So imagine a huge balance (maybe a seesaw?!) with a zav on one side and on the other side are things that one lies or sits upon. If he lifts them up they do not have midras impurity, because he didn't \"lean\" on them. However, since he did carry them they do have some impurity, just a lesser degree. If they push him up then he is considered as having leaned upon them, and they are impure. Rabbi Shimon says that if there are multiple objects on the opposite side of the scale, then they have all divided up his weight equally. Since none of them bear the majority of his weight they all remain pure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If a zav [sat] in one scale of the balance, while food and liquids were in the other scale, [the latter become] unclean.</b>  The food or liquids that are on the other side of the scale are lifted up by the weight of the zav. However, they do not have midras impurity, even if they are heavy enough to lift up the (lightweight) zav because midras impurity is only conveyed to objects that are designed to be sat or laid upon. Food and liquid are never susceptible to midras impurity. However, they are impure with first degree impurity, which is lighter than midras impurity.",
+                    "<b>In the case of a corpse, everything remains clean except for a man.</b>  The mishnah now begins to compare impurity conveyed by a dead body with the impurity conveyed by a zav. When a dead body is on one side of a balance and something else is on the other side, whatever is on the other side is not defiled because a dead body does not defile by sitting, laying or shifting without contact.",
+                    "<b>This is [an example of] the greater stringency applying to a zav than to a corpse; and there is a greater stringency in the case of a corpse than a zav.</b>  This is the general statement that sums up this mishnah sometimes the rules are stricter for a zav and sometimes they are stricter for a corpse. This is typical of the Mishnah it loves to compare laws governing different yet similar cases.",
+                    "<b>For whereas the zav defiles all objects on which he sits or lies upon, so that these likewise convey uncleanness to people and garments, and he conveys to what is above him madaf uncleanness, so that these in turn defile food and liquids. Whereas in the case of a zav no such uncleanness is conveyed.</b>  There are two types of uncleanness conveyed by a zav that are not conveyed by a corpse. The first is that a zav conveys uncleanness by sitting or lying on things, such that those items now convey uncleanness even to people and clothing. Furthermore, a zav defiles things that are placed on top of him even if he doesn’t touch them. This impurity is called \"madaf\" and it probably comes from the word for \"shelf\" madaf in Hebrew. This impurity is relatively light for these items defile other food and liquids but they wouldn't defile clothing and people. Again, a dead body wouldn't defile in this way.",
+                    "<b>Greater stringency is also found in the case of a corpse, since it can convey uncleanness by overshadowing, and it defiles seven days’ defilement, whereas in the case of a zav no such uncleanness is conveyed.</b>  A dead body does defile by overhanging (an ohel). We learned about this extensively in Tractate Ohalot. This means that if something hangs over both a corpse and a clean object the impurity of the corpse goes to the clean object. A zav doesn't defile in this way."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he sat on a bed and there were four cloaks under the four legs of the bed, all become unclean, since the bed cannot stand on three legs; But Rabbi Shimon declares them clean.</b>  Since the bed can't stand without all four legs, we have to look at each leg of the bed as if it carries the full weight of the zav. Therefore, all four cloaks are impure because he sat on all four of them. Rabbi Shimon says that all four of the cloaks are clean. This is because none of them bears the zav's full weight. Since his weight is evenly distributed among the four legs, they all remain pure.",
+                    "<b>If he rode on a beast and there were four cloaks under the legs of the beast, they are clean, since the beast can stand upon three legs.</b>  In contrast to a table, an animal can stand on three legs, so any one leg is not necessary for bearing the weight of the zav.",
+                    "<b>If there was one cloak under its two forelegs or its two hindlegs, or under a foreleg and a hindleg, it becomes unclean.</b>  But a beast cannot stand on two legs. Therefore, if the cloak is underneath any of the two legs, then it is considered to bear the full weight of the zav and it is unclean.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: a horse conveys uncleanness through its hindlegs and a donkey through its forelegs, since a horse leans upon its hindlegs and a donkey upon its forelegs.</b>  According to Rabbi Yose a horse bears its weight on its hindlegs and a donkey's weight is borne on its forelegs. Therefore, if the cloak is under the horse's hindlegs or the donkey's forelegs it is impure. But if not, it remains pure.",
+                    "<b>If he sat on a beam of an olive-press, the vessels in the olive-press receptacle are unclean.</b>  Since the zav presses down on the olive press, the olives are impure.",
+                    "<b>[If he sat] on a clothing press, the garments beneath it are clean. Rabbi Nehemiah declares them unclean.</b>  Unlike an olive press, a clothing press is already closed tight. When the zav sits on the clothing press, he doesn't really press down on the garments. Therefore, they remain clean. Rabbi Nehemiah holds that the zav does press down on the clothing press and the clothing inside and therefore they are defiled."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>One who touches a zav, or whom a zav touches, who moves  a zav or whom a zav moves, defiles by contact food and liquids and vessels that are rinsed, but not by carrying.</b>  A zav defiles through contact or through moving something or being moved by something. This mishnah discusses the level of impurity of the person whom he defiled. Such a person defiles food, liquids and vessels that \"are rinsed\" meaning vessels that can be purified by being put in a mikvah. This would include basically all vessels except earthenware, which can't become pure in a mikveh. The person defiled by a zav defiles only through actual contact she/he does not defile through carrying. She also does not defile other people just food and things.",
+                    "<b>A general principle was stated by Rabbi Joshua: anyone that defile garments  while still in contact [with their source of uncleanness] also defiles foods and liquids so as to become [unclean] in the first grade, and the hands  so that they become [unclean] in the second grade; but they do not defile people or earthenware vessels.</b>  Rabbi Joshua formulates a general principle meant to aid in determining the level of impurity of certain people mentioned in the Torah. The Torah says about certain people, for instance one touched by a zav, that he must wash his clothes (see for instance Leviticus 15:5-11, 21-22, 27). When he is actually touching the zav or something the zav laid upon, his level of impurity is relatively high. He defiles food and liquids so that they have first degree impurity. And if he touches the hands of another person he gives them second degree impurity (we will return to the topic of hand impurity in the next tractate). However, he doesn't defile people or earthenware vessels, as was stated in section one.",
+                    "<b>After they separated from their source of uncleanness they defile liquids so as to become [unclean] in the first grade, and food and the hands so that they become [unclean] in the second grade, but they do not defile garments.</b>  This is a continuation of Rabbi Joshua's general principle. Once the person has separated from the source of impurity, his ability to defile is lowered. He still defiles liquids so that they have first degree impurity. This is because liquids have a higher degree of susceptibility to impurity. However, he only defiles food and hands so that they have second degree impurity. This means that the food is only affected if it is terumah. If it is regular produce, it is unaffected. These people do not defile garments or any other vessels for they are treated as if they have first degree impurity and people with first degree impurity do not defile vessels or people."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah provides some general rules as to how a zav defiles things that are either above him or below him that he does not touch.",
+                    "<b>They said yet another general principle: All that is carried above a zav becomes defiled, but all those things above which he is carried are clean except objects on which he can sit or lie upon, and a person.</b>  This section describes the general rule. Anything above a zav is defiled but things that are below him are defiled only if they were meant for sitting or lying upon, except for a person who carries a zav who is also defiled. The rest of the mishnah will illustrate this principle.",
+                    "<b>How so? If a zav had his finger beneath a layer of stones and one that was clean was above, he conveys uncleanness at two [degrees of remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness] he still defiles at one remove and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove].</b>  The mishnah now begins to demonstrate how this defilement is conveyed. A zav has his finger underneath a row of stones (ouch!) and on top of the row of stones is a pure person. The pure person is considered to be carried by the zav. The pure person now becomes a \"father of impurity.\" Anything he touches will have first degree impurity and anything touched by it will have second degree impurity. If the object with second degree impurity touches terumah the terumah is disqualified (see Kelim 19:4). This is in general a description of the defiling power of one who is considered to be a father of impurity. If the pure person moves away from the row of stones or the zav removes his hand then the pure person will only have first degree impurity. Anything he touches will have second degree impurity and any terumah that it touches will be disqualified.",
+                    "<b>If the unclean one was above, and the clean person below, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [more remove].</b>  The same rules apply if the zav was on top of the row of stones and the finger of the pure person was below.",
+                    "<b>If foods or liquids, or objects on which he could sit or lie upon or other articles were above, they defile at one remove, and disqualify [terumah] at one [further remove]. If they had become separated [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at one [remove] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove].</b>  If the zav is below and something that is meant to be sat upon or food or any article (called in Hebrew a madaf) was above, he defiles them with only first degree impurity. This doesn't change if the source of impurity is removed. [I should note that I have explained this according to most commentators, but they printed editions of the Mishnah have a different reading].",
+                    "<b>All objects fit to sit or lie upon that were below defile at two [removes], and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. If they had become separate [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at two [removes] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove] Foods and liquids and other articles that are below, remain clean.</b>  However, if the zav is above and something meant to be sat or lied upon is below him, he defiles them such that they become fathers of impurity. Even if the source of impurity is removed, they remain fathers of impurity. However, he only conveys impurity to things that are meant to be sat or lied upon. If below him are foods, liquids or other articles not meant to be sat upon, they remain pure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah compares how three objects, (1) something that a zav has sat or laid upon, (2) carrion and (3) a piece of a human corpse, defile without contact.",
