{
    "title": "Sifra",
    "language": "en",
    "versionTitle": "merged",
    "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Sifra",
    "text": {
        "Braita d'Rabbi Yishmael": [
            "R. Yishmael says: The Torah is expounded by thirteen hermeneutical principles:",
            "1)<i> kal vachomer</i> (<i>a fortiori</i>). 2) <i>gezeirah shavah</i> (Identity). 3a) <i>Binyan av vekathuv echad</i> (a general rule implicit in one verse). 3b) <i>binyan av mishnei kethuvim</i> (a general rule derived from two verses). 4) <i>kllal ufrat</i> (general-specific). 5) <i>prat ukllal</i> (specific-general). 6) <i>kllal ufrat ukllal</i> (general-specific-general). 7) <i>kllal shehu tzarich lifrat ufrat shehu tzarich lichllal</i> (general requiring specific and specific requiring general). 8) <i>kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lelamed, lo lelamed al atzmo yatza ela lelamed al hakllal kulo yatza</i>. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category to teach (something) — not in order to teach about itself did it depart, but in order to teach about the entire category did it depart). 9) <i>kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lit'on to'an acher shehu ke'inyano, yatza lehakel velo lehachmir</i>. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a particular requirement thereof, departed for leniency and not for stringency). 10) <i>kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lit'on to'an acher shelo ke'inyano, yatza lehakel ulehachmir</i>. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a particular requirement foreign to it, departed both for leniency and for stringency). 11) <i>kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lidon badavar hechadash, ē ata yachol lehachziro lichllalo ad sheyachzirenu hakathuv lichlallo befeirush</i>. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a new learning, cannot be restored to that category unless Scripture restores it explicitly). 12a) <i>davar halamed me'inyano</i> (something learned from context). 12b) <i>davar halamed misofo</i> (something learned from its end). 13) <i>shnei kethuvim hamakchishim zeh eth zeh ad sheyavo hakathuv hashlishi veyachriya beneihem</i> (two verses that contradict each other until a third verse comes and resolves the contradiction).",
            "1) kal vachomer (a fortiori): (Bamidbar 12:14): \"And the L–rd said to Moses: Now if her (Miriam's) father had spat in her face, would she not be in shame for seven days!\" — Kal vachomer, if the Shechinah does so, it should be fourteen days! (see Tosfoth, Bava Kamma 25a). But it suffices that a kal vachomer deduction parallel what it is deduced from; therefore, (Bamidbar 12:14): \"Let her be sequestered seven days outside the camp, and then let her be gathered in.\"",
            "2) gezeirah shavah (Identity): It is stated in respect to a shomer sachar (a hired watchman) (Shemoth 22:9): \"The oath of the L–rd shall be between both, that he (the watcher) did not send his hand against the deposit of his neighbor,\" and, in respect to a shomer chinam (one who watches gratis) (Shemoth 22:7): \"that he did not send his hand, etc.\" Just as in the instance of a shomer sachar, in which it is written \"that he did not send his hand,\" the heirs (of the watcher) are exempt (from an oath that their father did not send his hand, etc., it being written: \"The oath of the L–rd shall be between both\" [the owner and the watcher — and not between the heirs]), so, in the instance of a shomer chinam, where it is written \"that he did not send his hand,\" the heirs are exempt.",
            "3a) Binyan av vekathuv echad (a general rule implicit in one verse), viz.: \"Mishkav\" (what is lain upon) is not like \"moshav\" (what is sat upon [see Vayikra 15]), and moshav is not like mishkav. What is common to them is that they are articles designed for man's (bodily) comfort alone, and a zav (see Vayikra 15:2, Rashi,) defiles them by (their supporting) most of his weight, to (in turn) defile a man by maga (touching) and by massa (carrying), to (in turn) defile clothing. So, (all) articles which are designed for man's (bodily) comfort alone are defiled by a zav, by (supporting) most of his weight to (in turn) defile a man by maga and massa, to (in turn) defile clothing. This excludes (from such defilement) tarkav (a measuring instrument [which was employed for mishkav or moshav]), it being designed for a different purpose (i.e., measuring, and not \"man's bodily comfort.\" (In sum, then, anything designed for man's bodily comfort and used for mishkav is governed by the \"one verse\" of mishkav, and anything designed for man's bodily comfort and used for moshav is governed by the \"one verse\" of moshav.)",
            "3b) binyan av mishnei kethuvim (a general rule derived from two verses). viz.: The topic of the lamps (on the menorah) is not like that of sending the unclean outside (of the encampment), and the latter is not like the former. What is common to them is that they are introduced by \"Tzav\" (\"Command\") — [the lamps, (Vayikra 24:2); sending, etc., (Bamidbar 5:2)] — and apply both immediately and for future generations. [The lamps: immediately — (Bamidbar 8:3): \"And Aaron did so. He kindled its lamps towards the face of the menorah, etc.\"; for future generations — (Vayikra 24:3): \"… an eternal statute throughout your generations.\" Sending the unclean outside: immediately — (Bamidbar 5:4): \"And the children of Israel did so, and they sent them outside the camp\"; for future generations — (Bamidbar 19:21): \"And it shall be for them an everlasting statute.\"] So, all commandments introduced by \"Tzav\" apply both immediately and for future generations.",
            "4) kllal ufrat (general-specific): (Vayikra 1:2): \"A man, if he offer from you an offering to the L–rd, from the beasts, from the cattle and from the sheep shall you offer your offering.\" \"from the beasts\" — general (i.e., all animals); \"from the cattle and from the sheep\" — specific (i.e., domesticated animals) — the general subsumes only the specific (i.e., domesticated, and not non-domesticated animals).",
            "5) prat ukllal (specific-general): (Shemoth 22:9): \"If a man give to his neighbor an ass or an ox or a lamb — specific; \"or any beast to watch\" — general: specific-general — the general adds to the specific.",
            "6) kllal ufrat ukllal (general-specific-general): (Devarim 14:26): \"And you shall give the money for all that your soul desires\" — general; \"of herd, flock, wine, and strong drink\" — specific; \"and for all that your souls asks\" — reversion to the general: general-specific-general — ē ata dan ela ke'ein haprat (the rule is in accordance with the specific), viz.: Just as the specific is: one fruit from another, (e.g., wine from grapes), originating from the earth, so, everything of this nature is purchasable with ma'aser money) — to exclude mushrooms and truffles (which, although they are fruit, do not come from another fruit).",
            "7) kllal shehu tzarich lifrat ufrat shehu tzarich lichllal (general requiring specific and specific requiring general): (Shemoth 13:2): \"Sanctify unto Me every bechor (first-born), the opener of each womb.\" I might think that even females are included; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:19): \"the male.\" If \"the male,\" (I would think that) even a yotze dofen (Caesarian birth) were a bechor. It is, therefore, written \"the opener of the womb.\" This is an instance of \"general\" (bechor) requiring \"specific.\" I might think that even if it were born after a yotze dofen it were a bechor (being the first opener of the womb); it is, therefore, written \"bechor,\" (which connotes first in all respects; not only first opener of the womb, but also first in birth). This is an instance of \"specific\" (\"opener of the womb\") requiring \"general\" (bechor).",
            "8) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lelamed, lo lelamed al atzmo yatza ela lelamed al hakllal kulo yatza. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category to teach (something) — not in order to teach about itself did it depart, but in order to teach about the entire category did it depart): (Vayikra 7:20): \"And the soul that eats flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings which is the L–rd's, and his uncleanliness is upon him, that soul shall be cut off from its people.\" Now were peace-offerings not in the category of all sacrifices? viz. (Vayikra 7:37): \"This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the offering of investiture (miluim), and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings,\" and (Vayikra 22:3): \"Every man who draws near of all your seed to (eat) the holy things that the children of Israel make holy unto the L–rd, with his uncleanliness upon him, that soul will be cut off from before Me.\" (Why, then, do peace-offerings \"depart\" from the category for special, additional, mention?) When they depart from the category to teach, it is not to teach about themselves, but about the entire category, viz.: Just as peace-offerings are distinctive in that their sanctity is altar sanctity (i.e., bodily sanctity), so, all whose sanctity is altar sanctity (are included in the interdict) — to exclude those things dedicated to bedek habayith (Temple maintenance, where the sanctity is not body-related but value-related).",
            "9) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lit'on to'an acher shehu ke'inyano, yatza lehakel velo lehachmir. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a particular requirement thereof, departed for leniency and not for stringency.): (Vayikra 13:18): \"And flesh, if there be in it, in its skin, a boil, and it be healed,\" and (Vayikra 13:24): \"Or flesh, if there be in its skin a burn by fire, etc.\" — Now boil and burn were in the category of all plague-spots (see Vayikra 13:2, etc.) (for apparently no distinction should be made between whether or not the plague-spot is on the site of a boil or a burn), and when they departed from that category for (special mention of) a particular requirement thereof (i.e., white hair, a sign of uncleanliness), they departed thus for leniency and not for stringency — that they not be affected by michyah (another uncleanliness sign of the general category), and that one week of quarantine suffice (in an instance of the plague-spot remaining in its place and not spreading — as opposed to the two-week requirement of the general category).",
            "10) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lit'on to'an acher shelo ke'inyano, yatza lehakel ulehachmir. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a particular requirement foreign to it, departed both for leniency and for stringency.): (Vayikra 13:29): \"And a man or a woman — if there be in him a plague-spot in the head or in the beard, etc.\" — Now head and beard were in the general category of skin and flesh, and when they departed from that category for (special mention of) a particular requirement (for uncleanliness) foreign to that category (white hair being a sign of uncleanliness in the category, and yellow hair, in the \"departure\"), they departed both for leniency and for stringency. For leniency — that they not be affected by white hair; for stringency — that they be affected by yellow hair.",
            "11) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lidon badavar hechadash, ē ata yachol lehachziro lichllalo ad sheyachzirenu hakathuv lichlallo befeirush. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a new learning, cannot be restored to that category unless Scripture restores it explicitly.): (Vayikra 14:13): \"And he shall slaughter the lamb (the guilt-offering) in the place where the sin-offering is slaughtered, and the burnt-offering, in the holy place. For as the sin-offering, is the guilt-offering to the Cohein.\" Let this (\"For as, etc.\") not be stated, (for this guilt-offering is subsumed in the general category of guilt-offerings [Vayikra 7:11]). But because it (this guilt-offering of the metzora) departed (from the category) for a new learning — (the placing of the blood on) the thumb of his (the offerer's) right hand and of his right foot and on his right ear, I might think that it did not require the placing of blood and imurim (devoted portions) on the altar; it is, therefore, written: \"For as the sin-offering (i.e., as all sin-offerings) is the (i.e., this) guilt-offering to the Cohein\" (i.e., it is subject to all of the Cohein's services for a sin-offering.) Scripture explicitly restored it to its category to tell us that just as a sin-offering requires the placing of blood and imurim on the altar, so does this guilt-offering require it.",
            "12a) davar halamed me'inyano (something learned from context): (Vayikra 13:40): \"And a man, if the hair of his head (from the slope of his head towards the nape [karachath]) fall out, he is kereach (bald); he is clean.\" I might think that he is clean of all (plague-spot) uncleanliness; it is, therefore, written (in that context, of other types of uncleanliness) (Vayikra 13:42): \"And if there be on the karachath or the gabachath (temples) a reddish white plague-spot, etc.\" We learn from the context that he is not clean of all types, but of nethakim (scalls) alone.",
            "12b) davar halamed misofo (something learned from its end): (Vayikra 14:34): \"And I shall put a plague-spot of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession.\" This implies that a house which has stones, wood, and mortar is susceptible of such uncleanliness. — But I might think that even a house lacking these is likewise susceptible! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:45): \"Then he shall break down the house — its stones, its wood, and all the mortar of the house.\" From the end we learn that a house is not susceptible of such uncleanliness unless it has stones, wood, and mortar.",
            "13) shnei kethuvim hamakchishim zeh eth zeh ad sheyavo hakathuv hashlishi veyachriya beneihem (two verses that contradict each other until a third verse comes and resolves the contradiction): One verse states (Shemoth 19:20): \"And the L–rd descended upon Mount Sinai, upon the top of the mountain,\" and another (Shemoth 20:19): \"… that from the heavens I spoke to you!\" A third verse comes and resolves the contradiction, viz. (Devarim 4:36): \"From the heavens He made you hear His voice to exhort you, and on the earth He showed you His great fire, and His words you heard from the midst of the fire.\" — His voice from the heavens and His speech on the earth. Another resolution: We are hereby taught that the Holy One Blessed be He bent the heavens over Mount Sinai and spoke with them. As David said (Psalms 18:10): \"And He bent the heavens and came down, and thick darkness was under His feet.\"",
            " One verse states (Bamidbar 7:89): \"And when Moses came to the tent of meeting to speak with him, etc.\" and another, (Shemoth 40:35): \"And Moses could not come to the tent of meeting!\" This is resolved by (Shemoth 40:35): \"for the cloud rested upon it.\" Say: Whenever the cloud was there, Moses did not enter. When the cloud departed, he entered and spoke with Him. R. Yossi Haglili says: It is written (I Kings 8:11): \"And the Cohanim were not able to stand to minister because of the cloud, for the glory of the L–rd filled the house of the L–rd\" — whence it is seen that the angels were given license to destroy (all who would approach). And, similarly, (Shemoth 33:22): \"And I shall cover you with My 'palm' until I have passed\" — whence it is seen that the angels were given license to destroy. And, similarly, (Psalms 95:11): \"So I swore in My wrath that they would not enter My rest\" — When My wrath abates, they will enter My rest.\""
        ],
        "Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah": {
            "Chapter 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 1:1): \"And He called (\"vayikra\") to Moses, and the L–rd spoke (\"vayedaber\") to him from the tent of meeting, saying\" — Now is this not evident? (that He called him before He spoke to him? Why need it be written?) Dibbur (speaking) is written here, and dibbur is written in relation to the sneh (the burning bush [(Shemoth 3:4): \"And G d called to him from the midst of the sneh, and He said (\"vayomer\" - comparable to \"vayedaber\") …]). Just as in the instance of the sneh, kriyah (calling) precedes dibbur, so here, (it is understood that) kriyah precedes dibbur!",
                "2) Not necessarily. This may be so with the sneh, the beginning of G d's speaking, but not with the ohel moed (the tent of meeting), which was not the beginning. — This is refuted by Mount Sinai, which was not the beginning of G-d's speaking to him, and where dibbur is nonetheless preceded by kriyah (Shemoth 19:3).",
                "3) (This is no refutation.) This may be so because the dibbur of Mount Sinai was to all of Israel (i.e., to Moses on behalf of all of Israel), which was not the case with the ohel moed. Rather, this (that there was kriyah at the ohel moed) can be derived from a binyan av (see hermeneutical principles 3b), viz.: The dibbur of the sneh, which is the beginning of G d's speaking (to Moses) is not like the dibbur of Mount Sinai, which is not, and the dibbur of Mount Sinai, which is on behalf of all of Israel, is not like the dibbur of the sneh, which is not.",
                "4) What is common to them is that they are dibbur from the mouth of the Holy One to Moses, and kriyah precedes dibbur — so, wherever there is dibbur from the Holy One to Moses (as in the instance of the ohel moed), kriyah must precede dibbur. Why, then, need kriyah be written here?)",
                "5) (It must be written, for) the common factor may be: Wherever there is dibbur in the context of fire (as there was in the instance of sneh and Sinai), dibbur is preceded by kriyah, so, wherever this obtains, kriyah precedes dibbur — as opposed to the instance of the ohel moed, which was not in the context of fire. It must, therefore, be written \"vayikra,\" \"vayedaber,\" that kriyah preceded dibbur.",
                "6) I might think that there was kriyah only for this dibbur. Whence is it derived that the same is true for all the dibroth in the Torah? From \"from the ohel moed\" — from the ohel moed on, kriyah precedes dibbur.",
                "7) I might think that kriyah preceded only dibbur. Whence is it derived that the same is true for amiroth (\"sayings\") and tzivuyin (\"commandings\") as well? R. Shimon said: From (Ibid. 2): \"daber … ve'amarta\" — the same applies to amiroth and tzivuyin.",
                "8) I might think that it applied to hafsakoth (pauses, parshiyoth,) as well; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 1): \"vayedaber\" — there was kriyah only for dibbur and not for hafsakoth.",
                "9) And what purpose did hafsakoth serve? To give Moses time for reflection between parshah and parshah and verse and verse (e.g., as in the parshah of pesach, where each verse is a mitzvah in itself.) This prompts a kal vachomer: If Moses, who heard it from the Holy One Blessed be He and spoke with the holy spirit, had to reflect between parshah and parshah, and verse and verse, how much more so, one plain person from another!",
                "10) And whence is it derived that all the kriyoth were \"Moshe, Moshe\"? From (Shemoth 3:4): \"And G d called to him from the midst of the sneh and He said 'Moshe, Moshe.'\" Let \"and He said (vayomer)\" not be written. Why is it written? We are hereby taught that all the kriyoth were \"Moshe, Moshe.\"",
                "11) And whence is it derived that for every kriyah he said \"Hineni\" (\"Here I am\")? From (Shemoth 3:4): \"… and He said … 'Hineni.'\" — whereby we are taught that all the kriyoth were answered \"Hineni.\" (i.e., Just as \"and He said\" indicates that all the kriyoth were \"Moshe, Moshe,\" so does it indicate that all of them were answered \"Hineni.\")",
                "12) \"Moshe, Moshe,\" \"Avraham, Avraham,\" \"Yaakov, Yaakov,\" \"Shmuel, Shmuel\" — an expression of affection and of prompting to zeal. Another connotation: \"Moshe, Moshe\" — He is \"Moshe\" before being spoken to; he is (the same, righteous) \"Moshe\" after being spoken to."
            ],
            "Chapter 2": [
                "1) \"And He called to Moses and the L–rd spoke to him, etc.\" \"to him\" — to exclude Aaron. R. Yehudah b. Betheira said: Thirteen dibroth (accompanied by a command) were stated in the Torah to Moses and Aaron, and, corresponding to them, thirteen limitations, to teach us that they were not spoken to Aaron, but to Moses, to tell them to Aaron. (The dibroth: 1) [Shemoth 6:13]; 2) [Shemoth 7:8]; 3) [Shemoth 9:8]; 4) [Shemoth 12:1]; 5) [Shemoth 12:43]; 6) [Vayikra 11:1]; 7) [Vayikra 13:1]; 8) [Vayikra 14:33]; 9 [Vayikra 15:1]; 10 [Bamidbar 2:1]; 11 [Bamidbar 4:1]; 12 [Bamidbar 4:18]; 13) [Bamidbar 19:2].)",
                "2) The limitations: (Bamidbar 7:89): \"And when Moses came to the ohel moed (for the L–rd) to speak to 1 him, that he heard the voice speaking to 2 him … and He spoke to him.\" (Shemoth 25:22): \"And I will be appointed for you there, and I will speak to you … all that I will charge you with to the children of Israel.\" (Shemoth 29:42): \"… where I shall appoint a time for you (plural) to speak to you (singular) there.\" (Shemoth 30:6):",
                "3) \"… where I shall be appointed for you.\" (Vayikra 7:38): \"… which the L–rd commanded Moses on the day that He charged him unto the children of Israel…\" (Shemoth 34:35): \"… until he came, [for the L–rd] to speak to 10 him.\" [(Shemoth 6:28): \"… It was Moses and Aaron,\" immediately followed by] (Shemoth 6:29): \"And it was on the day that the L–rd spoke to Moses in the land of Egypt.\" (Bamidbar 3:1): \"And these are the generations of Aaron and Moses on the day that the L–rd spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai.\" (Vayikra 1:1): \"And He called to Moses, and the L–rd spoke to him.\" — Aaron is excluded from all.",
                "4) R. Yossi Haglili says: In three places, the Torah limits dibbur to Moses — the land of Egypt, Mount Sinai, the ohel moed — the entire Torah! The land of Egypt — \"And it was on the day that the L–rd spoke (dibber) to Moses in the land of Egypt\" — Aaron is excluded from the dibroth of the land of Egypt. Mount Sinai — \"And these are the generations of Aaron and Moses on the day that the L–rd spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai.\" The ohel moed — \"And He called to Moses.\" Aaron is excluded from the dibroth of the ohel moed. He spoke to Moses and not to Aaron.",
                "5) R. Elazar says (Shemoth 29:43): \"Venoadeti there (in the ohel moed) for the children of Israel, and it will be sanctified with My glory\" — I am destined to be met (va'ad [from \"venoadeti\"]) with them (in the ohel moed) and to be exalted by them. When did this transpire? On the eighth day of the investiture (miluim), viz. (Vayikra 9:24): \"And all the people saw and they exalted (the L–rd), and they fell upon their faces.\" — But perhaps it is to give ye'idah (an appointment) for dibroth! — This cannot be, for it is written (Shemoth 25:22): \"Venoadeti for you\" (in the ohel moed for dibbur) — for you, and not for all of Israel.",
                "6) — But let this exclude only Israel, who were not found fit to ascend Mount Sinai, but not the elders, who were found fit to do so! (viz. [Shemoth 24:1]: \"And to Moses He said: Go up … and seventy of the elders of Israel.\") Let it exclude the elders, who were not present at the L–rd's dibbur to Moses (on Mount Sinai after the giving of the Torah, viz. [Shemoth 24:14]: \"Abide for us here,\" in the encampment, with the rest of the people), and not the sons of Aaron, who were present at the L–rd's dibbur to Moses. Let it exclude the sons of Aaron, who were not together with Moses for dibbur, and not Aaron, who was together with Moses for dibbur (viz.: \"And the L–rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron\" — and not to his sons). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 30:6): \"… where I shall be appointed for you\" — For you there was appointment, but not for (any) of the others.",
                "7) — But let this exclude them only from appointment (i.e., meeting in the ohel moed), but not from dibroth! — It is, therefore, written (Shemoth 25:22): \"and I will speak to you.\" — But let this exclude (from dibroth) only Israel, but not the elders! Let it exclude the elders, but not the sons of Aaron! — Let it exclude the sons of Aaron, but not Aaron himself! It is, therefore, written (Shemoth 29:42): \"to speak to you\" — With you there was dibbur, and not with any of the others.",
                "8) I might think that they did not hear the dibbur (i.e., the enunciated words), but that they did hear the voice (of the L–rd); it is, therefore written (Numbers 7:89): \"And he heard the voice speaking (to him\") — The voice (itself, aside from the words) was to him alone. Let this exclude Israel but not the elders! Let it exclude the elders but not the sons of Aaron. Let it exclude the sons of Aaron, but not Aaron himself! It is, therefore, written: \"the voice speaking to him\" — alone!",
                "9) But let this exclude the others, and not the ministering angels, for Moses could not enter their midst (G d and the angels) until he was called (viz. [Shemoth 40:35]: \"And Moses could not come to the tent of meeting, for the cloud rested upon it!\") It is, therefore, written \"to him\" — to him alone. Moses heard the voice and none of the others did.",
                "10) \"And the L–rd spoke to him from the tent of meeting\" — We are hereby taught that the voice was \"cut off\" and did not travel beyond the tent of meeting. I might think that this was because the voice was low; it is, therefore, written (Numbers 7:89): \"And he heard the voice\" — the distinctive voice described in Scripture, viz. (Psalms 29:47): \"The voice of the L–rd, in power; the voice of the L–rd, in glory. The voice of the L–rd breaks the cedars of Lebanon … The voice of the L–rd hews out flames of fire, etc.\" Why, then, (if the voice is so vast) is it written \"from the (circumscribed) tent of meeting\"? We are hereby taught that the voice was \"cut off,\" and did not travel beyond (the confines of) the tent of meeting.",
                "11) Similarly, (Ezekiel 10:5): \"And the sound of the wings of the cherubs was heard (only) until the outer court.\" I might think that this was because it was a low sound; it is, therefore, written (Ezekiel 10:5): \"like the voice of the almighty G d in His speaking\" — in His speaking at Sinai. If so, why (only) \"until the outer court\"? Once it reached the outer court, it was \"cut off.\"",
                "12) \"from the tent of meeting\": I might think (that the voice came) from the whole house; it is, therefore, written: \"from above the kapporeth.\" If \"from above the kapporeth,\" I might think from above the entire kapporeth; it is, therefore, written: \"from between the two cherubs.\" These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Shimon b. Azzai said: I come not to dispute the words of the master, but to add to them. That great glory, of which it is written, \"Do I not fill heaven and earth?\" — see how His love of Israel wrought upon this glory! The L–rd, as it were, contracted Himself to speak from above the kapporeth between the two cherubs! R. Dossa says: It is written (Shemoth 33:20): \"For a man shall not see Me and live.\" (Even the holy creatures who bear the Throne of Glory do not behold His glory.) — In their life they do not see (Him), but they see (Him) in their death. And thus is it written (Psalms 22:30): \"Before Him (i.e., before His manifest glory) shall bow down all who descend to the dust, when his (i.e., a man's) soul no longer animates (the body\" [but departs from it.]). R. Shimon said: I come not to dispute the words of the master, but to add to them: \"For a man shall not see Me, and the living\" — Even the angels, whose lives are eternal, do not behold the glory.",
                "13) (\"… and He spoke to him from the tent of meeting) lemor\" (\"saying\") — \"Say it\" to them in humble terms (so that they accept it gladly), viz.: \"For your sake does He speak with me.\" For we find that all of the thirty-eight years that Israel were out of grace (because of the sin of the spies) He did not speak with Moses, viz. (Devarim 2:16-17): \"And it was, when all the men of war (those from the age of twenty) had finished dying from amidst the people that the L–rd spoke to me.\" Another nuance: \"saying\" — Go out and say it to them and return word to Me (if they accept it). And whence is it derived that Moses went out and spoke with them? From (Shemoth 34:34): \"… and he would go forth and speak to the children of Israel what he had been commanded.\" And whence is it derived that He returned word to the Almighty? From (Shemoth 19:8): \"And Moses returned the words of the people to the L–rd.\" Elazar b. Achvai says: I might think He spoke to him for his own needs; it is, therefore, written: \"to say\" — to Israel. He spoke to him for Israel's sake, and not for his own. "
            ],
            "Section 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 1:2): \"Speak to the children of Israel … (Vayikra 1:4) and he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt-offering\" — The children of Israel perform semichah (the placing of the hands), and gentiles do not perform semichah. Now which measure is greater? That of tenufah (waving the devoted portions) or that of semichah? The measure of tenufah is greater. For tenufah obtains both with things that have a spirit of life (i.e., animals) and with things that do not have a spirit of life (e.g., first-fruits, the two breads, etc.), whereas semichah obtains only with things that have a spirit of life. If I exclude them (gentiles) from tenufah, the greater measure, (as the Torah does, indeed, exclude them), should I not exclude them from semichah, the lesser measure! (so that the exclusion verse for semichah would seem to be superfluous) Perceived thus, tenufah is (indeed) the greater measure, and semichah, the lesser. But perceived otherwise, semichah is the greater measure and tenufah, the lesser. For semichah obtains with all partners (to the offering), but not tenufah. If they (gentiles) are excluded from tenufah, the lesser measure, would I (without the verse) exclude them from semichah, the greater? So that because there obtains with tenufah what does not obtain with semichah, and with semichah, what does not obtain with tenufah, it must be written \"Speak to the children of Israel, etc.\" — The children of Israel perform semichah, and not the gentiles.",
                "2) (\"Speak to the sons of Israel, etc.\") — the sons of Israel perform semichah, and not the daughters of Israel. R. Yossi and R. Shimon say: Women (though not obligated to do so) may perform semichah. R. Yossi said: Abba Elazar once told me: We had a calf for the peace-offerings, and we took it out to the women's quarter, where the women placed their hands upon it — not because semichah obtains with women, but for their gratification. I might think that they do not perform semichah upon burnt-offerings, which do not require tenufah, but they do perform semichah upon peace-offerings, which require tenufah; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:4): \"and say to them\" (\"b'nei Yisrael\") — to include all that is mentioned in that context. Just as they do not perform semichah upon burnt-offerings, they do not perform semichah upon peace-offerings.",
                "3) [(Vayikra 1:2): \"A man, if he offer of you, a sacrifice to the L–rd\"] \"A man\" — to include proselytes; \"of you\" — to exclude heretics. Why do you see it that way? Why not: \"A man\" — to include heretics; \"of you\" — to exclude proselytes? After Scripture includes, it excludes, viz. (Vayikra 1:2): \"the children of Israel.\" Just as the children of Israel are accepters of the covenant, so proselytes — to exclude heretics, who do not accept the covenant. — But why not say: Just as the children of Israel are children of accepters of the covenant, so, heretics — to exclude proselytes, who are not! It is, therefore, written \"of you\" (i.e., like you, in your deeds). So that, perforce, we must understand it as: Just as Israel are accepters of the covenant, so, proselytes — to exclude heretics, who are not, having broken the covenant. And thus is it written (Mishlei 21:27): \"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination.\"",
                "4) \"A man, if he offer, etc.\" I might think this is a decree (i.e., that he must do so), it is, therefore, written \"if he offer\" — it is optional. (Mishlei 21:27): \"a sacrifice (korban) to the L–rd\" — he must sanctify it (by saying \"This is a burnt-offering\") before offering it up, (thus rendering it a \"korban\" before he actually sacrifices it). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon said: Whence is it derived that one should not say: \"To the L–rd, a burnt-offering,\" \"To the L–rd, a meal-offering,\" \"To the L–rd, peace-offerings?\" From \"a sacrifice (korban) to the L–rd.\" Now is this not a kal vachomer? If in respect to what is destined to be sanctified, Scripture states that the name of Heaven is to be mentioned only after \"korban\" (to forestall the possibility of its being mentioned in vain by his saying \"To the L–rd,\" and not following up with \"korban\") — how much more so must the name of Heaven not be mentioned in vain (in mundane circumstances)!",
                "5) R. Yossi says: Wherever \"korban\" is written, it is stated (only) in conjunction with Yod-Keh (the Tetragrammaton) so as not to provide an \"opening\" for heretics (as it would, if alternate names were used).",
                "6) (Vayikra 1:2): \"… an offering to the L–rd from the beasts (behemah)\": I might think (that this permitted) even (non-domesticated) animals, which are also subsumed in \"behemah,\" viz. (Devarim 14:4): \"These are the beasts (behemah) that you may eat: the ox, the sheep … the hart and the roebuck\" (animals); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra, Ibid.): \"from the cattle and from the sheep\" (domesticated). I might think that he should not bring (\"animals\"), but if he did bring them they are permitted — as when one's master tells him: \"Go and bring me wheat,\" and he goes and brings him wheat and barley, in which instance he (merely) adds to his master's words; it is, therefore, written: \"from the cattle and from the sheep shall you offer\" — i.e., from the beasts shall you offer cattle and sheep alone. This is analogous to one's master telling him: \"Bring me only wheat, in which instance, if he adds (barley) to wheat, he transgresses his master's words.",
                "7) \"from the beasts\" (but not all) — to exclude (animals used for sodomy), rovea (active) and nirva (passive). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? (Why is a verse needed to exclude them? (the kal vachomer:) If an animal with a blemish, which was not the object of transgression, is pasul (unfit) for the altar, rovea and nirva, which were objects of transgression, does it not follow that they should be unfit for the altar?",
                "8) — No, this is refuted by the instance of an ox plowing together with an ass, where, even though the ox was the object of transgression, it is kasher for the altar. — No, in that instance the animals are not to be killed, whereas rovea and nirva are to be killed. — \"Take what you have brought\" (i.e., let us grant this); still, (without the exclusion clause) I would know that they (rovea and nirva) are pasul only if they were the (proved) objects of transgression by the testimony of two witnesses. If there were only one witness, or only the testimony of the owner, whence would I derive this (that they are pasul, if not for the exclusion clause?) R. Yishmael said: I could derive it through a kal vachomer, viz.: If a blemished animal, which is not made pasul for eating by the testimony (to the blemish) of two witnesses, is made pasul for sacrifice by the testimony of one witness or of the owner — then rovea and nirva, which are made pasul for eating by the testimony of two witnesses, should they not be made pasul for sacrifice by the testimony of one witness or of the owner? (What need, then, is there for the exclusion clause?) R. Akiva said: No, (i.e., your argument does not stand.) In the instance of a blemished animal, the blemish is visible, whereas in the instance of rovea and nirva, the \"blemish\" is not visible, so that (without the exclusion clause), they would not be pasul for the altar. It must, therefore, be written \"from the beasts,\" to exclude rovea and nirva.",
                "9) \"from the cattle\" (but not all) — to exclude ne'evad (objects of idolatry). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? (Why is the exclusion clause necessary?) (the kal vachomer:) If an ethnan (the hire of a prostitute) [see Devarim 23:19]) and a mechir (the exchange of a dog [Devarim 23:19], whose ornaments are permitted (for mundane use), are forbidden for the altar — then ne'evad, whose ornaments are forbidden (see Devarim 7:25) — how much more so should it be forbidden for the altar! (Why, then, is an exclusion clause needed?) — But perhaps the reverse is true, viz.: If the ethnan and mechir, which are forbidden for the altar, (yet) their ornaments are permitted (for mundane use) — then ne'evad, which is permitted (for the altar [barring an exclusion clause]) — how much more so should its ornaments be permitted! — You have (hereby) abolished (Devarim 7:25) \"Do not covet the silver and gold upon them!\" I shall restore it, viz.: \"Do not covet the silver and gold\" of things (i.e., their images) which do not have a spirit of life. But things (i.e., their cattle), which do have a spirit of life, if they are permitted (for the altar), how much more so should their ornaments be permitted! It is, therefore, written \"from the cattle\" — to exclude ne'evad.",
                "10) Why need it be written below (Vayikra 1:3): \"from the cattle\"? (\"If his offering is a burnt-offering from the cattle, etc.\") To exclude treifah (a \"torn,\" ritually unfit animal). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? If a blemished animal, which is permitted for mundane purposes (i.e., eating), is pasul for the altar, treifah, which is forbidden for mundane purposes, how much more so should it be pasul for the altar! — This is refuted by cheilev (forbidden fats) and blood, which are forbidden for mundane purposes, yet kasher for the altar! — No (i.e., this is no refutation of the kal vachomer, for) forbidden fats and blood come from a thing (i.e., an animal) which is permitted (for mundane purposes), unlike treifah, which is entirely forbidden (for such purposes)! — This is refuted by melikah (\"pinching\" a bird's neck [as opposed to shechitah]), which is entirely forbidden (for mundane purposes), yet kasher for the altar! — No, (this is no refutation, for) the very thing that makes it kadosh (holy, for an offering), i.e., melikah, renders it forbidden (for mundane purposes), whereas with treifah, it is not the thing that makes it kadosh which renders it forbidden (for mundane purposes), and since this is so, it should be pasul for the altar! (Why, then, do we need an exclusion clause for treifah?) — Now that this refutation has been countered (at its origin, [viz., R. Akiva 8) above], so that the kal vachomer stands), what is the thrust of \"from\" (but not all) the cattle\"? To exclude treifah.",
                "11) (Vayikra 1:2): \"from the sheep\" — to exclude muktzeh (an animal designated for idolatry); \"and from the sheep\" — to exclude noge'ach (an animal which gored a man to death). If rovea is excluded, why need noge'ach be (separately) excluded? And if noge'ach is excluded, why need rovea be excluded? For there is that in rovea (prompting exclusion) which is lacking in noge'ach, and there is that in noge'ach which is lacking in rovea, viz.: With rovea, forcing (the animal to be rovea) was equated with volition (i.e., in both instances, the animal must be killed); with noge'ach, forcing was not equated with volition (i.e., only in the latter instance is the animal killed). (The owners of) noge'ach pay kofer (indemnity) after (the animal has been put to) death; rovea (in an instance where the woman dies as a result) does not pay indemnity after death. There is that in rovea which is lacking in ne'evad, and that in ne'evad which is lacking in rovea. Rovea, whether one's own animal or another's is forbidden (for the altar); ne'evad — one's own (animal that he made an object of idolatry) is forbidden; another's (animal that he made an object of idolatry) is permitted (for the altar, one not voiding what is not his). Rovea — its ornaments are permitted; ne'evad — its ornaments are forbidden. Therefore, Scripture must adduce all (of these exclusions). "
            ],
            "Chapter 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 1:2): \"shall you (plural) offer\": We are hereby taught that two may offer it (a beast burnt-offering, in partnership). Now does this not follow (without an inclusion clause)? A bird burnt-offering comes as vow or gift, and a beast burnt-offering comes as vow or gift. Just as a bird burnt-offering, which comes as vow or gift, may be offered by two, so, a beast burnt-offering, which comes as vow or gift, may be offered by two!",
                "2) Or, go in this direction: A meal-offering comes as vow or gift, and a beast burnt-offering comes as vow or gift. Just as a meal-offering, which comes as vow or gift, may not be offered by two, so, a beast burnt-offering, which comes as vow or gift, may not be offered by two.",
                "3) Let us see what it (a beast burnt-offering) is most like. We liken something which is entirely burnt (a beast burnt-offering) to something which is entirely burnt (a bird burnt-offering), and this is not countermanded by a meal-offering, which is not entirely burnt. (Why, then, the inclusion clause?) Or, go in this direction: We liken something which can come as a prescribed communal offering (a beast burnt-offering) to something which can come as a prescribed communal offering (a meal-offering), and this is not countermanded by a bird burnt-offering, which cannot come as a prescribed communal offering; it is, therefore, written \"shall you (plural) offer,\" to teach us that it comes as vow or gift and that two may offer it.",
                "4) (Vayikra 1:2): (\"shall you offer) your (plural) offerings\": We are hereby taught that it (a beast burnt-offering) may come as a communal gift offering. Now does it not follow (that it should not be so!) A meal-offering comes as vow or gift, and a beast burnt-offering comes as vow or gift. Just as a meal-offering, which comes as vow or gift, cannot come as a communal gift offering, so, a beast burnt-offering, which comes as vow or gift, should not come as a communal gift offering!",
                "5) — No, you may say this of a meal-offering, which cannot come as a gift of two (i.e., in partnership), but not of a beast burnt-offering, which can come as a gift of two. — But this is countermanded by a bird burnt-offering, which can come as a gift of two, but not as a communal gift offering!",
                "6) — No, this may be so with a bird burnt-offering, which cannot come as a prescribed communal offering, but not of a beast burnt-offering, which can come as a prescribed communal offering. — This is countermanded by peace-offerings, which can come as prescribed communal offerings, but not as communal gift offerings.",
                "7) Likewise, you should not wonder if a beast burnt-offering, though it can come as a prescribed communal offering, could not come as a communal gift offering; it is, therefore, written \"your (plural) offerings,\" to teach us that it can come as a communal gift offering.",