+                    "<b>Whatever carries or is carried by objects on which one sits or lies upon remain clean, except for a person.</b>  Anything that carries an object that was laid upon by a zav without touching it or is carried by it, meaning it was above and the thing the zav laid or sat upon was below, remains clean. The only exception is a person. If a person carries or is carried by something upon which a zav sat or laid, the person is impure, even if he didn't touch it.",
+                    "<b>Whatever carries or is carried by carrion is clean, except for one that shifts it. Rabbi Eliezer says: also one that carries it.</b>  The mishnah compares this situation with that of carrion meat from an animal that had not been slaughtered properly. Whatever carries or is carried upon carrion (no pun intended, I promise) remains pure (as long as he didn't touch it). The only exception is a person who shifts the carrion. He is impure, even if he doesn't touch it. Rabbi Eliezer says that also one who carries carrion is impure, even if he didn't move it.",
+                    "<b>Whatever carries or is carried upon a corpse remains clean, except for one that overshadows, or a person when he shifts it.</b>  A corpse or piece thereof also doesn't convey impurity to someone through carrying or being carried. But it does convey impurity through overshadowing or through shifting even if the corpse has not been touched."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If part of an unclean person rests upon a clean person, or part of a clean person upon an unclean person, or if things connected to an unclean person [rest] upon a clean person, or if things connected to a clean person upon one unclean, he becomes unclean.</b>  If part of a zav, such as his finger, rests upon a clean person, or vice versa, the clean person is defiled. \"Things connected\" to a person refer to his hair, teeth or fingernails. They are not flesh, but they are part of a person. The mishnah teaches that even if one of these parts rests upon another person, impurity is conveyed.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: if part of an unclean person is upon a clean person, he is unclean;   but if part of a clean person is upon one that is unclean, he is clean.</b>  Rabbi Shimon rules that impurity is conveyed only if part of the unclean person, the zav, is on the clean person. This is because this is the typical way that impurity is conveyed by a zav by him sitting or lying or resting upon something. But the opposite is not true. If a clean person rests a part of his body on a zav, he remains clean."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If an unclean person rests upon part of an object fit to lie upon, or a clean person   rests upon part of an object fit to lie upon, it becomes unclean.</b>  There are two situations referred to here. In the first case most of the zav (the unclean person) is resting on part of a clean object that is fit to lie upon. In the second case, most of the clean person is resting upon part of an object fit to lie upon that has been defiled by a zav. In both cases the impurity is conveyed, either to the object in case one or the person in case two. The mishnah will explain below in section three that the impurity of the zav can enter the entire object through the small part of the object upon which the zav lies. It can also go out of the object through the small part of the object upon which the pure person lies.",
+                    "<b>If part of an unclean person rests on an object fit to lie upon, or part of a clean person rests upon an object fit to lie upon, it remains clean.</b>  But if only a small part of the unclean person is on the object or only part of the clean person is on the unclean object, then he remains pure, because the object is only defiled if it bears most of the weight of the zav (see 4:4). Similarly, the pure person is not defiled unless the impure object bears most of his weight.",
+                    "<b>Thus we find that impurity enters it and goes out of it by its lesser part.</b>  This section provides the rule that explains section one impurity can go in and out of the object fit to lie upon even threw a small part of that object.",
+                    "<b>Similarly, if a loaf of terumah was placed upon an object fit to lie upon [that was unclean] and there paper in between, whether it was above or below, it remains clean.</b>  The word \"similarly\" does not really belong here. It is missing in some versions of the Mishnah. In mishnah 3 we learned that impurity through \"carriage\" being carried without touching is conveyed only to a human being by an object upon which a zav has lain. So if a loaf of terumah is either on top of an object which a zav lied upon or that object is on top of it, and there is a piece of paper separating them so that they don't touch, the loaf of terumah remains pure. The loaf of terumah is impure only if it touches the object.",
+                    "<b>Similarly, in the case of a stone with scale disease it remains clean. Rabbi Shimon pronounced such a case unclean.</b>  The same is true if the loaf of terumah is on top of a stone that has contracted a \"nega\" scale disease. As long as the paper prevents contact, the loaf is pure. Rabbi Shimon says that in this case the loaf of terumah is impure. A stone with a nega conveys impurity through being in an ohel overshadowing. Since the stone overshadows the loaf or vice versa, the loaf is impure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>He who touches a zav, or a zavah, a menstruant, or a woman after childbirth, or a metzora, or any object on which these had been sitting or lying, conveys uncleanness at two [removes] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove].</b>  The person who touches one of these five people (a metzora is one with skin disease, see Negaim) or something that sat or laid upon is a \"father of impurity.\" Anything he touches has first degree impurity and anything it touches has second degree impurity. Terumah that touches something with second degree impurity is disqualified.",
+                    "<b>If he separated, he still conveys uncleanness at one [remove], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove].</b>  When he separates from the source of impurity his level of impurity is lowered to first degree impurity. He conveys impurity at one only remove and disqualifies terumah at two removes.",
+                    "<b>This is true whether he had touched, or had shifted, or had carried, or was carried.</b>  The above is true no matter how he contacted the impurity. He need not actually touch the source of impurity."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If one touches the discharge of a zav, his spittle, semen or urine, or the blood of a menstruant, he conveys uncleanness at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove];</b>  Liquids from a zav's body, including his genital discharge, his spit, his semen and his urine defile as does the zav himself. They make one who touches or moves them into a \"father of impurity.\"",
+                    "<b>If he separated,   he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove].</b>  Once he separates from the source of impurity, he has first degree impurity.",
+                    "<b>This is the case whether he had touched or moved it. Rabbi Eliezer said: also if he had carried it.</b>  These substances defile only through contact and shifting. They do not, according to the first opinion, defile by carrying or by being carried. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that they do defile one who carries them. This was the same dispute that Rabbi Eliezer had with the sages in mishnah three."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he carried something which was ridden upon, or if he was carried on it, or he had shifted it, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated [from the uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove].</b>  A person who carries or is carried by something upon which a zav rode upon becomes a \"father of impurity.\" This is because it is written in the Torah that he must wash his clothes (Leviticus 15:10; see 5:1). Therefore he defiles at two removes and disqualifies terumah at one more remove. Once he separates from the source of impurity, he has only first degree impurity. Note that if he touches something rode upon by a zav, he only has first degree impurity.",
+                    "<b>If he carried nevelah (, or the hatat waters sufficient for a sprinkling, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated, ,he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove].</b>  The same is true for one who carries (actually shifts, see mishnah 3) nevelah (an animal slaughtered in a non-kosher manner) or one who carries the \"hatat waters\" (the waters into which the ashes of the red heifer had been mixed). This last rule is also found in Parah 12:5."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah talks about a person who eats the nevelah (carrion) of a clean bird. In Toharot 1:1 we learned that this carrion defiles him once it is in his gullet. There are more details about the laws governing the carrion of a clean bird in that mishnah, for those of you who are very interested.",
+                    "<b>He who ate nevelah of a clean bird, and it still is in his gullet, defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove].</b>  When the nevelah of the clean bird is in his gullet, he is a father of impurity.",
+                    "<b>If he put his head within the air-space of an oven, the oven remains clean.</b>  Despite the fact that he is a father of impurity, if he puts his head into the air-space of an oven, he doesn't defile the oven. This is because a person who is defiled such that he must wash his clothes does not defile earthenware vessels. Note that the oven can generally be defiled by something impure entering its air space. Furthermore, once the carrion is in the gullet of the person, it only defiles the person. Because it's inside him it doesn't go out of him and defile the oven.",
+                    "<b>But if he vomited or swallowed it, he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] unfit at one [more remove].</b>  The nevelah only makes him into a father of impurity when in it is in his gullet. If he expels it, or swallows it, he goes down a notch in impurity to having only first degree impurity.",
+                    "<b>But as long as it is still in his mouth, until he swallows it, he remains clean.</b>  When it's just in his mouth, he is clean. It only begins to defile him once it has entered his gullet."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>He who touches a dead sheretz, or semen, or he that has suffered corpse uncleanness, or a metzora during his days of counting,  or hatat waters of insufficient quantity with which to perform the sprinkling,  or carrion, or an object ridden upon [by a zav], defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove].</b>  All of these substances are \"fathers of impurity.\" One who touches one of them contracts first degree impurity. This same list was mostly found in Kelim 1:1, so one can find a more detailed explanation there. They also defile only by contact and not by carrying. Finally, none of these says that the person must wash his clothes.",
+                    "<b>This is the general principle: anyone who touches anything that according to the Torah is a \"father of uncleanness\" defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove], except [for the corpse] of a human.</b>  The only exception to this general rule is one who touches a dead body. Such a person is a \"father of impurity\" and therefore defiles at two removes and disqualifies terumah at one additional remove.",
+                    "<b>If he had become separated, he defiles at one [remove] and renders [terumah] unfit at one [more remove].</b>  In all of these cases, once he separates from the source of impurity he has \"first degree impurity.\" This is true even if the source of impurity was a dead body. Since he has separated from it, his impurity is reduced."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>He who has had a seminal emission is like one who has touched a dead sheretz.</b>  This mishnah compares the impurity levels of various people. A man who has had a seminal emission has the same rules of impurity as one who touched a dead sheretz. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, such a person has first degree impurity.",