                "8) An alternate formulation: Now if an individual, who does not bring a prescribed burnt-offering every day, may bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift — the congregation, which does bring a prescribed burnt-offering every day, should it not follow that it may bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift? (Why, then, the inclusion clause?) — No, it may be so with an individual, because he may bring a meal-offering as a gift! — This is refuted by the instance of partners, who cannot bring a meal-offering as a gift, yet may bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift.",
                "9) — (No, it may be argued that) partners may bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift because they can bring a bird burnt-offering as a gift, as opposed to the congregation, which cannot bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift because it cannot bring a bird burnt-offering as a gift. — Why does the congregation not bring a bird burnt-offering as a gift? Because it does not bring it as a prescribed offering. Would you say that the congregation should not bring a beast burnt-offering as a gift, when it does bring it as a prescribed offering! Since it brings it as a prescribed offering, it should be able to bring it as a gift offering! — This is refuted by the instance of a meal-offering, which the congregation does bring as a prescribed offering, but not as a gift offering!",
                "10) Likewise, you should not wonder if a beast burnt-offering, though the congregation does bring it as a prescribed offering, could not be brought by them as a gift offering; it is, therefore, written \"your (plural), offerings,\" to teach us that it may be brought as a communal gift offering.",
                "11) Another formulation: \"your (plural), offerings\": From the \"place\" (i.e., beast burnt-offering) that the individual brings (a gift) — from there, the congregation brings (a gift). a"
            ],
            "Section 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 1:3): (\"If his offering is) a burnt-offering\": Why need this be written? (i.e., It is clear from the context that we are speaking of a burnt-offering.) I might think that all of these p'sulin (invalidating factors: muktza, ne'evad, rovea, etc.) obtain only with a gift burnt-offering. How would I know that they also obtain with a prescribed burnt-offering? (Therefore, \"a burnt-offering\" is needed.) — But does it not follow (even without the inclusion clause)? It is written that a gift burnt-offering is brought, and it is written that a prescribed burnt-offering is brought. Just as all of these p'sulin obtain with a gift burnt-offering, so do they obtain with a prescribed burnt-offering!",
                "2) No, in the case of a gift bird-offering he cannot bring a [bird] burnt-offering as a) substitute, whereas in the case of a prescribed burnt-offering he can (sometimes) bring a bird burnt-offering as) a substitute. And since he can bring a substitute (we would say, without the inclusion verse that) all of these p'sulin should not obtain; it is, therefore, written \"a burnt-offering\" — Whether a gift burnt-offering or a prescribed burnt-offering, all of the p'sulin obtain with them.",
                "3) And whence is it derived that they (these p'sulin) obtain with a temurah (an animal given in exchange for a consecrated animal). It follows, viz.: It is written that a burnt-offering is brought and it is written that a temurah is brought. Just as all of these p'sulin obtain with a burnt-offering, so do they obtain with a temurah.",
                "4) — No, in the instance of a burnt-offering, sanctity does not attach to it in the case of permanent blemish (i.e., if one dedicates an animal with a permanent blemish as a burnt-offering, it becomes chullin [\"mundane,\" for all purposes] when redeemed), as opposed to a temurah, to which sanctity does attach in such a case (i.e., if one redeems a permanently blemished animal which he made a temurah, it does not become chullin (to be shorn or worked with, but only to be eaten). And since sanctity attaches to a temurah with a permanent blemish, we would think that all of these p'sulin do not obtain with it; it is, therefore, written: \"if a burnt-offering,\" to include a temurah.",
                "5) And whence is it derived that they (these p'sulin) obtain with peace-offerings? It, indeed, follows that they should, viz.: It is written that a burnt-offering is brought, and it is written that peace-offerings are brought. Just as all of these p'sulin obtain with a burnt-offering, so should they obtain with peace-offerings.",
                "6) And it is a kal vachomer (that they should so obtain), viz.: Now if these p'sulin obtain with a burnt-offering, which may come from fowl, how much more so should they obtain with peace-offerings, which may not come from fowl! — No, it may be so with a burnt-offering, where females may not be offered as well as males, but not with peace-offerings, where females may be offered as well as males. And since females may be offered as well as males (we would say that) all of these p'sulin should not obtain with them; it is, therefore, written (the superfluous) \"his offering,\" to include peace-offerings.",
                "7) (Vayikra 1:3): \"from the cattle\": As we have said before (Section 2:10) — to exclude treifah; \"a male,\" and not a female. As for (Vayikra 1:10): \"a male,\" this is to exclude a tumtum (an animal whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite.",
                "8) Now is this not a kal vachomer? viz.: If peace-offerings, where female animals are kasher as well as males, tumtum and hermaphrodite are not kasher — a burnt-offering, where females are not kasher as well as males, should it not follow that tumtum and hermaphrodite not be kasher? (Why, then, is the exclusion clause needed?) — No, this may be so in the case of peace-offerings, where fowl are not kasher (for the altar), but fowl are kasher for burnt-offerings (so that without the exclusion, tumtum and hermaphrodite would also be assumed to be kasher.) — This is refuted by a sin-offering, where fowl are kasher, but not tumtum or hermaphrodite.",
                "9) — No, this may be so with a sin-offering, where not all species of male are kasher, as opposed to a burnt-offering, where all species of male are kasher. — This is refuted by a bechor (a first-born male), where all species of male are kasher, but not tumtum or hermaphrodite.",
                "10) — No, this may be so with bechor, which is holy from the womb, as opposed to a burnt-offering, which is not holy from the womb. — This is refuted by ma'aser (a tithed animal), which is not holy from the womb, and where tumtum and hermaphrodite are not kasher.",
                "11) — No, ma'aser is one out of ten (i.e., limited, exclusive,) whereas a burnt-offering is \"one out of one\" (i.e., unlimited, indiscriminate). And since it is one out of one, tumtum or hermaphrodite should be kasher. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 3) \"male,\" and not female, and, again, (Ibid. 10), (\"male\") — to exclude tumtum and hermaphrodite.",
                "12) (Vayikra 1:3): \"unblemished\": Just as if it is not unblemished it is not acceptable, so if it is not as indicated (i.e., if it is rovea, nirva, ne'evad, etc.) it is not acceptable. \"unblemished shall he bring it\" — unblemished shall he sanctify it (i.e., it is a positive commandment to sanctify unblemished animals). R. Yossi says: \"unblemished shall he offer it (yakrivenu)\" — yevakrenu (\"He shall examine it\" [for blemishes]), veyakrivenu (and he shall offer it). R. Yossi said: I have heard that if one slaughters an unexamined tamid (the offering of the day) on Shabbath he must bring a sin-offering (for having performed a forbidden labor on the Sabbath), and he brings a different tamid.",
                "13) \"to the door of the tent of meeting (shall he bring [yakriv] it\"): The owner must attend to getting it there (and he cannot say to the Cohein: Since the sacrificial service is yours, you get it there!), it being written \"yakriv (enu), yakriv\" (the second \"yakriv\" coming for the above teaching). Whence is it derived that if an olah (a burnt-offering) got mixed up (so that it cannot be identified) with an (other) olah, or with a temurah, or with chullin that it should (still) be sacrificed (with certain pre-conditions)? From \"yakriv, yakriv\" (— in any event): I might think (that this were true) even if it got mixed up with p'sulin; it is, therefore, written \"yakrivenu\" (\"he shall offer it\") — to exclude an animal that got mixed up with p'sulin, which are not kasher as offerings.",
                "14) Whence is it derived (that the olah is offered) even (if it got mixed up) with inner sin-offerings (i.e., where the blood is sprinkled inside the mishkan). — No, such an instance is excluded (i.e., the olah would not be offered in such an instance), for these (the sin-offerings) are inner (as explained), whereas this (the olah) is outer. And whence is it derived (that the olah is offered) even if it got mixed up with outer sin-offerings? ) — No, in such an instance it is excluded, for this (i.e., the service of the olah) is above (the red line on the outer altar), and (the service of) these (the sin-offerings) below. And whence is it derived that the olah is offered) even if it got mixed up with a bechor, or ma'aser or pesach? — No, such an instance is excluded, for with this (the olah) there are four (applications of blood on the altar), whereas with the others, there is (only) one. And whence is it derived (that the olah is offered even if it got mixed up with peace-offerings or with a thank-offering? — No, such an instance is excluded, for this (the olah) is a higher-order offering (kodshei kodshim), whereas the others are lower-order offerings (kodshim kalim). I might think that the olah is offered) even if it got mixed up with an asham (a guilt-offering, both being kodshei kodshim); it is, therefore, written \"yakrivenu\" (\"He shall offer it\") — he offers only it, alone, and not when it got mixed up with others (like an asham).",
                "15) Why did you choose (to include for offering) an olah that got mixed up with an olah? — It has the same name. An olah that got mixed up with a temurah? — A temurah can be sacrificed as an olah. An olah that got mixed up with chullin? — He can consecrate the chullin and make it an olah. (Ibid.): \"yakriv otho\" (\"he shall bring it\"): We are hereby taught that (if he is remiss in bringing his sacrifice) he is compelled to bring it. I might think, even against his will; it is, therefore, written: \"of his own volition.\" How can this be reconciled? — He is compelled until he says: \"I will it.\" "
            ],
            "Chapter 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 1:3-4): \"… before the L–rd. And he shall place (his hand on the head of the olah\"): There is no semichah on a bamah (a temporary altar, it not being considered \" before the L–rd\"). (Vayikra 1:11): (\"And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar) northward (tzafonah), before the L–rd\": There is no tzafon (requirement) on a bamah. Now which measure is greater? That of tzafon or that of semichah? The measure of tzafon is greater. For tzafon obtains both with individual and with communal offerings, whereas semichah obtains only with individual offerings. If I exclude them (bamoth) from tzafon, the greater measure, would I not exclude them from semichah, the lesser measure? (Why, then, is the exclusion verse for bamoth re semichah necessary) Perceived thus, tzafon is the greater measure, and semichah, the lesser. But perceived otherwise, semichah is the greater measure and tzafon the lesser. For semichah obtains with both higher and lower-order offerings, whereas tzafon obtains only with higher-order offerings. If I exclude them (bamoth) from tzafon, the lesser measure, I would not exclude them from semichah, the greater measure. So that because there obtains with tzafon what does not obtain with semichah, and with semichah, what does not obtain with tzafon; it is, therefore, written: \"before the L–rd, vesamach\" — there is no semichah on a bamah. \"tzafonah before the L–rd\" — there is no tzafon on a bamah. \"before the L–rd vesamach\": Even if he performed semichah outside (the azarah), he must return and perform it inside (\"before the L–rd\").",
                "2 [\"vesamach\" (\"and he shall place\") is written four times: once in respect to olah, thrice in respect to shelamim (peace-offerings)] (Vayikra 1:4): \"And he shall place his hand\" — not the hand of his wife (i.e., women do not perform semichah); \"his hand\" — not the hand of his bondsman; \"his hand\" — not the hand of his messenger. (Vayikra 1:4): \"his hand on the head\" — and not on the back; \"his hand on the head\" — and not on the throat; \"on the head\" — and not on the back of the head. I would exclude all of these, but not the breast; and it would follow by kal vachomer, viz.: Now if the head, which does not require tenufah, requires semichah — the breast, which requires tenufah, should it not require semichah! It is, therefore, written \"on the head\" — and not on the breast.",
                "3) I might think that only a gift-offering (the subject of the verse) required semichah. Whence do I derive the same for a prescribed burnt-offering? It follows, viz.: It is written that a gift burnt-offering is brought, and it is written that a prescribed burnt-offering is brought. Just as a gift burnt-offering requires semichah, so a prescribed burnt-offering requires semichah.",
                "4) — No, a gift burnt-offering does not allow of a bird substitute to exempt it from semichah, whereas a prescribed burnt-offering (that of a leper) does allow of a bird substitute (in the instance of an impoverished leper) to exempt it (a beast brought by a leper) from semichah — so that it should not require semichah. It is, therefore, written \"burnt-offering\" — Both a gift burnt-offering and a required burnt-offering require semichah. ...",
                "[(Vayikra 1:3): \"If his offering is a burnt-offering from the cattle … then he shall place his hand, etc.\"] This tells me only of a burnt-offering from the cattle. Whence do I derive (that the same holds true for) a burnt-offering from the sheep? It follows, viz.: It is written that an olah from the cattle is brought and that an olah from the sheep is brought. Just as an olah from the cattle requires semichah, so an olah from the sheep requires semichah.",
                "6) — No, this may be so with an animal from the cattle, where the libations are greater (in quantity), and not with an animal from the flock, where the libations are less. We might think, since the libations, are less, that it would not require semichah; it is, therefore, written \"olah\" — Both an olah from the cattle and one from the flock require semichah.",
                "7) I might think that a bird burnt-offering also required semichah; it is, therefore, written \"the olah\" — to exclude a bird burnt-offering.",
                "8) (Vayikra 1:4): \"venirtzah lo\" (\"and it shall be acceptable for him\"): We are hereby taught that the L–rd is conciliated with him (meratzeh lo). For which things (i.e., transgressions) is the L–rd conciliated with him\"? If you say for things which incur death by beth-din, death at the hands of Heaven, kareth at the hands of heaven, forty stripes, sin-offerings, and guilt-offerings — these punishments are stipulated (i.e., irrevocable). For what, then, is the L–rd conciliated with him\" For (transgression of) positive commandments and of negative commandments linked to positive commandments, (where stripes are not administered). R. Shimon says: \"and it shall be acceptable for him\": for him, and not for his offering — Even if he did not perform semichah, his offering conciliates for him.",
                "9) \"and it shall be acceptable for him to make atonement for him\" — with that which effects atonement. And what is it that effects atonement? The blood, as it is written (Vayikra 17:11): \"For it is the blood which atones for the soul.\" This tells me only (of atonement being effected by) the blood of a clean (i.e., undefiled) animal. Whence is it derived (that atonement is likewise effected by) the blood of an unclean animal? When it is written (Shemoth 28:38): \"And Aaron shall atone (by means of the headplate [the tzitz] for the sin of the holy things,\" which sin does he atone for? If that of piggul (abuse of offerings), it is stated in that regard (Shemoth 7:18): \"It (the offering) shall not be credited to him.\" If that of nothar (left-over offerings), it is stated in that regard (Shemoth 7:18): \"It shall not be accepted.\" Which sin does he atone for? That of tumah (defilement), whose like (i.e., tumah) was permitted in a communal offering.",
                "10) This tells me [(that the tzitz conciliates)] only in respect to the blood. Whence do we derive the same for the fistful, the frankincense, the meal-offering of the Cohanim, the meal-offering of the anointed high-priest, and the libation meal-offering? (that if they were offered in a state of uncleanliness, the tzitz conciliates) From (Shemoth, Ibid.): \"for all the gifts of their consecrations.\" This tells me only of men. Whence is it derived that the same applies with women? It tells me only of Israelites. Whence is it derived that the same applies with proselytes and with bondsmen? It is, therefore, written — in addition — \"which they shall consecrate.\" Since we find that only the blood effects atonement, what is the intent of \"And he shall place his hand … and it shall be acceptable\"? To teach us that if he treated semichah lightly (and did not perform it), it is as if there were no atonement. R. Shimon says (Ibid.): \"to make atonement alav\" (lit., \"upon him\"). What is \"upon him\" (i.e., if he said: \"A burnt-offering upon me\"), he must make restitution (if it died or were stolen). And, what is not \"upon him\" (i.e., if he said: \"Let this be a burnt-offering\"), he need not make restitution. "
            ],
            "Section 4": [
                "1) \"and he shall place his hand … and he shall slaughter\": In the place (the azarah) where semichah is performed, shechitah is performed, and shechitah must follow immediately upon semichah. Just as semichah obtains only with those who are clean (from defilement), so, shechitah.",
                "2) \"and he shall slaughter\": This teaches us that shechitah is kasher with zarim (non-Cohanim), women, bondsmen, and the unclean, even with higher-order offerings, so long as the unclean do not touch the flesh. Or, perhaps only a Cohein may perform shechitah! — Now, \"where are you coming from?\" (i.e., What is your source?) From (Bamidbar 18:7): \"And you and your sons with you shall guard your priesthood for all that pertains to the altar.\" I might think that this includes shechitah. But (Vayikra 1:5): \"And the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall present the blood, and they shall dash the blood, etc.\" indicates that from this point on (i.e., receiving the blood) is the mitzvah of the priesthood; but shechitah is kasher with all persons.",
                "3) (Vayikra 1:5): \"the bullock before the L–rd\": and not the slaughterer before the L–rd.\" (If the slaughterer stood outside the azarah and performed shechitah with a long knife, the shechitah would be valid.) Shimon Hatemani says: Whence is it derived that the hand of the shochet should be on the \"inside\" of the animal being slaughtered (and not on the outside towards the entrance of the azarah)? From: \"and he shall slaughter the bullock before the L–rd.\"",
                "4) (Vayikra 1:5) \"and the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall present (vehikrivu) the blood\": I might think that this refers to z'rikah (dashing the blood on the altar). But z'rikah is already mentioned (following). How, then, am I to understand \"vehikrivu\"? As referring to the receiving of the blood — that it be done only by a Cohein kasher, and with a ministering vessel. R. Akiva said: Whence is it derived that the receiving of the blood be done only by a Cohein kasher? Kihun (priesthood) is mentioned here (\"the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim\"), and it is mentioned elsewhere [(Bamidbar 3:3): \"These are the names of the sons of Aaron, whom he invested lechahein\"]. Just as the kihun there is with a Cohein kasher and ministering vessels, so, the kihun here (in respect to the receiving of the blood).",
                "5) R. Tarfon said to him: Akiva, how long will you continue \"piling up\" verses and bringing us (identities)! May I be bereaved if I did not hear that there is a difference between receiving and dashing (the blood. How, then, can you compare them!); but I cannot recall it (the difference) — whereupon R. Akiva said: Allow me to repeat to you something that you taught me. R. Tarfon: Say on. R. Akiva: With kabbalah (receiving), thought (of kabbalah) is not accounted act (so that a \"negative\" kabbalah thought does not invalidate the service), whereas with z'rikah (dashing), thought is accounted act. One who receives the blood outside (the azarah) is not liable; one who dashes it outside, is. If unclean persons received it, they are not liable; if they dashed it, they are. R. Tarfon: May I be bereaved that you have not swerved right or left (i.e., if you have not spoken truly)! I did, indeed, hear it, but it slipped my mind, and you expound (verses) and restore the teaching. Whoever departs from you departs from life.",
                "6) \"the sons of Aaron\": I might think (that they are fit for the service) even if they are challalim (children of marriages forbidden to Cohanim); it is, therefore, written (Ibid.): \"the Cohanim\" — to exclude challalim. I would exclude these, but not those who are blemished. It is, therefore, written \"the sons of Aaron.\" Just as Aaron is kasher, so, his children — to exclude challalim and those who are blemished.",
                "7) \"and the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall present the blood and they shall dash the blood.\" Why the repetition? Whence is it derived that if the blood of an olah got intermixed with that of a different olah, or with that of a temurah or with that of chullin, that it should be offered? From \"the blood.\" I might think that this is so because the same applies even to live animals that got mixed up (see Section 3:14). Whence do I derive that the same applies even if it (the blood) became intermixed with that of an asham (where the same does not apply to live animals?) I would include asham, for both (olah and asham) are higher-order offerings. And whence would I derive that the same applies even with shelamim and todah? I would include shelamim and todah, for both (these and olah) entail four applications (of blood upon the altar). And whence would I derive that the same applies even with bechor, ma'aser and pesach? From (the repetition of) \"the blood.\"",
                "8) I might think that the same applied even if it got intermixed with (the blood of) p'sulin; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 11); \"and the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall dash) its blood.\" I would exclude p'sulin, which are not kasher as offerings. Whence would I derive (that the blood of the olah is permitted) even if it got mixed up with inner sin-offerings? I would exclude inner sin-offerings, those being inner and that (the olah), outer (see Section 3:14). Whence would I derive the exclusion) even in the instance of outer sin-offerings? It is, therefore, written: \"its blood.\"",
                "9) (Vayikra 1:5): \"And they shall dash the blood (on the altar roundabout\"): I might think one dashing; it is, therefore, written \"roundabout.\" If \"roundabout,\" I might think they encircle it (with blood) in a line; it is, therefore, written \"and they shall dash.\" How is this to be effected? Two applications, which are four (i.e., two \"dashings\" from a vessel on two diagonally opposite corners of the altar).",
                "10) R. Yishmael says: \"roundabout\" is written here, and \"roundabout\" is written elsewhere (in respect to the investiture sin-offering [chatath hamiluim]). Just as \"roundabout\" there entails a pause for (each of) four applications (of blood), so, \"roundabout\" here entails a pause for (each of) four applications (on two corners) [one on each side of the corner]).",
                "11) \"And the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall present the blood and they shall sprinkle the blood\": Why the repetition? Whence do you derive that if the blood spilled from the vessel to the floor and it was gathered up it is kasher? From the repetition of \"the blood.\" I might think that even if it spilled from the beast's throat to the floor it should be gathered up; it is, therefore, written \"the blood,\" the blood that was received in a vessel.",
                "12) \"the blood on the altar\" — And not the dasher (of the blood) on the altar (i.e., he should not stand on the foundation of the altar [the yesod], but on the floor alongside it). Another nuance of \"the blood on the altar\" — (the blood should be dashed on the altar) even in the absence of the flesh (e.g., if it became unclean or were lost.) If so, how am I to understand (Devarim 12:27): \"And you shall sacrifice your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood\"? Blood and flesh are being likened to each other, viz., just as the blood is flung on the altar, so, the flesh. I might think he flings them (the pieces) so that they form a pile; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:12): \"And the Cohein shall arrange them.\" How is this (fling-arrange) to be reconciled? He flings them in such a way that they fall into an orderly arrangement.",
                "13) (Vayikra 1:5): \"on the altar roundabout\" — when it is \"roundabout\" (i.e., entirely intact), and not when one of its horns is incomplete. If it was, and he performed the service on it, it is pasul.",
                "14) (Vayikra 1:5): \"at the entrance of the tent of meeting\" — and not when it has been dismantled or when the wind has furled the curtain. R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of \"at the entrance of the tent of meeting\"? Because it is written (Shemoth 40:7): \"And you shall place the laver (hakiyor) between the tent of meeting and the altar,\" I might think (directly) between the tent of meeting and the altar; it is, therefore, written \"the altar roundabout, which is at the entrance of the tent of meeting\" — the altar is at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and not the laver. Where, then, was the laver placed? Between the ulam (the hall leading to the interior of the sanctuary) and the altar, somewhat removed (from the corner of the altar) towards the south (so that the laver was indirectly between the tent of meeting and the altar.) "
            ],
            "Chapter 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 1:6): \"And he shall flay the burnt-offering, and he shall cut it into its pieces\": I might think that he flays it limb by limb and he cuts it (i.e., each limb, after it has been flayed); it is, therefore, written \"the burnt-offering.\" He flays the whole animal and then cuts it.",
                "2) I might think that only a gift burnt-offering requires flaying. Whence do I derive the same for a prescribed burnt-offering? It follows, viz.: It is written that a gift burnt-offering is brought, and it is written that a prescribed burnt-offering is brought. Just as a gift burnt-offering requires flaying, so, a prescribed burnt-offering.",
                "3) I might think that only a burnt-offering from the cattle requires flaying. Whence do I derive the same for a burnt-offering from the flock? It follows, viz.: It is written that a burnt-offering is brought from the cattle, and it is written that a burnt-offering is brought from the flock. Just as the first requires flaying, so, the second.",
                "4) This tells me only that (the burnt-offering) of men (requires flaying). Whence do I derive the same for that of women? This tells me only of the burnt-offering of a Jew. Whence do I derive the same for that of bondsmen? — until even that of gentiles is included? From \"the burnt-offerings\" — Whatever is a burnt-offering requires flaying. Why did you see fit to include them (the burnt-offerings of all the above) for flaying and cutting and to exclude them from semichah? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I include them for flaying and cutting and exclude them from semichah? For flaying and cutting are kasher with all persons. And I exclude them from semichah, for semichah is performed only by the owner.",
                "5) R. Chiyya says: Go and see what Scripture excludes above (by [Vayikra 1:2] \"a man, if he offers, etc.\") — what is offered? (i.e., the animal), or the offerers? The offerers (e.g., a woman is excluded from semichah). Likewise, I exclude them (gentiles) from semichah, because I am excluding the offerers. I do not exclude them (the animals of gentiles) from flaying and cutting, because then I would be excluding the burnt-offering itself from an act (affecting its body).",
                "6) This tells me (that flaying is required) only of a (burnt-offering) that was slaughtered lishmah (i.e., with the intent that it be a burnt-offering). Whence do I derive the same for one that was slaughtered lo lishmah (i.e., with a different intent)? From \"the burnt-offering.\" Whatever is a burnt-offering requires flaying.",
                "7) \"and he shall cut it into its pieces\": I might think that he cuts its pieces into pieces; it is, therefore, written \"it\" — it into its pieces, and not its pieces into pieces. I might think that even an animal that is pasul requires flaying and cutting; it is, therefore, written \"it\" — an animal that is kasher, and not one that is pasul. And one that is pasul, which was placed on the altar, is sacrificed as it is (without flaying and cutting).",
                "8) (Vayikra 1:7): \"And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein, shall put fire upon the altar.\" R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that the kindling of the alita (kindling wood) is to be performed by a Cohein kasher in priestly vestments? From \"And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein, shall put fire upon the altar.\" R. Shimon said: Would it enter your mind that a zar (a non-priest) could sacrifice on the altar! If so, why is it written \"And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein, etc.\"? To teach that the wood must be kindled on the top of the altar (and not below, and then brought up to the altar).",
                "9) \"And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein\": Why \"the Cohein\"? From \"Aaron,\" do I not know that he is a Cohein? Why is it mentioned? To emphasize \"in his priesthood\" — to teach that if a high-priest officiated in the vestments of a regular priest, his service is pasul. And whence is it derived that if a regular priest officiated in the vestments of the high-priest his service is pasul? From (Vayikra 1:8) \"the priests\" — in their priesthood. So that if a high-priest officiated in the vestments of a regular priest, or a regular priest, in those of a high-priest, their service is pasul.",
                "10) \"And the sons of Aaron, the Cohein, shall put fire upon the altar.\" Even though fire descends from Heaven, it is a mitzvah to bring man-made fire. The fire that descended in the days of Moses did not depart from the copper altar until they came to the temple. The fire that descended in the days of Solomon did not depart from the burnt-offering altar until the days of Menasheh.",
                "11) (Vayikra 1:7): \"And they shall arrange wood upon the fire\": \"wood upon the fire,\" and not fire upon the wood. R. Shimon said: Whence is it derived that the daily afternoon offering requires two additional logs for the woodpile? From \"And they shall arrange the (lit.,) woods upon the fire.\" "
            ],
            "Chapter 6": [
                "1) (Vayikra 1:8): \"And the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall arrange\": I might think even a hundred (sons); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:12): \"And the Cohein shall arrange them.\" I might think one Cohein arranges all of the limbs; it is, therefore, written: \"And they shall arrange.\" How is this to be reconciled? One Cohein arranges two limbs. How many limbs are there? Ten. And one (Cohein) for the innards, so that a lamb is offered up by six (Cohanim). These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: \"And they shall arrange\" — two; \"the sons of Aaron\" — two; \"the Cohanim\" — two, whereby we are taught that a lamb is offered up by six. \"the Cohanim\" — to include those who are bald (baldness not being considered a disqualifying blemish).",
                "2) \"And the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall arrange the pieces, the head, and the suet\" — whereby we are taught that the head and the suet are not classed with the pieces. Another facet: He was to place the suet on the (bloodied) shechitah site in deference to the Exalted One. And whence is it derived that head and suet precede (for arrangement) all of the imurin (the devoted portions)? From (Vayikra 1:12): \"and its head, and its suet, and the Cohein shall arrange them, etc.\"",
                "3) R. Chiyya says: Whence is it derived that the shechitah site is the throat? From \"And the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall arrange the pieces.\" Let it not continue \"the head and the suet.\" Were they not included among all the limbs? Why mention them separately? But, because it is written: \"And he shall flay the burnt-offering and he shall cut it into its pieces, and the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, shall arrange the pieces,\" (I might think that only) pieces which were flayed (should be arranged on the altar). Whence would I derive that the head, which was already severed by shechitah [— apparently from the throat —] (for which reason it was not flayed) [Whence would I derive that it, too, should be placed upon the altar?] It is, therefore, written \"the head and the suet.\"",
                "4) (Vayikra 1:8): \"upon the wood, upon the fire\": wood which is readily flammable. Now is all wood kasher for the woodpile? Yes, all woods are kasher except olive-wood and grape-vine, but most commonly used are young boughs of fig, nut, and pine. R. Eliezer adds carob, palm, sycamore, mayish, and oak.",
                "5) I might think that one who vowed a burnt-offering could bring its wood and fire with him; it is, therefore, written: \"upon the wood, upon the fire, which is upon the altar.\" Just as the altar is communal, so the fire and the wood must be communal. These are the words of R. Elazar b. R. Shimon. R. Eliezer says: Just as the altar was not used for mundane purposes, so the wood and the fire must not have been used for mundane purposes. Another facet: \"upon the wood, upon the fire, which is upon the altar\" — the wood is not to project from the woodpile.",
                "6) (Vayikra 1:9): (\"And its innards and its legs he shall wash with water\") He shall wash the innards, and he shall wash the legs — even if the innards of one olah got mixed up with those of another, or with those of a temurah. I might think even if it got mixed up with p'sulin; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:9): \"and its innards,\" to exclude what got mixed up with p'sulin. I would then exclude what got mixed up with p'sulin, but not what got mixed up with higher or lower-order offerings; it is, therefore, written: \"and its innards and its legs.\"",
                "7) \"he shall wash\": I might think that just as \"washing\" written elsewhere (in respect to one who has had an emission) is with forty sa'ah, here, too, forty sa'ah are required. It is, therefore, written \"with water\" — any amount. \"with water\" — and not with wine; \"with water\" — and not with diluted wine; \"with water\" — all water (even \"gathered\" [i.e., non-flowing] water) — how much more so with water (fit for) the (Temple) laver, (which is flowing water [but not with the water of the laver itself].)",
                "8) (Vayikra 1:9): \"and the Cohein shall smoke (the whole upon the altar\"): even if it is pasul, even if it had gone out (i.e., even if the flesh had left the precincts of the azarah), even if it is piggul, even if it is nothar, even if it is tamei. I might think that this applies even if they are below (i.e., even if they had not already been placed on the altar); it is, therefore, written \"upon the altar\" — this applies when they are already on the altar, but not when they are below.",
                "9) \"the whole\": to include the bone, the sinews, the horns, the hooves, the wool on the heads of sheep, the chin-hair of he-goats. I might think (that this applies) even if they had become detached; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 12:27): \"And you shall offer your burnt-offerings, the flesh …\" If \"And you shall offer your burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood,\" I might think the sinews and bones should be extracted, and the flesh offered (on the altar); it is, therefore, written \"the whole,\" to include these. How is this to be reconciled? When they are attached (to the flesh) they are to be offered up. If they have become detached, even if they are on top of the altar, they are to be taken down.",
                "(Vayikra, Ibid.): \"… a burnt-offering, a fire-offering, a savor, sweet, to the L–rd\": \"a burnt-offering\" — to that end (i.e., he must have that intent); \"a fire-offering\" — to that end (i.e., to exclude charring it instead of burning it to ashes); \"a savor\" — to that end (to exclude roasting it beforehand); \"sweet\" (nichoach) — to give pleasure (nachath ruach); \"to the L–rd\" — to the Creator of the world. "
            ],
            "Section 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 1:10): \"And (if from the flock is his offering, etc.\"): This (\"And\") adds to what precedes (so that what is stated above [about the cattle] applies to what follows [about the flock], and vice versa). And why is there a pause (between the two)? To give Moses time for reflection between parshah and parshah and verse and verse. This prompts a kal vachomer: If Moses, who heard it from the Holy One Blessed be He and spoke with the holy spirit, had to reflect between parshah and parshah, and verse and verse, how much more so, one plain person from another!",
                "2) \"from the flock.\" \"of the sheep,\" and \"of the goats\": These are limitations, to exclude (as offering) the sick, the old, and the malodorous. \"his offering\" — to exclude the stolen; \"sheep\" \"or\" goats\" — to exclude kilayim (hybrids). You say that these limitations were stated for these (exclusions); but perhaps they were stated to exclude consecrated animals with which transgressions were committed, such (transgressions) as plowing with an ox and an ass hitched together, (plowing) kilayim (hybrid growths) in the vineyard, (plowing) shevi'ith (produce of the seventh year), (plowing on) yom tov, Yom Kippur, and Shabbath! (— No, this is not so, for) it is written (to include the above as permitted): \"sheep\" \"as a burnt-offering,\" and \"goats\" \"as a burnt-offering\" — to include all of these (as permitted, so that the exclusions must be for the sick, the old, etc.)",
                "3) R. Shimon says: \"sheep\" \"as a burnt-offering,\" and \"goats\" \"as a burnt-offering\" — to include temurah (a substitute, as permitted). Now does it not follow (that they are permitted, even without the inclusion clauses)? viz.: If the temurah of peace-offerings, for which fowl are not kasher, is kasher, how much more so the temurah of a burnt-offering, for which fowl are kasher! — No, it may be argued that this is so with peace-offerings, for which females are kasher just as males are, but not with an olah, where this is not the case; it is, therefore, written \"sheep\" and \"goats\" \"as a burnt-offering,\" to include temurah.",
                "4) R. Eliezer says: \"sheep\" \"as a burnt-offering,\" and \"goats\" \"as a burnt-offering\" — to include (for sacrifice as an olah) mothar (the surplus of what is spent for an offering). For I might think that only the surplus of an olah is to be sacrificed as an olah. Whence do I derive the same for the mothar of a sin-offering, a guilt-offering, the tenth of an ephah, the birds of zavim, zavoth, and yoldoth, the surplus of the offerings of the Nazirite and the leper, (the surplus of) one who consecrated his possessions, among which were things fit for the altar — wines, oils, and birds — Whence is it derived that these are sold for the (altar) needs of that article (i.e., wines, for libations; oils, for meal-offerings, etc.), and burnt-offerings bought for the (remaining) monies? From \"sheep\" \"as a burnt-offering,\" and \"goats\" \"as a burnt-offering\" — to include all of the above. And the sages say: Let them (the monies) fall for a gift (i.e., for communal gift-offerings). — Now are not these, too, burnt-offerings? What is the difference between R. Eliezer and the sages? (The difference is that) when the offering is prescribed, he (the owner) performs semichah upon it and brings libations for it from his own funds; and if he were a Cohein, its (sacrificial) service and its hide revert to him. But when the offering is a (communal) gift, he does not perform semichah upon it, and does not bring libations for it, these coming from communal funds; and if he were a Cohein, its service and its hide revert to the men of the watch.",
                "5) (Vayikra 1:11): \"And he shall slaughter it (on the side of the altar northward\"): \"it\" northward, and not a bird northward. (For without the exclusion we might reason:) Now is this not a kal vachomer? If an animal of the flock, for which a Cohein was not stipulated (for shechitah), \"northward\" was stipulated, then a bird, for which a Cohein was stipulated (for melikah), how much more so should \"northward\" be stipulated for it! It is, therefore, written \"And he shall slaughter it\" — \"it\" northward, and not a bird northward.",
                "6) R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: \"it\" northward, and not the pesach (offering) northward. Now is this not a kal vachomer? If an olah, for which a time for shechitah was not stipulated, a place for shechitah (\"northward\") was stipulated — pesach, for which a time for shechitah was stipulated (i.e., after midday), how much more so should a place for shechitah be stipulated! It is, therefore, written \"And he shall slaughter it\" — \"it\" northward, and not the pesach northward.",
                "7) R. Chiyyah says: \"it\" northward, but the slaughterer need not stand in the north. For since we find that the receiver (of the blood) must stand in the north and receive in the north, and that if he stood in the south and received in the north it is pasul, we might think that the same is true of the slaughterer; it is, therefore, written \"it\" — it (must be slaughtered) in the north, but the shochet need not stand with it in the north. (But he may stand southward and slaughter it with a long knife.)",
                "8) (Vayikra 1:11): \"And he shall slaughter it at the foot of the altar northward\": The foot was in the north. And where was the face? In the south — whence we derive that the ramp was in the south. R. Yehudah says (Ezekiel 43:17): \"And its rising turned to the east.\" One who ascended it, turned to his right, to the east — whence we derive that the ramp was in the south.",
                "9) \"the altar northward\": The entire altar may be considered \"northward,\" so that if he slaughtered higher-order offerings on its top, they are kasher. These are the words of R. Yossi. R. Yehudah says: From the midpoint of the altar northward is considered north; from the midpoint southward is considered south."