+                    "<b>And one who has had sex with a menstruant is like one who has suffered corpse uncleanness.</b>  But a person who has had sex with a niddah, a woman while menstruating, has a higher degree of impurity he is a father of impurity. Note that all of these laws are learned from midrashim on the Torah. They are in no way value statements, saying that having a seminal emission is akin to touching a dead sheretz or that having sex with a menstruant is worse (although it is forbidden). The mishnah is only interested in comparing levels of impurity.",
+                    "<b>But one who has had sex with a menstruant is more stringent in that he conveys minor grades of uncleanness to what he lies or sits upon, so as to make foods and liquids unclean.</b>  A man who has sex with a menstruant has certain purity stringencies related to him that do not relate to a person who has corpse impurity. The former conveys a light form of impurity to anything he sits or lies upon in order for it to defile food or liquids (see Kelim 1:3).  A person with corpse impurity does not defile in this manner, unless he touches that which he sits or lies upon."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of this tractate (I'm sure you're sad we're done) discusses what things disqualify terumah. These things don't actually defile the terumah. Rather, the rabbis added a layer of stringency with regard to their impurity such that they would render terumah unfit for use.",
+                    "<b>The following disqualify terumah:<br>One who eats foods with first degree uncleanness; Or one who eats food with second degree uncleanness; And who drinks unclean liquids.</b>  From Torah law (deorayta) food and liquid cannot defile a person. Nevertheless, the rabbis decreed that one who eats impure food or drinks impure liquids should be defiled enough such that he would disqualify terumah. This seems to be a way to discourage people who want to eat terumah (kohanim) from eating or drinking impure foods and liquids.",
+                    "<b>And the one who has immersed his head and the greater part of him in drawn water; And a clean person upon whose head and greater part of him there fell three logs of drawn water;</b>  In order to distinguish between the purity imparted by the waters of the mikveh (which cannot be drawn), and waters that are drawn, the rabbis decreed that a person who either immersed in drawn waters or upon whom drawn waters fell would disqualify terumah. For more information on this see Toharot 4:11.",
+                    "<b>And a scroll [of Holy Scriptures], And [unwashed] hands;</b>  We will learn more about these two categories when we learn Tractate Yadayim (after Tevul Yom, which we start learning tomorrow).",
+                    "<b>And one that has had immersion that same day;</b>  Luckily, the very next tractate is about this category of person, so stay tuned.",
+                    "<b>And foods and vessels which have become defiled by liquids.</b>  Liquids have greater power to defile than do solids. So if clean food or a vessel has contact with an unclean liquid, the clean food or vessel remains clean but it disqualifies terumah. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Zavim! As I always write, 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. Tractate Zavim was not easy, that's for sure, perhaps one of the most obscure and strange topics we've talked about yet. To be honest, I'm not even sure what the larger lessons are that I would draw from the tractate as a whole. Perhaps I might end with some speculation as to why the Torah states that abnormal genital discharge (zivah) defiles. Much has been written about the subject of impurity, and there are many conflicting theories that attempt to explain why things are impure and others are not. In my opinion, the most cogent theory is that impurity seems to be connected largely to moments of birth and death. Birth and death are natural processes in life, but they are fraught with danger and power. Abnormal genital discharge is almost like death or at least as the Torah may have perceived it to be so. The material was supposed to have the power to create life (semen) but something went wrong. It is also likely that impurity marks transitions. Impurity is neither good nor bad there is nothing wrong with being impure. But being impure has symbolic significance, and at times, impurity is especially powerful when something is out of place. While this may not explain all forms of impurity, it does explain some of them. For further reading I would suggest looking at the works of Mary Douglas, Jacob Milgrom or Jonathan Klawans.  Impurity can be a much more interesting subject than you might have thought. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Tevul Yom."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה זבים",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}

json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim/English/merged.json

@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+{
+    "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim",
+    "language": "en",
+    "versionTitle": "merged",
+    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/English_Explanation_of_Mishnah_Zavim",
+    "text": {
+        "Introduction": [
+            "A \"zav\" is a man who had a non-seminal genital discharge, assumedly do to some illness. When a man has two such discharges, he must count seven days before he can go to the mikveh and become pure, however he is not obligated to bring a sacrifice unless he sees three times in one day or for three days straight.  A zav and a zavah (a woman who had non-menstrual blood), a niddah and a woman who gave birth defile things by contact, by carrying and by shifting. This is true whether the pure person carries or shifts the impure person without contact or vice versa, the impure person carries or shifts the pure person. This is unique to the category of zavim for in other cases of impurity, the impurity is conveyed only if the pure person carries the impure.  The following words will consistently be written in transliteration: 1) Zav—male with non-seminal genital discharge. 2) Zavah—female with non-menstrual blood. 3) Zivah—the discharge itself. 4) Zov—same as zivah. "
+        ],
+        "": [
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes day a for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission.</b>  The two houses disagree in this mishnah concerning a man who had one emission of discharge of zov (see intro for all terms). According to Bet Shammai his status is like a woman who had an emission of zivah one time. Such a woman must wait a day and if she is pure that day, she will be pure at the end of the day. If she sees zivah for three straight days then she will be a full zavah. So too a man who saw one issue of zov must wait a day to see if he sees another issue. If he does, he is a zav and he will retroactively defile everything he touched, laid upon or sat upon from the time he saw the first issue. One who shifts the zov itself is also defiled. Bet Hillel says that a man who has had one issue of zov has the same status as one who has had a seminal emission. He does not defile things by laying on them or sitting on them and one who shifts the semen is not defiled. If he sees a second time, then he is a zav, but only from that point and onward.",
+                    "<b>Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.</b>  As we learned in the introduction, a full zav is one who saw three issues in one day or one issue for three straight days. The two houses here debate concerning a man who saw three issues, but not in one day or in three straight days. According to Bet Shammai this person is considered a full zav, for the first sighting of zov counts with the second two. Not only is he impure and must immerse in living water, but he is also liable to bring a sacrifice. Bet Hillel says that the discharge on the first day does not count together with the discharges that came two days later. Therefore, he is considered as if he had seen discharge only twice. He defiles through lying or sitting and he must immerse in living waters (a live spring, not a mikveh), as must a zav, but he is not liable for a sacrifice.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav.</b>  Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah disagrees with the version of this dispute contained in section two. According to him since he only saw zov once and then had a day in which he was pure, the sightings on the third day do not join the sighting on the first day.",
+                    "<b>What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.</b>  Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah says that the disagreement is concerning a slightly different situation. He saw zov twice on the first day, or one discharge that counted as twice. Now he is clearly a zav, although he is not yet liable for a sacrifice. If he sees discharge again on the third day, Bet Shammai says that since he is already a zav, this sighting joins with the first two and he is a full zav. Bet Hillel maintains their opinion that unless he sees for three straight days or three times on one day, he is not a full zav."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nA zav must wait for seven clean days to become pure. Our mishnah deals with a man who during those seven days in which he is supposed to be clean sees a discharge of semen.",
+                    "<b>If one sees an issue of semen on the third day of counting his zov: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; But Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day.</b>  Bet Shammai holds that if he has a seminal discharge on the third day of waiting to become clean from his zov, the first two days of cleanness are undone. He must now start his count over again. Bet Hillel says it only undoes the day on which he experienced the discharge. After that day he may resume his count.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Ishmael says: one who sees it on the second day, it undoes the preceding day.</b>  Rabbi Ishmael says that even Bet Hillel agrees that if one sees a seminal discharge on the second day, it undoes the first day. He must have two days of cleanness for them not to be undone.",
+                    "<b>But Rabbi Akiva says: it matters not whether he saw it on the second day or on the third day: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; And Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day.</b>  Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Ishmael and maintains that according to Bet Hillel it doesn't matter whether the seminal discharge occurred on the third or second day; in both cases Bet Hillel holds that it causes only that day not to count.",
+                    "<b>But they agree that if he saw it on the fourth day [of counting] it undoes only that day.</b>  The two houses agree that if he counted three full days of cleanness, they are not undone by seeing a seminal discharge. This is because three days is the amount of time it takes one to become a zav in the first place.",
+                    "<b>This is if he saw semen; but he saw zov, then even if this had occurred on the seventh day, it undoes all the days that had preceded.</b>  However, this is only true if he had a discharge of semen. The two houses argue whether and when a discharge of semen undoes the clean period for a zav. But if he sees another issue of zov, clearly this undoes the entire clean period and he must start the count all over again."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he saw one issue on one day and two on the next day, or two on one day and one on the next day, or three on three [consecutive] days, or three nights, he is a full zav.</b> This mishnah lays out the bottom line rule with regard to what is required for a person to become a full zav. If he has a three discharges on up to three days or nights straight, no matter what the combo, he is a full zav. He must bring a sacrifice at the end of his period of cleanness. We should note that this is different from a zavah. For a woman to become a zavah she must have non-menstrual blood flow on three consecutive days.  Three times on one day does not make her a zavah."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he saw one [issue] and it stopped long enough for an immersion and a drying, and after that he saw two issues, or one as copious as two;<br>Or if he saw two [issues] or one as copious as two, and it stopped long enough for an immersion and a drying, and after that he again saw an issue, he is a full zav.</b><br>This mishnah deals with the question of how to determine if one discharge should be divided into two. In other words, how long must there be between discharges for them to count as two?<br>The answer in both of these cases is that if the flow stops long enough for him to have immersed and then dried off, the second flow is considered to be new."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he saw one issue which was as copious as three, lasting as long [as it takes to go] from Gad-Yav to Shiloah, which is the time it would take to bathe and dry twice, he becomes a full zav.</b>  The mishnah now mentions the possibility that a man could have one issue of zov (discharge) and it would be sufficient to count as all three issues necessary to become a full zav. The discharge would have to last long enough to bathe and dry twice, once in between each issue, had they been separate. In addition, the mishnah defines this as the time it would take to walk from a place called Gad Yavan to the Shiloah spring in Jerusalem. Unfortunately, we don't know where \"Gad Yavan\" is. But assumedly it is near the Shiloah spring, the source of water for the ancient city of Jerusalem.",
+                    "<b>If he saw one issue which was as copious as two, he defiles [objects] on which he lies or sits and he must immerse in running water, but he is exempt from bringing a sacrifice.</b>  One issue can count as two to make a man into a zav, but not a full zav. The difference between a full zav and a zav is that a full zav must bring a sacrifice at the end of his period of cleanness.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose said: they have not spoken of \"one issue as copious\" unless there was sufficient to make up three.</b>  Rabbi Yose said that there is no legal consequences to seeing one issue of zov that is as copious as two. Either the issue was as copious as three, in which case he would be a full zav, or it would count as only one. This means that Rabbi Yose would disagree with most of the mishnayot that we have seen so far in this chapter."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nOur mishnah deals with a man who has an issue at twilight. The question is does the change of day divide one issue into two issues?",
+                    "<b>If he saw one issue during the day and another at twilight, or one at twilight and the other the next day: If he knew that part of the issue occurred at day-time and part the next day, he is certain with regard to a sacrifice and uncleanness. But if it is in doubt whether part [of the issue] occurred at day-time and part on the next day he is certain with regard to uncleanness, but in one of doubt in with regard a sacrifice.</b>  In this case a person had an issue of zov during the day and then another at twilight, a time which is not easy to determine as either night or day. Or he had an issue at twilight and then another the following day. We need to determine whether the issue he had at twilight counts as two issues, such that he is now a full zav. Or does it count as only one, such that he is a zav, but not a full zav? If he knew that part of the issue that happened at twilight occurred during one day and part the next, then he would certainly be impure and he would certainly be liable for a sacrifice. We learn here that a new day causes one issue to be legally considered two. [We should note that I'm not sure if it's all that possible to know whether it occurred during one day or the next day. The mishnah wants to teach the principle, the turn of a day separates one sighting from another]. However, if he is not certain whether one occurred one day and the other the next, then there is doubt as to whether he has seen three issues or two. Since in any case he has seen two issues, he is certainly unclean for seven days, as is always the case with a person who saw two issues. However, since it is uncertain whether he has seen two issues or three, he is not liable to bring a sacrifice.",
+                    "<b>If he had seen issues on two separate days at twilight, he is in doubt both with regard to defilement and with regard to a sacrifice.</b>  In this case, he saw an issue for two days straight at twilight. It is possible therefore that an entire day interrupted between the first issue and the second. In such a case he wouldn't even be impure. His purity status is therefore doubtful. On the other hand, he might have seen three issues, one of them being divided by the turn of the day into two. Therefore, he might be liable for a sacrifice. His status vis a vis a sacrifice is therefore also doubtful.",
+                    "<b>If [he had seen only] one issue at twilight, he is in doubt [also] with regard to [his] defilement.</b>  One issue seen at twilight is enough to create a doubt with regard to his purity status, for the turn of the day could divide the issue into being considered two issues. However, there is no possibility to consider this to be three sightings. Clearly, he is not liable for a sacrifice."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>All persons become unclean through zivah, even converts, even slaves whether freed or not, a deaf-mute, a person of unsound senses, and a minor, a eunuch whether [he had been castrated] by man, or was a eunuch from [the time of seeing] the sun.</b>  The laws of becoming unclean through seeing zivah (zov) apply to any Jew of any status, including converts, freed and non-freed slaves and people who legally are considered as lacking awareness. They apply to all males, even those who have been castrated, either by another human being or were born as eunuchs.",
+                    "<b>With regard to a tumtum and an androgynous [person], they place upon him the stringencies for a man and the stringencies for a woman: they defile through blood like a woman, and through eggy [substance]  like a man. Their uncleanness still remains in doubt.</b>  The laws of being a zav apply only to a man and the laws of being a zavah apply only to a woman. They also work differently. Our mishnah asks what to do with two categories of people who exist somewhere in between, neither male nor female? A tumtum does not have signs of being either male or female whereas an androgynous person has both (according to the rabbinic definition). The rule with regard to the stringencies that apply to either sex apply to them. So if they have blood flow, it defiles as it does for a woman. And if they have zov discharge (eggy substance) then they defile as it does for a man. However, the status of their defilement is doubtful. For if they see blood, they might be a male for whom blood does not defile. And if they see a discharge of zov, they might be female for whom such discharge does not defile. Therefore, in either case they only doubtfully defile."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nZivah comes only from a genital disease or dysfunction. The rabbis considered it to be in a sense diseased semen (I know, this sounds a bit humorous). It has a different color from semen. If the rabbis could establish that the zivah came from another cause besides some genital disease, then they didn't consider it be zivah. Our mishnah talks about what else we could attribute the zivah to.",
+                    "<b>There are seven ways in which a zav is examined as long as he had not become subject to zivah:</b>  When a person sees zivah, he can come to an expert and the expert could tell him that the appearance of the zivah is due to some other cause, not actual genital disease. If they find another reason as to why it occurred, they can keep him from becoming pure. However, this only works before he has become a zav, as we shall see at the end of this mishnah. Once he has already been declared a zav, the zivah can't be attributed to anything else.",
+                    "<b>With regard to food, drink, as [to what] he had carried, whether he had jumped, whether he had been ill, what he had seen, or what he had thought.</b>  There are seven other things to which the rabbis attribute the appearance of zivah. Most of these are self-explanatory. Seeing refers to seeing a woman and having some sexual thoughts about her. \"What he had thought\" refers to having sexual thoughts about a woman. The rabbis also thought that the zivah could have been a result of eating some food, drink or carrying something, perhaps heavy.",
+                    "<b>[It doesn't matter] whether he had thoughts before seeing [a woman], or whether he had seen [a woman] before his thoughts.</b>  It doesn't matter whether he had the sexual thoughts before or after he saw the woman in both cases, we can attribute the appearance of zivah to his sexual thoughts and not to genital disease.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Judah says: even if he had watched beasts, wild animals or birds having intercourse with each other, and even when he had seen a woman's dyed garments.</b>  Evidently, Rabbi Judah assumes that a man might be sexually aroused by seeing animals have sex or by seeing colored women's clothing. Therefore, if he saw any of these and then saw zivah, we can attribute it to sexual arousal and not disease.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Akiva says: even if he had eaten any kind of food, be it good or bad, or had drunk any kind of liquid. They said to him: Then there will be no zavim in the world!’ He replied to them: you are not held responsible for the existence of zavim!’</b>  Rabbi Akiva is willing to attribute the appearance of zivah to anything whatsoever. As his students note, this will make it so there will never be any more zavim in the world. Remarkably, Rabbi Akiva responds that if his definition of zivah and why it occurs should make it such that there are no more zavim, then so be it. To me, this is the ultimate statement of Rabbi Akiva's belief that law trumps reality. If he, the rabbi, dictates that we can attribute zivah to eating or drinking anything and it results in there never being any more zavim, then so be it.",
+                    "<b>Once he had become subject to zivah, no further examination takes place.</b>  If he has already seen zivah twice, then there is no more room to attribute it to anything else. In other words, these questions must be asked immediately, not after he is already considered a zav.",
+                    "<b>[Zov] resulting from an accident, or that was at all doubtful, or an issue of semen, these are unclean, since there are grounds for the assumption [that it is zivah].</b>  If he has a seminal emission at the outset and a little bit of zivah also comes out, this zivah is not impure for one who has an emission does not defile through zivah for a 24 hour period. In other words, until he is decidedly impure the semen purifies the zivah, which is considered to have been an \"accident.\" However, after he has already seen zivah, a seminal emission does not purify the zivah, for we can't assume that the zivah was a result of the semen. Therefore, in this case it counts as seeing zivah.",
+                    "<b>If he had at a first [issue] they examine him; On the second [issue] they examine him, but on the third [issue] they don't examine him. Rabbi Eliezer says: even on the third [issue] they examine him because of the sacrifice.</b>  If he saw zivah one time, they examine him as we explained above. If he saw it again, they can examine him again to see if they can attribute it to something else. But if he saw it a third time (without having been examined the first two times), they don't examine him, for after the second time he was already a zav. Rabbi Eliezer says they even examine him after the third time to ascertain that he is truly liable for a sacrifice. If he experienced the third issue for some other reason, then he is not liable for the sacrifice, even though he is a zav."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>One who had [a discharge of] semen does not defile due to zivah for a period of twenty-four hours. Rabbi Yose says: [only] that day.</b>  As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, if a man has a seminal emission, for the next twenty-four hours any zivah is attributed to the semen; he does not defile as does a zav. Rabbi Yose says that this \"grace\" period is just during that day, the day on which he had a seminal emission. If the following day he has a flow of zov, he is impure, even if this is less than 24 hours after the seminal emission.",