            ],
            "Chapter 7": [
                "1) \"northward before the L–rd\": The north must be empty (so that it is \"before the L–rd.\") These are the words of R. Eliezer b. Yaakov. The altar was aligned with half the opening of the heichal (the sanctuary), and opposite one of the doors, extending south. R. Yehudah says: The altar was in the mid-point of the azarah, thirty-two amoth — ten amoth opposite the entrance of the heichal, eleven amoth to the north, and eleven amoth to the south. So that the altar is found to be aligned with the sanctuary and its walls.",
                "2) Which is \"north\" (for purposes of shechitah of higher-order offerings)? From the northern wall of the altar until the northern wall of the azarah, and opposite (the length of) the altar (from east to west). These are the words of R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon adds: to the west (of the altar) between the ulam (the entrance hall to the heichal) and the altar, until the northern wall of the azarah. Rebbi adds: to the north-east (of the altar), the pathway of the Cohanim, and (continuing northward), the pathway of the Israelites, until the northern wall of the azarah. But all agree that (shechitah) is pasul in front (i.e., to the north) of the \"cell of knives\" (beth hachalafoth, in the north of the ulam [the altar being obscured from there]).",
                "3) (Vayikra 1:12): \"And he shall cut it\": \"it\" — an animal that is kasher, and not one that is pasul; \"it\" — it into its pieces, and not its pieces into pieces. \"and its head and its suet\": We are hereby taught that the head and the suet precede all the limbs (for arrangement). \"and the Cohein shall arrange them\" — in an orderly arrangement; \"upon the wood, upon the fire, which is upon the altar\" — he should not change the (normal) place of the woodpile for them.",
                "4) (Vayikra 1:13): \"And the innards and the legs he shall wash with water\": He shall wash the innards, and he shall wash the legs — even if the innards of one olah got mixed up with those of another, or with those of a temurah. I might think even if it got mixed up with p'sulin; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:9): \"and its innards,\" to exclude what got mixed up with p'sulin. I would then exclude what got mixed up with p'sulin, but not what got mixed up with higher or lower-order offerings; it is, therefore, written: \"and its innards and its legs.\" (Vayikra 1:13): \"he shall wash\": I might think that just as \"washing\" written elsewhere (in respect to one who had had an emission) is with forty sa'ah, here, too, forty sa'ah are required. It is, therefore, written \"with water\" — any amount. \"with water\" — and not with wine; \"with water\" — and not with diluted wine; \"with water\" — all water (even \"gathered\" [i.e., non-flowing] water) — how much more so with water (fit for) the (Temple) laver, (which is flowing water [but not with the water of the laver itself].)",
                "5) (Vayikra 1:13): \"And the Cohein shall present the whole\" — on the ramp, \"and he shall smoke it upon the altar\" — even if it is pasul, even if it had gone out (i.e., even if the flesh had left the precincts of the azarah), even if it is piggul, even if it is nothar, even if it is tamei. I might think that this applies even if they are below (i.e., even if they had not already been placed on the altar); it is, therefore, written \"upon the altar\" — this applies when they are already on the altar, but not when they are below.",
                "6) (Vayikra 1:13): (\"It is\" an olah\" — even if it were not flayed; even if it were not cut into pieces. — But perhaps (the implication is) even if it were not slaughtered in the north! It is, therefore, written (to negate this supposition): \"It.\" Why do you see fit to make it kasher (in the absence of) flaying and cutting, and pasul (in the absence of) \"north\"? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I call it kasher (in the absence of) flaying and cutting? Because they follow conciliation (effected by the application of the blood.) Correspondingly, it is pasul (in the absence of) \"north,\" because that precedes conciliation....",
                "7) \"an olah\" — even if he did not perform semichah. Now does not semichah precede conciliation? Even if he did not perform semichah, it is kasher. Why did you see fit to make it kasher (in the absence of) semichah, and to make it pasul in the absence of \"north\"? — After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I call it kasher (in the absence of) semichah? Because semichah does not obtain with all oloth. I call it pasul (in the absence of) \"north,\" because \"north\" obtains with all oloth.",
                "8) (\"a burnt-offering, a fire offering, a savor, sweet, to the L–rd\":) \"a burnt-offering\" — to that end (i.e., he must have that intent); \"a fire-offering\" — to that end (i.e., to exclude charring it instead of burning it to ashes); \"a savor\" — to that end (to exclude roasting it beforehand); \"sweet\" (nichoach) — to give pleasure (nachath ruach); \"to the L–rd\" — to the Creator of the world."
            ],
            "Section 6": [
                "1) (Vayikra 1:14): \"And if from the fowl, an olah is his offering\": \"the fowl, an olah,\" but not peace-offerings. (Without the exclusion we might reason:) Now is this not a kal vachomer? If an olah, which may not be brought from females as (they may be brought) from males, may be brought from fowl — peace-offerings, which may be brought from females as from males, how much more so should it be permitted to bring them from fowl! It is, therefore, written \"the fowl, an olah\" — and not peace-offerings. These are the words of R. Shimon.",
                "2) R. Yehudah said: Now if female beasts, which may not be brought as oloth, may be brought as peace-offerings — female birds, (and, it goes without saying, male birds,) which may be brought as oloth, how much more so should it be permitted to bring them as peace-offerings! It is, therefore, written \"the fowl, an olah\" — and not peace-offerings.",
                "3) \"from the fowl\" — and not all the fowl. Because it is written (Ibid. 22:19): \"a male without blemish, in the cattle, in the sheep, and in the goats,\" implying that \"unblemished male\" is a requirement only in the above, but not in fowl, I might think that it is kasher even if its wing were dried up, its eye dug out, or its leg cut off; it is, therefore, written: \"from the fowl\" — and not all the fowl.",
                "4) R. Shimon said: I might think that an ethnan (\"the hire of a prostitute\") or a mechir (\"the exchange of a dog\") were kasher with fowl, and that this would even be supported by a kal vachomer, viz.: Now if consecrated animals are made pasul by a blemish, but not by ethnan and mechir — fowl, which are not made pasul by a blemish, how much more so should they not be made pasul by ethnan and mechir! It is, therefore, written (in relation to ethnan and mechir [Devarim 23:19]): \"for every vow\" — to include (as interdicted, even) fowl.",
                "5) R. Eliezer says: Wherever \"male\" and \"female\" are mentioned, tumtum (an animal of doubtful sex) or androgynus (a hermaphroditic animal) are pasul. \"male\" and \"female,\" not being mentioned in respect to birds, tumtum and androgynus do not render them pasul.",
                "6) (Vayikra 1:14): \"his offering\" — an individual may offer a bird, but a bird may not be brought as a communal offering. Now does it not follow (that a bird may be brought as a communal offering), viz.: A beast-burnt-offering may be brought as vow or gift, and a bird burnt-offering may be brought as vow or gift. Just as the first may be brought as a communal gift offering, so, the second!",
                "7) No, this is refuted by a meal-offering, which is brought (by an individual) as gift or vow, but which is not brought as a communal gift-offering. No, that may be so with a meal-offering, which may not be offered (in partnership) by two (persons), as opposed to a bird burnt-offering, which may be brought by two. This is refuted by peace-offerings, which may be brought by two, but which may not be brought as a communal gift-offering.",
                "8) No, it may be that peace-offerings may not be brought as communal gift-offerings because they are excluded (from sacrifice) by (absence of) wholeness or of maleness, as opposed to birds, which are not thus excluded. And since they are not thus excluded, (we would say, without an exclusion clause,) that they may be brought as communal gift offerings. It is, therefore, written: \"his offering\" — an individual may offer a bird, but a bird may not be brought as a communal offering.",
                "9) Another derivation process (for including fowl in communal gift-offerings, so that an exclusion clause is required for ruling otherwise): Now if a beast burnt-offering, which is limited by Scripture as an offering, not being brought from females as from males, and (not being brought) from blemished animals as from unblemished, still is brought as a communal gift-offering — a bird burnt-offering, which is \"broadened\" by Scripture as an offering, being brought from females and from males, and from blemished birds as from unblemished — how much more so should it be permitted as a communal gift-offering! It is, therefore, written \"his offering\" — an individual may offer a bird, but a bird may not be brought as a communal offering."
            ],
            "Chapter 8": [
                "1) I might think that just as a bird cannot be brought as a communal gift-offering, so it cannot be brought as a gift of two (i.e., in partnership); it is, therefore, written (superfluously) \"and he shall offer\" (Ibid.) to teach us that it can be brought as a gift of two.",
                "2) Rebbi says: It is written (Vayikra 22:18): \"… who will bring his offering, of all of their vows and of all of their gift-offerings which they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering\" — All consecrated offerings may be brought in partnership, Scripture excluding only meal-offerings, in respect to which it is written (Vayikra 2:1): \"If a soul offer a meal-offering to the L–rd.\"",
                "3) I might think that any bird is kasher; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 2:14): \"… then he shall offer his offering from the turtle-doves or from the young pigeons\" — only these are permitted. \"turtle-doves\" — large, and not small. For is it not a kal vachomer (if not for a limiting clause, that small ones should be permitted), viz.: If young pigeons, which may not be offered large, may be offered small — turtle-doves, which may be offered large, how much more so should it be permitted to offer them small.",
                "4) \"young pigeons\" — small, and not large. For is it not a kal vachomer (if not for a limiting clause, that large ones should be permitted), viz.: If turtle-doves, which may not be offered small, may be offered large — young pigeons, which may be offered small, how much more so should it be permitted to offer them large! It is, therefore, written \"young pigeons\" — small (the usual), and not large.",
                "5) I might think that all turtle-doves and all young pigeons are kasher. It is, therefore, written: \"from the turtle-doves,\" and not all of them — to exclude, in both, those at the stage when the neck feathers begin to shine (the intermediate stage). When are turtle-doves kasher? When they are gold-like (i.e., qualifying as \"large\"). When are young pigeons unfit? When they begin to shine (i.e., no longer qualifying as \"small\").",
                "6) (Vayikra 1:14): (\"… from the turtle-doves or from the young pigeons shall be his offering\"): His offering shall be turtle-doves and young pigeons, but not his authorization (i.e., they may not serve [as birds (tzipporin) do] as authorization for a leper to re-enter the encampment). For (without the exclusion clause) is it not a kal vachomer (that they should serve as authorization), viz.: If tzipporin, which are not fit to atone (i.e., to be offerings) within (the Temple), are fit to atone (i.e., to serve as authorization) outside — turtle-doves and young pigeons, which are fit to atone within, how much more so should they be fit to atone outside! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"turtle-doves and young pigeons shall be his offering\" — but not his authorization.",
                "7) kal vachomer that tzipporin should be kasher to atone within: If turtle-doves and young pigeons, which are not fit to atone outside (see above), are fit to atone within — tzipporin, which are fit to atone outside, how much more so should they be fit to atone within! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"and he shall offer from the turtle-doves or from the young pigeons, his offering.\" Only these are kasher for offerings from the fowl.",
                "8) R. Yehudah said: Now if in a case (that of a rich leper), where the authorization (to eat consecrated food) within is similar to the atonement within, (i.e., in both instances it is a beast [that is sacrificed]), the authorization (tzipporin) outside is different (i.e., it is a bird), then in a case (that of a poor leper), where the authorization within (i.e., a beast) is not similar to the atonement within (turtle-doves or young pigeons), how much more so should it follow that the authorization outside should be different! (so that we would know even without the exclusion clause that he could not bring turtle-doves or young pigeons for that authorization!) — That kal vachomer would serve for a poor leper; but whence would we derive the same for a rich leper (where even turtle-doves or young pigeons would satisfy the \"difference\" requirement for outside authorization, [inside authorization being effected by a beast])? It is, therefore, written: \"from the turtle-doves or from the young pigeons, his offering\" — and not his (outside) authorization."
            ],
            "Section 7": [
                "1) (Vayikra 1:15): \"And the Cohein shall bring it near to the altar\"): Why \"And he shall bring it\"? (In context the \"it\" is superfluous). Because it is written (Vayikra 1:14): \"And he shall offer his offering from the turtle-doves or from the young,\" I might think that he could offer no fewer than two; it is, therefore, written \"And he shall bring it near\" — even one suffices.",
                "2) \"And the Cohein shall bring it near … and he shall pinch off (malak) its head\" — whence we are taught that melikah is performed by a Cohein. (For we would otherwise reason:) Is it not a kal vachomer (that a non-priest could also perform melikah), viz.: If a sheep, for (whose shechitah) \"north\" was mandated (see Vayikra 1:11), a Cohein was not mandated — melikah, for which north was not mandated, how much more so should a Cohein not be mandated! It is, therefore, written: \"the Cohein … umalak\" — melikah is performed only by a Cohein.",
                "3) I might think that he should perform melikah with a knife. And it would follow by kal vachomer, viz.: If shechitah, for which a Cohein was not mandated, an instrument (i.e., a knife) was mandated — melikah, for which a Cohein was mandated, should it not follow that an instrument be mandated! It is, therefore written: \"the Cohein … umalak\" — concerning which R. Akiva says: Now would it enter your mind that a non-priest could offer it on the altar? What, then, is the intent of \"the Cohein … umalak\"? To teach us that melikah must be performed with the body (i.e., with the fingernail) of the Cohein.",
                "4) I might think that he could perform melikah either above or below (the red line in the middle of the altar); it is, therefore, written \"… umalak its head and smoke it upon the altar.\" \"upon the altar\" refers to both smoking and melikah. Just as smoking is \"above,\" so is melikah.",
                "5) \"umalak\" (\"And he shall pinch, etc.\"): I might think from anywhere (i.e., even from the throat); I, therefore, reason: \"melikah\" is written here, and it is written elsewhere (in reference to a bird-offering [Ibid. 5:8]: \"And he shall pinch its head alongside its oref\" [the back of the head sloping to the nape]). Just as melikah there is alongside the oref, so, here. — But, in that case, why not say: Just as there, he pinches but does not sunder (the head from the body, pinching only one of the shechitah signs, gullet or windpipe), here, too, he pinches but does not sunder! — It is, therefore, written (in negation of this supposition): \"umalak its head and he shall smoke it upon the altar, and its blood shall be wrung out on the wall of the altar.\" Can this possibly mean that after he smokes it he wrings out his blood! It must mean that he pinches it in the manner that he smokes it, viz.: Just as in smoking, the head (is smoked) by itself, and the body, by itself — so in melikah, the head by itself and the body by itself (i.e., the head is severed completely).",
                "6) And whence is it derived that the head is smoked by itself? \"And the Cohein shall smoke it on the altar\" (Ibid. 17) refers to the body. What, then, must \"and he shall smoke\" (Ibid. 15) refer to? The head. And just as we find with smoking that the head (is smoked) by itself, and the body by itself, so, with melikah, etc.",
                "7) \"And its blood shall be wrung out\" — the blood of all of it. He holds both the head and the body and wrings (the blood of) both of them out against the wall of the altar — not the wall of the ramp, not the wall of the foundation, not the wall of the heichal, but the upper wall of the altar (i.e., above the red line). I might think (he could do so) on the lower wall, and derive it by kal vachomer, viz.: If the (blood of the) sin-offering of a beast is (applied) above (the red line), and the (blood of its) burnt-offering, below — the (blood of the) sin-offering of a bird, whose blood is (applied) below (the red line), how much more so should (the blood of) its burnt-offering be applied below! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"And he shall pinch its head and smoke it on the altar, and its blood shall be wrung out against the wall of the altar.\" \"the altar\" mentioned in respect to smoking is \"the altar\" mentioned in respect to wringing. Just as smoking is \"above,\" so is wringing.",
                "8) How was this done? He (the Cohein) ascended the ramp and turned to the sovev (the gallery around the altar). When he came to the northeast corner, he pinched its head alongside its oref, sundered it, and wrung out its blood on the wall of the altar. And if he processed it beneath his feet, even as much as one ell, it is kasher, (this still being above the red line). R. Nechemiah and R. Eliezer b. Yaakov say: All of it must be done near the top of the altar.",
                "9) (Vayikra 1:16): \"And he shall remove murato with its entrails\"): This (\"murato\") is the crop. I might think he pierces through (the skin) with a knife and removes it; it is, therefore, written: \"with its entrails.\" He removes it together with the entrails. Abba Yossi b. Chanan says: He removes the maw with it. "
            ],
            "Chapter 9": [
                "1) (Vayikra 1:16): \"And he shall cast it\" (the crop, etc.): \"it\" — that of a kasher offering, and not that of a pasul offering; \"it\" — not (that of) a bird sin-offering, (whose crop the Cohein may eat if he so wishes). \"it\" is cast (in the place of the ashes), and not the (corresponding parts of the) burnt-offering of a beast, (which are rinsed and sacrificed).",
                "2) For (in the absence of \"it\"), I would reason: Is it not a kal vachomer (that these parts in a beast should be pasul), viz.: If in an instance (that of a bird) where the skin is permitted (for the altar), the crop is pasul, in the instance (that of a beast), where the skin is pasul, how much more so should the crop be pasul! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"it\" — it (that of a bird burnt-offering) is to be cast, and not that of a beast.",
                "3) (Vayikra 1:16): \"etzel the altar\" — near the altar; \"kedmah\" — to the east of the ramp; \"in the place of the ashes\" — where the ashes were deposited. R. Chaninah says: There were two ash depositories, one in the east of the ramp and one in the east of the altar. In the first were placed the crops of birds and the ashes of the inner altar and of the menorah; and in the second were burned the p'sulin of higher-order offerings and (those of) the devoted portions of lower-order offerings.",
                "4) (Vayikra 1:16): \"And he shall rend it\" — one that is kasher and not one that is pasul (i.e., If he performed melikah outside the prescribed time, he does not remove it from the altar, but sacrifices it without rending.) \"it\" required rending, but not a beast burnt-offering. For (in the absence of \"it\") I would reason: Is it not a kal vachomer, viz.: If a bird burnt-offering, which does not require flaying, requires rending — a beast burnt-offering, which does require flaying, how much more so must it require rending! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"And he shall rend it\" — it requires rending, but not a beast burnt-offering.",
                "5) (\"And he shall rend it) with its feathers\" — This permits the skin (to which the feathers are attached). For (in the absence of \"with its feathers\") I would reason: If in an instance (that of a beast burnt-offering) where the crop, (which is foul), is permitted (to be sacrificed) — the skin, (which gives off a foul odor upon burning), is forbidden, here, where the crop is forbidden, how much more so should the skin be forbidden! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"with its feathers\" — the skin is permitted.",
                "6) (\"And he shall rend it) but he shall not divide it.\" I might think that if he did divide it, it is pasul; it is, therefore, written: \"and (including an instance in which it was divided), he shall smoke.\" If \"and he shall smoke,\" I might think (it is sacrificed) even if he performed melikah with a knife (instead of with his fingernail); it is, therefore, written: (\"and he shall smoke) it.\" Why do you see fit to make it kasher in the instance of dividing and to make it pasul in that of melikah? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I make dividing kasher? Because it follows conciliation (by the blood). I make melikah (with a knife) pasul because it precedes conciliation.",
                "7) (\"It is) a burnt-offering\" — even if he wrung out the blood of the body and not that of the head. — But perhaps (the intent is) even if he wrung out the blood of the head and not that of the body! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"It is a burnt-offering\" (connoting the greater part of it). \"a burnt-offering, a fire-offering, a savor, sweet, to the L–rd\": \"a burnt-offering\" — to that end (i.e., he must have that intent); \"a fire-offering\" — to that end (i.e., to exclude charring it instead of burning its ashes); \"a savor\" — to that end (to exclude roasting it beforehand); \"sweet\" (nichoach) — to give pleasure (nachath ruach); \"to the L–rd\" — to the Creator of the world."
            ],
            "Section 8": [
                "1) (Vayikra 2:1): \"And a soul\" — to include the anointed priest (i.e., the high-priest) as bringing a gift meal-offering. Is it not a kal vachomer (that he may do so), viz.: If an individual (Jew), who does not bring a prescribed meal-offering every day, may bring a gift meal-offering — the high-priest, who does bring a prescribed meal-offering every day, (see Vayikra 6:13), how much more so may he bring a gift meal-offering! — No, the individual (in an instance of extreme poverty) brings a meal-offering for defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects, whereas the high-priest does not — and since he does not, (I would say that) he may not bring a gift meal-offering. It is, therefore, written: \"And a soul,\" to include a high-priest as bringing a gift meal-offering.",
                "2) The same applies to the congregation (as opposed to the individual), viz.: If the individual who does not bring a prescribed meal-offering every day, may bring a gift meal-offering — the congregation, which does bring a prescribed meal-offering every day (the libation meal-offering accompanying the daily offering), how much more so may it bring a gift meal-offering! — No, the individual brings an offering for defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects, whereas the congregation does not (and since it does not [I would say that] it may not bring a gift meal-offering.) — This is refuted by the instance of the high-priest, who does not bring a meal-offering for defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects, yet does bring a gift meal-offering. Do not wonder, then, if a congregation, which does not bring a meal-offering for defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects would bring a gift meal-offering. It is, therefore, written (to negate this supposition): \"a soul\" — an individual brings a gift meal-offering, but not a congregation.",
                "3) \"a soul shall offer\" — I might think this is a decree; it is, therefore, written: \"If a soul shall offer\" — it is optional. \"korban minchah\" (lit., \"an offering, meal-offering\"). We are hereby taught (by the superfluous \"korban\") that an individual may offer frankincense (as a distinct offering, apart from the meal-offering). Now does it not follow (that he may do so, i.e., Why does this require an inclusion clause?), viz.: It is written that a beast is brought (as an offering), and a meal-offering as a prescribed adjunct to it (Bamidbar 15:1, etc.); that a meal-offering is brought, and frankincense, as a prescribed adjunct to it — Just as a meal-offering, which comes as a prescribed adjunct to a beast, comes as a gift by itself (our verse), so, frankincense, which comes as a prescribed adjunct to a meal-offering, comes as a gift by itself. (Why, then, the inclusion clause?)",
                "4) (No, I would say:) Why does a meal-offering come as a gift by itself? Because it comes as a prescribed offering by itself. Should frankincense, then, which does not come as a prescribed offering by itself, come as a gift by itself! Certainly not! It is, therefore, written (to negate this); \"korban\" (\"an offering\") — an individual may donate frankincense by itself. What is the minimum amount? A fistful.",
                "5) And whence is it derived that an individual may donate wine as a (distinct) gift? It is written that a beast is brought, and a meal-offering as a prescribed adjunct to it, and that a beast is brought, and wine as a prescribed adjunct to it — Just as a meal-offering, which comes as a prescribed adjunct to a beast, comes as a gift by itself, so, wine, which comes as a prescribed adjunct to a beast, comes as a gift by itself.",
                "6) (But this may be countered, viz.:) Why does a meal-offering come as a gift by itself? Because it comes as a prescribed offering by itself. Should wine, then, which does not come as a prescribed offering by itself, come as a gift by itself! Certainly not! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"korban\" (\"an offering\") — an individual may donate wine by itself. What is the minimum amount? Three logim.",
                "7) And whence is it derived that an individual may donate oil by itself? Adduce the same derivation and the same rebuttal (as in the instance of frankincense.) It is, therefore, written (to negate the rebuttal): \"korban,\" etc. These are the words of R. Tarfon. R. Tarfon said: Just as we find that wine, which is brought as an obligation, is brought as a gift, so, oil, which is brought as an obligation, is brought as a gift. R. Akiva countered: No, this may be so in the case of wine, which is brought as an obligation by itself, but not in the case of oil, which is not brought as an obligation by itself. And whence is it derived that an individual may donate wood by itself? It is written: \"korban\" — an individual may donate wood by itself. What is the minimum amount? Two logs.",
                "8) R. Yossi says: I read \"korban,\" and I might think an individual may donate (even) incense, and that he is bound by (Devarim 23:24): \"What issues from your lips shall you observe and you shall do, and that he satisfies (Shemoth 30:9) \"You shall not bring upon it (the altar) strange (i.e., donated) incense, nor burnt-offering\" by not bringing it upon the inner altar, but he may bring it upon the outer altar (just as he does a burnt-offering) — it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 31:11): \"and the spice incense for (smoking in the sanctuary, which is) holy\" — spices are offered only within (i.e., in the sanctuary). "
            ],
            "Chapter 10": [
                "1) (Vayikra 2:1): \"a meal-offering\" — What obtains here (in our section) obtains with all (other) meal-offerings, and what obtains with all (other) meal-offerings obtains here. \"soleth\" (fine flour): Just as soleth elsewhere (Shemoth 29:2) is of wheat, so, here. (It could have been written) \"soleth, his offering\" (instead of) \"soleth shall be (his offering\"), the implication being that he may donate and offer only (a meal-offering) of wheat. (For without the limiting clause I would reason:) Does it not follow (that an individual may bring a meal-offering of barley)? viz.: The congregation brings a prescribed meal-offering of wheat (i.e., the libation meal-offering, the two loaves, and the show bread), and an individual brings a gift meal-offering of wheat. Just as the congregation, which brings a prescribed meal-offering of wheat, brings a prescribed meal-offering of barley (e.g., the meal-offering of the omer), so, the individual, who brings a gift-offering of wheat, may bring a gift-offering of barley. It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"soleth, his offering,\" \"soleth shall it be\" — he may donate and offer only (a meal-offering) of wheat.",
                "2) So that if one said: \"I vow a meal-offering of barley,\" he brings one of wheat; \"of kemach\" (first flour), he brings one of soleth (fine flour); \"without oil and frankincense,\" he brings oil and frankincense with it;\" \"a half-issaron,\" he brings a full issaron; \"an issaron and a half,\" he brings two. R. Shimon (in the above instances) exempts him, his not having donated in the customary manner.",
                "3) \"his offering\" — the individual brings a gift meal-offering, but not partners. (For without the exclusion clause I would reason:) Does it not follow (that a gift meal-offering may be brought in partnership)? viz.: A beast burnt-offering is brought in vow or gift, and a meal-offering is brought in vow or gift. Just as the first may be brought by two, so, the second may be brought by two.",
                "4) — No, this may be true in the case of a beast burnt-offering, which comes as a communal gift-offering, but not in that of a meal-offering, which does not come as a communal gift-offering. — This is refuted by the instance of a bird burnt-offering, which does not come as a communal gift-offering, yet does come as a gift of two.",
                "5) — So that you should not wonder if a meal-offering, which does not come as a communal gift-offering, does come as a gift of two. It is, therefore, written (to negate this) \"his offering\" — the individual brings a gift meal-offering, but not partners.",
                "6) Just as two do not bring a gift meal-offering, so they do not bring wine or frankincense or wood. But they can donate a burnt-offering and peace-offerings, and, with (a) fowl (-offering), even one bird.",
                "7) \"And he shall pour oil upon it\" — upon all of it; \"and he shall put frankincense upon it\" — upon part of it. Why do you see fit to say this\" (i.e., to make this distinction). — For there is no inclusion (\"upon it\") after inclusion (upon it\") in the Torah except for limitation.",
                "8) Another rendering: \"And he shall pour oil upon it\" — upon all of it, because it (the oil) is mixed with it, and the fistful is taken with it. \"and he shall put frankincense upon it\" — upon part of it, because it (the frankincense) is not mixed with it, and the fistful is not taken with it.",
                "9) \"and he shall put frankincense upon it\" — upon part of it, I do not know how much. I, therefore, reason: It (the meal-offering) requires kemitzah (the taking of the fistful), and it requires frankincense. Just as kemitzah is a full fist (Ibid. 2), so the frankincense requires a full fist. R. Yehudah says: If the frankincense (on the meal-offering) was diminished (from a fistful after kemitzah), it is kasher.",
                "10) \"And he shall pour oil upon it and he shall put frankincense upon it, and he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim\": The implication is that all men (i.e., even non-Cohanim) may do the pouring and the mixing."
            ],
            "Section 9": [
                "1) (Vayikra 2:2) (\"And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, and he [the Cohein] shall take, etc.\"): (It could have been written \"vehevi\" (\"And he shall bring.\") Why \"veheviah\"? (\"And he shall bring it\")? That he not bring it by halves. So that if he said: \"I vow to bring a meal-offering of two issaron,\" he should not bring it in two vessels but in one. \"to the sons of Aaron\" — even if they are very many (i.e., they can apportion the various services among themselves.) And thus is it written (Mishlei 14:28): \"In the multitude of the people is the King's glory.\" \"the Cohanim\": We are hereby taught that kemitzah (the taking of the fistful) is the mitzvah of the priesthood. (non-Cohanim may not perform it.) (For without the exclusion clause I would reason:) Does it not follow (that kemitzah does not require a Cohein)? viz.: If shechitah, for which \"north\" was required, a Cohein was not required, kemitzah, for which north was not required, how much more so should a Cohein not be required! — This argument is refuted by melikah, which does not require \"north,\" yet does require a Cohein. — No, this may be true of melikah because it requires the altar, as opposed to kemitzah, which does not require the altar. And since it does not require the altar, it should not require a Cohein. It is, therefore, written: \"… the Cohanim, and he (the Cohein) shall take the fistful\" — kemitzah is the mitzvah of the priesthood.",
                "2) I might think that it is a mitzvah for a Cohein to take the fistful, but that if a non-Cohein does so it is also kasher; it is, therefore, written (Mishlei 14:9): \"And the Cohein shall lift from the meal-offering its remembrance\" (i.e., the fistful\") — to stipulate that if a non-Cohein does so it is pasul.",
                "3) \"and he shall take a fistful\": one fistful for (a meal-offering of) one issaron; one fistful for sixty issaron. — Or, one fistful for one issaron; sixty fistfuls for sixty issaron I reason: (A meal-offering) requires kemitzah and it requires frankincense. Just as with frankincense, one fistful (of frankincense) for (a meal-offering of) one issaron; one fistful for sixty issaron — so, kemitzah: one fistful for one issaron; one fistful for sixty issaron.",
                "4) Or, go in this direction: (A meal-offering) requires kemitzah, and it requires oil. Just as with oil, one log for one issaron; sixty log for sixty issaron — so, with kemitzah: one fistful for one issaron; sixty fistfuls for sixty issaron!",
                "5) Let us see what it (the fistful) is most like. We derive a thing (the fistful), which is entirely burnt, from a thing (frankincense), which is entirely burnt. And this is not countermanded by oil, which is not entirely burnt, (most of it being eaten by the Cohanim). Or, go in this direction: We derive something (the fistful), (the absence of) a small amount of which invalidates its (extant) preponderant amount, from something (oil), (the absence of) a small amount of which does not invalidate its (extant) preponderant amount; it is, therefore, written \"and he shall take a fistful\" (the connotation of which is) one fistful for sixty issaron. \"and he shall take a fistful from there\" — from wherever the stranger (i.e., the donor) is standing (in the azarah). Ben Betheira says: Whence is it derived that if he took the fistful with his left hand, he puts it back (in the vessel) and takes it again with his right hand? From \"from there\" — from where he had taken it before.",
                "6) \"his full fistful\": I might think it should be flowing over; it is, therefore, written (to negate this) (Vayikra 6:8): \"in his fistful.\" If \"in this fistful,\" I might think he can take the fistful with his fingertips (and that they need not reach his palm); it is, therefore, written: \"his full fistful.\" How is this done? He bends three fingers over his palm (and bunches the flour in). And with a machvath or a marchesheth (baked meal-offerings, that do flow over [see Vayikra 2:5 and Vayikra 2:7]), he \"erases\" (the overflow) with his thumb from above and with his little finger from below.",
                "7) \"his full fistful\" soleth (fine flour). I might think that the place of the kemitzah must be soleth and the rest may be kemach (first flour); it is, therefore, written: \"from soleth.\" I might then think that the place of the kemitzah and the sides must be soleth and the rest may be kemach. It is, therefore written: \"from its soleth\" — it must be all soleth; \"and from its oil\" — it must be all oil.",
                "8) \"from its soleth and from its oil\" — the soleth must be mixed with oil. Another rendering: \"from its soleth\" — If the soleth were missing any amount (short of an issaron) it is pasul. \"and from its oil\" — If the oil were missing any amount (short of a log), it is pasul.",
                "9) \"from its soleth\": not from the soleth of its neighbor (offering); \"and from its oil\": not from the oil of its neighbor — that he not bring two meal-offerings in one vessel — whence it was ruled: Two meal-offerings from which fistfuls were not taken, which got mixed up with each other — If he can take a fistful from each independently, they are kasher; if not, they are pasul.",
                "10) \"his fistful from its soleth and from its oil\": If in taking the fistful there came up in his hand a pebble or a grain of salt or of frankincense, it is pasul. \"from its soleth and from its oil, aside from all of its frankincense\" There must be frankincense there (on the meal-offering) at the time of the kemitzah. \"aside from all of its frankincense and he shall smoke\": He picks the (grains of) frankincense (from the meal-offering, places it on the fistful in the vessel) and offers it on the fire (of the altar).",
                "11) \"and he shall smoke\" the fistful, even in the absence of the remainder (i.e., if the remainder were lost before the smoking). If the fistful became unclean or were lost, I might think that the Cohanim could (still) eat the remainder, and (I could adduce) a kal vachomer to that effect, viz.: If in an instance where the \"power of the altar\" is weak — that of the two breads and the show bread, (of which the altar receives nothing) — the power of the Cohanim is strong (i.e., they receive these breads), then, in an instance where the power of the altar is strong — that of the fistful — how much more so should the power of the Cohanim be strong with the remainder (i.e., they should be able to eat it) (even if the share of the altar is lacking)! (To negate this) it is written (Ibid. 3): \"And what is left over from the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and for his sons from the fire-offerings of the L–rd.\" They have no portion in it until the fistful has been smoked.",
                "12) (Vayikra 2:2): \"its remembrance\" (the fistful): The owners are \"remembered\" (for good) thereby (i.e., by its presentation to the altar), by (the smoking of) the fistful, and by (the smoking of) the frankincense. R. Shimon says: \"remembrance\" is mentioned here, and \"remembrance\" is mentioned elsewhere (in reference to the show bread [Vayikra 24:7]). Just as the \"remembrance\" here is a full fistful, so, the \"remembrance\" there."
            ],
            "Chapter 11": [
                "1) \"And what is left (from the meal-offering shall be for Aaron, etc.\"): even if it were not salted, even if it were not presented (at the southwest corner of the altar) — except if nothing were smoked of its frankincense. \"from the meal-offering\" — except if it (the meal-offering) were diminished (between kemitzah and smoking), except if nothing were smoked of its frankincense. \"for Aaron and for his sons\": for Aaron first, and then for his sons; for Aaron without apportionment (with the other Cohanim), and for his sons with apportionment. Just as Aaron, the high-priest, eats without apportionment, so, his sons, the high-priests, eat without apportionment.",
                "2) \"for Aaron and for his sons, holy of holies\" — to permit the (remainders of the) meal-offerings of Israelite men. Now why should I (think to) exclude them (Israelite men, that I need a verse to include them)? It is written (Bamidbar 15:13): \"All the native-born (men) shall do thus with these, to offer a fire-offering, a sweet savor to the L–rd.\" (Is the intent of the verse that) if he wishes to bring (libations [independent of the offering]) he may do so? Or (is its intent) that (the remainder of the) meal-offerings of (native-born) Israelite men be offered upon the fire (and not be eaten by the Cohanim, [the verse to be rendered: \"All the native-born (men) shall do thus (as they do with the libation meal-offering) with these (gift meal-offerings), to offer (the remainder as) a fire-offering, etc.\"])? And how would I understand \"And what is left from the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and for his sons\"? As referring to (the meal-offerings) of proselytes, women, and bondsmen (and not to those of native-born Israelite men); it is, therefore, written: \"for Aaron and for his sons, holy of holies\" — to permit the (remainders of) meal-offerings of Israelite men (to be eaten by Cohanim).",
                "3) I would know that only their meal-offerings (are permitted to Cohanim). Whence do I derive that their melikah (bird-offerings are also permitted to be eaten by Cohanim)? R. Shimon says: (If not apprised otherwise) I would read (Vayikra 22:8): \"Neveilah (carcass [including, ostensibly, a melikah offering] or treifah (an organically \"torn\" animal) he (a Cohein) shall not eat to defile himself therewith\" (If he does eat it, he is forbidden to eat kodshim). It is, therefore, written: \"for Aaron and for his sons,\" to permit the melikah offerings of Israelites.",
                "4) I would know that only the melikah offerings of Israelites are permitted to Cohanim. Whence would I derive the same for the melikah offerings of Cohanim? And, indeed, it would follow that they are not permitted, viz.: If optional (eating of) soleth is permitted and (eating) soleth of mitzvah is forbidden (i.e., the meal-offering of a Cohein must be entirely burnt) — then, if optional (eating of a bird slaughtered by) melikah is forbidden, should it not follow that (a) melikah of mitzvah (bird offering) is forbidden (to be eaten by the Cohanim and that the offering should be entirely burnt)? — This is refuted by the melikah offerings of Israelites, whose optional melikah is forbidden and (eating of the offering by the Cohanim after) melikah of mitzvah permitted!",
                "5) — No. What permits the melikah of mitzvah of Israelites (to Cohanim)? The fact that the soleth of mitzvah (of Israelites) was permitted to them. Shall we then permit the melikah of mitzvah of Cohanim, when their soleth of mitzvah was forbidden to them! Since their soleth of mitzvah is forbidden to them, their melikah of mitzvah should be forbidden to them! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"for Aaron and for his sons, holy of holies,\" to permit the melikah-offerings of the Cohanim (to be eaten by them). \"of the fire-offerings of the L–rd\" — it (the remainder) may not be eaten until the fistful has been burnt."
            ],
            "Section 10": [
                "1) (Vayikra 2:4): \"And if you bring (an offering of a meal-offering, etc.\"): \"if you bring\" — it is optional (not mandatory). \"an offer (korban) of a meal-offering\": R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that if one says: \"I take upon myself a baked meal-offering\" that he may not bring part cakes and part wafers? From \"an offer\" — he brings on offering, and not cakes and wafers.",
                "2) R. Shimon said: Is \"offer\" written twice? It is written only once, and this is followed by \"cakes and wafers\" — so that if he wishes to bring cakes he may do so; if he wishes to bring wafers, he may do so; if he wishes to bring cakes and wafers he may do so. And when he takes the fistful (of the cakes and wafers after baking), he mixes both of them (i.e., their pieces) together and takes the fistful. If in taking the fistful only one of them (i.e., one variety) comes up in his hand, it is sufficient.",
                "3) (Vayikra 1:16): \"baked in an oven\": and not baked in a brazier, or on hot tiles, or in the improvised fire places of the Arabs. R. Yehudah says: Why \"oven,\" \"oven,\" twice? (here and Vayikra 7:9). To validate a brazier. R. Shimon says: Why \"oven,\" \"oven,\" twice? (One,) that he consecrate it (to be baked in) an oven, and (the other,) that all of its processing be in an oven.",
                "4) (Vayikra 1:16); \"soleth\": Just as \"soleth\" mentioned elsewhere is of wheat, so, here, it is of wheat. \"unleavened cakes (challoth) mixed (with oil\"); but the wafers are not to be mixed. For (if not for the exclusion clause) we would reason: If challoth, which do not require spreading (with oil after they are baked), require mixing (with oil before they are baked) — wafers, which require spreading (with oil after they are baked), how much more so should they require mixing (with oil before they are baked)! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"challoth mixed,\" and not wafers mixed.",
                "5) (Vayikra 1:16): \"wafers spread (with oil\" after baking), and not challoth spread. Now does it not follow (that challoth should require spreading), viz.: If wafers, which do not require mixing (with oil before baking) require spreading (with oil after baking) — challoth, which require mixing, how much more so should they require spreading! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"wafers spread,\" and not challoth spread.",
                "6) \"soleth: unleavened cakes mixed with oil, or unleavened wafers spread with oil\": Why \"oil,\" \"oil,\" twice? (One,) to validate \"second oil,\" and (the other,) to validate \"third oil.\" R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: He spreads the wafers (with oil) in the shape of (the Greek letter) chi; for there is inclusion after inclusion (\"oil,\" \"oil\") only for limitation (i.e., that he spread it only thinly [the rest to be eaten by the Cohanim]). R. Yehudah says (in reference to 4) and Vayikra 1:5) above): \"matzoth\" (unleavened), \"matzoth\" (twice): They (challoth and wafers) are similar in respect to matzoth, and not in respect to spreading and mixing.",
                "7) Likewise, R. Yehudah says (Shemoth 30:18): \"And you shall make a laver of copper, and its pedestal, of copper, for washing\": I might think that the pedestal could serve for ablution just as the laver does; it is, therefore, written \"copper,\" \"copper\" (twice) — it is likened (to the laver) only in respect of its being copper, and not in respect to washing. Likewise, R. Yehudah says (Shemot 28:15): \"And you shall make a breastplate (choshen) of judgment, artistic work; like the work of the ephod shall you make it.\" I might think that just as this (the choshen) was doubled, so, that (the ephod) was to be doubled; it is, therefore, written: \"of gold\": It (the ephod) is similar to it (the choshen) only in respect to gold, but not in respect to doubling."
            ],
            "Chapter 12": [
                "1) \"And if a meal-offering (baked) on a machavath (griddle) is your offering\": We are hereby taught that \"machavath\" is a vessel. (This has various halachic ramifications.) (It is stated here) \"your offering,\" and, below (Vayikra 2:7), \"your offering,\" for a gezeirah shavah (identity). Just as the offering here requires pouring (of oil) and mixing, so, the offering below. And just as the offering below requires placing oil in the vessel before it (the meal-offering) is processed, so, the offering here.",
                "2) \"soleth mixed (with oil\"): We are hereby taught that it is mixed (with oil) while it is soleth. Rebbi says: It is (thus) mixed (when they are at the stage of) challoth, viz. (Vayikra 2:4): \"challoth … mixed\" — whereupon they said to him: Are not \"challoth\" mentioned in respect to the thanksgiving loaves (Vayikra 7:12), and it is impossible to mix them (with oil) when they are challoth, (there being too little oil for that); but (it must be that the oil is mixed with) soleth. How is this done? He places oil in the vessel before processing (the meal-offering). Then he places oil on it (the soleth), and mixes it, and kneads it, and breaks it into pieces, and pours oil on it, and takes the fistful. Rebbi says: He mixes them (with oil) when they are challoth, viz.: \"challoth … mixed with oil.\" How is this done? He places oil in the vessel before processing it, and places (oil) on it, and kneads it, and bakes it, and crumbles it, and places oil on it, and mixes it, and then again pours oil on it, and takes the fistful. \"unleavened\": I might think that this is a mitzvah specification only; it is, therefore, written \"shall it be\" — Scripture makes it a categorical requirement.",
                "3) (Vayikra 2:6): \"You shall break it\": I might think only in two; it is, therefore, written: \"into pieces.\" I might then think it should be made into crumbs; it is, therefore, written: \"it\" — \"it\" into pieces (so that there are four pieces), and not its pieces into pieces.",
                "4) From here it was derived that the meal-offering of an Israelite (not a Cohein) is doubled into halves and then into quarters and separated (for the taking of the fistful); the meal-offering of Cohanim is doubled into halves and then into quarters, but not separated, (no fistful being taken); the meal-offering of the anointed (high-) priest was not doubled (twice, but only once). R. Shimon says: The meal-offering of Cohanim and the meal-offering of the high-priest did not require doubling, there being no fistful requirement for them; and wherever there is no fistful, there is no doubling. And all of the pieces (after the quartering) are reduced to olive-sizes.",
                "5) \"You shall break it into pieces … It is a meal-offering\" — to include all meal-offerings for breaking into pieces. I might think that even the two loaves and the show bread are to be broken into pieces; it is, therefore, written: \"it\" (to exclude the foregoing). Why do you see fit to include all the meal-offerings and to exclude the two loaves and the show bread? After Scripture included, it excluded. Just as these (the other meal-offerings) are unique in that something is taken from them for the fire (of the altar), so, all from which something is taken for the fire (are broken into pieces) — to exclude the two loaves and the show bread, from which nothing is taken for the fire (but which are entirely eaten by the Cohanim).",
                "6) (Vayikra 2:6): \"and you shall pour oil upon it; it is a meal-offering\" — to include all meal-offerings for pouring of oil. I might think that even a meal-offering baked in an oven (is thus included); it is, therefore, written \"upon it.\" (In that case,) I would exclude (from pouring, only) challoth, (of which the verse [Vayikra 2:5] speaks), but not wafers (baked in an oven); it is, therefore, written (to exclude wafers too): \"it (is a meal-offering\").",
                "7) (Vayikra 2:7): \"And if a meal-offering of the marchesheth (stewing pan) is your offering\": What is the difference between the machavath (griddle) and the marchesheth? The marchesheth has a cover and the machavath does not have a cover. These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Chanina b. Gamliel says: A marchesheth is deep, and what is baked in it (accordingly) soft; a machavath is flat, and what is baked in it (accordingly) hard. \"Of soleth in oil shall it be made\": This teaches us that it is first necessary to place oil into the vessel."
            ],
            "Section 11": [
                "1) (Vayikra 2:8) If it were written (only) \"And you shall bring what shall be made of these to the L–rd, and he (the donor) shall present it to the Cohein, and he shall touch it to the altar,\" I might think that only the fistful alone required \"touching.\" Whence would I derive that the entire meal-offering is intended? It is, therefore, written (\"And you shall bring the) meal-offering.\" And whence is it derived that this includes the meal-offering of a sinner for \"touching\"? From \"the meal-offering.\"",
                "2) For I might think that only a gift meal-offering required \"touching,\" and not a mandatory one. And it would, indeed, follow that this is so, viz.: It is written that a gift meal-offering is brought, and it is written that a mandatory meal-offering is brought. Just as a gift meal-offering requires \"touching,\" so, a mandatory meal-offering requires \"touching.\"",
                "3) — No, it may be that a gift meal-offering requires \"touching\" because it requires oil and frankincense (as opposed to a mandatory meal-offering, which does not.) — This is refuted by the meal-offering of a sotah (a woman suspected of adultery), which does not require oil and frankincense, but which does require \"touching.\" ",
                "4) — No, this may be so with the meal-offering of a sotah, which requires waving, but not with the meal-offering of a sinner, which does not require waving. — It may be derived by binyan av ([see Baraitha d'R. Yishmael, principle 3] that the meal-offering of a sinner requires \"touching.\"), viz.: A gift meal-offering, which requires oil and frankincense, is not like the meal-offering of a sotah, which does not require oil and frankincense. And the meal-offering of a sotah, which requires waving, is not like a gift meal-offering, which does not require waving.",
                "5) What is common to both is that they are similar in (requiring) the fistful and similar in (requiring) \"touching\" — I shall likewise adduce the meal-offering of the sinner, which is similar to them in (requiring) the fistful as being similar to them in (requiring) \"touching.\"",
                "6) — But, their (\"strategic\") common factor might be that they are similar in being offered by both rich and poor and requiring \"touching\" (as opposed to the meal-offering of a sinner, which is offered by a poor man only); it is, therefore, written: \"the (implying \"any\") meal-offering,\" to indicate both a gift meal-offering and the meal-offering of a sinner as requiring \"touching.\" R. Shimon says: \"And you shall bring\" — to include the meal-offering of the omer as requiring \"touching,\" it being written (Ibid. 23:10): \"And you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest to the Cohein\"; \"and he shall present it\" — to include the meal-offering of the sotah as requiring \"touching,\" it being written (Bamidbar 5:25): \"And he shall present it (the sotah's meal-offering) to the altar.\""
            ],
            "Chapter 13": [
                "1) — Now does it not follow (without the inclusion clause [above] that the sotah's meal-offering requires \"touching\"?), viz.: If the meal-offering of a sinner, which does not require waving, requires \"touching\" — the meal-offering of a sotah, which requires waving, how much more so should it require \"touching\"! — No, it may be that this is so with the meal-offering of the sinner, which comes of wheat, and not with the meal-offering of the sotah, which does not come of wheat, (but of barley, an inferior variety). — This is refuted by the meal-offering of the omer, which does not come of wheat, (but of barley), and still requires touching.",
                "2) — No, this may be so with the meal-offering of the omer, because it requires oil and frankincense, and not with the meal-offering of the sotah, which does not require oil and frankincense. — It may be derived by binyan av (that the meal-offering of a sotah requires \"touching,\") viz.: The meal-offering of a sinner, which comes of wheat, is not like the meal-offering of the omer, which does not come of wheat; and the meal-offering of the omer, which requires oil and frankincense, is not like the meal-offering of the sinner, which does not require oil and frankincense.",
                "3) What is common to both is that they are similar in (requiring) the fistful and similar in (requiring) \"touching\" — I shall likewise adduce the meal-offering of the sotah, which is similar to them in (requiring) the fistful, as being similar to them in (requiring) \"touching.\"",
                "4) — But, their (\"strategic\") common factor might be that they may not come of flour but of soleth (fine flour), and they require \"touching,\" as opposed to the meal-offering of the sotah, which may come of flour, and, therefore, would not require \"touching\"! It is, therefore, written: \"and he shall present it' — to include the meal-offering of the sotah as requiring \"touching.\"",
                "5) R. Yehudah says: \"And you shall bring\" — to include the meal-offering of the sotah as requiring \"touching,\" it being written (Bamidbar 5:15): \"And he shall bring her (the sotah's) offering for her.\" But perhaps the intent of \"And you shall bring\" is that the individual may donate a variety of meal-offering (barley) other than the variety (wheat) specified in our context! And it would follow (that he may do so), viz.: The congregation brings a mandatory meal-offering of wheat (the two loaves of Atzereth), and the individual brings a voluntary meal-offering of wheat. Just as the congregation, which brings a mandatory meal-offering of wheat, brings a mandatory meal-offering of barley (that of the omer), so, the individual, who brings a voluntary meal-offering of wheat, may bring a voluntary meal-offering of barley. It is, therefore, written: (\"And you shall bring the meal-offering that shall be made of) these\" — you may bring of (the variety of) these alone (i.e., wheat). But perhaps the intent of \"these\" is that if he vows to bring a meal-offering, he must bring all five kinds! It is, therefore, written: \"of these.\" Sometimes, he brings one of them, and sometimes, (as when he forgot which one he specified), he brings all five.",
                "6) R. Shimon says: \"meal-offering\" — to include all meal-offerings (e.g., those of gentiles, those of women) as requiring \"touching.\" I might think (that this applies) even to the two loaves and the show bread; it is, therefore, written: \"of these\" (i.e., what is similar to these five kinds). Why do you see fit to include all meal-offerings and to exclude the two loaves and the show bread? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Just as these are distinct in that part of them (the fistful) goes to the fire (of the altar), so, all (meal-offerings), part of which goes to the fire (require \"touching\") — to exclude the two loaves and the show bread, nothing of which goes to the fire (but which is entirely eaten by the Cohanim).",
                "7) In that case, should not the libation meal-offering, which goes entirely to the fire, require \"touching\"! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"and he shall present it\" (and not the libation meal-offering). Why do you see fit to include all the meal-offerings (as requiring \"touching\") and to exclude the libation meal-offering? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Just as these (five kinds) are distinct in that they come by virtue of themselves, (so all that come by virtue of themselves require \"touching\"), to exclude the libation meal-offering, which does not come by virtue of itself (but by virtue of the sacrifice that it accompanies).",
                "8) In that case, should not the meal-offerings of Cohanim and the high-priest's meal-offering, which come by virtue of themselves, require \"touching\"? It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"and he shall touch it.\" Why do you see fit to include all of the meal-offerings and to exclude the meal-offerings of Cohanim and the high-priest's meal-offering? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Just as these are distinct in that part of them goes to the fire, that they come by virtue of themselves, and that part of them goes to the Cohanim (to be eaten) — (so, all meal-offerings like these require \"touching\"): to exclude the two loaves and the show bread, no part of which goes to the fire; to exclude the libation meal-offering, which does not come by virtue of itself, and to exclude the meal-offerings of Cohanim and the high-priest's meal-offering, no part of which goes to the Cohanim (but which is entirely consumed on the altar). (Ibid. 2:9): \"And he shall lift (from the meal-offering its remembrance\" [the fistful]): I might think (that he lifts it) in a vessel; it is, therefore, written elsewhere (Ibid. 6:8): \"And he shall lift from it in his fist.\" Just as there, \"in his fist,\" so, here."
            ],
            "Section 12": [
                "1) (Vayikra 2:11): (\"All of the meal-offering) that you offer up to the L–rd shall not be made of leaven\": I might think that the negative commandment applies only to the fistful alone. Whence would I derive that it applies to the entire meal-offering? From \"minchah\" (connoting the whole meal-offering.) Whence do I derive that all meal-offerings are included?",
                "2) For I might think that this applies only to those meal-offerings whose remainders (after the fistful) may be eaten. Whence do I derive that it applies even to those whose remainders are not eaten? From \"All the minchah\" (connoting all meal-offerings). \"… that you offer up to the L–rd shall not be made of leaven\": R. Yossi says: This includes the show bread (in the prohibition against leaven). R. Akiva says: It includes the libation meal-offering.",
                "3) \"shall not be made of leaven\": I might think that they (all of the steps in preparing the meal-offering) are subsumed in one negative commandment (against leaven); it is, therefore, written (to negate this [Ibid. 6:10]): \"It shall not be baked with leaven.\" Baking was in the general category (of those steps). Why did it leave the category (for special mention)? So that it serve as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as baking is characterized by its being a particular, significant act, and subject to liability (for leaven) in and of itself, so, I will include all such acts, like kneading and mixing, for liability in and of themselves.",
                "4) (Vayikra 2:11): (\"… for all leaven and all [fruit] honey you shall not smoke from it a fire-offering to the L–rd\"): \"… leaven … you shall not smoke\": This tells me (that he has transgressed) only (if he smoked) the great part (i.e., the entire fistful, leavened). Whence do I derive (that he has transgressed even if he smoked) the lesser part? From \"all leaven.\" This tells me only of it (leaven, by) itself. Whence do I derive the same for an admixture (of leaven and non-leaven)? From \"for all leaven.\" I might think that only meal-offerings subsumed under (Vayikra 2:5) \"unleavened bread shall it be\" come under the interdict against smoking leaven, but that meal-offerings which are not thus subsumed (such as the thanksgiving loaves and the two breads [if he transgressed and smoked them]) do not come under that interdict. It is, therefore, written: \"for all leaven and all honey you shall not smoke.\" (Just as the interdict against honey applies to all meal-offerings, so, the interdict against leaven.) This tells me (in respect to honey) only of the great part (i.e., smoking an entire fistful of date-honey). Whence do I derive (that he has transgressed even if he smoked) the lesser part? From \"all honey.\" This tells me only of it itself. Whence do I derive the same for an admixture? From \"and all honey.\" This tells me only of things (i.e., offerings) which honey spoils. Whence do I derive (that honey is forbidden even with) things which honey improves? [For, (as) the spice compounders say: \"Honey enhances the incense.\"] From \"all honey.\"",
                "5) Why mention (both) \"all leaven\" and \"all honey\" (instead of mentioning just one and learning one from the other)? For there is a factor relating to leaven which does not relate to honey, and there is a factor relating to honey which does not relate to leaven: Something in the class of leaven (i.e., the two loaves) is permitted in the sanctuary, but nothing in the class of honey is permitted in the sanctuary. Honey is permitted (to be eaten) by the Cohanim with what is left of the meal-offering, but not leaven. So that since there obtains with leaven what does not obtain with honey, and with honey what does not obtain with leaven, it is necessary to state \"all leaven and all honey.\"",
                "6) Whence is it derived that if one offers up what is left from the flesh of a sin-offering, or of a guilt-offering, or of higher order or lower order offerings, or the two loaves or the show bread or what is left of meal-offerings — that he transgresses \"You shall not smoke\"? From \"for all leaven and all honey you shall not smoke of it a fire-offering to the L–rd\" — Anything that there is \"of it\" (i.e., of which there has been offered) a fire-offering to the L–rd, you shall not smoke.",
                "7) (Vayikra 2:12): (\"As a first-offering you may offer them [leaven and honey] up to the L–rd\"): \"As a first-offering\" (the two loaves were leavened, and the first-fruits contained the honey of fruits and dates.): — that they (the two loaves) be first of all the meal-offerings (of the year, no meal-offering of the new grain being brought before the two loaves are offered), as it is written (Vayikra 23:16): \"And you shall offer a new meal-offering to the L–rd\" — that it be the newest of all the meal-offerings. This tells me (that it precedes) only a meal-offering of wheat (the two loaves being of wheat.) Whence do I derive that it precedes even) a meal-offering of barley (such as the meal-offering of rancor [of the sotah])? From (Numbers 28:26): \"And on the day of first-fruits, when you offer a new meal-offering to the L–rd, in your (festival of) weeks (Shavuoth).\" If it (\"new\") is not needed for a wheat meal-offering, (this already having been written), understand it as applying to a barley meal-offering (i.e., that a barley meal-offering, too, does not precede it).",
                "8) And whence is it derived that they (the two loaves) precede the (bringing of) the first-fruits (bikkurim)? From (Shemoth 34:22): (\"And the festival of Shavuoth shall you make for yourself,) the first of the wheat harvest\" (i.e., What you make on Shavuoth [the two loaves] should precede [all that comes of] the wheat harvest.) This tells me (that it precedes only bikkurim) of wheat. Whence do I derive (that it precedes also bikkurim) of barley? From (Shemoth 23:16): \"which you sow\" (implying all that you sow.) This tells me only of what is sown. Whence do I derive (that the two loaves precede) what grows of itself (from seeds scattered by the wind)? From (Shemoth 23:16): \"in the field\" (implying all that grows in the field.) This tells me only of what grows in the field. Whence do I derive the same for (fruits planted on) a roof, in a yard, or in a ruin? From (Bamidbar 18:13): (The two loaves shall be) \"the first-fruits of all that is in their land.\" And whence is it derived that they precede the (bikkurim of) libations and the fruits of the tree? From (Bamidbar 23:16): (The two loaves shall be) \"the first fruits of your labor,\" and (Bamidbar 23:16): \"when you gather your labor from the field.\" (Grapes for libations and fruits are subsumed in \"gathered.\")",
                "9) I might think that if a different offering (of the new grain) preceded them (the two loaves) they should not be offered; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 2:12): \"You may offer them.\" I might think that if they were not offered on Shavuoth they could be offered afterwards; it is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"them\" (i.e., the ones specifically designated in respect to Shavuoth). I might think that an individual could bring their like (the two loaves) as a gift-offering (whenever he wished); it is, therefore, written: \"them.\" I might think that an individual cannot bring their like as a gift-offering because he does not bring their like as a mandatory offering, but that the congregation, which does bring their like as a mandatory offering, could bring their like as a gift-offering. It is, therefore, written: \"them.\" (Vayikra 2:12): (\"but they [leaven and honey] shall not come up to the altar for a sweet savor\"): \"the altar\": This tells me only of the altar. Whence do I derive the ramp (to be included in the prohibition)? From \"and to the altar they shall not come up.\" I might think (that they are prohibited) both for an offering and not for an offering (i.e., as fuel); it is, therefore, written: \"for a sweet savor\" — it is only for an offering that they are prohibited. "
            ],
            "Chapter 14": [
                "1) (Vayikra 2:13): (\"And every offering of your meal-offering you shall salt with salt\"): If it were merely stated: \"And every offering you shall offer with salt,\" I might think that even wood and blood, (which are referred to as \"offerings\") required salt. It is, therefore, written \"offering of your meal-offering.\" Just as the offering of your meal-offering requires a supplement (i.e., wood), all (offerings) that are so characterized (require salt) — as opposed to wood and blood, which do not require a supplement.",
                "2) — But (why not say): Just as the \"offering of your meal-offering\" (i.e., the fistful) is something that permits, (in this instance, the remainder of the meal-offering), so, blood, which permits (the devoted portions to the altar and the flesh to the Cohanim, should require salt!) It is, therefore, written (to negate this [Vayikra 2:13]): (\"And you shall not cut off the salt of the covenant of your G d) from your meal-offering\" — not \"from your blood.\" If \"from your meal-offering\" alone were written, I would think that the entire meal-offering required salt. It is, therefore, written \"offering.\" The fistful (i.e., the part that is offered) requires salt, but the entire meal-offering does not require salt.",
                "3) This tells me only of the fistful, (as requiring salt). Whence would I derive the frankincense (as requiring salt)? I would include the frankincense, which comes together with the meal-offering (in the same vessel and is thus subsumed in \"offering of your meal-offering\" as requiring salt.) Whence would I derive it for frankincense that comes by itself, and frankincense which comes with the show bread (in two censers), and the incense, and the devoted portions of a sin-offering, and of higher-order offerings, (the Atzereth lambs), and of lower-order offerings, and the (gift) meal-offerings of Cohanim, (which are entirely burnt), and the meal-offering of the high-priest, and the libation meal-offerings, and the limbs of burnt-offerings, and a burnt-offering of fowl — Whence would I derive these (as requiring salt)? From (Vayikra 2:13): \"With all of your offerings (shall you offer salt.\")",
                "4) R. Yishmael, the son of R. Yochanan b. Broka, says: Just as the \"offering of your meal-offering,\" which is susceptible of defilement (tumah) and is burnt on the outer altar (requires salt, so do all others of this kind) — to exclude wood, which is not susceptible of defilement; to exclude blood and wine, which are not burnt; to exclude the incense, which is not burnt on the outer altar. If \"with salt\" alone were stated, I might think that a \"hint\" of salt were sufficient; it is, therefore, written: \"you shall salt.\" If \"you shall salt\" alone were stated, I might think that salt water, too, was permissible; it is, therefore, written: \"with salt.\" (Vayikra 2:13): \"You shall not cut off salt\": salt that is never \"cut off\" (from nature, as opposed to fabricated salt). Which salt is that? Sodom salt. And whence is it derived that if he cannot find Sodom salt he may bring Astrakhan salt (of an inferior grade)? From (Vayikra 2:13): \"you shall offer salt\" — whatever the quality. I might think that one who donated a meal-offering brought salt along with it — just as he brings frankincense — from his home. And it would follow that he did so, viz.: It is written that a meal-offering is brought and that frankincense is brought; that a meal-offering is brought and that salt is brought. Just as the frankincense is brought by the donor of the meal-offering, so, the salt.",
                "5) — Or, perhaps we should go in the other direction, viz.: It is written that a meal-offering is brought and that wood is brought; that a meal-offering is brought and that salt is brought. Just as the wood is provided communally, so, the salt!",
                "6) Let us see which is (salt) is most like. We derive something (salt) which is offered with all sacrifices from something (wood) which is offered with all sacrifices — and this is not to be refuted by frankincense, which is not offered with all sacrifices — Or, go in this direction: We derive something (salt), which is offered with the meal-offering (the fistful). Itself, from something (frankincense), which is offered with the meal-offering itself (in one vessel) — and this is not to be refuted by wood, which is not offered with the meal-offering itself. It is, therefore, written: \"And you shall not cut off the salt of the covenant of your G d from your meal-offering,\" and, elsewhere, (in reference to the show bread), (Ibid. 24:8): \"from the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant.\" Just as there, the salt is provided communally, so, here.",
                "7) (Vayikra 2:13): (\"With all your offerings) you shall offer salt\": \"you shall offer\" (salt, in a communal offering) — even on the Sabbath; \"you shall offer\" — even in a state of uncleanliness; \"you shall offer salt\" — any kind (both Sodom salt and Astrakhan salt); \"you shall offer salt\" — from any place, (even from outside Eretz Yisrael)."
            ],
            "Section 13": [
                "1) (Vayikra 2:14): \"And if you offer a meal-offering of first fruits (bikkurim) to the L–rd\" (the meal-offering of the omer): R. Yehudah says: The meal-offering of bikkurim is destined to be suspended (with exile) and to be restored. And, similarly, it is written (Bamidbar 36:4): \"And if the jubilee (yovel) will be for the children of Israel\" — the jubilee is destined to be suspended and to be restored.",
                "2) R. Shimon says: \"And if you offer a meal-offering of bikkurim to the L–rd\": This meal-offering is mandatory. I might think it is voluntary; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 23:10): \"and you shall bring the omer, the first (grain) of your harvest to the Cohein\" — it is mandatory.",
                "3) If so, why is it written \"if (you offer)\")? To teach: If you bring it willingly, I shall account it to you as if you brought it as a gift; and if you do not bring it willingly, I shall account it to you as having brought it for your personal needs only (i.e., to allow you to eat chadash [the new grain]).",
                "4) as it is written (Vayikra 23:14): \"And bread, and kali, and karmel you shall not eat until this self-same day, until you have brought the offering of your G d.\" \"And if you offer a meal-offering of bikkurim to the L–rd\": This is the meal-offering of the omer. From which (grain) does it come? From barley. — But perhaps it comes from wheat! R. Eliezer says (to negate this): It is written here (Vayikra 2:14): \"aviv\" (grain in the ear), and also in respect to Egypt (Shemoth 9:41). Just as \"aviv\" in respect to Egypt is barley, so, \"aviv\" here. R. Akiva says: It is written that the congregation is to bring bikkurim (the omer) on Pesach and that the congregation is to bring bikkurim (the two loaves) on Atzereth (Shavuoth). Just as we find that of that kind (of grain [i.e., wheat]) of which the individual brings his obligatory offering, the congregation brings its obligatory offering (the two loaves) on Atzereth — so, of that kind (i.e., barley), of which the individual brings his obligatory offering (the meal-offering of rancor of the sotah), the congregation is to bring its bikkurim (the omer) on Pesach. From which kind does the individual bring his obligatory offering? From barley. The congregation, too, is to bring its obligatory offering only from barley. An alternate derivation: If you say (that he brings it) of wheat, then the two loaves (which are of wheat) could not be (called) \"bikkurim\" (first fruits).",
                "5) R. Yishmael, the son of R. Yochanan b. Broka, says: I might think that it (the omer) could be brought from spelt, oats, and rye; but this is (negated by) a kal vachomer, viz.: If wheat, which is kasher for all other meal-offerings, is not kasher for the meal-offering of the omer — then spelt, oats, and rye, which are not kasher for all other meal-offerings, how much more so should they not be kasher for the omer! — No, this may be the case with barley because the sotah's meal-offering is brought of it, unlike spelt, oats, and rye, so that wheat is excluded (from the omer) by Scripture (as above), and spelt, oats, and rye by the kal vachomer.",
                "6) \"Aviv kalui with fire, karmel\" (groats of the fresh ear): We are hereby taught that we scorch it in fire to fulfill the mitzvah of kalui. These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: It is called \"kalui\" because a tube of the kala'im (parched-grain merchants) was there, which was perforated like a sieve, so that the fire enveloped the whole.",
                "7) \"aviv\": If it were written \"aviv kalui geresh (groats),\" it would be ambiguous (i.e., Does \"kalui\" (parched) refer to aviv, that it is to be parched before it is ground, or does it refer to geresh), that it is to be parched after it is ground? Now that it is written \"aviv kalui ba'esh (with fire),\" \"with fire\" creates a hiatus, so that (the meaning must be) it is roasted (when) aviv (grain in the ear).",
                "8) \"karmel\": (acronymically) \"rach mal\" (soft and malleable). And (similar instances of acronymics) (II Kings 4:42): \"And a man came from Bal Shalishah, and brought to the man of G d bread of the first fruits: twenty loaves of barley bread and karmel in his scrip (betziklono),\" (acronymically): Ba (Come), veyatzok lanu (and spill out to us), ve'achalnu (and we shall eat), venavah hayah (and it was tasty).",
                "9) And (Iyyov 39:13): \"knaf renanim ne'elassah\" (\"The knaf renanim [a kind of bird] ne'elassah\" [acronymically]): noseh (it carries [its egg]), oleh (it goes up [to its nest]), umithchateh (and drops it in.) And (Proverbs 7:18): \"Nithalssa ba'ahavim,\" (acronymically): Nissa venitan (Let us consort), vena'aleh (and let us go up [to bed]), venithchatah ba'ahavim (and immerse ourselves in love). And (Bamidbar 22:32): \"ki yarat haderech lenegdi,\" (acronymically): yarathah (it feared), ra'athah (it saw), nat'thah (it turned aside)."
            ],
            "Chapter 15": [
                "1) (Vayikra 2:14): (\"Groats of the fresh ear [karmel]) you shall offer (the meal-offering of your bikkurim\"): Why repeat this? (It is already mentioned in the beginning of the verse.) Because it is written \"karmel,\" I might think the mitzvah is to bring only rach mal (see Vayikra 2:8) above). Whence do I derive that if he did not find rach mal he may bring it dry? From \"you shall offer the meal-offering of your bikkurim\" (in any event). It is a mitzvah to bring it from the harvest (i.e., from the standing grain). Whence do I derive that if he did not find this he may bring it from the (sheaves) in the loft? From \"you shall offer the meal-offering of your bikkurim\" — in any event.",
                "2) \"the meal-offering of your bikkurim\": I might think this is an individual offering, (but) it is written here \"bikkurim,\" and, elsewhere, (in respect to the two loaves, Vayikra 23:17): \"bikkurim.\" Just as \"bikkurim\" there are a communal offering, so, bikkurim here. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Shimon says: I might think this is an individual offering, but (this is negated by) its being written (Vayikra 23:14): \"And you shall bring the omer, the first (grain) of your harvest, to the Cohein.\" If you say that this (in our verse) is an individual offering, and that is a communal offering, this cannot be. For if this is \"bikkurim to the L–rd,\" then that is not the first of the harvest; and if that is the first of the harvest, then this is not \"bikkurim to the L–rd.\" (Note:) Things omitted here (in connection with the omer offering [e.g., \"waving\" and the permitting of chadash (the new crop)] are written there.",
                "3) (Vayikra 2:15): \"And you shall put oil upon it\": oil upon it, and not upon the show bread. For (if not for the exclusion) would it not be a kal vachomer (that oil should be put upon the show bread, viz.:) If the libation meal-offering, which does not require frankincense, requires oil — the show bread, which does require frankincense, how much more so should it require oil! It is, therefore, written: \"upon it\" — oil upon it, but not upon the show bread....",
                "4) (\"and you shall put frankincense upon it\"): upon it, and not upon the libation meal-offering. For (if not for the exclusion) would it not be a kal vachomer (that frankincense should be put upon the libation meal-offering, viz.:) If the show bread, which does not require oil, requires frankincense — the libation meal-offering, which does require oil, how much more so should it require frankincense! It is, therefore, written \"frankincense upon it,\" but not upon the libation meal-offering.",
                "5) (\"It is) a meal-offering\" — to include the meal-offering of the eighth day (of the consecration of the tabernacle) as requiring frankincense. \"it\" — to exclude the two loaves from the requirement of oil and frankincense.",
                "6) Does it not follow by kal vachomer (that the two loaves should be excluded from oil and frankincense? i.e., Why is \"it\" needed to exclude them from both? Why not just exclude them from either oil or from frankincense, and I would know by kal vachomer that they are excluded from the other, viz.:) If they are excluded from oil, which obtains with the libation meal-offering, would I not exclude them from frankincense, which does not obtain with the libation meal-offering? If they are excluded from frankincense, which obtains with the show bread, would I not exclude them from oil, which does not obtain with the show bread? — No, by this reasoning (I would derive just the opposite conclusion, viz.:) If they are excluded from oil, which does not obtain with the show bread, should they be excluded from frankincense, which does obtain with the show bread! If they are excluded from frankincense, which does not obtain with the libation meal-offering, should they be excluded from oil, which does obtain with the libation meal-offering! It is, therefore, written \"it,\" to exclude the two loaves from the requirement of oil and frankincense."