+                    "<b>A non-Jew who had a discharge of semen and then converted, he immediately becomes unclean due to zivah.</b>  When a non-Jew converts, all of the things that happened to him as a non-Jew no longer count towards his status. So if he had a seminal emission before he converted, and then he converted, the seminal emission does not purify the zivah that he sees after he has converted (welcome to Judaism!). This is summed up by the saying that \"a person who converts is like a newborn child.\" He starts afresh and seminal emissions that he had as a non-Jew no longer count (bet you never knew that one before!).",
+                    "<b>[A woman] who had [an issue] of blood, or had experienced difficulty [in childbirth], [the time prescribed] is twenty-four hours.</b>  A woman who sees menstrual blood defiles things that she has had contact with in the past 24 hours. This is a halakhah we saw throughout tractate Niddah. A woman who has labor pains cannot be a zavah even if she has seen zivah. However, if there are 24 hours in which she doesn't have pains and then she sees zivah, then she can be considered a woman who has childbirth while she is a zavah (there are special rules concerning this scenario, see Niddah 4:4).",
+                    "<b>One who strikes his slave, the \"day or two\" is twenty-four hours.</b>  The next two sections are here only because they deal with other cases in which a 24 hour waiting period is relevant. If a person strikes his slave and the slave is okay for 24 hours, and then he dies, the owner is exempt (Exodus 21:21). The rabbis understand \"a day or two\" to be a 24 hour waiting period.",
+                    "<b>A dog that eats a corpse's flesh, for three days from one time of day to the same time of day, it is considered to be in its natural state.</b>  If a dog eats the flesh of a human corpse, the flesh continues to defile as human flesh for three days, from the time of day in which it was eaten. After that, it no longer defiles because it is no longer considered to be human flesh."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah deals with how a zav defiles things.",
+                    "<b>A zav defiles the objects that are lain upon (or sat in five ways, so that they defile people and garments: by standing, sitting, lying, hanging or leaning.</b>  A zav can defile things that are lain upon or sat upon (such as chairs and couches) even though he hasn't touched them. The things that he defiles will then defile other people and clothing (see Leviticus 15:5-6). The five ways are: standing (he stands on the object, even if he doesn't touch it. Sitting and lying (even without touching). \"Hanging\" refers to a case where the zav is hanging because of the couch or chair. For instance, the chair is on one end of a balance and the zav on the other. If the zav is lifted up by the heavier chair, the chair is now impure. These five things are called \"midras hazav.\" The chair or couch is now a \"father of impurity\" and it will defile other people and garments. Note that simply touching something is not sufficient he must do one of these five things.",
+                    "<b>What he lies upon defiles a person in seven ways, so that he [in turn] defiles garments: by standing, sitting, lying, hanging, or leaning upon it, or by touching or carrying it.</b>  The couch or chair (or other such instrument) upon which he lied or sat (or one of the other ways of conveying impurity listed above) will defile people such that they in turn defile garments. Note that if it defiles garments, these garments do not defile people. The couch or chair defiles by standing on a person, by sitting or lying on a person, by being hanged by a person (see previous section) or by leaning on a person. These five are the same as those above. In addition, it also defiles by touching or by being carried by a pure person."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>A zav and a clean person who sat together in a boat, or on a raft, or rode together on a beast, even though their garments did not touch, behold they are impure through midras.</b>  In this case the zav and a clean person are traveling together on a boat, raft or animal. The clothes of the pure person are defiled by the zav even if they didn't touch. There are two possible explanations for why. First of all, since these things are all moving, it is possible and even likely that the zav did indeed lean upon the clean person's clothing. Alternatively, the clean person could have caused the ship, raft or animal to lean in his direction which would cause the zav to go up. This is \"hanging\" explained in yesterday's mishnah.",
+                    "<b>If they sat together on a plank, on a bench or on a bed-frame, or on a beam, when these were not fixed tightly, [Or] if they had both climbed a weak tree, or [were swaying] on a weak branch of a strong tree; Or if they were both [climbing] on an Egyptian ladder which was not secured by a nail; Or if they sat together on a bridge, rafter or door, not secured by clay, they are unclean. Rabbi Judah says that they are clean.</b>  In all of these cases, the zav and the clean person sit on something loose. Since the zav's moving would cause the clean person to move as well, the clean person is defiled. This is called defilement through shifting. An alternative explanation is that this is the same as the case in section one. The clean person might cause the zav to go up and this is considered \"hanging.\""
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah deals with a series of cases in which a zav and a clean person are jointly performing some action. In each case, there is one opinion that holds that the clean person has been defiled, or might have been defiled, and there is one opinion that holds that only if the act was done under specific conditions is he considered defiled.",
+                    "<b>If they were both closing or opening [a door], [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. But the sages say: [he is not unclean] unless one was shutting and the other opening [it].</b>  According to the first opinion, if they were both either opening or closing a door then the zav has shifted the clean person by applying pressure to the door. The clean person and his clothes are defiled. The sages hold that this is true only if they are pushing against each other. In such a case, it is likely that one has moved the other. But if both are opening or closing, then it is more likely that neither has moved the other, so the clean person remains pure.",
+                    "<b>If one was lifting the other out of a pit [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. Rabbi Judah says: only if the clean person was pulling out the unclean one.</b>  According to the first opinion, if the zav and pure person are helping each other climb out of a pit, then it is likely that the zav has lifted or shifted in some way the pure person. Therefore, he is defiled. Rabbi Judah says that the pure person is defiled only if the pure person is helping the zav get out of the pit. In such a case, the zav may have leaned on the pure person and defiled him. But if the zav is helping the pure person out of the pit, he is not defiled. Evidently, Rabbi Judah is lenient and holds that the zav must lean on the pure person to defile him. Simply moving him does not cause defilement. Note that Rabbi Judah was also lenient in yesterday's mishnah.",
+                    "<b>If they were twisting ropes together [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. But the sages say: unless the one pulled one way and the other pulled the other way.</b>  Again, the first opinion holds that by twisting ropes together the zav may have leaned upon or shifted the clean person and thereby defiled him. The sages rule that they have to be pulling in opposite directions, as was the case with the door in section one.",
+                    "<b>If they were both weaving together, whether they were standing or sitting, or grinding wheat, [the clean person and his clothes are unclean]. Rabbi Shimon says [the clean person] in every case is pure, except where they [both] were grinding with a hand-mill.</b>  The first opinion holds that weaving or grinding together causes the zav to defile the clean person, either because he leans on him or he shifts him. Rabbi Shimon rules more leniently. The only case of defilement is when they grind together with a hand-mill.",
+                    "<b>If they [both] were unloading or loading a donkey, they are unclean if the load was heavy, but clean if the load was light.</b>  If they are both unloading a donkey and the load is heavy, then the zav would likely have leaned on the pure person and defiled him. But if the load is light, they could both unload independently and one has not leaned on the other.",
+                    "<b>In all cases, however, they are clean for members of the synagogue, but are unclean for terumah.</b>  In all of these cases, we can't be certain that the pure person is defiled. Therefore, he can sit with other members of the synagogue who are eating their non-sacred food in a state of purity. Since this behavior is only a stringency, and is not required by law, we can be lenient and let him eat with them. However, the Torah prohibits eating defiled terumah. Therefore, he cannot eat terumah. This last clause basically serves to clarify that in all of these cases the status of his impurity is doubtful, not certain."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If the zav and the clean person sat together in a large boat: (what is considered a large boat? Rabbi Judah said: one that does not sway with a man's, or if they sat on a plank, bench, bed-frame, or beam when these were firmly secured; Or if they both climbed a strong tree, a firm branch, or a Tyrian ladder, or an Egyptian ladder fixed by a nail; Or if they sat on a bridge, rafter or door, when these were fastened with clay, even if only at one end, they remain clean.</b>  In all of these cases, since the things upon which the zav and clean person sat were stable, the zav has not moved the clean person. Therefore, the clean person remains clean. Note that most of this list is simply the opposite of those things listed in mishnah one. Either they were firmly secured, they were fixed by a nail or they were fastened in place by clay. In mishnah one, the opposite was always the case the various items were loose. Therefore the pure person became defiled.",
+                    "<b>If the clean one struck the unclean one, he still remains clean. But if the unclean one struck the clean one, he is impure; for [in that case] if the clean one drew back, the unclean one would have fallen.</b>  A clean person who strikes a zav remains clean because the zav has not moved the clean person. While it is possible that when hitting him the clean person leaned on the zav, since this is not certain, he remains clean. However, if the zav strikes the clean person he is in a sense leaning on the clean person, for if the clean person moves when the zav strikes him, the zav would fall down (and be embarrassed). Leaning on the clean person defiles him."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>Rabbi Joshua said: if a menstruant sat in a bed with a clean woman, [even] the cap on her head contracts midras uncleanness. And if she sat in a boat, the vessels on the top of the mast [also] contract midras uncleanness.</b>  A niddah defiles in the same way that a zav and a zavah do. According to the rabbis in 3:1, when a niddah (or a zav) sits in the same bed (or boat or carriage) as does a pure person she defiles the other person's clothes because she might have stepped on them. Rabbi Joshua says that even the cap on the other person's head is defiled, even though the niddah definitely didn't step on the other woman's head. Similarly, if she sits in a boat, even the vessels on the top of the mast are unclean, even though she clearly didn't step on them. Rabbi Joshua rules more strictly than do the other sages.",
+                    "<b>If there was [on the boat] a tub full of clothes: If their weight was heavy, they become unclean, But if their weight was light, they remain clean.</b>  This section is also part of Rabbi Joshua's opinion. I have explained the section according to Albeck. If the clothes were heavy, then there is a possibility that they pushed the boat down on one side and therefore lifted up the niddah who was on the other side. As we learned in 2:4, if a zav (or zavah or niddah) is \"hung\" by something, the other thing becomes impure. However, if the tub of clothes is light, they remain pure because they wouldn't have caused the boat to shift. Note that Rabbi Judah does not automatically make the clothes impure, as he did in section one. Albeck explains that Rabbi Judah rules strictly only with regard to single pieces of clothing. When it comes to a tub of clothing, he rules more in line with the other sages.",
+                    "<b>If a zav knocked against a balcony and thereby caused a loaf of terumah to fall down, it remains clean.</b>  Although it seems that the zav caused the loaf of terumah to fall and thereby defiled it, the rabbis don't think that the zav really could have caused the stone balcony to shift. Rather, it must have been some movement in the ground that caused the loaf to fall. Therefore, it remains pure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he knocked against a strong beam, a window-frame, water-pipe, a shelf, even though it was fixed with ropes, or an oven, a flour container, the lower mill-stone, the base of a hand-mill, or the se'ah measure  of an olive-grinder, [the loaf remains clean].</b>  In all of these cases there was a loaf of terumah bread sitting on one of these large items. A zav knocked against one of them and the loaf fell down. Since all of these items are set in their place we can attribute the loaf falling down to some force other than the zav. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, we can assume that the ground shifted.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose adds: also [if he knocks] against the beam of the bath-keeper, it remains clean.</b>  Rabbi Yose adds that the same halakhah applies to the \"beam of a bath-keeper.\" This is the beam upon which it was customary for the bath-keeper to sit."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he knocked against a door, doorbolt, lock, oar, mill basket,   or against a weak tree, or weak branch of a strong tree, or against an Egyptian ladder unsecured by nails, or against a bridge, beam or door, not made secure with clay, they become unclean.</b>  In all of these cases the zav knocks against something and thereby causes an object to fall off of it. Since these things are loose or weak, we can assume that the zav caused the object to fall and therefore the object becomes unclean. Many of these items were mentioned in mishnah 3:1 (and their opposites in 3:3). [Note that door seems to have crept into this mishnah twice. Clearly a mistake it probably belongs in the first half and not the second].",
+                    "<b>[If he knocked] against a chest, box or cupboard, they become unclean. Rabbi Nehemiah and Rabbi Shimon declare them clean in these cases.</b>  According to the first opinion these objects are not so sturdy and therefore it is likely that the zav caused them to fall. Rabbi Nehemiah and Rabbi Shimon believe that they are sturdy and therefore if something falls off of them, it probably was not due to the zav."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nA zav who lies on something makes it unclean. Our mishnah deals with cases where a zav lies on multiple items do they all become impure, or can we isolate which one(s) he really laid upon?",
+                    "<b>A zav who lays across five benches, or five money-belts: If lengthwise, he [makes them] unclean; But breadthwise, they are clean.</b>  If the zav lies across the length of five benches or money-belts it is possible that at any one time most of his weight was on one of the benches or belts. Therefore, they are all impure. However, if he lies on them across their breadth then his weight is distributed equally among them all. Since he didn't lie on any one of them, they all remain pure.",
+                    "<b>If he slept [on them],   and it was doubful that he had turned over onto them, they are unclean.</b>  If he slept on the benches or the money-belts then they are impure even if he slept across their breadth because we don't know if he turned around a lot while sleeping. Since he might have put all of his weight on one, they are all impure.",
+                    "<b>If he was lying on six seats, with two hands on two [seats], two feet on another two, his head on one, with his body on another one, only that one on which his body lay   is rendered unclean.</b>  Since the majority of his mass was on one of the seats, only that seat is unclean.",
+                    "<b>If [a zav] stood on two seats: Rabbi Shimon says: if these were distant one from the other, they remain clean.</b>  If the two seats are far apart from the other, then the zav would need both of them to stand on. Take one away and he would fall down. Since neither would support the full weight of the zav each remains pure. But if they were close together, at times the zav could shift all of his weight to one and then it would be defiled."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Ten cloaks one on top of the other, if he sat on the uppermost one, all are unclean.</b>  When a zav sits (other versions read sleeps) on a pile of something, all of the things upon which he sat become impure, even though he only touched the upper most one.",
+                    "<b>A zav who was one one scale of a balance and in the other scale opposite there were objects fit to sit or lie upon: If the zav pushed them up, they are clean. But if they pushed him up, they are unclean. Rabbi Shimon says:   if there was one object it becomes unclean, but if there were many   they remain clean, since none of them had borne the greater part [of the zav's weight].</b>  In mishnah 2:4 we learned that if another object causes a zav to be lifted up, that object becomes impure. So imagine a huge balance (maybe a seesaw?!) with a zav on one side and on the other side are things that one lies or sits upon. If he lifts them up they do not have midras impurity, because he didn't \"lean\" on them. However, since he did carry them they do have some impurity, just a lesser degree. If they push him up then he is considered as having leaned upon them, and they are impure. Rabbi Shimon says that if there are multiple objects on the opposite side of the scale, then they have all divided up his weight equally. Since none of them bear the majority of his weight they all remain pure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If a zav [sat] in one scale of the balance, while food and liquids were in the other scale, [the latter become] unclean.</b>  The food or liquids that are on the other side of the scale are lifted up by the weight of the zav. However, they do not have midras impurity, even if they are heavy enough to lift up the (lightweight) zav because midras impurity is only conveyed to objects that are designed to be sat or laid upon. Food and liquid are never susceptible to midras impurity. However, they are impure with first degree impurity, which is lighter than midras impurity.",
+                    "<b>In the case of a corpse, everything remains clean except for a man.</b>  The mishnah now begins to compare impurity conveyed by a dead body with the impurity conveyed by a zav. When a dead body is on one side of a balance and something else is on the other side, whatever is on the other side is not defiled because a dead body does not defile by sitting, laying or shifting without contact.",
+                    "<b>This is [an example of] the greater stringency applying to a zav than to a corpse; and there is a greater stringency in the case of a corpse than a zav.</b>  This is the general statement that sums up this mishnah sometimes the rules are stricter for a zav and sometimes they are stricter for a corpse. This is typical of the Mishnah it loves to compare laws governing different yet similar cases.",
+                    "<b>For whereas the zav defiles all objects on which he sits or lies upon, so that these likewise convey uncleanness to people and garments, and he conveys to what is above him madaf uncleanness, so that these in turn defile food and liquids. Whereas in the case of a zav no such uncleanness is conveyed.</b>  There are two types of uncleanness conveyed by a zav that are not conveyed by a corpse. The first is that a zav conveys uncleanness by sitting or lying on things, such that those items now convey uncleanness even to people and clothing. Furthermore, a zav defiles things that are placed on top of him even if he doesn’t touch them. This impurity is called \"madaf\" and it probably comes from the word for \"shelf\" madaf in Hebrew. This impurity is relatively light for these items defile other food and liquids but they wouldn't defile clothing and people. Again, a dead body wouldn't defile in this way.",
+                    "<b>Greater stringency is also found in the case of a corpse, since it can convey uncleanness by overshadowing, and it defiles seven days’ defilement, whereas in the case of a zav no such uncleanness is conveyed.</b>  A dead body does defile by overhanging (an ohel). We learned about this extensively in Tractate Ohalot. This means that if something hangs over both a corpse and a clean object the impurity of the corpse goes to the clean object. A zav doesn't defile in this way."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he sat on a bed and there were four cloaks under the four legs of the bed, all become unclean, since the bed cannot stand on three legs; But Rabbi Shimon declares them clean.</b>  Since the bed can't stand without all four legs, we have to look at each leg of the bed as if it carries the full weight of the zav. Therefore, all four cloaks are impure because he sat on all four of them. Rabbi Shimon says that all four of the cloaks are clean. This is because none of them bears the zav's full weight. Since his weight is evenly distributed among the four legs, they all remain pure.",
+                    "<b>If he rode on a beast and there were four cloaks under the legs of the beast, they are clean, since the beast can stand upon three legs.</b>  In contrast to a table, an animal can stand on three legs, so any one leg is not necessary for bearing the weight of the zav.",
+                    "<b>If there was one cloak under its two forelegs or its two hindlegs, or under a foreleg and a hindleg, it becomes unclean.</b>  But a beast cannot stand on two legs. Therefore, if the cloak is underneath any of the two legs, then it is considered to bear the full weight of the zav and it is unclean.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Yose says: a horse conveys uncleanness through its hindlegs and a donkey through its forelegs, since a horse leans upon its hindlegs and a donkey upon its forelegs.</b>  According to Rabbi Yose a horse bears its weight on its hindlegs and a donkey's weight is borne on its forelegs. Therefore, if the cloak is under the horse's hindlegs or the donkey's forelegs it is impure. But if not, it remains pure.",
+                    "<b>If he sat on a beam of an olive-press, the vessels in the olive-press receptacle are unclean.</b>  Since the zav presses down on the olive press, the olives are impure.",
+                    "<b>[If he sat] on a clothing press, the garments beneath it are clean. Rabbi Nehemiah declares them unclean.</b>  Unlike an olive press, a clothing press is already closed tight. When the zav sits on the clothing press, he doesn't really press down on the garments. Therefore, they remain clean. Rabbi Nehemiah holds that the zav does press down on the clothing press and the clothing inside and therefore they are defiled."