            ],
            "Chapter 16": [
                "1) (Vayikra 3:1): \"And if a sacrifice of peace-offerings (shelamim) is his offering\": R. Yehudah says: Whoever brings shelamim brings shalom (peace) to the world. This tells me only of shelamim. Whence do I derive a thanksgiving offering (as bringing peace)? I include it, for it is a variety of shelamim (see Vayikra 7:11-12). And whence do I derive a burnt-offering? In include it, for it is brought (in fulfillment of) a vow and (as) a gift. And whence do I derive (offerings of) the first-born, the tithe, and the pesach? I include them (as bringing peace), for they are not brought for sin. And whence do I derive a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? From (the extra) \"sacrifice.\" And whence do I derive (offerings of) fowl, meal-offerings, wine, frankincense and wood? From (the extra) \"his offering\" — so that all who bring an offering bring peace to the world.",
                "2) An additional nuance: (Why are they called) \"shelamim\"? For all are \"at peace\" with them: the blood and the devoted portions are for the altar, the breast and the thigh for the Cohanim, the skin and the flesh for the owners.",
                "3) R. Shimon says: One who is whole (\"shalem\" in his mind) brings shelamim; a mourner does not bring shelamim. This tells me only of shelamim, which are (offerings) of joy. Whence do I derive (the same for) a thanksgiving offering? I include it, for it is brought as a shelamim (offering). And whence do I derive a burnt-offering? I include it, for it comes as vow and gift. And whence do I derive first-born, and tithe, and pesach? I include them, for they do not come for (atonement of) sin. And whence do I derive sin-offering and guilt-offering? From \"sacrifice.\" And whence do I derive fowl, meal-offering, wine, frankincense, and wood? From \"his offering.\" So that with all offerings — If he is \"shalem,\" he brings them; if he is a mourner, he does not bring them.",
                "4) (Vayikra 3:1): (\"if he offers it from the) herd\": to include (as a shelamim offering) the eleventh (in the process of tithing, where he erroneously called the eleventh the tenth); \"the herd\": to exclude the ninth (as a substitute for the tenth). Why do you see fit to include the eleventh and to exclude the ninth? After Scripture excludes, it includes. From when is hekdesh (i.e., that which is consecrated) susceptible of a \"substitute\"? Before or after (consecration)? Certainly, after. Therefore, I include (as a substitute) the eleventh, which follows the (naturally) consecrated (tenth), and I exclude the ninth, which precedes it.",
                "5) (\"if) he (offers it\"): \"he\": The individual brings shelamim as a gift-offering, but not the congregation. For (if not for the exclusion) does it not follow (that the congregation, too, could bring shelamim as a gift-offering), viz.: A beast burnt-offering comes as gift or vow, and shelamim come as gift or vow. Just as a beast burnt-offering which comes as gift or vow can come as a congregational gift-offering, so, shelamim, which come as gift or vow can come as a congregational gift-offering.",
                "6) This is refuted by the meal-offering, which comes as (individual) gift or vow, but not as a communal gift-offering. — No, this may be so of a meal-offering because it does not come as a gift of two, as opposed to shelamim, which can come as a gift of two. — This is refuted by a burnt-offering of fowl, which can come as a gift of two, but not as a communal gift-offering.",
                "7) — No, this may be so with a burnt-offering of fowl because it does not come as a mandatory communal offering, as opposed to a shelamim, which does come as a mandatory communal offering (the Atzereth lambs, which come with the two loaves). And since they come as a mandatory communal offering, they should likewise come as a communal gift-offering; it is, therefore, written: \"he\" — the individual brings shelamim as a gift-offering, but not the congregation.",
                "8) (\"whether) male (or female\"): \"male\" — to include the offspring (of a shelamim [to be offered] as a shelamim); \"female\" — to include the substitute (temurah, of a shelamim as a shelamim). \"male\" — to include the offspring. (Why the inclusion clause?) Does it not follow (by kal vachomer that the offspring is offered?) viz.: If a substitute, which does not come from a consecrated animal, is kasher as an offering, how much more so the offspring of a consecrated animal itself! — No, it may be that this is so with a substitute, which obtains with all offerings, but not with offspring, which does not obtain with all offerings, (burnt-offerings and guilt-offerings being male). And since it does not (we would say that) it may not be offered; it is, therefore, written: \"male,\" to include offspring.",
                "9) \"female\" — to include a substitute. (Why the exclusion clause?) Does it not follow (by kal vachomer that a substitute may be offered?) viz.: If offspring, which do not obtain with all offerings, may be offered — a substitute, which does obtain with all offerings, how much more so should it be kasher as an offering (in this instance)! — No, this may be so with offspring, which come from a consecrated animal, but not with a substitute, which does not. And since it does not, (we would say that) it may not be offered; it is, therefore, written: \"female,\" to include a substitute.",
                "10) This tells me only of (offering) offspring and substitutes of whole animals. Whence do I derive the same for the offspring and substitutes of blemished animals? From \"whether male\" — to include the offspring of blemished animals; \"whether female\" — to include the substitutes of blemished animals. Which are considered blemished animals (in this connection)? Those whose consecration preceded their blemish (and which gave birth before they were redeemed). But if their blemish preceded their consecration and they were redeemed, they have the status of property consecration (and not body consecration; their offspring are permitted for mundane purposes, and they are not susceptible of a \"substitute\"). R. Yehudah says: (Similarly,) it is written (I Samuel 17:36): \"Also the lion, also the bear, did your servant smite.\" This tells me only of the lion and the bear. Whence do I derive (that he smote) their whelps, too? From \"also the lion, also the bear, did your servant smite.\""
            ],
            "Chapter 17": [
                "1) (Vayikra 3:2): [\"vesamach\" (\"and he shall place\") is written four times: once in respect to olah, thrice in respect to shelamim] \"And he shall place his hand\" — not the hand of his bondsman; \"his hand\" — not the hand of his messenger; \"his hand\" — not the hand of his wife. \"his hand on the head\" — not on the back; \"his hand on the head\" — not on the throat; \"his hand on the head\" — not on the back of the head. I would exclude all of these, but not the breast; and it would follow by kal vachomer, viz.: Now if the head, which does not require tenufah, requires semichah — the breast, which requires tenufah, should it not require semichah! It is, therefore, written \"on the head\" — and not on the breast.",
                "2) \"korbano\" (\"his offering\") is written three times, to include (in the requirement of semichah) all the partners to an offering (one after the other). (For without the inclusion provision) would it not follow (that they would not all perform semichah?), viz.: If tenufah, which obtains both with living animals (e.g., the Atzereth lambs and the guilt-offering of the metzorah) and with slaughtered animals (e.g., the breast and thigh of peace-offerings and thanksgiving offerings), are excluded (from tenufah by all of the partners, [one performing tenufah for all of them]) — semichah, which obtains only with living animals, how much more so should all of the partners be excluded from it, (and only one perform it for all)! It is, therefore, written: \"his offering\" — to include (as performing semichah) all of the partners to the offering.",
                "3) \"his offering,\" and not the offering of another; \"his offering,\" and not the offering of a gentile; \"his offering,\" and not the offering of his (deceased) father. These are the words of R. Yehudah, who says that an heir does not perform semichah.",
                "4) \"his offering\" — not a bechor (first-born). For (I would say): Does it not follow (that a bechor should require semichah?), viz.: If shelamim, which are not consecrated from the womb, require semichah — a bechor, which is consecrated from the womb — how much more so should it require semichah! It is, therefore, written: \"his offering\" — not a bechor.",
                "5) \"his offering\" — not ma'aser (the tithe). For (I would say): Does it not follow (that ma'aser should require semichah?), viz.: If shelamim, which are not required to be brought, require semichah — ma'aser, which is required to be brought — how much more so should it require semichah! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"his offering\" — not ma'aser.",
                "6) \"his offering\" — not a pesach (offering). For (I would say): Does it not follow (that the pesach offering should require semichah?), viz.: If shelamim, for which Scripture did not add numerous mitzvoth, require semichah — the pesach, for which Scripture did add numerous mitzvoth — how much more so should it require semichah! It is, therefore, written: \"his offering\" — not the pesach.",
                "7) \"and he shall slaughter it\" \"and he shall slaughter it\" (Vayikra 3:8), \"and he shall slaughter it\" (Vayikra 3:13): Why three times? Because it is written (Devarim 12:21): \"If the place be distant from you in which the L–rd your G d shall choose to place His name, (and you will not be able to come and bring peace-offerings every day, as you can now that the mishkan travels with you), then you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock … and you shall eat in your gates with all the desire of your soul\" — At a distance from the place (i.e., the Temple), you may slaughter (and eat), and not in proximity to the place — to exclude chullin (a non-consecrated animal) from being slaughtered in the azarah.",
                "8) This tells me only of unblemished animals, which are kasher for sacrifice (as being excluded from \"mundane\" slaughter in the azarah). Whence do I derive the same for blemished animals? I include them (in the exclusion) because they are of the variety of animals that are kasher (for sacrifice). And whence do I derive the same for animals, (which are not kasher for sacrifice [as opposed to beasts])? (I include them) because shechitah obtains with them as it does with beasts. And whence do I derive the same for birds, (for which the severing of only one shechitah sign is sufficient)? From the triple repetition of \"and he shall slaughter it.\"",
                "9) I might think that he may not slaughter it (in the azarah), but that if he does, he may eat it; it is, therefore, written: \"If the place be distant from you … then you shall slaughter … and you shall eat.\" What you slaughter at a distance you may eat, and not what you slaughter in proximity (to the Temple) — to exclude (from eating) chullin that were slaughtered in the azarah.",
                "10) I might think that he may not eat it but that he may feed it to a dog; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 22:30): \"To the dog shall you throw it\" — You shall throw it (treifah) to the dog, but not chullin which was slaughtered in the azarah.",
                "11) (Vayikra 3:2): \"at the door of the tent of meeting,\" \"before the tent of meeting\" (Vayikra 3:8), \"before the tent of meeting\" (Vayikra 3:13) — to permit all the sides (of the azarah as slaughtering sites). It goes without saying that the north side (is permitted), viz.: If the other sides, which were not permitted for the slaughtering of higher-order offerings, were permitted for the slaughtering of lower-order offerings — the north side, which was permitted for the slaughtering of higher-order offerings, how much more so should it be permitted for the slaughtering of lower-order offerings! R. Eliezer says: \"before the tent of meeting\" — to permit the north side.",
                "12) For (without the permitting clause), does it not follow (that it should be forbidden?), viz.: If the slaughtering sites of shelamim, which may be slaughtered on all sides, are not permitted for the slaughtering of higher-order offerings, then the slaughtering site of a burnt-offering, which may be slaughtered only in the north — how much more so should it not be permitted for the slaughtering of lower-order offerings! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"before the tent of meeting,\" to permit (slaughtering of lower-order offerings in) the north."
            ],
            "Section 14": [
                "1) (Vayikra 3:3): \"And he shall present from the sacrifice (of the shelamim\") — even if it were not slaughtered in its name (e.g., even if he slaughtered an olah in the name of a shelamim or vice versa). \"of the shelamim\" — even if he did not perform semichah. \"a fire-offering\" — to that end (i.e., to exclude an intent of charring it instead of burning it to ashes.) \"to the L–rd\" — to the Creator of the world.",
                "2) — whence it is derived: The slaughterer of the sacrifice must have six things in mind: (that the shechitah be) in the name of the (particular) sacrifice, in the name of the donor (of the sacrifice), in the name of the L–rd, in the name of a fire-offering (see above), in the name of (i.e., to the end of producing) a savor (on the altar, and not with the intent of roasting it beforehand), in the name of nichoach (i.e., to give \"pleasure\" to the L–rd by doing His will). (In the instance of) a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, (he must perform the shechitah) in the name of (i.e., towards the atonement of) the (particular) sin. R. Yossi says: Even if one (i.e., the shochet) had none of these (six things) in mind, it is kasher; for it is a provision of beth-din (that he not verbalize his intent [lest he err in the formulation]). And \"intent\" (here) is that of the performer (of the act of shechitah, and not that of the owner).",
                "3) (\"And he shall present …) the fat that covers the innards and all the fat that is on the innards\": (This is written five times.) What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 3:16): (\"And the Cohein shall smoke …) all the fat for the L–rd. (17): … All fat and all blood you shall not eat… (Vayikra 7:25): For all who eat fat of the beast of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd, the soul that eats shall be cut off from its people\" — I might think that even the wall-fat (the fat of the heart, the chest, and the throat) is included (in the interdict against eating fat); it is, therefore, written: \"the fat that covers the innards (the entrails).\" I might think that it (eating wall-fat) is not subject to the punishment (kareth), but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): \"the fat that covers the innards.\" would then exclude only the (wall-) fat of chullin, but not that of a consecrated animal; it is, therefore, written (again): \"the fat that covers the innards\" (i.e., only that fat is intended.) I might think that it (eating the wall-fat of a consecrated animal) is not subject to the punishment, but that it is subject to the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (again): \"the fat that covers the innards.\" I might think that it is not subject to the exhortation and that it is subject to sacrifice (if he so wishes, even though he may eat it); it is, therefore, written (for the fifth time): \"the fat that covers the innards\" (Only that fat is to be sacrificed.)",
                "4) I would exclude all of the above but not the innards-fat of a sh'lil (a live embryo found in the mother's body [i.e., I would say that that fat, being innards-fat, is interdicted]); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:4): \"and the two kidneys and the fat (which is upon them\") in respect to a guilt-offering. Let this not be written, for it may be deduced by kal vachomer (that these must be sacrificed), viz.:",
                "5) If shelamim, whose entire category does not require the (smoking of the) fat-tail, (the fat-tail obtaining only with sheep, and shelamim being offered also from cattle and goats), do require the (smoking of) fat and two kidneys — then, a guilt-offering, whose entire category (sheep) requires the (smoking of) fat and two kidneys! Why, then, need this be written in respect to a guilt-offering? To teach: Just as (the smoking of) fat and two kidneys mentioned in respect to a guilt-offering does not apply to the sh'lil (only a male being brought as a guilt-offering), so (the smoking of) fat and two kidneys mentioned here (in respect to shelamim) does not apply to a sh'lil.",
                "6) (Vayikra 3:3): (\"And he shall present …) all the fat that is on the innards\": R. Yishmael says: to include the fat upon the stomach. R. Akiva says: to include the fat upon the small intestines.",
                "7) (Vayikra 3:4): \"And the two kidneys\": not an animal with one kidney and not an animal with three kidneys, (this being considered a blemish). (Vayikra 3:4): \"and the fat which is upon them\": not the flesh which is upon them, (this being permitted to be eaten). (Vayikra 3:4): \"which is on the loins\": This is the fat between the loin sinews. These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva says: to include the fat on the coccyx. R. Yishmael says (in explanation of 6 above): Just as the fat that covers the innards is membranous and easily peeled, so only that fat which is membranous and easily peeled (is included). R. Akiva says: Just as the fat that covers the innards is an even layer, membranous, and easily peeled, so only (that fat) which is an even layer, membranous, and easily peeled (is included).",
                "8) (Vayikra 3:4): \"and the lobe with the liver\": This is ambiguous. I would not know whether to take part of the liver with the lobe or part of the lobe with the liver. Its being written (Vayikra 9:10): \"… and the lobe from the liver of the sin-offering which he caused to smoke upon the altar\" indicates that part of the liver is taken with the lobe.",
                "9) (\"he shall remove it [yesirenah]. (Vayikra 3:5) And the sons of Aaron shall smoke it\"): \"yesir\" (\"he shall remove\"): \"the lobe,\" even if the kidneys are not there (after the receiving of the blood); \"the kidneys,\" even if the lobe is not there; \"yesirenah\" — even one kidney, (which makes the other's absence more conspicuous).",
                "10) (Vayikra 3:5) \"and they shall smoke it,\" (Vayikra 3:11): \"and he shall smoke\" (Vayikra 3:16): \"and he shall smoke them\": Why the variations? \"And they shall smoke it\" — what is kasher, and not what is pasul; \"And he shall smoke\" — Fats (of one offering) may not be mixed with fats (of another); \"and he shall smoke them\" — all at the same time. It is written here: \"a fire-offering,\" but not \"bread\"; and further (Vayikra 3:11): \"bread,\" but not \"a sweet savor\"; and yet further (Vayikra 3:16): \"a sweet savor,\" but not \"to the L–rd.\" Whence do we derive that all of these elements apply to each instance? \"fire-offering\" (written in respect to each) indicates identity (for all of the elements)."
            ],
            "Chapter 18": [
                "1) Why mention (both) shelamim from cattle (Vayikra 3:1) and shelamim from the flock (Vayikra 3:6)? (Why not adduce one and understand the other from it?) For there obtains with cattle what does not obtain with the flock, and there obtains with the flock what does not obtain with cattle, (so that if only one were adduced, I would think it was that element which obtained with it which qualified it as shelamim.), viz.: Cattle (offerings) are (accompanied by) larger libations; flock (offerings) are (accompanied by) smaller libations (see Bamidbar 15). Flock (offerings) are abundant as communal (offerings); cattle (offerings) are (relatively) few. So that since there obtains with cattle what does not obtain with the flock, and with the flock what does not obtain with cattle, it is necessary to adduce (both) shelamim from the cattle and shelamim from the flock.",
                "2) (Vayikra 3:6): \"male or female (without blemish shall he offer it\"): a definite male or a definite female, not a tumtum (an animal whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite. Now is this not a kal vachomer? viz.: If a burnt-offering, which may be brought from fowl, may not be brought from tumtum or hermaphrodite — peace-offerings, which may not be brought from fowl, how much more so should they not be brought from tumtum or hermaphrodite! — No, this may be so with a burnt-offering, where females may not be brought as well as males, as opposed to peace-offerings, where females may be brought as well as males. — This is refuted by a sin-offering, where females may be brought as well as males, but where tumtum and hermaphrodite may not be brought.",
                "3) — No, this may be so with a sin-offering, where not all species of male and female are kasher. — This is refuted by ma'aser (a tithed animal), where all species of male and female are kasher as offerings, but where tumtum and hermaphrodite are not kasher. — No, this may be so with ma'aser, which is one out of ten (i.e., limited, exclusive), whereas shelamim are one out of one (i.e., unlimited, indiscriminate). And since they are one out of one, tumtum and hermaphrodite should be kasher. It is, therefore, written: \"male\" or \"female\" — a definite male or a definite female, and not tumtum or hermaphrodite.",
                "4) (Vayikra 3:7): (\"If) a lamb (he offers\"): Why mention this (after \"flock\")? To include the pesach offering (which is a lamb) for the (smoking of the) fat-tail (along with the other devoted portions). \"If a lamb\" — to include a pesach whose (stipulated) time (for sacrifice) has passed, and shelamim which come by virtue of a pesach (e.g., a substitute) in all the mitzvoth of shelamim, as requiring semichah, libations, and waving of breast and thigh. For I might think: If the \"father\" (i.e., the pesach offering itself) does not require semichah, libations, and waving of breast and thigh, then what comes because of it, how much more so should it not require semichah, libations, and waving of breast and thigh! It is, therefore, written: \"If a lamb\" to include a pesach whose time has passed and what comes by virtue of it as requiring semichah, libations, and waving of breast and thigh. But they are eaten only for a day and a night, as per the origin of their consecration (i.e., the pesach offering). Ben Azzai says: They are eaten only at night and only roasted (like the pesach lamb itself).",
                "5) (\"If) he (offers\"): The individual may bring shelamim as a gift-offering, but not the congregation. If you would ask: But have they (the congregation) not already been excluded by (Vayikra 3:1): \"if from the cattle he offers\"? (This is no objection,) for I might think that the congregation does not bring shelamim from cattle as a gift-offering because they do not bring their like as a mandatory offering, and that they could bring shelamim from the flock as a gift-offering, because they do bring their like as a mandatory offering (i.e., the Atzereth lambs). It is, therefore, written (here) \"he\" — The individual may bring shelamim as a gift-offering, but not the congregation."
            ],
            "Chapter 19": [
                "1) (Vayikra 3:9): \"And he shall offer of the sacrifice (of the shelamim\"): even if he did not slaughter it in its name (i.e., as a shelamim). \"shelamim\": even if he did not perform semichah upon it. \"a fire-offering\": to that end. \"to the L–rd\": in the name of the Creator of the world.",
                "2) (Vayikra 3:9): \"its fat, the fat-tail\": to include the fat near the fat-tail, the fat between the loin-sinews. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yehudah says: \"its fat, the fat-tail\": Just as (eating) fat comes under two interdicts ([Vayikra 3:17] \"All fat and all blood you shall not eat,\" and [Vayikra 7:23] \"All fat of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat\"), so, (eating the) fat of a (consecrated) fat-tail comes under two interdicts.",
                "3) \"fat-tail\": I might think that the mitzvah is fulfilled with it (alone); it is, therefore, written: \"whole.\" If \"whole,\" I would think he removed it with the spine (of which it is a part); it is, therefore, written: \"above the kidneys.\" If \"above the kidneys,\" I would think he should not enter (i.e., he should not remove it) anterior to the kidneys; it is, therefore, written: \"he shall remove it\" — anterior to the kidneys (a span above the tail).",
                "4) \"the fat that covers the innards and all the fat that is on the innards\": Why mention this? (i.e., it is already written in relation to cattle [Vayikra 3:3]) For I might think that wall-fat (of sheep) is also (to be sacrificed). — But I would reason otherwise!, viz.: If cattle, whose libations are larger are excluded from (sacrifice of) wall-fat — sheep, whose libations are smaller, how much more so should they be excluded from (sacrifice of) wall fat! — No, it may be so with cattle, which are excluded from (sacrifice of) a fat-tail, as opposed to sheep, where a fat-tail is also sacrificed! It is, therefore, written: \"the fat that covers the innards and all the fat that is on the innards, and the two kidneys, etc.\" Only what is specifically written (is sacrificed [and not wall-fat]). R. Yishmael says: Because it departed (from the general category) for a new learning (i.e., the fat-tail), Scripture restored it to its category. (See Baraitha d'R. Yishmael 11).",
                "5) (Vayikra 3:11): \"And he shall smoke it\": Fats (of one offering) may not be mixed with fats (of another). \"the bread of a fire-offering to the L–rd\": We are hereby taught that fats are called \"bread.\""
            ],
            "Chapter 20": [
                "1) (Vayikra 3:12): \"And if a goat (is his offering\"): This is a hiatus (in the section of \"lamb\" [a goat being a type of lamb]) to indicate that a goat does not require the sacrifice of a fat-tail.",
                "2) (Vayikra 3:14): \"And he shall offer from it (his offering\"): while it is still attached (i.e., he shall remove the devoted portions while they are still attached to the goat, before he cuts the flesh). \"his offering, a fire-offering to the L–rd, the fat that covers the innards and all the fat upon the innards.\": Why mention this (again if it has already been stated above in respect to the flock?) For I might think that it (a goat) is excluded from all of these. And, indeed, it would follow (that it is excluded, viz.: Just as we find that a sheep (offering), which is augmented by (the sacrifice of) a fat-tail, is augmented by all of these (the above), so, (conversely), a goat, which is excluded from (the sacrifice of) a fat-tail, should be excluded from all of these, (so that an explicit inclusion clause is needed.) — This is refuted by cattle, which are excluded from fat-tail, yet included in all of these.",
                "3) — No, this may be so with cattle (offerings), which are (accompanied by) larger libations, as opposed to goats, which are (accompanied by) smaller libations. And since they are excluded from (larger) libations, they should be excluded from all (of the above). It is, therefore, written: \"the fat that covers the innards and all the fat on the innards, and the two kidneys, etc.\", to include all of them.",
                "4) (Vayikra 3:16): \"And the Cohein shall smoke them\": all at once. \"the bread of a fire-offering for a sweet savor, all the fat for the L–rd\": to include fat in me'ilah (the interdict against abuse of sacred objects).",
                "5) It was said in the name of R. Yishmael: It is written (Bamidbar 18:17): But the bechor (the first-born) of an ox, or the bechor of a sheep, or the bechor of a goat, you shall not redeem. They are consecrated. Their blood shall you sprinkle upon the altar and their fat shall you smoke.\": This teaches us that a bechor requires blood and fats upon the altar. Whence do we derive the same for ma'aser and pesach? From (Devarim 12:27): \"And the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of your G d (first), and (then) the flesh shall you eat.\" This tells me only of their blood. Whence do I derive (the same for) their fat? From (Vayikra 3:16): \"all the fat for the L–rd.\"",
                "6) (Vayikra 3:17): \"an eternal statute\": for the eternal house (i.e., the Temple). \"for your generations\": the thing (i.e., the interdict) obtains for all generations.\" \"in all of your dwellings\": both in Eretz Yisrael and outside it — \"all fat and all blood you shall not eat.\" R. Yehudah says: Blood is being likened to fat. Just as fat comes under two interdicts (here and Vayikra 7:23: \"All fat of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat\"), so, blood. And the sages say it falls only under one exhortation.",
                "7 (a reversion to R. Yehudah:) I might think that the blood of consecrated animals which have been rendered pasul (by a permanent blemish) also comes under two interdicts (that of eating blood and that of a non-Cohein eating consecrated food); it is, therefore, written (in relation to such animals, Devarim 12:16): \"Only the blood you shall not eat.\" It comes only under one exhortation (that against eating fat, but not that against a non-Cohein eating consecrated food). This tells me only of their blood. Whence do I derive (the same for) their fat? From: \"all fat and all blood you shall not eat.\" Just as the blood comes under one interdict, so the fat comes under one interdict (as above).",
                "8) Since bechor is outside the category of consecrated animals which have been rendered pasul, (in that it is eaten in its blemished state and is not redeemed), I might think that eating its blood comes under two interdicts (that of eating blood and that of a non-Cohein eating consecrated food). It is, therefore, written (of such an instance, Devarim 15:23): \"Only its blood you shall not eat.\" It falls only under one exhortation (that against eating blood, but not that against a non-Cohein eating consecrated food). This tells me only of its blood. Whence do I derive (the same for) its fat? From: \"all fat and all blood.\" Just as the blood comes under one interdict, so, the fat."
            ]
        },
        "Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah": {
            "Section 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 4:2): \"Speak to the children of Israel\": The children of Israel bring a sin-offering, but gentiles do not. It goes without saying that (they do not bring a sin-offering) for (transgression of) a mitzvah not binding on the sons of Noach, but (they do not bring it) even for one that is binding upon them. \"the children of Israael\": This tells me only of the children of Israel. Whence do we derive that proselytes and bondsmen are included? From (Vayikra 4:2): \"A soul if he sin.\"",
                "2) \"unwittingly\": He brings it only for unwitting (transgression), but not for intentional (transgression). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? (Why is the exclusion clause necessary?), viz.: If in respect to the grave sin of idolatry, (where one would expect that a sin-offering should be brought for intentional transgression to help expiate the sin), intentional sin was not likened to unwitting sin, (a sin-offering being brought for the latter [see Bamidbar 15:27] but not for the former), should it not follow that with lesser mitzvoth intentional sin should not be likened to unwitting sin, (and a sin-offering not be brought for the former? [Why, then, the exclusion clause?]) — But that is just the point! If (atonement) for the grave sin of intentional idolatry is delayed until Yom Kippur, (a sin-offering not being able to atone for it), would you put off (possible atonement for) intentional (transgression of) lesser mitzvoth until Yom Kippur? Let him bring a sin-offering and gain atonement immediately! It is, therefore, written (in respect to lesser mitzvoth): \"if he sin unwittingly.\" He brings (a sin-offering) for unwitting sin but not for intentional sin.",
                "3) — But, in that case, should it not follow by kal vachomer that (a sin-offering not be brought for intentional) idolatry? (Why the exclusion clause? [Bamidbar 15:27]), viz.: If (atonement for) intentional (transgression of) lesser mitzvoth is delayed until Yom Kippur, (not being susceptible of atonement with a sin-offering), should not (atonement for) intentional (transgression of) the grave sin of idolatry be delayed until Yom Kippur? — Not so — if we are lenient with the lesser mitzvoth, (no sin-offering being required before Yom Kippur), should we be lenient with the grave sin of idolatry? Rather, let a sin-offering be brought (for intentional violation), and \"keep things in abeyance\" for him until (the complete atonement of) Yom Kippur. Therefore \"unwittingly\" must be stated both in respect to (transgression of other) mitzvoth and in respect to idolatry.",
                "4) Why is \"unwittingly\" written both in respect to \"se'ir\" (the male kid brought by a nassi [a leader (Bamidbar 4:22)]), and \"se'irah\" (the female kid brought by an individual [Bamidbar 4:27])? (i.e., Why is one not deduced from the other [to exclude a sin-offering for intentional sin])? For there is that in se'ir which is not in se'irah, and that in se'irah which is not in se'ir. Se'ir is used extensively as a communal offering, as opposed to se'irah, (so that if \"unwittingly\" were written only in respect to se'irah, that would not exclude se'ir as a sin-offering for intentional transgression). Se'irah is used exclusively (by the individual [whether nassi, commoner, or high-priest] for atonement of) idolatry, (so that if \"unwittingly\" were written only in respect to se'ir, that would not exclude se'irah as a sin-offering for intentional transgression). Therefore, \"unwittingly\" must be written both in respect to \"se'ir\" and \"se'irah.\"",
                "5) (He must bring a sin-offering (Bamidbar 4:2): [\"if he sin unwittingly of]) all the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": and not the mitzvoth of the king and not the mitzvoth of beth-din. \"of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": and not all of the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": to exclude (the bringing of a sin-offering for) \"hearing the voice of an oath\" (see Bamidbar 5:1), and \"pronouncing with the lips\" (see Bamidbar 5:4), and defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred things (see Bamidbar 5:2) (for all of which he brings a sliding-scale offering [oleh veyored]).",
                "6) \"of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": I would understand this as meaning both positive and negative commandments; it is, therefore, written: \"which may not be done.\" (only negative commandments are being referred to.) (\"which may not be done\" is written four times [Bamidbar 4:2, Bamidbar 4:13, Bamidbar 4:22, Bamidbar 4:28] for four exclusions): I would exclude (from a sin-offering) a lesser positive commandment, but not a greater one (e.g., the eradication of idolatry); it is, therefore, written: \"which may not be done.\" (Only negative commandments are intended.) I would exclude (transgression of) mitzvoth not punishable by kareth, but not pesach and circumcision (transgression of which is) punishable by kareth; it is, therefore, written: \"which may not be done.\" I would exclude pesach, which is not (a) constant (observance), but not circumcision, which is constant; it is, therefore, written: \"which may not be done.\" But then I would exclude the positive commandment of (separation from a niddah (before the time of her flow); it is, therefore, written: \"of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd,\" to include (for a sin-offering one who did not separate and was \"surprised\" by her flow). Why do you see fit to exclude all (positive) commandments and to include that of niddah? Since Scripture included and excluded, why do I exclude all the (positive) commandments? Because they have no counterpart in a negative commandment. And I include the positive commandment of niddah because it has its counterpart in a negative commandment (viz. [Bamidbar 18:19]: \"And to a woman in the niddah state of her uncleanliness you shall not come near.\")",
                "7) \"which may not be done\": I might think (that one must bring a sin-offering) both for things intentional violation of which makes him liable to kareth, and for things intentional violation of which does not make him liable to kareth; it is, therefore, written (in respect to idolatry, Bamidbar 15:29): \"One Torah shall there be for you for him who acts unwittingly.\" All unwitting sins are being likened to idolatry. Just as idolatry is characterized by intentional transgression being liable to kareth and unwitting transgression to a sin-offering, so, all acts liable to kareth for intentional transgression are liable to a sin-offering for unwitting transgression.",
                "8) But something (i.e., the bringing of a sin-offering), which you derive in one \"way\" (i.e., from idolatry), you must derive in all the ways that obtain with it, viz.: Just as idolatry is characterized by not being permitted once it is forbidden, and by nothing in its class being permitted, and by being liable to judicial death penalty, and by being forbidden to the descendants of Noach as to Israel — so, include (in liability for a sin-offering) only those sins which are like it, e.g., (a man's) lying with a man or lying with a beast, which is not permitted once forbidden, where nothing in its class is permitted, where one is liable to judicial death penalty, and where there is liability for descendants of Noach as for Israel — though there be (a stringency factor) in (a man's) lying with a man, which does not obtain in lying with a beast, and in lying with a beast which does not obtain in lying with a man, viz.: It is forbidden for a man to lie with a man, whether with his own kind (a Jew with a Jew) or with another kind (a Jew with a gentile); but it is permitted (for a man to mate) a beast with its kind though forbidden (to mate it) with a different kind. In one man's lying with another, a minor (below the age of nine) is not equated with an adult (for liability). In his lying with a beast, a young animal (that is lain with) is equated with a grown one. (These differences, however, do not affect the bringing of a sin-offering, for \"idolatry\" remains the parameter.)",
                "9) [\"of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": \"mitzvoth\" is mentioned in this context four times, and \"of all,\" three times, a signal for seven inclusions for the bringing of a sin-offering, even if some of the aforementioned elements do not obtain. Those sins closest to the gravity of idolatry will be first included.] \"of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": to include (illicit relations with) one's mother, with his father's wife, and with his daughter-in-law, which, like idolatry, are liable to stoning; and, in addition, with his daughter, his daughter's daughter, and his son's daughter, (which are liable to death by burning.)",
                "10) \"of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": to include his wife's daughter, the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, which, like idolatry, once forbidden, were not permitted; and, in addition, (illicit relations with) his mother-in-law, her mother, and his father-in-law's mother, (the last two being derived from \"mother-in-law\" and not explicitly stated.)",
                "11) \"of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": to include (illicit relations with) a betrothed maiden and desecration of the Sabbath, (which though liable to stoning, like idolatry, have certain attenuations.) There is that (i.e., an attenuating factor) in a betrothed maiden which is not in the Sabbath, and that in the Sabbath which is not in a betrothed maiden. A betrothed maiden has a \"permit\" (divorce, or death of the betrothed), and Sabbath has no \"permit.\" Something in the class of \"Sabbath\" (i.e., Sabbath Temple sacrifice) is permitted; nothing in the class of \"a betrothed maiden\" is permitted.",
                "12) \"Of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": to include (illicit relations with) a married woman and with a niddah, (where there is no liability to stoning and where there are attenuating factors). There is that (i.e., a stringency factor) in a married woman which is not in a niddah, and that in a niddah which is not in a married woman. One who has illicit relations with a married woman is liable to judicial death penalties; one who has illicit relations with a niddah is not. A married woman is permitted to her husband; a niddah is forbidden to all men.",
                "13) \"of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": to include (relations with) his brother's wife, and his father's brother's wife, (which are of lesser gravity than relations with a married woman and a niddah, being permitted to all men other than the relatives in question). There is that (an attenuating factor) in his brother's wife which is not in his father's brother's wife, and there is that in his father's brother's wife which is not in his brother's wife. His (deceased) brother's wife, if she has children (from him), she is forbidden (to the brother); if she has no children, she is permitted; his father's brother's wife — Whether or not she has children (from her [deceased] husband), she is forbidden (to her nephew). His brother's wife — a brother by his mother is considered (interdicted) like a brother by his father; his father's brother's wife — a brother by his mother is not considered like a brother by his father.",
                "14) \"of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": to include his sister, and his father's sister, and his mother's sister, which, like idolatry, were at no time permitted to him, (but which are of lesser gravity than his brother's wife and his father's brother's wife, which were forbidden to all men while they were married.) \"of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": to include his wife's sister, (though she is permitted to him upon his wife's death.)"
            ],
            "Chapter 1": [
                "1) Now that we have included things which are like idolatry and things which are not like idolatry, why is idolatry singled out (as the parameter? Viz.: (Bamidbar 15:29): \"One Torah (similar to that for idolatry shall there be for you, etc.\")? It must be to tell us: Just as idolatry is characterized by intentional transgression being liable to kareth and unwitting transgression to a sin-offering, so, all acts liable to kareth for intentional transgression are liable to a sin-offering for unwitting transgression.",
                "2) — But why not say: Just as idolatry is characterized by being liable to judicial death penalty, so, all acts thus liable are included (in liability for a sin-offering)! And what will I include? One who curses his father and mother, an inciter (to idolatry), a necromancer, a false prophet, and scheming witnesses. — (These are not included for it is written (Vayikra 4:22): \"And he do (… unwittingly\"), to exclude those (transgressions) where there is no act.",
                "3) I would then exclude only those where there is no act, but not one who strikes his father and mother, one who kidnaps a Jew, an elder who rebels (by act) against beth-din, a rebellious son, and a murderer! It is, therefore, written (to create the parameter for sin-offering liability) \"One Torah shall there be for you … and that soul (who serves idolatry) shall be cut off from the midst of his people.\" — All unwitting sins are being likened to idolatry. Just as idolatry is characterized by intentional transgression being liable to kareth (\"cutting-off\"), and unwitting transgression to a sin-offering, so, all acts liable to kareth for intentional transgression are liable to a sin-offering for unwitting transgression, (and the aforementioned acts, not being liable to kareth for intentional transgression [but to judicial death penalty where there had been forewarning] are not liable to a sin-offering for unwitting transgression.)",
                "4) (Vayikra 4:2): (\"If he sin unwittingly … and he do\" [(If it now followed)] \"one (of these\"), I might think that he is not liable (for forbidden Sabbath labor) until he writes the entire name, until he weaves the entire garment, until he makes the entire sieve; it is, therefore, written (instead of \"one of these\") \"of one of these.\" (i.e., even part of one). If (only) \"of one\" (were written) I might think (that he is liable) even if he wrote only one letter, even if he wove only one strand, even if he made only one link of a sieve or a basket; it is, therefore, written (in the other instances of unwitting sin [Vayikra 4:13, Vayikra 4:22, Vayikra 4:27]): \"… do one.\" How is this to be reconciled? (He is not liable) until he writes a small name \"from\" a big name, e.g., \"Shem,\" from (the intended) \"Shimon\" or \"Shmuel\"; \"Noach,\" from \"Nachor\"; \"Dan,\" from \"Daniel\"; \"Gad,\" from \"Gadiel.\"",
                "5) R. Yehudah says: Even if he wrote two letters which constitute one name he is liable, e.g., \"shesh,\" \"tet,\" \"rar,\" \"gog,\" \"chach.\" R. Yossi said: Would he then be liable for kothev (\"writing\")? Would he not be liable for roshem (\"marking\")? For the boards of the mishkan were marked to indicate matching (boards. And the labors of the mishkan are the criterion for those of the Sabbath). Therefore, if he made one scratch (each) on two planks or two scratches on one plank he is liable.",
                "6) R. Shimon says: \"And he do one\": I might think: (He is not liable) until he writes the entire name, until he weaves the entire garment, until he makes the entire sieve; it is, therefore, written \"of one.\" If (only) \"of one\" were written, I might think (that he is liable) even if he wrote only one letter, even if he wove only one strand, even if he made only one link of a sieve or a basket; it is, therefore, written: \"and he do one.\" How is this to be reconciled? (He is not liable) until he makes something which is a (meaningful) entity in itself. R. Yossi says: It is written: \"And he do one,\" \"And he do … these.\": Sometimes he is liable for only one (sin-offering) for all (Sabbath labors), and sometimes he is liable for each one.",
                "7) How so? If one did not know of the institution of the Sabbath, and he performed many labors on many Sabbaths — even if they were distinct proto-labors (avoth, and not derivative [toldoth]), he is liable for only one sin-offering all of his days. If he knew of the institution of the Sabbath, but thought: \"Today is not Shabbath,\" \"Today is not Shabbath,\" and performed many labors on many Sabbaths, he is liable for each Sabbath. If he knew that it were Sabbath, but thought: \"This is not a (forbidden) labor,\" \"This is not a labor,\" and he performed many labors on many Sabbaths — if they were distinct proto-labors, he is liable for each (distinct) labor; and if they were (acts falling under) one labor, he is liable for (labor performed in) each forgetfulness lapse.",
                "8) R. Akiva said: I asked R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua at the fair of Emmaus, where they went to buy an animal for a feast: If one's son lived with a (woman who was at the same time) his sister, his father's sister, and his mother's sister in one forgetfulness lapse, what is the halachah? Is he liable for one sin-offering for all of them (the three categories), or for one (sin-offering, respectively,) for each (category)? They answered: We did not hear (the halachah); but we did hear that if one lived with five niddoth in one forgetfulness lapse, he is liable for (a distinct sin-offering) for each woman; and it would seem to us that it would be a kal vachomer (that he is liable for distinct offerings in the \"triple sister\" instance, the number of categories being more crucial than the number of bodies.)",
                "9) R. Akiva asked them further: If a limb is dangling from a (living) animal, what is the halachah? (Is it to be regarded as already detached, so that it causes carrion defilement?) They answered: We did not hear (the halachah); but we did hear that if a limb is dangling from a man it is clean (of such defilement). And thus would those Jerusalemites afflicted with boils do on the eve of Pesach. They would go to the doctor, who would sever the limb until it was hanging by a hair (in order not to defile himself in cutting it off completely), and the afflicted one would stick it in a bush and pull away from it (thus removing the limb without touching it), and both he and the doctor would eat his pesach (in cleanliness); and it would seem to us that it is a kal vachomer (that a limb dangling from an animal is likewise clean, viz.: If a dangling limb of a man, who can cause defilement when he is alive [e.g., zav or metzora], is clean, then how much more so that of an animal, which cannot cause defilement when alive!)",
                "10) R. Akiva asked them further: If one slaughters five sacrifices outside (the azarah) in one forgetfulness lapse, what is the halachah? Is he liable for one (sin-offering for) all of them, or for one (distinct sin-offering) for each one? They answered: We did not hear (the halachah). R. Yehoshua said: I heard that if one ate of one offering from five trays in one forgetfulness lapse, he is liable for each one by reason of me'ilah (abuse of sacred objects), and it seems to me that it is a kal vachomer (that if five trays of the same offering are perceived as distinct entities, how much more so, individual animals!)",
                "11) R. Shimon said: How can you reason from eating to slaughtering? (i.e., In the instance of eating he derives distinct enjoyment from each dish, an element lacking in the instance of slaughtering.) Rather, what he asked them was: If one eats nothar, (offerings outside of the authorized eating time), from five sacrifices in one forgetfulness lapse, what is the halachah? Is he liable for (one sin-offering for) all of them, or one for each of them? They answered: We did not hear. R. Yehoshua said: I heard that if one ate of one offering from five trays in one forgetfulness lapse, he is liable for each one by reason of me'ilah, and it seems to me that it is a kal vachomer (that if five trays of the same offering are perceived as distinct entities, how much more so, distinct offerings!)",
                "12) R. Akiva said: If this is a halachah, we shall accept it, but if it is a reason, it is subject to refutation. He answered: Say on. R. Akiva: This may be so with me'ilah, where the feeder was equated with the eater, and the benefactor with the enjoyer, and where the me'ilah is incremental for an extended time period (i.e., a half-p'rutah of me'ilah today is added to a half-p'rutah later to produce the p'rutah liability for me'ilah), as opposed to nothar, where none of these obtains.",
                "13) R. Akiva said: I asked R. Eliezer: If one performs many labors (toldoth) (all deriving) from one proto-labor (av), in one forgetfulness lapse, what is the halachah? Is he liable for one (sin-offering for) all (labors and Sabbaths), or one for each one? He answered: He is liable for each one by kal vachomer, viz.: Now if in the instance of niddah, (where one lived with five niddoth), where there are not many ramifications ([as there are in the instance of Shabbath] — where there are not avoth and toldoth, but only the basic interdict against living with a niddah), and where there are not many different varieties of sin (stemming from the av-toldah structure), he is liable for each one — Shabbath, where there are many ramifications and different varieties of sin, how much more so should he be liable for each one! I answered: No, this may be so with niddah, where there are two exhortations, the man being exhorted against (living with) the niddah, and she against (living with him), as opposed to Shabbath, where there is only one exhortation. He: This is refuted by one's living with (niddoth who are) minors, where there is only one exhortation, but where he is nevertheless liable for each one. I answered: No, this may be so in the instance of one's living with minors, who though not (bound by the exhortation) now will be so later, as opposed to Shabbath, where (a second exhortation obtains) neither now nor later. He: It is refuted by one's living with a beast, (where he is liable for each one, though the beast is under no exhortation). I: The beast is like Shabbath (i.e., The instance of the beast is as much of a query to me as that of Shabbath!)"
            ],
            "Section 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 4:2): (\"Speak to the children of Israel, saying: A soul, if he sin, etc.) \"A soul\" (is juxtaposed with) \"the children of Israel\" (indicating that) the congregation is like the individual, viz.: Just as the individual brings (a sin-offering) only for unwitting violation of something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth, so, the congregation, (who acted upon a mistaken ruling of beth-din).",
                "2) (Why the inclusion clause for the congregation?) Does it not follow by kal vachomer? viz.: If the individual, who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone, i.e., unawareness that the deed is forbidden), brings it only for something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth — the congregation, which does not bring it for deed-unwittingness (alone, but only as a result of a mistaken ruling of beth-din), how much more so should they bring it only for something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth! — No, this may be so with the individual, who does not bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness (i.e., for possibly having sinned unwittingly), as opposed to the congregation, which does bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness (e.g., the festival and Rosh Chodesh goats, which atone for possible unwitting defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects). — This is refuted by (the instance of) the high-priest, who does bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness (the Yom Kippur bullock), and yet brings a sin-offering only for unwitting violation of something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth.",
                "3) — No, this may be so with the high-priest, who does not bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness, on the outer altar, as opposed to the congregation, which does bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness, on the outer altar. And since it does so, let it (also) bring a sin-offering both for something, intentional violation of which is or is not liable to kareth! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"A soul,\" \"the children of Israel.\" The congregation is like the individual. Just as the individual brings (a sin-offering) only for unwitting violation of something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth, so, the congregation.",
                "4) The same applies to the high-priest, viz.: Does it not follow by kal vachomer, viz.: If the individual, who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone), brings it only for something, intentional violation of which is liable for kareth — the high-priest, who does not bring it for deed-unwittingness (alone, but only as a result of ruling mistakenly for himself), how much more so should he bring it only for something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth! — No, this may be so with the individual, who does not bring a sin-offering for compete unawareness, as opposed to the high-priest, who does bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness. — This is refuted by (the instance of) the congregation, which does bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness, and yet brings a sin-offering only for unwitting violation of something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth.",
                "5) — No, this may be so with the congregation, which does not bring a mandatory guilt-offering (in an instance where beth-din erred in a me'ilah ruling and the congregation acted on that ruling), as opposed to a high-priest, who does bring a mandatory guilt-offering. — This is refuted by (the instance of) a nassi, who brings a mandatory gift-offering, and, nonetheless, brings (a sin-offering) only for something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth. — No, this may be so with a nassi, who does not bring a sin-offering for complete unawareness, as opposed to a high-priest, who does bring a sin-offering both for something, intentional violation of which is or is not liable to kareth. It is, therefore, written \"A soul\" followed by \"If the high-priest\" (3). The high-priest is like the individual. Just as the individual brings (a sin-offering) only for unwitting violation of something, intentional violation of which is liable to kareth, so, the high-priest.",
                "6) (Vayikra 4:3): (\"If the anointed Cohein shall sin\"): \"anointed\": I might think this is the king; it is, therefore, written \"Cohein.\" If (only) \"Cohein\" (were written), I might think it referred to a \"many-garmented priest,\" (who is not anointed); it is, therefore, written \"anointed.\" If (only) \"anointed Cohein\" (were written), I might think that even the priest anointed for war (was included). It is, therefore, written: \"the anointed Cohein,\" who has no one anointed over him (i.e., the high-priest). \"shall sin\": Why \"shall sin\" (instead of \"sinned,\" as the verse continues)? For I might otherwise think that he must bring (a bullock) (for unwitting transgressions committed) prior to his appointment. But (why the exclusion clause?) Is it not a kal vachomer (that he should not bring a bullock?), viz.: If a nassi, who brings (a he-goat) for deed-unwittingness (alone), does not bring one for previous sins — the high-priest, who does not bring (a bullock) for deed-unwittingness alone — how much more so should he not bring one for previous sins! — No, this may be so with the nassi, who does not bring his sin-offering (a he-goat) once removed (from office), as opposed to the high-priest, who continues to bring his sin-offering (a bullock) after removal (from office). And since he brings his sin-offering (for unwitting sins committed) after removal from office, let him bring it for sins committed prior (to his appointment); it is, therefore, written: \"If the anointed Cohein shall sin,\" after he is anointed; but he does not bring it for those sins which he committed as a lay person.",
                "7) R. Shimon says: If it became known to him (that he had sinned) before he was appointed, and then he was appointed, he is liable (for the sin-offering of a lay person). And if it became known to him after he was appointed, he is (completely) exempt. \"… an anointed Cohein shall sin\": I might think that this is a decree; it is, therefore, written: \"If he shall sin.\""
            ],
            "Chapter 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 4:3): (\"If the anointed Cohein shall sin) to the guilt of the people.\": The high-priest is being compared to the congregation. Just as the congregation brings (a sin-offering) only where (beth-din) erred (in the ruling), and they sinned unwittingly (on the basis of that ruling), so, the high-priest brings (a sin-offering) only where he erred (in ruling for himself) and he sinned unwittingly (on the basis of that ruling)(Why the inclusion clause for the high-priest?) Does it not follow naturally? viz.: The congregation is distinct from the individual (in its offering), and the high-priest is distinct from the individual. Just as the congregation brings (a sin-offering) upon error in ruling and deed-unwittingness, so, the high-priest.",
                "2) — But why not go in this direction? The nassi is distinct from the individual, and the high-priest is distinct from the individual. Just as the nassi brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone, without an error in ruling), so, the high-priest!",
                "3) Let us see whom he (the high-priest) is most like. If he is most like the congregation, let us derive (his rules) from (those of) the congregation; and if he is most like the nassi, let us derive (his rules) from (those of) the nassi. The congregation brings a bullock (as a sin-offering) and it does not bring an asham talui (a \"suspended\" guilt-offering [see Vayikra 5:18]), and the high-priest brings a bullock, and he does not bring an asham talui. Just as the congregation brings (a sin-offering) upon error in ruling and deed-unwittingness, so, the high-priest should bring (a sin-offering) only where these obtain.",
                "4) — But why not go in this direction? The nassi brings a she-goat (for unwitting transgression of idolatry [see Bamidbar 15:27]), and he brings a categorical guilt-offering (see Vayikra 5:15), and the high-priest brings a she-goat for idolatry and he brings a categorical gift-offering. Just as the nassi brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone, without an error in ruling), so, the high-priest! It is, therefore, written: \"to the guilt of the people.\" The high-priest is being compared to the congregation. Just as the congregation brings (a sin-offering) only where (beth-din) erred (in the ruling), and they (the people) sinned unwittingly (on the basis of that ruling), so, the high-priest brings (a sin-offering) only in like circumstances.",
                "5) But in that case I might think that just as when beth-din ruled (erroneously) and others acted upon their ruling, they (beth-din) are liable (for a sin-offering), so, if the high-priest ruled (erroneously) and others acted upon his ruling, he is liable (for a sin-offering); it is, therefore, written: \"which he has sinned\" — he brings it for what he has sinned and not for what others have sinned.",
                "6) (Vayikra 4:3): \"then he shall offer for his sin.\" We are hereby taught that he brings his (special) sin-offering (a bullock), even (for unwitting sins committed) after removal (from office) (For if not for this inclusion clause I would reason:) Does it not follow (otherwise), viz.: If the nassi, who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone), does not bring his (special) sin-offering after removal — the high-priest, who does not bring (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone), how much more so should he not bring his (special) sin-offering after removal! It is, therefore, written: \"then he shall offer for his sin,\" to teach that he brings his (special) sin-offering (even) after removal.",
                "7) I might think that if he sinned with the congregation (i.e., if he ruled erroneously together with beth-din and then acted upon that ruling together with the congregation), he brings a bullock for himself. And this would follow, viz.: The nassi is distinct from the congregation (in his offering), and the high-priest is distinct from the congregation. Just as when the nassi sins by himself, he brings (a sin-offering) for himself, and when he sins with the congregation he receives atonement together with (the sin-offering of) the congregation, so, the high-priest — If he sins by himself, he brings for himself, and when he sins with the congregation, he receives atonement together with the congregation.",
                "8) No, this may be so with the nassi, who atones with the congregation on Yom Kippur, as opposed to the high-priest, who does not atone with the congregation on Yom Kippur, (but who brings different sacrifices for certain sins). And since he does not atone with the congregation on Yom Kippur, I would say (if not for the inclusion clause here) that he should bring a bullock for himself. It is, therefore, written: \"which he has sinned.\" If he sinned by himself, he brings for himself; if he sinned with the congregation, he receives atonement together with the congregation."
            ],
            "Chapter 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 4:3): (\"then he shall offer a) bullock.\" I might think (he could offer) even an old one; it is, therefore, written \"ben\" (connoting a young one.) If \"ben\" alone were written, I might think it meant a very young one (i.e., one or two years old); it is, therefore, written \"bullock. What satisfies this? A three-year-old. These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: Four and five-year olds are also kasher, but old ones are not brought, out of deference (to the L–rd).",
                "2) R. Yossi Haglili says (in connection with Bamidbar 8:8: \"And they [the Levites] shall take a young bullock\" [for a burnt-offering], \"… and a second young bullock shall you take for a sin-offering\"): What is the intent of \"a second young bullock, etc.\"? Is it not already written (Bamidbar 8:12): \"And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd\"? Why, then, repeat \"And a second, etc.\"? The intent of \"second\" is \"of the second year.\"",
                "3) Rebbi says: What is the intent of: \"and a second young bullock shall you take for a sin-offering\"? If to teach that they are two, it is already written: \"And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd.\" But, because it is written: \"And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd,\" I might think that the sin-offering takes precedence to the burnt-offering in all of its particulars; it is, therefore, written: \"and a second young bullock shall you take for a sin-offering.\" If that alone were written, I would think that the burnt-offering takes precedence to the sin-offering in all of its particulars; it is, therefore, written: \"And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd.\" How is this to be reconciled. The (sprinkling of) the blood of the sin-offering takes precedence to that of the burnt-offering, because it effects conciliation. The (burning of the) limbs of the burnt-offering takes precedence to the (burning of the) devoted portions of the sin-offering because all of them are burnt.",
                "4) R. Shimon says: What is the intent of: \"and a second young bullock shall you take for a sin-offering\"? If to teach that they are two, is it not already written: \"And you shall make the one a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering to the L–rd\"? — I might think that this sin-offering is to be eaten; it is, therefore, written: \"and a second bullock\" — second to the burnt-offering. Just as a burnt-offering is not eaten, so this sin-offering is not eaten.\"",
                "5) Similarly, R. Yossi said (Ezra 8:35): \"Those who came out of the captivity, the children of the exile, offered burnt-offerings to the G d of Israel: twelve bullocks for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven sheep, twelve he-goats for a sin-offering, all as burnt-offerings to the L–rd.\" How can a sin-offering be a burnt-offering! But (the intent is): Just as a burnt-offering is not eaten, so the sin-offering was not eaten. R. Yehudah says: They were brought for (unwitting) idolatry.",
                "6) R. Shimon says: Wherever \"egel\" (calf) is written in the Torah, (a calf) of the first year (is intended), as it is written (Vayikra 9:3): \"and a calf and a lamb of the first year.\" (Wherever) \"ben bakar\" (is written), (a calf of) the second year (is intended), as it is written (Vayikra 9:2): \"Take for yourself egel ben bakar (a bull-calf) and a ram for a burnt-offering, without blemish.\" Just as a ram is of the second year, so, a bull-calf. \"bullock,\" unqualified, is of the third year. Four and five year olds are also kasher, but old ones are not brought, out of deference (to the L–rd)."
            ],
            "Section 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 4:4): \"And he shall bring (the bullock to the door of the tent of meeting.\"): even after Yom Kippur (i.e., Yom Kippur does not atone for those liable for categorical sin-offerings and guilt-offerings). \"bullock\": he brings a bullock and not an alternate (offering [i.e., a she-goat], as a [lay] individual may.)",
                "2) For does it not follow (without the exclusion clause that he may bring an alternate), viz.: If the (lay) individual, whose offering for (unwitting sin) in respect to all the mitzvoth [i.e., a she-lamb] is not the same as his offering on Yom Kippur (i.e., the \"dispatched\" he-goat), (yet) his offering for all the mitzvoth is the same as his offering for the \"distinct\" mitzvah (that of idolatry, for which he brings a she-goat, [in that he may also bring for all mitzvoth a she-goat as an alternate for the she-lamb]) — the high-priest, whose offering for all the mitzvoth (i.e., a bullock) is the same as his offering on Yom Kippur — how much more should it follow that his offering for all the mitzvoth be the same as his offering for the \"distinct\" mitzvah (i.e., that he should be permitted to bring a she-goat as an alternate for the bullock)! — This is refuted by (the instance of) the nassi, whose offering for all mitzvoth (a he-goat) is the same as his offering on Yom Kippur, in spite of which his offering for all mitzvoth is not the same as his offering for the \"distinct\" mitzvah (i.e., he was not permitted to bring for all mitzvoth a she-goat as an alternate for the he-goat). ",
                "3) Here, too, then, do not wonder that the high-priest, even though his offering for all the mitzvoth is the same as his offering on Yom Kippur, still, his offering for all mitzvoth is not the same as his offering for the \"distinct\" mitzvah (and no exclusion clause is needed to tell us that he may not bring an alternate.) But, I might think that \"And he shall bring\" implies that he may bring an alternate; it is, therefore, written \"bullock\" — he brings a bullock and not an alternate.",
                "4) (Vayikra 4:4): \"And he shall place his hand on the head of the bullock\" — to include the Yom Kippur bullock as requiring semichah. Now dos this not follow (without the inclusion clause), viz.: If this (offering), which does not require two confessions, and does not require \"Ana\" (I pray you, etc.\", but only one confession, for his sin, at the time of semichah) — the Yom Kippur bullock, which does require two confessions (one for him alone, and one for him and his brother priests), and does require \"Ana\" — how much more so should it require semichah! — No, it may be so in this case, where the offering is for an ascertained sin, as opposed to the Yom Kippur bullock, where the offering is not for an ascertained sin (but for a possible one). And since this is the case, I might think that it does not require semichah; it is, therefore, written: \"And he shall place his hand on the head of the bullock\" — to include the Yom Kippur bullock as requiring semichah. \"And he shall slaughter the bullock before the L–rd\" — in the north (as all other sin-offerings).",
                "5) (Vayikra 4:5): \"And the anointed Cohein shall take (from the blood of the bullock\"): \"taking\" is written here and elsewhere (Shemoth 24:6: \"And Moses took half of the blood and put it into basins.\") Just as the \"taking\" there refers to (receiving the blood) in a vessel, here, too, (the \"taking\" is) in a vessel.",
                "6) \"And the anointed Cohein\": This tells me only of the (Cohein) anointed with the oil of anointment (i.e., the high-priest). Whence is it derived that the \"many-garmented priest\" (may also receive the blood)? From \"the Cohein.\" If in the end we are to include a different Cohein, why state: \"And the anointed Cohein shall take\"? It is a mitzvah for the anointed Cohein to receive (the blood), but if a different Cohein does so, it is kasher.",
                "7) \"from the blood of the bullock\": of the blood of the life (i.e., the blood with which the life goes out), and not of the blood of the flesh, and not of the blood that is squeezed out. \"from the bullock\": shall he receive it (to exclude blood that spilled to the ground and was gathered up.) \"and he shall bring it (to the tent of meeting\"): a (Cohein that is) kasher, and not one who is pasul. \"to the tent of meeting\" — to exclude his offering for the \"distinct\" mitzvah (i.e., the she-goat of Yom Kippur), that its blood not be sprinkled on the golden altar, (but on the outer altar.)",
                "8) (Vayikra 4:6): \"And the Cohein shall dip his finger into the blood.\": He shall dip and not wipe, (against the wall of the vessel. It must contain enough blood for him to \"dip\" his finger into it.) \"And he shall dip … and he shall sprinkle (seven times\"): for every sprinkling, a dipping (and not one dipping for all the sprinklings.) \"his finger\": \"his finger\" is written here and elsewhere (Vayikra 14:16, in respect to a leper). Just as \"his finger\" there is the most dexterous (i.e., the index finger) of the right hand, so, \"his finger\" here.",
                "9) \"into the blood\": The blood must contain the required amount for dipping (seven dippings, [and not that the needed amount be placed in it for each successive dipping]). \"and he shall sprinkle\": and not drip; \"and he shall sprinkle\": and not fling. \"from the blood\": from the blood previously referred to (i.e., the blood in the receptacle and not that left over on his finger.) \"seven times\": and not seven drops (i.e., the \"sprinklings\" must be complete); \"seven times\": he counts seven times, and not \"one and seven\" (as he counts on Yom Kippur).",
                "10) \"before the L–rd\": I might think (that he sprinkles) over the entire house; it is, therefore, written: \"before the parocheth.\" I might then think (that he sprinkles before the entire parocheth; it is, therefore, written: \"of the holiness.\" We are hereby taught that he directs (the sprinkling) in alignment (with the space) between the staves of the ark.",
                "11) (Vayikra 4:7): \"And the Cohein shall put of the blood\": of the blood previously referred to (i.e., that in the receptacle and not that left over on his finger.) \"on the horns of the altar\": two; and later (Vayikra 4:18) it is written \"horns\" — four all together. These are the words of R. Shimon. R. Yehudah says (Vayikra 4:7): \"which is in the tent of meeting\" — to include all the corners of the tent of meeting. \"the altar of the smoking (of the incense.\"): The (golden) altar is to be inaugurated with smoking (of the incense). \"ketoreth (smoking)\": It (the incense that is smoked) must come from the congregation (and not from an individual.) \"samim\" (incense): It must contain all of its (composite) spices, (failing which the inauguration is invalid.) \"before the L–rd.\" What is the intent of this? R. Nechemiah said: Because we find with the Yom Kippur bullock that he stands in front of the altar (i.e., between the altar and the parocheth), and, in sprinkling, he sprinkles on the parocheth, we might think that here, too, it is so; it is, therefore, written: \"the altar of the smoking of the incense before the L–rd\" — (The altar is before the L–rd,) but the Cohein is not before the L–rd, (but before the altar, which is before the L–rd [i.e., before the (parocheth of the) holy of holies.])",
                "12) \"And all the (remaining) blood of the bullock he shall pour (at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting.\": to include the blood of the Yom Kippur bullock for pouring. \"he shall pour\" — and not drip; \"he shall pour\" — and not sprinkle; \"he shall pour\" — and not fling. \"at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering\": not at the base of the inner (golden) altar. For (without this qualification) I would reason: Does it not follow (that the blood should be poured at the base of the inner altar, viz.): The outer altar \"merits\" the application of blood, and the inner altar \"merits\" the application of blood. Just as with the outer altar — in the place of the application of the blood on its horns (i.e., in the azarah), there is the place for the application of the blood on its base — so, with the inner altar — in the place of the application of the blood on its horns (i.e., in the heichal), there is the place for the blood on its base. (It is, therefore, written [to negate this]: \"at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering.\")",
                "13) Why mention again in respect to (the offering of) the congregation (Ibid. 18): \"at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering\"? To teach that there was no base to the inner altar itself. Why mention again in respect to the nassi (Ibid. 25): \"at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering\"? If the inner altar does not receive its own remnants (i.e., the blood remaining from the bullock of the high-priest, which was sprinkled on the inner altar), should it receive those of the outer altar (i.e., the remnants of the blood of the he-goat of the nassi, which was sprinkled on the outer altar)? Furthermore, is there a base to the inner altar itself? Why, then, state: \"at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering\"? (To teach) that (the law of pouring the remaining blood) at the base of the altar should apply to (whatever blood remains in the vessel from the offerings of) the altar of the burnt-offering. \"At the base of the altar of the burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting\": the western base, (which is opposite the entrance of the heichal)."
            ],
            "Chapter 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 4:8): \"And all the fat of the bullock (of the sin-offering he shall remove from it\"): \"the bullock\": to include the fat of the Yom Kippur bullock for (sacrifice along with) the two kidneys and the lobe above the liver. \"the sin-offering\": to include the Yom Kippur goats for all of the particulars mentioned here. \"he shall remove from it\": he shall remove it while it is (still) attached (and not cut the meat before removing the devoted portions.)",
                "2) (Vayikra 4:10): \"as it is removed from the ox of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings\": What is explicit in \"the sacrifice of the peace-offerings\" which is not explicit here? But (the understanding is): Just as peace-offerings must be intended as such (lishmah), this, too, must be lishmo; just as peace-offerings (shelamim) bring peace (shalom) to the world, this, too, brings peace to the world.",
                "3) — But, then, why not say: Just as shelamim require separation of the fat-tail (for sacrifice), this, too, requires separation of the fat-tail! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"from the ox of the sacrifice\" — I have likened it to the peace-offerings of an ox, (where there is no sacrifice of a fat-tail); I have not likened it to the peace-offerings of a sheep (where there is). R. Yehudah b. Shimon says: Just as shelamim bring peace to the world, so this brings peace to the world.",
                "4) — But why not say: Just as the sacrifice of communal peace-offerings overrides the Sabbath and tumah (ritual uncleanliness [i.e., they are sacrificed even where tumah obtains]), this, too, should override the Sabbath and tumah! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"from the ox of the sacrifice\" — I have likened it to the peace-offerings of an ox; I have not likened it to the peace-offerings of a sheep.",
                "5) (Vayikra 4:10): \"And the Cohein shall smoke them on the altar of the burnt-offering\": For (if not for the exclusion clause), does it not follow (that it should be sacrificed on the inner, golden altar?), viz.: The outer altar merited the application of blood, and the inner altar merited the application of blood. Just as with the outer altar — in the place of (the application of) the blood on its horns, there is (the place of) the smoking of its fats — so, with the inner altar — in the place of (the application of) the blood on its horns, there (should be the place of) the smoking of its fats!",
                "6) But then, how would I satisfy (Shemoth 30:9): \"You shall not bring up upon it (the golden altar) strange incense nor burnt-offering\"? — (I would understand it) as applying to offerings where it had not merited the application of their blood; but with offerings where it had merited the application of their blood, (I would say that) it should merit the smoking of their fats. It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"on the altar of the burnt-offering\" — not on the inner altar."
            ],
            "Chapter 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 4:11): \"And the skin of the bullock and all its flesh, with its head and with its legs and its innards and its dung. (Vayikra 4:12): And he shall take the entire bullock (outside the camp)\": We are hereby taught that he takes it out entirely intact.",
                "2) I might think that he takes it out whole and burns it whole; it is, therefore, written: \"its head and its legs.\" Just as head and legs mentioned elsewhere (in respect to a burnt-offering) have been severed (see Vayikra 1:6), so, here, they must be severed (before they are burned). — But (why not say): Just as head and legs there have been flayed, so, here, too, they must be flayed! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"and its innards and its dung\" (Just as the dung is in its innards, so, the flesh must be \"in its innards, i.e., attached to the skin, unflayed.)",
                "3) \"And he shall take the entire bullock outside the camp\": Outside the three camps, or outside one camp? When it is written in respect to the congregation (Vayikra 1:21): \"And he shall take the bullock outside the camp\" — let this (\"outside the camp\") not be stated, for it is already written (Vayikra 1:21): \"and he shall burn it as he burned the first bullock.\" Why, then, is \"outside the camp\" stated? To add a second camp.",
                "4) And when it is written in respect to the ashes (Vayikra 6:4): \"outside the camp,\" let this not be stated, for it is already written (here): \"to a clean place, where the ashes are poured out.\" If so, why is \"outside the camp\" written? To add a third camp.",
                "5) (Vayikra 4:12): \"to a … place\" — that there be a place designated for it; \"clean\" — that the place be (ritually) clean. And if it is not clean, he must cleanse it so that the place be readied for them for this purpose (i.e., to be burned). \"to the place where the ashes (from the altar) are spilled out.\": that ashes be there, that ashes be brought there (if they are not there already), that it be the place for the ashes (of the burnt-offering). R. Eliezer b. Yaakov said: The place should lend itself to \"pouring\" (i.e., it should be on a slant).",
                "6) \"and he shall burn it\": one (i.e., an offering) that is kasher, and not one that is pasul. \"on wood with fire\": Why state this? I might think that since \"burning\" is mentioned within, (in respect to invalidated offerings [see Vayikra 7:23]), and \"burning\" is mentioned outside, (here) — Just as the first (\"burning\") is with wood kasher for the woodpile (on the altar), so, the second; it is, therefore, written (here): \"wood\" (lit., \"woods\"), to permit all wood. \"wood\" — even stubble, straw, and rakings. \"with fire\" — not lime or embers. (\"Where the ashes are poured out) shall it be burnt\" — even if there are no ashes there; \"shall it be burnt\" — until the fire takes hold of (all of) it (i.e., it must be entirely consumed)."
            ],
            "Section 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 4:13): \"And if (the whole congregation of Israel err\"): \"And if\" \"adds\" (i.e., is secondary) to what precedes, (the section of the high-priest), so that if the bullock of the high-priest and the bullock of the congregation are awaiting (sacrifice), the first takes precedence in all services.",
                "2) \"the congregation of Israel\": I might think the entire congregation is being referred to; it is, therefore, written here \"congregation\" and elsewhere (Numbers 35:24 and Numbers 35:25) \"congregation.\" Just as a \"congregation\" there refers to beth-din, so, \"congregation\" here refers to beth-din. If so, I might think that just as \"congregation\" there refers to (a beth-din of) twenty-three, so, \"congregation\" here. It is, therefore, written: \"the congregation of Israel.\" — the congregation which is \"distinctive\" in Israel. Which one is that? The Great Sanhedrin (of seventy-one), which sits in the lishkath hagazith (the \"chamber of hewn stone\").",
                "3) I would think that if one of them (the beth-din) were a convert or a mamzer or a Nathin or an elder who never had children, they would be liable; it is, therefore, written here \"congregation,\" and elsewhere (Numbers, Ibid.) \"congregation.\" Just as \"congregation\" there refers to (a beth-din where) all are fit to judge, so, \"congregation\" here.",
                "4) I might think that if the mufla (the \"chief justice\") of beth-din were absent, or that if one of them said: \"I do not know,\" or \"you are mistaken,\" they are liable; it is, therefore, written: \"… the congregation of Israel err\" — They are not liable (for a sin-offering) until the entire (beth-din) rules (in error).",
                "5) (\"And if the whole congregation of Israel [the Sanhedrin]) err\": I might think that they are liable (for a sin-offering) for unwittingness (of deed) alone; it is, therefore, written: (If they) \"err and a thing be hid (from the eyes of the assembly\"). They are liable only for \"a thing being hid\" (i.e., an error in judgment) with (i.e., which leads to) an unwitting sin (on the part of the people).",
                "6) Since idolatry was singled out for an independent ruling (i.e., the bringing of a bullock for a burnt-offering and a goat for a sin-offering [for unwitting transgression, as opposed to unwitting transgression of the other mitzvoth, where a bullock is brought for a sin-offering]), I might think that they (the Sanhedrin and the majority of the people) are liable for unwittingness of deed (alone) in respect to it (idolatry, [without error in judgment]). It is, therefore, written here (in respect to idolatry) [Bamidbar 15:24]: (\"If) from the eyes (of the congregation it were done in error\"), and, elsewhere (in respect to other mitzvoth) (Vayikra, Ibid.): (\"and a thing be hid) from the eyes (of the assembly\"). Just as \"from the eyes\" elsewhere refers to beth-din, here, too, (in respect to idolatry) it refers to beth-din. And just as \"from the eyes\" elsewhere refers to hiddenness of thing (i.e., an error in judgment on the part of beth-din) with unwittingness of deed (on the part of the congregation), here, too, (in respect to idolatry) there must be hiddenness of thing and unwittingness of deed.",
                "7) \"and a thing be hid\": Not that the entire mitzvah be hid. How so? If they ruled: There is no (law of) niddah in the Torah, there is no Shabbath in the Torah, there is no idolatry in the Torah — I might think they are liable (for a sin-offering); it is, therefore, written: \"and a thing be hid\" (then there is liability) — not if the entire mitzvah is hidden.",
                "8) But (conversely), if they ruled: There is (a law of) niddah in the Torah, but it is permitted to live with \"shomereth yom keneged yom\" (a woman observing a day of purity after a day of sighting between her normal niddah times); there is (a law of) Shabbath in the Torah, but it is permitted to carry from one (private) domain to another or from a private domain to a public domain, ([in a particular manner which is actually forbidden]); there is a law (against) idolatry in the Torah, but it is permitted to bow down to it, ([in a particular manner which is actually forbidden]) — I might think that they are not liable (for a sin-offering, [beth-din not having erred in an entire \"thing\"]); it is, therefore, written (as a prerequisite for a sin-offering): \"and a thing be hid\" — not (that) the entire body (of the mitzvah must be hidden).",
                "9) Since idolatry was singled out for an independent ruling (see 6 above), I might think that (in the instance of idolatry) they are liable for (beth-din's) erring (even) in the entire mitzvah (i.e., ruling that idolatry itself is permitted). It is, therefore, written here (Vayikra) \"from the eyes\" and elsewhere (Bamidbar, in respect to idolatry), \"from the eyes.\" Just as \"from the eyes\" here excludes (error in respect to) the entire body (of the mitzvah), so, \"from the eyes\" there.",
                "10) If beth-din ruled (erroneously), and they (beth-din themselves) committed (the sin), I might think they are liable. It is, therefore, written: (\"and a thing be hid from the eyes of) the assembly, and they do\" — the ruling relates to beth-din, and the act to the people.",
                "11) (\"and they do one of all) the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": Not the mitzvoth of the king and not the mitzvoth of beth-din. The mitzvoth referred to in respect to the high-priest (i.e., those liable to kareth for intentional transgression) are the mitzvoth referred to here. \"of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": and not all of the mitzvoth of the L–rd — to exclude (the bringing of a sin-offering for) \"hearing the voice of an oath\" (see 5:1), and \"pronouncing with the lips\" (see 5:4), and defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred things (see 5:2) (for all of which one brings a sliding-scale offering [oleh veyored]). \"… which are not to be done, and they are guilty\": Just as punishment is exacted of the individual (if he does not bring his sin-offering), so it is exacted of the congregation (even though they acted on the ruling of beth-din.)",
                "12) (Vayikra 4:14): (\"If the sin became known wherein they have sinned\"): If it became known (to the people) that beth-din had ruled erroneously (in respect to one of two acts, both of which they later performed on their ruling); but they could not ascertain in which ruling they had erred — I might think that they would (nevertheless) be liable (for a sin-offering, knowing, at least, that they had acted on an erroneous ruling of beth-din); it is, therefore, written: \"If the (specific) sin became known,\" and not: \"If the sinners became known.\"",
                "13) \"… wherein they have sinned, then the assembly shall offer, etc.\": If two tribes sinned, they bring two bullocks; if three tribes sinned, they bring three bullocks. — But perhaps the meaning is that two sinners (in an assembly of sinners) bring two bullocks; three sinners bring three bullocks (i.e., each one in the assembly brings a bullock). It is, therefore, written: \"the assembly (shall offer\"). The assembly (and not each individual) is liable, (one bullock for the entire assembly), and each assembly (i.e., tribe) is liable (for itself).",
                "14) How so? If two tribes sinned, they bring two bullocks. If three tribes sinned, they bring three. And the other tribes, which did not sin, bring a bullock (each) because of them. For even those who did not sin bring because of the sinners. These are the words of R. Yehudah.",
                "15) R. Shimon says: If seven tribes sinned, they bring seven bullocks; and beth-din brings a bullock for them (for their erroneous ruling on which they acted), it being written here \"assembly\" (\"the assembly shall offer\"), and, elsewhere (Ibid. 4:13): \"assembly\" (\"and a thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly\"). Just as \"assembly\" there is beth-din, so, here, it is beth-din.",
                "16) R. Meir says: If seven tribes sinned, or most of them, (i.e., the majority of each), and beth-din brings a bullock for them, they are all exempt (from the sin-offering), it being written here \"assembly,\" and elsewhere, \"assembly.\" Just as \"assembly\" there is beth-din, so, here, it is beth-din.",
                "17) R. Shimon b. Elazar said in his name: If six (of the tribes) sinned, and they comprise the majority (of the men) of the populace, or seven, even if they do not comprise the majority, they (beth-din, and not the populace) are liable (for the sin-offering)."