+                ]
+            ],
+            [
+                [
+                    "<b>One who touches a zav, or whom a zav touches, who moves  a zav or whom a zav moves, defiles by contact food and liquids and vessels that are rinsed, but not by carrying.</b>  A zav defiles through contact or through moving something or being moved by something. This mishnah discusses the level of impurity of the person whom he defiled. Such a person defiles food, liquids and vessels that \"are rinsed\" meaning vessels that can be purified by being put in a mikvah. This would include basically all vessels except earthenware, which can't become pure in a mikveh. The person defiled by a zav defiles only through actual contact she/he does not defile through carrying. She also does not defile other people just food and things.",
+                    "<b>A general principle was stated by Rabbi Joshua: anyone that defile garments  while still in contact [with their source of uncleanness] also defiles foods and liquids so as to become [unclean] in the first grade, and the hands  so that they become [unclean] in the second grade; but they do not defile people or earthenware vessels.</b>  Rabbi Joshua formulates a general principle meant to aid in determining the level of impurity of certain people mentioned in the Torah. The Torah says about certain people, for instance one touched by a zav, that he must wash his clothes (see for instance Leviticus 15:5-11, 21-22, 27). When he is actually touching the zav or something the zav laid upon, his level of impurity is relatively high. He defiles food and liquids so that they have first degree impurity. And if he touches the hands of another person he gives them second degree impurity (we will return to the topic of hand impurity in the next tractate). However, he doesn't defile people or earthenware vessels, as was stated in section one.",
+                    "<b>After they separated from their source of uncleanness they defile liquids so as to become [unclean] in the first grade, and food and the hands so that they become [unclean] in the second grade, but they do not defile garments.</b>  This is a continuation of Rabbi Joshua's general principle. Once the person has separated from the source of impurity, his ability to defile is lowered. He still defiles liquids so that they have first degree impurity. This is because liquids have a higher degree of susceptibility to impurity. However, he only defiles food and hands so that they have second degree impurity. This means that the food is only affected if it is terumah. If it is regular produce, it is unaffected. These people do not defile garments or any other vessels for they are treated as if they have first degree impurity and people with first degree impurity do not defile vessels or people."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah provides some general rules as to how a zav defiles things that are either above him or below him that he does not touch.",
+                    "<b>They said yet another general principle: All that is carried above a zav becomes defiled, but all those things above which he is carried are clean except objects on which he can sit or lie upon, and a person.</b>  This section describes the general rule. Anything above a zav is defiled but things that are below him are defiled only if they were meant for sitting or lying upon, except for a person who carries a zav who is also defiled. The rest of the mishnah will illustrate this principle.",
+                    "<b>How so? If a zav had his finger beneath a layer of stones and one that was clean was above, he conveys uncleanness at two [degrees of remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness] he still defiles at one remove and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove].</b>  The mishnah now begins to demonstrate how this defilement is conveyed. A zav has his finger underneath a row of stones (ouch!) and on top of the row of stones is a pure person. The pure person is considered to be carried by the zav. The pure person now becomes a \"father of impurity.\" Anything he touches will have first degree impurity and anything touched by it will have second degree impurity. If the object with second degree impurity touches terumah the terumah is disqualified (see Kelim 19:4). This is in general a description of the defiling power of one who is considered to be a father of impurity. If the pure person moves away from the row of stones or the zav removes his hand then the pure person will only have first degree impurity. Anything he touches will have second degree impurity and any terumah that it touches will be disqualified.",
+                    "<b>If the unclean one was above, and the clean person below, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [further remove]. If he separated [from the source of uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at yet one [more remove].</b>  The same rules apply if the zav was on top of the row of stones and the finger of the pure person was below.",
+                    "<b>If foods or liquids, or objects on which he could sit or lie upon or other articles were above, they defile at one remove, and disqualify [terumah] at one [further remove]. If they had become separated [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at one [remove] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove].</b>  If the zav is below and something that is meant to be sat upon or food or any article (called in Hebrew a madaf) was above, he defiles them with only first degree impurity. This doesn't change if the source of impurity is removed. [I should note that I have explained this according to most commentators, but they printed editions of the Mishnah have a different reading].",
+                    "<b>All objects fit to sit or lie upon that were below defile at two [removes], and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove]. If they had become separate [from the source of uncleanness], they defile at two [removes] and disqualify [terumah] at one [more remove] Foods and liquids and other articles that are below, remain clean.</b>  However, if the zav is above and something meant to be sat or lied upon is below him, he defiles them such that they become fathers of impurity. Even if the source of impurity is removed, they remain fathers of impurity. However, he only conveys impurity to things that are meant to be sat or lied upon. If below him are foods, liquids or other articles not meant to be sat upon, they remain pure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThis mishnah compares how three objects, (1) something that a zav has sat or laid upon, (2) carrion and (3) a piece of a human corpse, defile without contact.",
+                    "<b>Whatever carries or is carried by objects on which one sits or lies upon remain clean, except for a person.</b>  Anything that carries an object that was laid upon by a zav without touching it or is carried by it, meaning it was above and the thing the zav laid or sat upon was below, remains clean. The only exception is a person. If a person carries or is carried by something upon which a zav sat or laid, the person is impure, even if he didn't touch it.",
+                    "<b>Whatever carries or is carried by carrion is clean, except for one that shifts it. Rabbi Eliezer says: also one that carries it.</b>  The mishnah compares this situation with that of carrion meat from an animal that had not been slaughtered properly. Whatever carries or is carried upon carrion (no pun intended, I promise) remains pure (as long as he didn't touch it). The only exception is a person who shifts the carrion. He is impure, even if he doesn't touch it. Rabbi Eliezer says that also one who carries carrion is impure, even if he didn't move it.",
+                    "<b>Whatever carries or is carried upon a corpse remains clean, except for one that overshadows, or a person when he shifts it.</b>  A corpse or piece thereof also doesn't convey impurity to someone through carrying or being carried. But it does convey impurity through overshadowing or through shifting even if the corpse has not been touched."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If part of an unclean person rests upon a clean person, or part of a clean person upon an unclean person, or if things connected to an unclean person [rest] upon a clean person, or if things connected to a clean person upon one unclean, he becomes unclean.</b>  If part of a zav, such as his finger, rests upon a clean person, or vice versa, the clean person is defiled. \"Things connected\" to a person refer to his hair, teeth or fingernails. They are not flesh, but they are part of a person. The mishnah teaches that even if one of these parts rests upon another person, impurity is conveyed.",
+                    "<b>Rabbi Shimon says: if part of an unclean person is upon a clean person, he is unclean;   but if part of a clean person is upon one that is unclean, he is clean.</b>  Rabbi Shimon rules that impurity is conveyed only if part of the unclean person, the zav, is on the clean person. This is because this is the typical way that impurity is conveyed by a zav by him sitting or lying or resting upon something. But the opposite is not true. If a clean person rests a part of his body on a zav, he remains clean."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If an unclean person rests upon part of an object fit to lie upon, or a clean person   rests upon part of an object fit to lie upon, it becomes unclean.</b>  There are two situations referred to here. In the first case most of the zav (the unclean person) is resting on part of a clean object that is fit to lie upon. In the second case, most of the clean person is resting upon part of an object fit to lie upon that has been defiled by a zav. In both cases the impurity is conveyed, either to the object in case one or the person in case two. The mishnah will explain below in section three that the impurity of the zav can enter the entire object through the small part of the object upon which the zav lies. It can also go out of the object through the small part of the object upon which the pure person lies.",
+                    "<b>If part of an unclean person rests on an object fit to lie upon, or part of a clean person rests upon an object fit to lie upon, it remains clean.</b>  But if only a small part of the unclean person is on the object or only part of the clean person is on the unclean object, then he remains pure, because the object is only defiled if it bears most of the weight of the zav (see 4:4). Similarly, the pure person is not defiled unless the impure object bears most of his weight.",
+                    "<b>Thus we find that impurity enters it and goes out of it by its lesser part.</b>  This section provides the rule that explains section one impurity can go in and out of the object fit to lie upon even threw a small part of that object.",
+                    "<b>Similarly, if a loaf of terumah was placed upon an object fit to lie upon [that was unclean] and there paper in between, whether it was above or below, it remains clean.</b>  The word \"similarly\" does not really belong here. It is missing in some versions of the Mishnah. In mishnah 3 we learned that impurity through \"carriage\" being carried without touching is conveyed only to a human being by an object upon which a zav has lain. So if a loaf of terumah is either on top of an object which a zav lied upon or that object is on top of it, and there is a piece of paper separating them so that they don't touch, the loaf of terumah remains pure. The loaf of terumah is impure only if it touches the object.",
+                    "<b>Similarly, in the case of a stone with scale disease it remains clean. Rabbi Shimon pronounced such a case unclean.</b>  The same is true if the loaf of terumah is on top of a stone that has contracted a \"nega\" scale disease. As long as the paper prevents contact, the loaf is pure. Rabbi Shimon says that in this case the loaf of terumah is impure. A stone with a nega conveys impurity through being in an ohel overshadowing. Since the stone overshadows the loaf or vice versa, the loaf is impure."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>He who touches a zav, or a zavah, a menstruant, or a woman after childbirth, or a metzora, or any object on which these had been sitting or lying, conveys uncleanness at two [removes] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove].</b>  The person who touches one of these five people (a metzora is one with skin disease, see Negaim) or something that sat or laid upon is a \"father of impurity.\" Anything he touches has first degree impurity and anything it touches has second degree impurity. Terumah that touches something with second degree impurity is disqualified.",