            ],
            "Chapter 6": [
                "1) (Vayikra 4:15): \"And the elders of the congregation (shall place their hands upon the head of the bullock\"): I might think old people from the marketplace; it is, therefore, written: \"the elders of the congregation\" (i.e., beth-din). If \"the elders of the congregation,\" I might think all the elders in the congregation (i.e., even the beth-din of twenty-three); it is, therefore, written \"the congregation,\" the distinctive of the congregation (i.e., the Great Sanhedrin).",
                "2) And how many (elders) are they? \"And they shall place\" — two; \"elders\" — two; beth-din cannot be equi-balanced (a condition which might result in a judicial stalemate) — (one is added), all together, five. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: \"And the elders shall place\" — two; beth-din cannot be equi-balanced — (one is added), all together, three.",
                "3) \"their hands\" — the (two) hands of each one. \"upon the head of the bullock\": The bullock requires semichah, but the idolatry goats do not require semichah. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: The bullock requires semichah by the elders; the idolatry goats do not require semichah by the elders, (but by the Cohein). For R. Shimon says: Every communal sin-offering whose blood enters within (to be sprinkled on the golden altar) requires semichah.",
                "4) \"And he shall slaughter the bullock before the L–rd\" — in the north. It is written here (Vayikra 4:17): \"before the parocheth,\" and elsewhere, (Vayikra 4:6): \"before the parocheth.\" Just as \"parocheth\" there is \"before the parocheth of the holiness\" (i.e., in alignment with the staves of the ark), so, \"parocheth\" here is before the parocheth of the holiness.",
                "5) (Vayikra 4:20): (\"And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock of the sin-offering (of the high-priest); so shall he do with this. And the Cohein shall make atonement for them and it shall be forgiven them.\") \"And he shall do … as he did … and he shall make atonement.\" Why is this mentioned? To \"double\" the sprinklings. To teach that if one (sprinkling) were lacking, he did nothing. This tells me only of the seven sprinklings (on the parocheth), failing (even one of) which, nothing has been done. For seven sprinklings are always categorical requirements. But whence do we derive that the same is true for the four applications (of blood on the inner altar)? From \"so shall he do.\"",
                "6) \"And he shall do with the bullock\": to include the Yom Kippur bullock. \"As he did with the bullock\": to include the bullock of the high-priest. \"the sin-offering\": to include the idolatry goats. — But perhaps I should include the festival goats (for the inner service and for burning)! It is, therefore, written (to exclude the festival goats): \"so shall he do with this.\" Why do you see fit to include the idolatry goats and to exclude the festival goats? After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include the idolatry goats, which are brought for transgression of a known mitzvah (as is the bullock in our verse), and I exclude the festival goats, which are not brought for the transgression of a known mitzvah, (but for possible defilement of sanctuary and sacred objects).",
                "7) \"And the Cohein shall make atonement for them\": even if they (the elders of beth-din) did not perform semichah. \"and it shall be forgiven them\": even if he did not pour the remnants of the blood (at the base of the outer altar.) Why do you see fit to make it kasher in (the absence of) semichah and (of pouring) the remnants of the blood, and pasul in (the absence of any of) the (seven) sprinklings? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I make it kasher in (the absence of) semichah and (of pouring) the remnants of the blood? Because they are not categorical requirements for atonement (in other instances). And I make it pasul in (the absence of) sprinklings because they are categorical requirements for atonement (in other instances).",
                "8) (Vayikra 4:21): \"And he shall take the bullock outside the camp\": outside the three camps (see Chapter 5:4); \"and he shall burn it as he burned the first bullock\": So that if the bullock of the high-priest and the bullock of the congregation are waiting (sacrifice), the first takes precedence in all services (see Section 4:1).",
                "9) I might think that even the idolatry goats precede it (the bullock of the congregation). And it would, indeed, follow (that they should), viz.: If the bullock of an individual (the high-priest) precedes it, should not the idolatry goats of the congregation precede it! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): (\"the first) bullock.\" The bullock is first, and not the idolatry goats.",
                "10) — But perhaps the meaning is: The bullock is to be burnt, but the idolatry goats are not to be burnt! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"It is the sin-offering of the assembly\": It is a general rule (binyan av) that all communal sin-offerings are to be burnt.",
                "11) But are not the festival goats communal sin-offerings? Shall I say they are to be burnt? It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"It\" (is the sin-offering of the assembly.) Now why do you see fit to include the idolatry goats (for burning) and to exclude the festival goats? After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include the idolatry goats, which are brought for transgression of a known mitzvah, and I exclude the festival goats, which are not brought for transgression of a known mitzvah.",
                "12) — But the Yom Kippur bullock is not brought for transgression of a known mitzvah, in spite of which it requires burning! — That (the Yom Kippur bullock) is distinctive in that its blood enters within (the heichal). So, all (offerings) whose blood enters within (are to be burnt). — to exclude these (the festival goats), whose blood does not enter within.",
                "13) \"sin-offering\": All of its services must be intended for a sin-offering. \"It\": to exclude its being slaughtered without intent (for a sin-offering). "
            ],
            "Section 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 4:22): \"If (asher) a leader (nassi) sin [\"asher,\" similar to \"ashrei\" (\"fortunate\")]: R. Yochanan b. Zakkai said: Fortunate is the generation whose nassi brings a sin-offering for his unwitting sin. If he brings a sin-offering for his unwitting sin, how much more so (is he contrite over) his deliberate sin. And if his nassi brings a sin-offering, how much more so is he (the common man) moved to bring a sin-offering (for his sin)! \"a nassi\": I might think the nassi of a tribe, like Nachshon; it is, therefore, written: \"And he do one of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd his G d,\" and, elsewhere, (in respect to a king) (Devarim 17:19): \"so that he may learn to fear the L–rd his G d.\" Just as there, the nassi is one who has no one above him but the L–rd his G d, so, here. (Scripture speaks of) a nassi who has no one over him but the L–rd his G d (i.e., a king).",
                "2) Why \"(If) a nassi shall sin\" (instead of \"sinned\")? For otherwise I might think that he must bring (a he-goat) for (unwitting transgressions committed) prior to his appointment. But (why the exclusion clause?) Is it not a kal vachomer (that he should not bring a he-goat?), viz.: If the high-priest, who brings his sin-offering (a bullock) for (unwitting sins committed) after removal from office, does not bring (a bullock) for (unwitting sins committed) prior to his appointment — a nassi, who does not bring his sin-offering (a he-goat) for (sins committed) after removal from office, how much more so should he not bring it for (sins committed) prior to his appointment! — No, this may be so with the high-priest, who does not bring (his sin-offering, a bullock,) for deed-unwittingness (alone, but only as a result of ruling mistakenly for himself), as opposed to a nassi, who does bring (his sin-offering, a he-goat,) for deed-unwittingness (alone). And since he does, I would think that he brings (a he-goat, too,) for prior sins; it is, therefore, written (to negate this): (\"If a nassi) shall sin,\" after he is appointed; but he does not bring it for those sins which he committed as a lay person.",
                "3) R. Shimon says: If it became known to him (that he had sinned) before he was appointed, and then he was appointed, he is liable (for the sin-offering of a lay person). And if it became known to him after he was appointed, he is (completely) exempt. \"… a nassi shall sin\": I might think that this is a decree; it is, therefore, written \"asher he shall sin,\" (the connotation being) \"when\" (i.e., if) he shall sin.",
                "4) \"and he do one (of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd his G d\"): to make him liable for (a sin-offering) for each one. How so (If he unwittingly ate) two (olive-size pieces of) cheilev (forbidden fat): If of the same kind in two forgetfulness periods [forgetfulness of its being forbidden], or of different kinds in one forgetfulness period, he is liable for two sin-offerings. (If he unwittingly ate) cheilev and blood, whether in one forgetfulness period or in two forgetfulness periods, he is liable for two sin-offerings. (If he unwittingly committed) two transgressions liable to burning:",
                "5) If of the same kind in two forgetfulness periods, or of different kinds in one forgetfulness period, he is liable for two sin-offerings. (If he unwittingly committed one sin liable to) stoning, and (another liable to) burning, whether in one forgetfulness period or in two forgetfulness periods, he is liable for two sin-offerings.",
                "6) (\"and he do one of all) the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": not the mitzvoth of the king and not the mitzvoth of beth-din. The mitzvoth referred to in respect to the high-priest and in respect to the congregation (i.e., those liable to kareth for intentional transgression) are the mitzvoth referred to here. \"of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": and not all of the mitzvoth of the L–rd — to exclude (the bringing of a sin-offering for) \"hearing the voice of an oath\" (see 5:1), and \"pronouncing with the lips\" (see 5:4), and defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred things (see 5:2) (for all of which one brings a sliding-scale offering [oleh veyored]). \"which are not to be done, unwittingly\": We are hereby taught that he brings (a sin-offering) for deed- unwittingness (alone [even without an error in the ruling]). \"and he be guilty\": We are hereby taught that he brings an asham talui (a \"suspended\" guilt-offering, a ram [see 5:17 and 18]) Now (why is the inclusion clause needed?)",
                "7) Is it not a kal vachomer (that he brings it?), viz.: If the individual (i.e., a lay person), who does not bring a male for his (subsequently) known (unwitting) sin, (but a she-lamb or a she-goat), brings an asham talui (for a possible sin). — the nassi, who brings a male (a he-goat) for his known sin, how much more so should he bring an asham talui (a ram). — This is refuted by (the instance of) the high-priest, who brings a male (bullock) for his known sin, notwithstanding which he does not bring an asham talui.",
                "8) So, too, do not wonder if the nassi, who brings a male for his known sin, should not bring an asham talui. It is, therefore, written (to tell us that he does): \"and he be guilty.\"",
                "9) (But why not) adduce it differently (without the inclusion clause?), viz.: The individual is distinct from the congregation (in that he brings a \"definite\" [\"unsuspended\"] guilt-offering), and the nassi is distinct from the congregation (in the same respect). Just as the individual brings an asham talui, so the nassi should bring an asham talui!",
                "10) — But why not go in this direction? The high-priest is distinct from the congregation (in that he brings a \"definite\" guilt-offering), and the nassi is distinct from the congregation (in the same respect). Just as the high-priest does not bring an asham talui, so the nassi should not bring an asham talui!",
                "11) Let us see whom he (the nassi) is most like. We should derive (the rule) for him (the nassi), who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness alone, [without an error in ruling], from him (the individual), who brings (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone); and this should not be refuted by (the instance of) the high-priest, who does not bring (a sin-offering) for deed-unwittingness (alone). — Or go in this direction: We should derive (the rule for) him (the nassi), who brings a male for his known sin from him (the high-priest), who brings a male for his known sin, and this should not be refuted by (the instance of the individual), who does not bring a male for his known sin. It must, therefore, be written: \"and he (the nassi) be guilty,\" to teach us that he brings an asham talui."
            ],
            "Chapter 7": [
                "1) (Vayikra 4:23) (\"If his sin becomes known to him wherein he has sinned in it\"): \"becomes known\" — and not that others tell him. If not for this clause I would say (that he does not bring a sin-offering) only if his bondswoman, (who is \"not fit to enter the congregation\") informs him (that he has sinned). Whence would I derive (the same) even for his wife informing him? I would exclude his wife (even without the clause), for a woman is not kasher to testify. Whence would I derive (the same) even for relatives informing him? I would exclude relatives, who are not kasher to testify. Whence would I derive (the same) even for a single witness? I would exclude a single witness, who can only make one liable for an oath. Whence would I exclude even two witnesses? It is, therefore, written, (because I would not exclude them otherwise): \"becomes known to him\" — and not that others tell him.",
                "2) I might think (that he does not bring a sin-offering) even if he does not refute (the witnesses, but remains silent). It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"if it becomes known.\" I would include (as making him liable for a sin-offering in such an instance, only) two witnesses, who can make him liable to the death penalty (where it applies). Whence would I derive (the same) even for one witness? I would include one witness (even without the clause), for he can make him liable for an oath (where it applies). Whence would I derive (the same) even for two relatives? I would include two relatives, who are kasher to testify for others. Whence would I derive (the same) even for his wife? even for his bondswoman? It is, therefore, written, (because I would not include these otherwise): \"if it becomes known\" (in any instance of his remaining silent).",
                "3) R. Meir said (in refutation of the above [i.e., that even if two witnesses inform him and he refutes them he is not liable for a sin-offering]): If two witnesses can bring him to death — the severe (liability), can they not bring him to an offering — the lesser! R. Yehudah said (in refutation of R. Meir): (This is no kal vachomer, for) How can they tell him: \"Stand and confess,\" when he says: \"I have not sinned!\" (i.e., Atonement is a \"personal\" matter, and if he does not wish it, witnesses cannot force him to it.) R. Shimon said (Also, in refutation of R. Meir's kal vachomer): If he said (to the witnesses): \"I did it intentionally,\" he would not be liable (for a sin-offering, so that, ab initio, witnesses cannot \"bring him\" to a sin-offering).",
                "4) R. Meir says (in answer to R. Shimon): If he says in the beginning (to the witnesses who testified that he sinned): \"I sinned intentionally,\" he is believed (not to bring a sin-offering), but if he disputed with them the whole day (saying that he had not committed the sin at all), and at the end he said: \"I sinned intentionally,\" he is not believed (and must bring a sin-offering as having sinned unwittingly).",
                "5) Similarly, R. Meir said: If they (witnesses) said to him: \"You are a Nazirite\" (i.e., You made a Nazirite vow and [then] you defiled yourself and must now bring an offering for having done so) — If he said: \"I made the vow on condition\" (and the condition was not realized), he is believed. But if he tired them the whole day (saying that he had not made the vow), and, in the end, he said: \"I made the vow on condition,\" he is not believed.",
                "6) (\"If his sin becomes known to him) wherein he has sinned in it\": What is the intent of this? Whence do we derive (the halachah vis-à-vis liability for a sin-offering in a situation in which) his wife (who was) a niddah and his sister were with him in the house and he sinned unwittingly with one of them and did not know with which; Shabbath and Yom Kippur, (one following the other), and he performed a (forbidden) labor on one of them at twilight and did not know on which; cheilev (forbidden fats) and nothar (left-over consecrated flesh) before him, and he ate of one of them (cheilev or nothar) and did not know which (What is the halachah?) R. Eliezer makes him liable for a sin-offering and R. Yehoshua exempts him.",
                "7) R. Eliezer queried him: Whatever the case — If he lived with his wife, a niddah, he is liable; if he lived with his sister he is liable! If he desecrated the Sabbath he is liable; if he desecrated Yom Kippur he is liable! If he ate cheilev he is liable; if he ate nothar he is liable! R. Yehoshua replied: It is written: \"wherein he has sinned\" — He is not liable until his (specific) sin becomes known to him.",
                "8) R. Yossi said: Both agree that if he performs a labor between the two twilights (i.e., beginning a labor on one day and completing it on the next) he is exempt, for I (then) say: He did part of it today and part on the next day. Where do they argue? Where he performs an (entire) labor on one day, but he does not know whether that day was Shabbath or Yom Kippur, or where he performs a (forbidden) labor, but he does not know which labor he performed. R. Eliezer rules that he is liable for a sin-offering, and R. Yehoshua, that he is exempt. R. Yehudah said: R. Yehoshua would exempt him even from an asham talui (see Ibid. 5:17 and 18).",
                "9) R. Shimon and R. Shimon Shazuri say: Both agree that (if he is in doubt about) an act which goes by the same name (i.e., If he knows that he \"plucked figs from a tree,\" but he does not know from which tree he plucked them), he is liable. Where do they argue? Where (he is in doubt about an act where) two names are involved (e.g., if he is in doubt as to whether he \"reaped\" or \"ground\"), in which instance R. Eliezer rules that he is liable for a sin-offering, and R. Yehoshua, that he is exempt. And R. Yehudah says: R. Yehoshua would exempt him even in the instance of an act which goes by the same name.",
                "10) How so? His two wives, niddoth, and his two sisters with him in the house — he intended to live with one and he lived with the other; figs and grapes (on trees) before him — he intended to pluck figs and he plucked grapes, or grapes and he plucked figs; black ones and he plucked white ones, or white ones and he plucked black ones — R. Eliezer rules that he is liable for a sin-offering, and R. Yehoshua, that he is exempt. But why should R. Yehoshua exempt him? (Does he not, in any event, intend to commit a sin?) But if so, (if R. Yehoshua would rule him to be liable in such an instance), what is the intent of \"wherein he has sinned in it\"? (i.e., What is excluded from a sin-offering by \"in it\"?) Mithasek (intending to do) [a permitted thing] and doing [a forbidden one]) is excluded (e.g., intending to cut what is torn off [the tree] and cutting what is attached)."
            ],
            "Section 6": [
                "1) (Vayikra 4:23): \"… then he shall bring (his offering a kid of goats, a male without blemish\"): even after Yom Kippur, (the Yom Kippur goat not exempting him from this offering, for which he remains liable.) \"his offering\": He fulfills his obligation with his offering and not with that of his (deceased) father.",
                "2) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with an offering separated by his father for a (relatively) lesser sin, for a greater sin (of his own), or for a greater sin (of the father), for a lesser sin (of his own), but that he can fulfill his obligation with an offering separated by his father for a lesser sin, for a lesser sin (of his own), or for a greater sin (of the father), for a lesser sin (of his own). It is, therefore, written: \"his offering\": He fulfills his obligation (only) with his offering and not with that of his father.",
                "3) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with his father's offering with a beast that his father separated, from the lesser (of the father) to the greater (of his own), or from the greater to the lesser, or from the greater to the greater, or from the lesser to the lesser — for a son may not shave (after his Naziritism) by offering the beasts separated for his father's Naziritism — but that he does fulfill his obligation with the monies separated by his father from the lesser to the greater, from the greater to the lesser, from the lesser to the lesser, and from the greater to the greater — for he may shave by offering (beasts bought with) his father's monies when they were undesignated (i.e., how much for which offering), but not when they were designated. It is, therefore, written: \"his offering\": He fulfills his obligation with his offering and not with that of his father.",
                "4) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with his father's offering, even with monies that his father separated, and even from the lesser to the lesser or the greater to the greater — but that he does fulfill it with an offering that he separated for himself, even from the greater to the lesser or the lesser to the greater. It is, therefore, written: (Vayikra 4:28): \"his offering … for his sin\" — It must be (separated) for that sin. ",
                "5) I might think that he does not fulfill his obligation with his own offering, with a beast that he separated for himself, even from the lesser to the lesser or the greater to the greater — for if he separated a beast for (a sin-offering for having eaten) cheilev and he offered it for having eaten blood, or (if he separated it) for blood and offered it for cheilev, he is not liable for me'ilah (abuse of sacred objects) and he does not receive atonement, (the first status of the offering not having been changed — so that in our instance, too, the status of the beast is not changed and it cannot serve as a sin-offering for the sin to which it has been transferred); but I might think that he does fulfill his obligation with (transference of) monies that he separated for himself, from the lesser to the lesser or the greater to the greater — for if he separated monies for himself for (an offering for) cheilev, and he brought (the offering) for blood, or for blood and he brought it for cheilev, he is liable for mei'lah and it does effect atonement (its first status having been changed — so that in our instance, too, transference of monies is permitted ab initio). It is, therefore, written: \"his offering … for his sin\" — His offering must be brought (ab initio) for his specific sin (and not transferred from one sin to another).",
                "6) (Vayikra 4:23): \"a he-goat\" — and not a she-goat (even if he cannot find a he-goat). For (without the exclusion clause) is it not a kal vachomer (that a nassi should be able to bring a she-goat), viz.: If a commoner, whose offering for all the mitzvoth (a she-lamb or a she-goat) is not the same as his offering for Yom Kippur (the communal offering, a he-goat), still, his offering for all the mitzvoth is the same as his offering for (unwitting transgression of) idolatry (a she-goat) — then a nassi, whose offering for all the mitzvoth (a he-goat) is the same as his offering for Yom Kippur — how much more so should his offering for all the mitzvoth be the same as his offering for (unwitting transgression of) idolatry (i.e., how much more so should he be able to bring a she-goat for all the mitzvoth if a he-goat could not be found! Therefore, the exclusion clause is necessary) — This is refuted by the (instance of the) high-priest, whose offering (for all the mitzvoth — a bullock) is the same as his offering for Yom Kippur, yet not the same as his offering for (unwitting transgression of) idolatry! (i.e., he cannot bring a she-goat as an alternate for the bullock for all mitzvoth — see Section 3:3)",
                "7) No, this (that a she-goat may not be brought as an alternate) may be so with a high-priest, who does not bring both this (his offering for all the mitzvoth) and that (his idolatry offering) from the flock, (so that a she-goat may not be an alternate for a bullock), as opposed to a nassi who brings both (a he-goat for all mitzvoth, and a she-goat for idolatry) from the flock, and since he brings both from the flock, I would say (without an exclusion clause) that his offering for all the mitzvoth should be the same as his offering for idolatry (i.e., that he should be able to bring a she-goat as an alternate for a he-goat). It is, therefore, written: \"sair\" (a he-goat), and not a she-goat. (Vayikra 4:23): \"izim\" (goats), and not exchanges (i.e., sheep); \"a male,\" and not a tumtum (an animal whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite; \"whole,\" and not blemished.",
                "8) \"And he shall place his hand on the head of the goat\": to include the goat of Nachshon (and the other nesi'im — see Bamidbar 7) for semichah. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: to include the (communal) idolatry goats for semichah (by the elders). For R. Shimon said: Every communal offering whose blood enters within (the heichal) requires semichah.",
                "9) \"And he shall slaughter it\": it, and not its exchange. And below, (Vayikra 4:33): \"and he shall slaughter it\": it, and not its offspring (that it bore after it had been set aside as a sin-offering). From here (i.e., using this as a point of departure) R. Shimon said: Five sin-offerings are consigned to death (i.e., incarcerated until they die): the offspring of a sin-offering, the exchange of a sin-offering, a sin-offering whose owner died, the sin-offering of one who has already received atonement (with a different sin-offering), and a sin-offering that has passed its first year. You cannot say \"the offspring of a sin-offering\" in respect to a communal offering, for the congregation does not bring a female (as an offering); and there is no \"exchange of a sin-offering\" with a communal offering, for the congregation does not bring an exchange; and there is no \"sin-offering whose owner died\" with a communal offering, for the congregation does not die. I might think that a communal sin-offering whose owners received atonement and one which passed its first year are to be consigned to death, but this is not so; for the non-explicit are to be derived from the explicit. Just as the explicit — the offspring of a sin-offering, the exchange of a sin-offering, and a sin-offering whose owner died — relate to an individual sin-offering and not a communal sin-offering, so a sin-offering \"whose owner has received atonement\" and one \"which has passed its year\" relate to an individual and not to a communal sin-offering.",
                "10) \"And he slaughter it in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered.\" Where is the burnt-offering slaughtered? In the north. This, too, is slaughtered in the north. But do I derive this from here? Is it not already written (Vayikra 6:18): \"In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall the sin-offering be slaughtered, before the L–rd\"? Why, then, is this specified here? To make it categorical — that if it were not slaughtered in the north, it is pasul.",
                "11) You say that it was specified for this purpose. But perhaps it was specified to teach that only this (the goat of the nassi) requires north (but not other sin-offerings)! (This cannot be, for) it is written (Vayikra 4:29): \"… and he shall slaughter the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering\" — to include all sin-offerings as requiring slaughtering in the north."
            ],
            "Chapter 8": [
                "1) Or, perhaps it (Vayikra 4:24 — \"and he shall slaughter … in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered\") is meant to include (sin-offerings) that are similar to this (the sin-offering of a nassi), viz.: Just as this is characterized by being a sin-offering that is male, fixed, (and not sliding-scale [oleh veyored (see Vayikra 5:6-7)], atoning, coming from the flock, and coming for a known sin — so, I will include all of that kind. What will I include? The idolatry goats, which are a sin-offering that is male, fixed, atoning, coming from the flock, and coming for a known sin. Or, bullocks that are burnt, which are a sin-offering that is male, fixed, atoning, and coming for a known sin — though they do not come from the flock (i.e., this single exception would not bar their inclusion). Or, the festival goats, which are a sin-offering that is male, fixed, atoning, and coming from the flock — though not coming for a known sin. Since they are all (essentially) \"equally weighted,\" let them all be included (as requiring slaughtering in the north).",
                "2) And (Vayikra 6:18): (\"This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall) the sin-offering be slaughtered\" is meant to include the idolatry sin-offering (of the individual), which is a sin-offering that is fixed, atones, comes from the flock, and comes for a known sin — though not a male (but a she-goat). Or, the Yom Kippur goat, which is a sin-offering that is male, fixed, atones, and comes from the flock — though not for a known sin. Since they are equally weighted, let them both be included.",
                "3) \"… the sin-offering be slaughtered\" is meant to include the sin-offering for defiling the sanctuary, which is a sin-offering that atones, comes from the flock, and comes for a known sin — though it is not male and not fixed (but sliding-scale). Or, the sin-offering of a Nazirite, which is a sin-offering that is fixed, atones, and comes from the flock — though not male, and not for a known sin. Since they are equally weighted, let them both be included. \"… the sin-offering be slaughtered\" is meant to include the sin-offering of a metzora, which, though not a fixed offering (but sliding-scale), effects atonement (and, unlike the goat of the nassi, is not male and does not come for a known sin.)",
                "4) Now that we have included (as requiring \"north\") things that are similar to it (the goat of the nassi) and things that are not similar to it, why is this (requirement) specified (in the instance of the nassi)? To make it a categorical requirement — that if it is not slaughtered in the north it is pasul.",
                "5) I might think that this (the goat of the nassi) alone is pasul if not slaughtered in the north, but (that with) all the other sin-offerings it is a mitzvah to slaughter them in the north, though if they are not slaughtered in the north they are (still) kasher. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 4:29): \"and he shall slaughter the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering.\" This is a binyan av (a general rule) for all sin-offerings — that if they are not slaughtered in the north, they are pasul.",
                "6) (Vayikra 4:24): (\"It is a) sin-offering\": All of its services must be intended for a \"sin-offering.\" \"It (is a sin-offering\"): to exclude (from kashruth) an animal that is not slaughtered as such."
            ],
            "Chapter 9": [
                "1) (Vayikra 4:25): (\"And the Cohein shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger.\") \"with his finger .. and he shall take\" (i.e., \"with his finger\" applies to \"and he shall take\") — that he take with his right ([index] finger [this being derived by identity from the instance of a leper]). \"with his finger\" and he shall place\" (\"it on the horns of the altar\") — that he place with his right (finger, \"with his finger\" applying also to \"and he shall place.\") R. Shimon said: Is it written (\"And he shall take with his) \"hand\"? (or \"finger\" [that we may derive \"right\" by identity from the instance of a leper? R. Shimon holds that a phrase, (in this instance \"with his finger\") is expounded proactively (as applying only to \"and he shall place,\" and not retroactively (as applying to \"and he shall take.\")]. And since \"hand\" (more specifically, \"finger\") is not written (in respect to \"and he shall take\"), if he takes it with his left, it is kasher. \"and he shall place it on the horns of the altar of the burnt-offering\" — and not on the horns of the inner altar. For (without the exclusion clause) would it not follow (that he should place it on the horns of the inner altar), viz.: The high-priest is distinct from the (lay) individual (in that he brings a bullock), and the nassi (is distinct from) the individual (in that he brings a he-goat). Just as with the high-priest, the blood of his sin-offering enters within (the heichal), so with the sin-offering of the nassi, the blood of his sin-offering should enter within. It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"and he shall place it on the horns of the altar of the burnt-offering\" — and not on the horns of the inner altar.",
                "2) And its (remaining) blood he shall pour at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering\" — Apply (the law of) \"base\" (i.e., that the remainder is to be poured at the base) to the altar of the burnt-offering. (i.e., that the remainder of the blood of the burnt-offering is to be poured at the base.) (But perhaps it is meant to teach that the blood of the burnt-offering itself is to be applied [on the horns that are] in alignment with the base [to exclude the southeast corner, where there is no base]!) R. Yishmael said: (The verse is not needed for that, for) if the remainder (of the blood) of the sin-offering, which does not effect atonement is poured at the base, then the \"beginning\" blood of the burnt-offering (i.e., that applied to the horns) which does effect atonement, how much more so should it be applied at (i.e., in alignment with) the base! R. Akiva said: If the remainder of the sin-offering, which does not effect atonement and is not fit for atonement is poured at the base, then the \"beginning\" blood of the burnt-offering, which does effect atonement, and which is fit for atonement — how much more so must it be applied at (i.e., in alignment with) the base! What, then, is the intent of \"at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering\" — that the law of \"base\" (i.e., pouring the remainder at the base) apply to the altar of the burnt-offering.\" \"at the base of the altar of the burnt-offering\" — the southern base.",
                "3) I might think it is the western base, (as it is in the case of inner sin-offerings), but this is to be negated. For just as we find that when he leaves the heichal he pours the (remaining) blood on the first base he chances on, (the western), so, in descending from the altar (after the blood applications of the outer sin-offering), he pours the (remaining) blood on the first base he chances on, (the southern).",
                "4) (Vayikra 4:26): \"And all of its fat he shall smoke upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings.\" What is removed in the sacrifice of the peace-offerings? The fat that is an even layer, membranous, and easily peeled, and the two kidneys and the lobe. Here, too, (the same is removed).",
                "5) \"and the Cohein shall make atonement for him\": (This teaches us that) the atonement must be expressly for him (the owner of the offering), that he not atone for two at one time (by mixing the blood of the two offerings), and that the Cohein (performing the service) may atone for himself (i.e., It is not necessary that another Cohein perform the service for him.) \"and it shall be forgiven him\": his sin is not left \"suspended\" until Yom Kippur, (but he is forgiven completely). I might think that even if he (the Cohein) \"sat\" and did not offer it (the owner nevertheless receives atonement); it is, therefore, written (\"and it shall be forgiven) him\" (i.e., only him for whom the service has been performed.)"
            ],
            "Section 7": [
                "1) (Vayikra 4:27): (\"And if a single soul sin unwittingly of the people of the land in doing it …\"): \"soul,\" \"single,\" \"in doing it\": These (expressions are redundant [in the Hebrew] and) signal (three) exclusions. (One exclusion:) One who acts on his own is liable (for a sin-offering), and not one who acts on the ruling of beth-din.",
                "2) How so? If beth-din (mistakenly) ruled (that it is permitted) to transgress one of all the mitzvoth mentioned in the Torah, and an individual went and acted on their ruling — whether they themselves acted (on their ruling) and he acted with them, whether they acted and he acted after them, whether they did not act and he acted — I might think he is liable; it is, therefore, written: \"soul,\" \"single,\" \"in doing it\" — these are exclusions, (one of which relates to such an instance.) One who acts on his own is liable, and not one who acts on the ruling of beth-din.",
                "3) And R. Shimon adds: If beth-din erred (and most of the congregation sinned unwittingly on the basis of their ruling), and then they found that they had erred and they retracted their ruling — whether they had brought their atonement or had not yet brought it — and an individual (not having heard of their retraction) sinned on the basis of their ruling, he is not liable, (R. Shimon regarding him as \"depending\" upon beth-din). R. Meir says that he is liable, (regarding him [after beth-din's retraction] as \"depending\" upon himself.) R. Eliezer says that it is not clear (whether he is regarded as one or the other [so that he brings an asham talui (a \"suspended\" guilt-offering.)] Sumachos says: He (himself) is \"suspended\" (i.e., he is regarded as having brought an asham talui and need not fear afflictions). If one \"depends\" upon himself he is liable (for a sin-offering); if he \"depends\" upon beth-din he is not liable. How so? If beth-din ruled, and one of them (one of the judges) knew that they had erred — or if a \"seasoned\" disciple were sitting before them, who was himself fit to judge, one like Shimon ben Azzai — and he went and acted on their ruling — I might think he is not liable, (being regarded as \"depending\" on beth-din); it is, therefore, written: \"in doing it\": if one depends on himself ([as in the above instance, assuming that it is permitted to act on a mistaken ruling of beth-din], he is reckoned as \"doing it\" and) he is liable.",
                "4) You say that the exclusions — \"soul,\" \"single,\" \"in doing it\" — were stated for the above. But perhaps they were stated to affirm that only one individual who sinned unwittingly is liable, but two or three who did so are not liable. It is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"the people of the land\" — even if they are many.",
                "5) But I would still say that (only) if a minority of the congregation sin unwittingly, then they are liable (for individual sin-offerings); for beth-din does not bring a bullock for them (in the instance of an erroneous ruling). But if most of the congregation sinned, I would say that they are not liable; for (in the instance of beth-din ruling erroneously and most of the congregation sinning), beth-din brings a bullock for them. It is, therefore, written: \"the people of the land\" — even (if) most of them (sin), even (if) all of them (sin, they are liable for individual sin-offerings).",
                "6) \"the people of the land\": to exclude a nassi and to exclude a high-priest. If you would ask: But a high-priest has already been excluded (from bringing a she-lamb or a she-goat), for he brings a bullock; and a nassi has already been excluded, for he brings a he-goat — (the answer:) I might think (without the exclusion) that he brings a bullock (only) for error in ruling and unwittingness in act, but that for unwittingness in act alone he brings a she-lamb or a she-goat; it is, therefore, written: \"the people of the land\" — to exclude nassi and high-priest.",
                "7) \"of the people of the land\": to exclude a heretic (vis-à-vis the act in which [in this instance] he has sinned unwittingly, a sin-offering not being accepted from him.) R. Shimon b. Yossi said in the name of R. Shimon: What is the intent of (\"And if a single soul sin unwittingly … in doing it, one of the mitzvoth of the L–rd) which may not be done\" \"unwittingly\"? If he would abstain (from the act) if he knew (that it were sinful, and he sinned unwittingly), he is liable (for a sin-offering) for his unwitting sin — to exclude a heretic, who would not abstain (from the act) if he knew (that it were sinful).",
                "8) \"in doing it,\" one (of the mitzvoth of the L–rd\") — one who does all of it, and not one who does part of it. How so? If (on the Sabbath) two took hold of a pitchfork and stacked, of a shuttle and pressed (the weaving rod), of a pen and wrote, of a cane and took it out to the public domain — I might think they were liable (for a sin-offering); it is, therefore, written: \"in doing it, one …\" — one who does all of it (the forbidden labor), and not one who does part.",
                "9) (If two took hold) of a (large) cake of figs and took it out to the public domain, or of a (large) beam, and took it out to the public domain — R. Yehudah says: If one cannot take it out (by himself), and two took it out, they are liable, (each one being regarded as doing a \"whole\" labor). R. Shimon says: Even if one of them cannot take it out (by himself), and two took it out, they are not liable, it being written: \"in doing it, one\" — one who did (all of it) is liable; two or three who did it (together) are not liable.",
                "10) \"the mitzvoth of the L–rd\": and not the mitzvoth of the king and not the mitzvoth of beth-din. The \"mitzvoth\" stated in respect to high-priest, congregation, and nassi are the \"mitzvoth\" referred to here (i.e., the criteria for \"mitzvoth\" are the same.) \"of the mitzvoth of the L–rd,\" and not all of the mitzvoth of the L–rd: to exclude(the bringing of a sin-offering for) \"hearing the voice of an oath\" (see Ibid. 5:1), and \"pronouncing with the lips\" (see 5:4), and defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred things (see 5:2). \"which are not to be done, and he be guilty\": We are hereby taught that he brings a suspended guilt-offering (see 5:18)."