+                    "<b>If he separated, he still conveys uncleanness at one [remove], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove].</b>  When he separates from the source of impurity his level of impurity is lowered to first degree impurity. He conveys impurity at one only remove and disqualifies terumah at two removes.",
+                    "<b>This is true whether he had touched, or had shifted, or had carried, or was carried.</b>  The above is true no matter how he contacted the impurity. He need not actually touch the source of impurity."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If one touches the discharge of a zav, his spittle, semen or urine, or the blood of a menstruant, he conveys uncleanness at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove];</b>  Liquids from a zav's body, including his genital discharge, his spit, his semen and his urine defile as does the zav himself. They make one who touches or moves them into a \"father of impurity.\"",
+                    "<b>If he separated,   he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove].</b>  Once he separates from the source of impurity, he has first degree impurity.",
+                    "<b>This is the case whether he had touched or moved it. Rabbi Eliezer said: also if he had carried it.</b>  These substances defile only through contact and shifting. They do not, according to the first opinion, defile by carrying or by being carried. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that they do defile one who carries them. This was the same dispute that Rabbi Eliezer had with the sages in mishnah three."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>If he carried something which was ridden upon, or if he was carried on it, or he had shifted it, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated [from the uncleanness], he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove].</b>  A person who carries or is carried by something upon which a zav rode upon becomes a \"father of impurity.\" This is because it is written in the Torah that he must wash his clothes (Leviticus 15:10; see 5:1). Therefore he defiles at two removes and disqualifies terumah at one more remove. Once he separates from the source of impurity, he has only first degree impurity. Note that if he touches something rode upon by a zav, he only has first degree impurity.",
+                    "<b>If he carried nevelah (, or the hatat waters sufficient for a sprinkling, he defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; But if he became separated, ,he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove].</b>  The same is true for one who carries (actually shifts, see mishnah 3) nevelah (an animal slaughtered in a non-kosher manner) or one who carries the \"hatat waters\" (the waters into which the ashes of the red heifer had been mixed). This last rule is also found in Parah 12:5."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nToday's mishnah talks about a person who eats the nevelah (carrion) of a clean bird. In Toharot 1:1 we learned that this carrion defiles him once it is in his gullet. There are more details about the laws governing the carrion of a clean bird in that mishnah, for those of you who are very interested.",
+                    "<b>He who ate nevelah of a clean bird, and it still is in his gullet, defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove].</b>  When the nevelah of the clean bird is in his gullet, he is a father of impurity.",
+                    "<b>If he put his head within the air-space of an oven, the oven remains clean.</b>  Despite the fact that he is a father of impurity, if he puts his head into the air-space of an oven, he doesn't defile the oven. This is because a person who is defiled such that he must wash his clothes does not defile earthenware vessels. Note that the oven can generally be defiled by something impure entering its air space. Furthermore, once the carrion is in the gullet of the person, it only defiles the person. Because it's inside him it doesn't go out of him and defile the oven.",
+                    "<b>But if he vomited or swallowed it, he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] unfit at one [more remove].</b>  The nevelah only makes him into a father of impurity when in it is in his gullet. If he expels it, or swallows it, he goes down a notch in impurity to having only first degree impurity.",
+                    "<b>But as long as it is still in his mouth, until he swallows it, he remains clean.</b>  When it's just in his mouth, he is clean. It only begins to defile him once it has entered his gullet."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>He who touches a dead sheretz, or semen, or he that has suffered corpse uncleanness, or a metzora during his days of counting,  or hatat waters of insufficient quantity with which to perform the sprinkling,  or carrion, or an object ridden upon [by a zav], defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove].</b>  All of these substances are \"fathers of impurity.\" One who touches one of them contracts first degree impurity. This same list was mostly found in Kelim 1:1, so one can find a more detailed explanation there. They also defile only by contact and not by carrying. Finally, none of these says that the person must wash his clothes.",
+                    "<b>This is the general principle: anyone who touches anything that according to the Torah is a \"father of uncleanness\" defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove], except [for the corpse] of a human.</b>  The only exception to this general rule is one who touches a dead body. Such a person is a \"father of impurity\" and therefore defiles at two removes and disqualifies terumah at one additional remove.",
+                    "<b>If he had become separated, he defiles at one [remove] and renders [terumah] unfit at one [more remove].</b>  In all of these cases, once he separates from the source of impurity he has \"first degree impurity.\" This is true even if the source of impurity was a dead body. Since he has separated from it, his impurity is reduced."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>He who has had a seminal emission is like one who has touched a dead sheretz.</b>  This mishnah compares the impurity levels of various people. A man who has had a seminal emission has the same rules of impurity as one who touched a dead sheretz. As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, such a person has first degree impurity.",
+                    "<b>And one who has had sex with a menstruant is like one who has suffered corpse uncleanness.</b>  But a person who has had sex with a niddah, a woman while menstruating, has a higher degree of impurity he is a father of impurity. Note that all of these laws are learned from midrashim on the Torah. They are in no way value statements, saying that having a seminal emission is akin to touching a dead sheretz or that having sex with a menstruant is worse (although it is forbidden). The mishnah is only interested in comparing levels of impurity.",
+                    "<b>But one who has had sex with a menstruant is more stringent in that he conveys minor grades of uncleanness to what he lies or sits upon, so as to make foods and liquids unclean.</b>  A man who has sex with a menstruant has certain purity stringencies related to him that do not relate to a person who has corpse impurity. The former conveys a light form of impurity to anything he sits or lies upon in order for it to defile food or liquids (see Kelim 1:3).  A person with corpse impurity does not defile in this manner, unless he touches that which he sits or lies upon."
+                ],
+                [
+                    "<b>Introduction</b>\nThe final mishnah of this tractate (I'm sure you're sad we're done) discusses what things disqualify terumah. These things don't actually defile the terumah. Rather, the rabbis added a layer of stringency with regard to their impurity such that they would render terumah unfit for use.",
+                    "<b>The following disqualify terumah:<br>One who eats foods with first degree uncleanness; Or one who eats food with second degree uncleanness; And who drinks unclean liquids.</b>  From Torah law (deorayta) food and liquid cannot defile a person. Nevertheless, the rabbis decreed that one who eats impure food or drinks impure liquids should be defiled enough such that he would disqualify terumah. This seems to be a way to discourage people who want to eat terumah (kohanim) from eating or drinking impure foods and liquids.",
+                    "<b>And the one who has immersed his head and the greater part of him in drawn water; And a clean person upon whose head and greater part of him there fell three logs of drawn water;</b>  In order to distinguish between the purity imparted by the waters of the mikveh (which cannot be drawn), and waters that are drawn, the rabbis decreed that a person who either immersed in drawn waters or upon whom drawn waters fell would disqualify terumah. For more information on this see Toharot 4:11.",
+                    "<b>And a scroll [of Holy Scriptures], And [unwashed] hands;</b>  We will learn more about these two categories when we learn Tractate Yadayim (after Tevul Yom, which we start learning tomorrow).",
+                    "<b>And one that has had immersion that same day;</b>  Luckily, the very next tractate is about this category of person, so stay tuned.",
+                    "<b>And foods and vessels which have become defiled by liquids.</b>  Liquids have greater power to defile than do solids. So if clean food or a vessel has contact with an unclean liquid, the clean food or vessel remains clean but it disqualifies terumah. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Zavim! As I always write, 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. Tractate Zavim was not easy, that's for sure, perhaps one of the most obscure and strange topics we've talked about yet. To be honest, I'm not even sure what the larger lessons are that I would draw from the tractate as a whole. Perhaps I might end with some speculation as to why the Torah states that abnormal genital discharge (zivah) defiles. Much has been written about the subject of impurity, and there are many conflicting theories that attempt to explain why things are impure and others are not. In my opinion, the most cogent theory is that impurity seems to be connected largely to moments of birth and death. Birth and death are natural processes in life, but they are fraught with danger and power. Abnormal genital discharge is almost like death or at least as the Torah may have perceived it to be so. The material was supposed to have the power to create life (semen) but something went wrong. It is also likely that impurity marks transitions. Impurity is neither good nor bad there is nothing wrong with being impure. But being impure has symbolic significance, and at times, impurity is especially powerful when something is out of place. While this may not explain all forms of impurity, it does explain some of them. For further reading I would suggest looking at the works of Mary Douglas, Jacob Milgrom or Jonathan Klawans.  Impurity can be a much more interesting subject than you might have thought. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Tevul Yom."
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+    },
+    "versions": [
+        [
+            "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp",
+            "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/"
+        ]
+    ],
+    "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה זבים",
+    "categories": [
+        "Mishnah",
+        "Modern Commentary on Mishnah",
+        "English Explanation of Mishnah",
+        "Seder Tahorot"
+    ],
+    "schema": {
+        "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה זבים",
+        "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim",
+        "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Zavim",
+        "nodes": [
+            {
+                "heTitle": "הקדמה",
+                "enTitle": "Introduction"
+            },
+            {
+                "heTitle": "",
+                "enTitle": ""
+            }
+        ]
+    }
+}