            ],
            "Chapter 10": [
                "1 (Vayikra 4:28): \"If his sin becomes known to him (wherein he sinned\"): And not if others tell him. I might think even if he does not refute (them); it is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"if it becomes known.\"",
                "2) \"then he shall bring as his offering a kid of goats, a female without blemish\": Whence is it derived that it must be of the first year? It follows viz.: He brings a sin-offering, and a leper brings a sin-offering. Just as the sin-offering of the leper is of the first year, so, this. — No, this may be so with the sin-offering of a leper, which requires libations, as opposed to this, which does not. — This is refuted by the Nazirite's sin-offering, which does not require libations, yet must be of the first year. — No, this may be so with the Nazirite's sin-offering, which has other \"bloods\" (i.e., offerings) along with it, as opposed to this, which does not. — This is refuted by the idolatry sin-offering, which does not have other \"bloods\" along with it, yet must be of the first year. — No, this may be so with the idolatry sin-offering, which is fixed (i.e., it must be a she-goat), as opposed to this, which is not fixed (i.e., it may be a lamb); and since it is not fixed, I might say that it need not be of the first year; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 15:29): \"One law shall there be for you for him who does unwittingly.\" All unwitting sin-offerings are being compared to (that for) idolatry. Just as the idolatry sin-offering must be of the first year, so, this. — But (why not say): Just as the idolatry sin-offering is a she-goat, so, this, (the first-year requirement,) applies to a she-goat (and not to he-goats). — \"shall be\" (is superfluous) — to include (in the first-year requirement) the festival he-goats; \"for you\" — to include the idolatry he-goats (of the congregation); \"for him who does\" — to include the he-goat of the nassi.",
                "3) (Vayikra 4:29): \"And he shall place his hand on the head of the sin-offering: to include the idolatry sin-offering (of the individual) as requiring semichah. \"and he shall slaughter the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering:\" It must be slaughtered in the north. \"in the place of the burnt-offering. And he shall take\": (The juxtaposition) indicates that the blood must be received in the north — whence it was derived: If he slaughtered it in the north and received it in the south; in the south, and he received it in the north, it is pasul. It must be slaughtered in the north and (the blood must be) received in the north.",
                "4) \"and all of its [remaining] blood he shall pour (at the base of the altar.\"). And above (Vayikra 4:25) it is written: \"and its [remaining] blood he shall pour\" — whence it is derived: a sin-offering whose blood was received in four vessels, from each of which he applied (blood at a different corner of the altar) — how do we know that they are all poured out at the foundation, (and not just the first, which effects atonement)? From: \"and all of its blood he shall pour.\"",
                "5) I might think that this were so even if he made the four applications from one vessel; it is, therefore, written: \"and its [remaining] blood he shall pour.\" How so? It is poured out at the base, and the others, into the amah (a sewage duct in the Temple)",
                "6) R. Eliezer b'R. Shimon says: Whence do we derive that even if he made all four applications from one vessel (of the four), that they are all poured out at the base? From: \"and all of its blood he shall pour.\"",
                "7) \"And all of its fat he shall remove, as the fat was removed from the sacrifice of the peace-offerings.\" What is removed in the sacrifice of the peace-offering? The fat that is an even layer, membranous, and easily peeled, and the two kidneys and the lobe. Here, too, (the same is removed).",
                "8) (Vayikra 4:26): \"And the Cohein shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.\"): \"And he shall make atonement for him\": (This teaches us that) the atonement must be expressly for him (the owner of the offering), that he not atone for two at one time (by mixing the blood of two offerings), and that the Cohein (performing the service) may atone for himself (i.e., It is not necessary that another Cohein perform the service for him.) \"and it shall be forgiven him\": his sin is not left \"suspended\" until Yom Kippur, (but he is forgiven completely). I might think that even if he (the Cohein) \"sat\" and did not offer it (the owner nevertheless receives atonement); it is, therefore, written (\"and it shall be forgiven) him\" (i.e., only him for whom the service has been performed.)",
                "9) (Vayikra 4:32): \"And if a lamb he brings as his offering for a sin-offering\": R. Shimon says: \"Lambs\" precede \"goats\" in all other places. I might think this is so because they are preferred to them. It is, therefore, written: \"If a lamb he brings as an offering for his sin-offering\" (after \"goats\" [Vayikra 4:28]), to teach that they are equivalent.",
                "10) \"Turtle-doves\" precede \"young pigeons\" in all other places. I might think this is so because they are preferred to them. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 12:6): \"and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove as a sin-offering,\" to teach that they are equivalent. \"father\" precedes \"mother\" in all places. I might think this is so because the honor of one's father is above that of his mother; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 19:3): \"A man, his mother and his father, you shall fear,\" to teach that they are equivalent (in this regard). But the sages have said: The father takes precedence to the mother in all instances, for both he and his mother are obliged to honor his father. "
            ],
            "Chapter 11": [
                "1) (Vayikra 4:32): (\"And if a lamb he shall bring as his offering for a sin-offering, a female without blemish shall he bring it.\") What is the intent of (the redundant) \"he shall bring\"? Whence is it derived that if one sets aside his sin-offering and it is lost, and he sets aside a different one in its stead, and then the first one is found, and both are standing before him — whence is it derived that he may offer whichever he likes? From: \"he shall bring\" - \"he shall bring.\" I might think that he may bring both; it is, therefore, written: \"he shall bring it\" — he brings (only) one and not two.",
                "2) I might think that he may not bring both for two sins, but that he may bring both for one sin; it is, therefore, written: \"he shall bring it\" — he brings (only) one and not two.",
                "3) (Vayikra 4:33): \"And he shall place his hand on the head of the sin-offering\" — to include for semichah: the sin-offering of the Nazirite, of the leper, and of the defiler of the sanctuary. \"And he shall slaughter it as a sin-offering\" — expressly as a sin-offering. (Vayikra 4:34): \"And the Cohein shall take from the blood of the sin-offering\" — expressly for a sin-offering. (Vayikra 4:35): \"And the Cohein shall atone for him for his sin\" — expressly for his sin. — whence they said: If (in sacrificing a sin-offering), he did not slaughter it, or receive (the blood), or bring it (on the altar), or sprinkle it — to that end — it is pasul.",
                "4) (Vayikra 4:35): \"And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat of the lamb is removed from the sacrifice of the peace-offerings.\" What is removed in the sacrifice of the peace-offerings? The fat that is an even layer, membranous, and easily peeled, and the two kidneys and the lobe. Here, too, (the same is removed).",
                "5) (Vayikra 4:35): \"And he shall atone for him,\" (Vayikra 4:31): \"And he shall atone for him,\" (Vayikra 4:26): \"And he shall atone for him.\" What is the intent of this? (i.e., Why three times?) It is needed. For it might be reasoned: Blood is mentioned (as being applied) below (the red line on the altar [i.e., the blood of burnt-offerings, etc.]), and blood is mentioned (as being applied) above the red line (i.e., the blood of sin-offerings, applied on the four horns). Just as with the blood applied below, one application atones, so, with the blood applied above, one application (on one horn) atones.",
                "6) Or, go in this direction: Blood is mentioned (as being applied) within (i.e., the blood of inner sin-offerings), and blood is mentioned (as being applied) outside (i.e., the blood of outer sin-offerings). Just as with the blood applied within, if he omitted one of the applications, he does not atone, so with the blood applied outside — if he omits one of the applications he does not atone.",
                "7) Let us see what it is most like. We derive outer blood (that of the sin-offering [from outer blood, that of the burnt-offering]), and this is not to be refuted by inner (blood). Or, go in this direction: We derive \"blood of the (outer) sin-offering on the horns\" from \"blood of the (inner) sin-offering on the horns,\" and this is not to be refuted by the lower (blood), which is not \"blood of the sin-offering on the horns.\" It is, therefore, written: \"And he shall atone for him\" — even if he made only three applications (instead of four); \"and he shall atone for him\" — even if he made only two applications; \"and he shall atone for him\" — even if he made only one application. "
            ],
            "Section 8": [
                "1) (Vayikra 5:1) (\"And if a soul sinned and heard the voice of an oath, and he was a witness or saw or knew — if he does not tell, then he shall bear his sin.\") If it were written (only) \"he heard the voice,\" and not \"of an oath,\" I might think the intent of the verse to be that if one overheard a man telling his neighbor \"Let us go and serve idolatry,\" and he could have testified in beth-din to this effect and failed to do so, (\"I might think\") that he is liable. — Now if one who (only) says this (\"Let us go and serve, etc.\") is not liable, should the one who just overhears it be liable (for withholding testimony)! It must be, then, that the verse is speaking of one being besworn in beth-din not to withhold testimony, and withholding it, in which instance the sayer (i.e., the beswearer himself) is not liable (even if he knows that the oath will be violated) and the hearer is liable (for its violation).",
                "2) You, too, do not wonder that even though one who tells his neighbor \"Let us go and serve idolatry\" is not liable, the hearer (if he does not testify to this) is liable. To this end, it is written \"and he heard the voice of an alah,\" an alah being an oath, viz. (Bamidbar 5:21): \"Then the Cohein shall beswear the woman with the oath of the alah.\" This tells me only of an oath accompanied by an alah (lit., a curse). Whence do I derive the same for an oath unaccompanied by an alah? From \"and heard the alah\" - \"and heard the voice\" (\"of an oath\"), equating an oath unaccompanied by an alah to an oath accompanied by an alah.",
                "3) R. Akiva says: This tells me only of an instance in which he is besworn by others intentionally (this being the common instance). Whence do I derive the same for an instance in which he is besworn by others unintentionally or by himself unintentionally? From: \"and he was a witness or saw or knew,\" which connotes all of the above.",
                "4) If one sent to them (the witnesses) his son, his servant or his messenger (to make his claim) or if the claimee said to them: \"I beswear you that if you know testimony for him (the claimant) you come and testify for him,\" I might think that they are liable; it is, therefore, written \"if he does not tell, he shall bear his sin,\" (\"not\" being written plene (lamed, vav, aleph), to be expounded: \"If to him (lamed vav), i.e., to the claimant, he dos not (lamed aleph) tell, etc.\")",
                "5) If one said to two (witnesses): I beswear you and you that if you have testimony for me that you come and testify for me, and they have testimony for him — one witness from the mouth of another witness, or if one of them were kin (to the claimant) or unfit (to testify) — I might think that they were liable, (being acceptable to the claimee; for if not, this is simply an instance of denial of the claim), it is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"if he does not tell (i.e., bear witness)\" — when they are fit to bear witness, and not when they are unfit to do so.",
                "6) If one arose in the synagogue and said (to the congregation containing his witnesses): \"I beswear you if you have testimony for me, that you come and testify for me,\" I would think that if they denied it (in beth-din) they were liable; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"and he heard the voice of an oath,\" implying that he must designate them, specifically.",
                "7) If one said (beswearing them): \"When you have testimony for me come and testify for me,\" (and they did not come), I might think that they were liable. It is, therefore, written \"and he heard the voice of an oath and he was (i.e., had been) a witness\" — when the witnessing preceded the oath and not when the oath preceded the witnessing.",
                "8) And whence is it derived that the claim in question is only a money claim? R. Eliezer said: \"Ors are stated here (\"or saw or knew\") and \"ors\" are stated in respect to (denying) a pledge [pikadon] (Vayikra 5:21: \"or (denying) a deposit or a theft\"). Just as the \"ors\" stated in respect to a pledge involve only money claims, so the \"ors\" stated here (in respect to withholding testimony) involve only money claims. — This is refuted by the \"ors\" of a murderer (Bamidbar 35:20): \"or if in hatred he thrust him or hurled at him in ambush\"), which are \"ors\" but do not involve money claims. —",
                "9) We derive \"ors\" accompanied by an oath (as in our case) from \"ors\" accompanied by an oath (as in the case of a pledge), and the \"ors\" of a murderer are no refutation, their not being accompanied by an oath. — This is refuted by the \"ors\" of sotah (Bamidbar 5:14: \"or there had passed over him a spirit of rancor\" (Bamidbar 5:30) \"or a man if there pass over him, etc.\"), which are \"ors\" accompanied by an oath but do not involve money claims.",
                "10) — We derive \"ors\" accompanied by an oath (as in our case) and not involving a Cohein from \"ors\" accompanied by an oath and not involving a Cohein (as in the case of a pledge). And this is not refuted by the \"ors\" of a murderer, which are not accompanied by an oath. And it is not refuted by the \"ors\" of sotah, which, though accompanied by an oath, involve a Cohein."
            ],
            "Chapter 12": [
                "1) R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of \"and he was a witness or saw or knew, if he does not tell, then he shall bear his sin\"? It applies only to testimony that can consist in seeing without knowing or in knowing without seeing, and this obtains only with a monetary claim. (\"seeing without knowing\": as when one says to another: \"I counted out a maneh to you in the presence of so and so, who witnessed this, but I did not apprise them whether it were a gift or a loan or a pledge,\" and the other says: \"Let them come and testify that you counted it out to me in their presence and I will pay you.\" (\"knowing without seeing\": as when one says to another: \"You admitted owing me a maneh in the presence of so and so,\" and the other says: \"Let them come and testify to this, and I will pay you.\" R. Akiva says (on Vayikra 5:5: \"and he be guilty for one of these\"): There are among these that for which he is liable (for withholding testimony) and that for which he is exempt. How so? If money is claimed, he is liable; if anything else, he is exempt.",
                "2) R. Shimon says: He is liable here (for an offering in the instance of violating the oath to the witnesses) and he is liable in the instance of a pledge (Vayikra 5 verse 21). Just as the instance of a pledge relates only to a monetary claim, here, too, only a monetary claim is intended.",
                "3) What is more, this follows a fortiori, viz.: If in the instance of a pledge, where women are equated with men, kin with non-kin, those unfit (for testimony) with those fit (i.e., it makes no difference whether the claimee were a woman, or kin of the claimant or unfit for testimony), and there is liability for each (oath, i.e., if he were besworn and he denied five times, he is liable for violation of each oath), and (liability for denial) obtains both (with denial) before beth-din and not before beth-din — (\"If in the instance of a pledge\") liability obtains only with money claims, here (in the instance of withholding testimony), where women are not equated with men, kin with non-kin, fit with unfit (viz. Vayikra 8:5), and there is liability for only one denial and only before beth-din (viz. Vayikra 8:6), how much more so does liability obtain only with money claims! — No, (this a fortiori argument can be refuted, viz.:) This (limitation to monetary claims) applies only in the instance of a pledge, where the besworn (by others, — where there is no liability —) is not equated with his swearing (on his own, where there is liability) and where deliberate (violation of the oath) is not equated with inadvertent (violation), whereas here (in the instance of withholding testimony), where the besworn is equated with his (own) swearing and deliberate (violation) with inadvertent, (I would say that) it (this instance) obtains both with monetary and with non-monetary claims. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written here (Vayikra 5:1): \"if a soul sinned,\" and there (in respect to a pledge, Vayikra 5:21): \"if a soul sinned\" — Just as the latter obtains only with a monetary claim, so the former.",
                "4) (If one says:) \"I beswear you if you do not come and bear witness for me that this and this man said he would give me two hundred zuz and he did not give it to me,\" this constitutes a money claim. I might think, then, that they would be liable (for the witnesses' oath); it is therefore, (to negate this) written (in both instances): \"if a soul sinned\" - \"if a soul sinned,\" for (purposes of) identity — Just as in the instance of \"if a soul sinned\" there (a pledge), he claims money and he has the right (to do so), the instance of \"if a soul sinned\" here (the witnesses' oath) too, must be one in which he claims money and has the right (to do so — to exclude an instance such as the above, where he (the claimant) has no such right by law, the claimee having the right to retract (his agreement to give him the money).",
                "5) If he beswore them five times outside of beth-din (and they denied having witnessed [for each oath]) and they came before beth-din and admitted (having witnessed), I might think that they were liable; it is, therefore, written: \"and he was a witness or saw or knew — if he does not tell, then he shall bear his sin\" — This applies only in an instance where if he told, the other (the claimee) would be liable to pay. Which instance is that? That of (telling in) beth-din.",
                "6) From here they adduced: If he beswore them outside (of beth-din) and they denied, and they came to beth-din and admitted, they are not liable (for violation of the oath). (If he beswore them) outside and they admitted, and they came to beth-din and denied, they are liable, (the denial having been in beth-din). If he beswore them five times outside of beth-din, (and they denied), and they came to beth-din and admitted, they are not liable. If they denied (in beth-din), they are liable for (denial of) each oath. If he beswore them before beth-din five times, and they denied, they are liable for only one oath. R. Shimon said: Why is this so? Because (once they denied in beth-din,) they can no longer claim otherwise.",
                "7) If both denied in the same interval, they are both liable. If one after the other, the first is liable, (but not the second, for once the first denied (having witnessed), one witness is unfit to testify by himself.) If one denied and the other admitted, the denier is liable. If there were two sets of witnesses — If the first denied, and then the second, they are both liable, for the testimony can stand with both of them."
            ],
            "Chapter 13": [
                "1) (Vayikra 5:2) (\"Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, or the carcass of an unclean animal, or the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of an unclean creeping thing, and it be hidden from him, and he is unclean and he is guilty\") \"Or if a soul touch any unclean thing\": The early masters were wont to say: I might think that even if one touched something that had touched an unclean thing (tamei), he was liable (for entering the sanctuary or eating consecrated food); it is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"the carcass of an unclean animal,\" \"the carcass of an unclean beast,\" \"the carcass of an unclean creeping thing\" — Just as these are unique in being avoth hatumah (primary causes of tumah), (so all that are avoth hatumah are included), excluding those which are not av hatumah).",
                "2) R. Akiva said: I might think that even if one touched food, drink, or earthenware vessels (that had become tamei) he was liable, these are excluded, not being avoth hatumah.",
                "3) Or, if you learn a thing in one way (viz., binyan av, see Hermeneutical Principles 3), you learn it in all of its aspects — Just as an unclean beast is unique in that touching it is distinct from carrying it (i.e., by touching it, one's garments do not become tamei, whereas by carrying it they do) and it becomes an av hatumah to render tamei both man and beast, so I include only those things which are like it. What do I include? The qualifying amount of the sprinkling waters of the red heifer and the saddle (mercav) (of a zav, one who is unclean by reason of a seminal emission), the touching of which is distinct from carrying them, (touching not rendering one's garments unclean; carrying, doing so) and which become an av hatumah to render tamei both man and beast. \"any unclean thing\" includes the chair and the couch (of a zav), whose touching is like its carrying and which become an av hatumah to render a man tamei to make his garments tamei. \"unclean\" includes the burner of the red heifer, and bullocks (the bullock of the anointed high-priest, the bullock of \"forgetfulness\" (helem davar) of the congregation, and the Yom Kippur bullock), and the sender-away of the (Yom Kippur) scape-goat, without touching, (a man who touches them not becoming tamei). \"any unclean thing\" includes (for tumah liability in entering the sanctuary a man who walks under unclean) overhanging boughs, (under unclean) jutting stones (adjoining a cemetery), and (who touches) semen (even though carrying it does not confer tumah). These are the words of R. Yehudah.",
                "4) (\"the carcass of an unclean animal\":) Why is \"unclean\" needed? (For even the carcass of a clean animal confers tumah!) I might think that (touching) only a whole animal is intended. How do I know that (touching) only an olive-size of it suffices? From \"unclean\" (i.e., a size that is susceptible of that term.)",
                "5) (\"the carcass of an unclean beast\":) Why is \"unclean\" needed? I might think that only the carcass itself is intended. How do I know that (touching) the attached horns and hair is included? From \"unclean.\"",
                "6) (\"the carcass of an unclean creeping thing [sheretz]\":) Why is \"unclean\" needed? I might think that only its flesh is intended. How do I know that (touching) its blood, its combination (e.g., half a lentil-size of one sheretz with half a lentil-size of another) and its admixture (with other species of sheretz) is included? From \"unclean.\" ",
                "7) (\"and it be hidden from him\":) What is hidden from him? Uncleanliness (i.e., his having become unclean)? Or the sanctuary (i.e., the fact that he had entered the sanctuary)? It is, therefore, written (in clarification) \"and it be hidden from him and he is unclean.\" It is for hiddenness of uncleanliness that he is liable and not for hiddenness of the sanctuary. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Eliezer cites \"a sheretz and it be hidden from him.\" It is for hiddenness of the sheretz that he is liable and not for the hiddenness of the sanctuary. R. Yishmael says: \"and it be hidden from him\" is written twice (verses 2 and 3), to make him liable for hiddenness (i.e., non-awareness) of uncleanliness and hiddenness of the sanctuary.",
                "8) (Vayikra 5:3) (\"or if he touch the uncleanliness of a man, for all his uncleanliness in which he becomes unclean\") \"a man\" — this is the dead person himself; \"with the uncleanliness of a man\" — this is one who has come in contact with a body; \"his uncleanliness\" — to include zavim (men with genital discharges), zavoth (women with genital discharges), menstruating women (niddoth), and women who had given birth. This tells me only of their stringent days (i.e., the days of their sighting). Whence do I derive the same for their less stringent (\"white\") days? From \"for all his uncleanliness.\" \"in (which) he becomes unclean\" — to include one who cohabits with a niddah. \"bah\" (lit., \"in it\") — to include one who swallows the carcass of a clean bird.",
                "9) If the less stringent instances (the tumah of sheretz and carcass) are mentioned (as being liable for an offering), why need the more stringent ones (dead body, zav and zavah) be mentioned? If only the less stringent instances were mentioned, I would say that in these instances he is liable for a sliding-scale (oleh veyored) offering and in the stringent instances, for a fixed offering. The stringent instances must, therefore, be mentioned. Or if (only) the stringent ones and not the les stringent ones were mentioned, I would say that he is liable in the stringent instances but not in the less stringent ones. Therefore, both the less stringent and the stringent instances must be mentioned.",
                "10) And whence is it derived that Scripture here speaks only of tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects, (but if he became tamei and did not thereafter eat consecrated food he is not liable)? It warned and punished for tumah and made one liable for an offering for tumah. Just as the punishment and the warning for tumah stated later (in Emor) were for the tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects, so the offering liability here is for tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects.",
                "11) And whence is it derived that he is not liable until there be awareness in the beginning and awareness in the end and \"hiddenness\" in the middle? From its being written twice (verses 2 and 3) \"and it be hidden from him,\" (the implication being that he was aware in the beginning and in the end). These are the words of R. Akiva. Rebbi says: \"and it be hidden from him\" implies that before that he was aware; \"and he knew\" makes it two awarenesses."
            ],
            "Section 9": [
                "1) (Vayikra 5:4) (\"Or if a soul swear, to pronounce with the lips, to do harm or to do good, for all that a man will pronounce with an oath, and it be hidden from him, and he knew, and he is guilty in one of these\") I might think (the intent of the verse to be that if one violates any pronouncement of the lips, including) a vow to become a Nazir or to bring a sacrifice, he is liable for an offering; it is, therefore, written: \"if a soul swear\" — It is for an oath that one is liable, and not for the others.",
                "2) I might think that if one thought (the oath) in his heart (but did not utter it) he were liable; it is, therefore, written \"with the lips,\" not with the heart. Or I might think that I exclude what is resolved in one's heart (as in an instance when one resolves upon a loaf of wheat, but utters (only) \"a loaf.\" It is, therefore, written \"to utter\" (i.e., so long as there is no contradiction between the utterance and the resolution of the heart, the resolution stands.)",
                "3) I might think that if one swore to do harm to others (but did not do so) he were liable (for an offering); it is, therefore, written \"to do harm or to do good.\" Just as doing good is one's option — to exclude one's swearing to do harm to others (which is not his option).",
                "4) I might think that if one thought to harm himself (but did not do so) he were exempt (from an offering); it is, therefore, written \"to do harm or to do good.\" Just as doing good is one's option, so doing harm is one's option — to include in liability (for an offering) one who swears to harm himself.",
                "5) I might think that I exclude (from offering-liability) even one who swears to do good to others — \"or to do good\" includes doing good to others.",
                "6) Or I might think that if one swore to transgress a mitzvah (but did not do so) he were liable (for an offering); it is, therefore, written: \"to do harm or to do good\" — Just as doing good is optional, so doing harm is optional, which excludes one who swears to transgress a mitzvah (which is mandatory).",
                "7) I would exclude swearing to transgress a mitzvah, but I would not exclude swearing to fulfill a mitzvah from liability (for non-fulfillment), as per R. Yehudah b. Betheirah, viz.: If for something optional against which he is not forsworn from Mount Sinai he is liable, does it not follow a fortiori that for something against which he is forsworn from Mount Sinai he should be liable (for breaking his oath)! — No, in an optional oath (as in \"to do harm or to do good\") the positive (e.g., to eat) is equated with the negative (not to eat) as opposed to a mitzvah oath, where the positive (e.g., to eat matzah) is not equated with the negative (not to eat matzah).",
                "8) \"to do harm or to do good\": This tells me only of things which are susceptible of \"harm\" and \"good.\" Whence do I derive the same for (neutral) things, which are not thus susceptible? From (the superfluous) \"that a man will pronounce.\" This tells me only of (an oath to do something in) the future. Whence do I derive that this (also) applies to (an oath of something having been done in) the past? From \"all that a man will pronounce.\" These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says \"to do harm or to do good\" connotes the future. R. Akiva: If so, this should apply only to (matters of) \"harm and good.\" Whence do I derive that it applies (also) to other (i.e., neutral) matters? R. Yishmael: From the superfluous verse (\"that a man will pronounce\"). R. Akiva: If the verse is superfluous for this (neutral matters), it is also superfluous for that (an oath re the past).",
                "9) \"a man … with an oath\": This excludes one who swore falsely by mistake (assuming that he was telling the truth). \"and it be hidden from him\": This excludes one who swore falsely deliberately (and repented of it, in which instance he does not bring an offering). \"and it be hidden from him\": That the oath was \"hidden\" (i.e., forgotten by) him (e.g., \"Did I say that I will or that I will not eat?\") or that the object of the oath were \"hidden\" from him (\"Did I say 'wheat bread' or 'barley bread'?\") — \"an oath and it be hidden from him\" implies that he is liable for \"hiddenness\" of the oath but not for \"hiddenness\" of the object."
            ],
            "Chapter 14": [
                "1) (Vayikra 5:5): \"Then it shall be, if he be guilty for one of these, then he shall confess where he has sinned.\" Whence is it derived that he is liable for each one of these (\"hearing the voice, etc.\") utterance of the lips, and tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects) individually, and that all three are not required for liability? From \"for one.\" Each one is implied (in all of its possible applications).",
                "2) I might think that for tumah of the sanctuary and of its consecrated objects, which is punishable by kareth (\"cutting-off\"), there is liability for each one, whereas for \"hearing of the voice\" and \"utterance of the lips\" which are not punishable by kareth, there is liability for one (offering) alone; it is, therefore, written \"for one.\" Each one is implied.",
                "3) I might think that for tumah of the sanctuary and of its consecrated objects there is liability for one alone. Whence do I derive that there is liability for each even in one act of \"hiddenness\"? From \"for one.\" Each one is implied.",
                "4) I might think that for all of \"tumah of the sanctuary\" he is liable only for one (even if he entered and returned and entered (again) and became aware in the middle)",
                "5) — How so? If he became tamei and was aware of it, and the tumah was \"hidden\" from him, and he entered the sanctuary and left, and became aware of it, whence is it derived that he is liable for each one (i.e., for each episode of awareness)? From \"for one.\" Each one is implied. ",
                "6) I might think that for all of \"tumah of consecrated objects\" he is liable only for one; it is, therefore, written \"for one.\" Each one is implied. How so? If he became tamei and then became aware, and then it were hidden from him, and he ate consecrated food, and then became aware, whence is it derived that he is liable for each one? From \"for one.\" For each one is implied.",
                "7) I might think that for tumah of the sanctuary and of its consecrated objects, which are subject to kareth, he is liable for each one; but for \"hearing the voice\" or \"utterance of the lips,\" which are not subject to kareth, he is liable for only one —"
            ],
            "Chapter 15": [
                "1) How so? If five say to another: Come and testify for us that so and so owes us a pledge, a deposit, a theft, and a lost object, and he says: I swear that I have no testimony for you that he owes you a pledge, a deposit, a theft, and a lost object — Whence is it derived that he is liable for each one. From: \"for one,\" etc.",
                "2) I might think that this is so because they are five. Whence do I know that the same applies in the instance of only one claimant? From: \"for one,\" etc.",
                "3) I might think that this is so because there are many different claims. Whence do I derive that the same applies even if one says to him: Come and testify for me that so and so owes me wheat, barley, and spelt, etc. … From \"for one,\" etc.",
                "4) I might think that this is so because they are many species. Whence do I derive that the same applies even if he says to him: Come and testify for me that so and so owes me wheat that I deposited with him last night, and before that, etc. … From \"for one,\" etc.",
                "5) I might think that in the instance of a court-imposed oath (\"hearing the voice,\" viz. Vayikra 5:1), where deliberate violation (of the oath) is equated with unwitting violation (in respect to bringing an offering,\" \"and it be hidden\" not being written in that regard), he is liable for each one, but in the instance of an oath of pronouncement, (viz. Vayikra 5:4) where deliberate violation is not equated with unwitting violation, \"and it be hidden\" (i.e., unwitting) being written in that regard), I might think that he is liable for one (offering) alone; it is, therefore, (to negate this), written (Vayikra 5:5): \"for one,\" to impose liability for each one.",
                "6) How so? (in the instance of an oath of pronouncement) (If one said:) I swear that I will not eat a wheat loaf and a barley loaf and a spelt loaf and he did eat them, whence is it derived that he is liable for each one, etc.",
                "7) (If one said:) I swear that I will not drink, wine and oil and honey, etc."
            ],
            "Chapter 16": [
                "1) (\"Or if he find a lost object and deny it, and swear falsely, in one of all [these things] wherein a man sins\" [Vayikra 5:22]) And whence is it derived that he (sometimes) brings one (offering) for many things? From \"in one.\"",
                "2) How so? If one said: I swear that I will not drink, and he drank many beverages, whence is it derived that he is liable for only one (oath)? From \"in one,\" etc.",
                "3) I swear that I will not eat and he ate many foods, etc.",
                "4) I might think that in the instance of an oath of pronouncement, where deliberate violation is not equated with unwitting violation, he is liable for one alone, but in a court-imposed oath, where deliberate violation is equated with unwitting violation, he is liable for each one; it is, therefore, written \"in one,\" etc.",
                "5) How so? If one said to another: Come and testify for me that so and so owes me wheat that I deposited with him last night and before that and he says: I have no testimony for you — Whence is it derived that he is liable for one alone? etc.",
                "6) I might think that this is so because it is only one species. Whence do I derive that the same applies even if he says to him: Come and testify for me that so and so owes me wheat and barley and spelt, and he says: I swear that I have no testimony for you — Whence is it derived that he is liable for one alone? From, etc.",
                "7) I might think that they are different types of (one) claim. Whence do I derive that the same applies even if he says to him: Come and testify for me that so and so owes me a pledge and a deposit and a theft and a lost object and he swears: I have no testimony for you — Whence is it derived that he is liable for one alone? From, etc.",
                "8) I might think that this is so because he is only one claimant. Whence do I derive that the same applies even if five say to him: Come and testify for us that so and so owes us a pledge, etc.",
                "9) I might think that in the instance of a court-imposed oath and an oath of pronouncement, (violation of) which is not punishable by kareth, he is liable for one alone; but in the instance of tumah of the sanctuary and of its consecrated objects, which is punishable by kareth, he is liable for each one, etc.",
                "10) How so? If he became tamei and was aware of it and ate consecrated food, and (again) ate consecrated food, and in the end he became aware — Whence is it derived that he is liable for one alone, etc.",
                "11) If he became tamei and was aware of it, and the tumah was hidden from him and he entered the sanctuary and left, and (again) entered the sanctuary and left and was not aware of it, and in the end he became aware — Whence is it derived that he is liable for one alone, etc."
            ],
            "Chapter 17": [
                "1) This is the rule: A general (unqualified) statement (e.g., \"I swear that I will not drink\") requires (only) one offering. A specific (qualified) statement (e.g., \"I swear that I will not drink wine and oil and honey) requires an offering for each one. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: If he said: (I have no testimony) \"not for you and not for you and not for you,\" he requires an offering for each one. R. Elazar says: He must say (for separate offerings): \"… not for you and not for you and not for you, I swear\" — \"I swear\" must be stated at the end. R. Shimon says: He must say \"I swear\" for each one. R. Akiva says (on 5:5 \"if he be guilty for one of these\"): There are among these that for which he is liable and that for which he is not liable, viz.:",
                "2) Because it is written (Vayikra 11:8) \"and their carcass you shall not touch,\" I might think that Israelites are liable for touching a carcass; it is, therefore, written \"of these\": there are among these that for which he is liable and that for which he is not liable, (and)",
                "3) I would exclude (from liability, Israelites,) who are not exhorted against primary states of tumah (avoth hatumah) all year round, but I would not exclude Cohanim, who are exhorted against avoth hatumah all year round, viz. (Vayikra 21:1): \"Speak to the Cohanim, the sons of Aaron and say to them: 'For a dead body he (a Cohein) shall not become unclean among his people'\"; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"of these\" (and they are excluded from liability for an offering in touching a carcass.)",
                "4) R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: Because it is written (Devarim 26:14): \"I did not eat of it (ma'aser) in my mourning and I did not remove of it in uncleanliness,\" I might think that Israelites who ate ma'aser in mourning or in tumah would be liable for this offering; it is therefore, written \"of these.\"",
                "5) I would exclude (from liability, eating) ma'aser (in a state of tumah), for it is not punishable by death, but I would not exclude (from an offering eating) terumah (in a state of tumah), it being written of that (Vayikra 22:9): \"And they (the Cohanim) will die for it if they profane it\"; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"of these” — there are among these that for which he is liable and that for which he is not liable."
            ],
            "Section 10": [
                "1) (Vayikra 5:5) (\"Then it shall be, if he be guilty for one of these, then he shall confess upon it wherein he has sinned (Vayikra 5:6) And he shall bring his guilt-offering to the L–rd for his sin, etc.\") \"Then it shall be\" — Immediately, what shall he do? \"he shall bring\" the offering (and then confess, even though in the verse \"confess\" appears before \"bring.\") Whence is it derived that he needs confession? From \"then he shall confess.\" And whence is it derived that confession is over a living animal? It is written here \"confess\" and it is written there (Vayikra 16:21, in respect to the sent-away he-goat of Yom Kippur) \"confess.\" Just as there, the confession is over a living animal, here, too, it is over a living animal.",
                "2) Whence is it derived that (the confession) requires placing of the hands (semichah, upon the head of the animal)? \"upon it\" is written here and \"upon it\" is written there (Vayikra 16:2). Just as there semichah is required, here, too, semichah is required.",
                "3) \"And he shall bring\": Even after Yom Kippur. (For Yom Kippur atones only for transgressions that are not known [to the sinner] upon it) \"his guilt-offering\": \"his guilt-offering\" is written here and elsewhere (Vayikra 5:19): (\"It is a guilt-offering; a guilt-offering, a guilt-offering to the L–rd.\") Just as with his guilt-offering there, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering, so, with his guilt-offering here, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering.",
                "4) \"his guilt-offering for his sin\": Just as with his guilt-offering, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering, so, with his sin-offering, its surplus monies are used for a donative offering.",
                "5) (Vayikra 5:5): \"a female\" — not a tumtum (of unknown sex) or hermaphrodite. \"flock\" — anything that can be subsumed in \"flock,\" even one that is mute, imbecilic, or dwarfish. \"of the flock\" — not a pilgess (a thirteen month sheep, see Chapter 10:2). \"a lamb or a goat-kid, for a sin-offering\": What does this come to teach us? If that if he did not find a lamb, he may bring a goat-kid, does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If for a sin-offering (a lamb) that is brought for all of the mitzvoth, a bird may not be substituted but a goat-kid may be substituted (viz. Vayikra 4:32) — this offering, for which a bird may be substituted (viz. Vayikra 5:7), a goat-kid may not be substituted? (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?)",
                "6) For this (a fortiori argument) is refuted by (the sin-offering of) a leper (a lamb), where a bird may be substituted, but not a goat-kid.",
                "7) No, (this is no refutation). This may be so in the instance of (the sin-offering of) a leper, where a tenth of an ephah (of fine flour) may not be substituted, whereas in our instance, if it (the lamb) went down to a tenth of an ephah (viz. 5:8), (would you say that) it would not go down to a goat-kid? If so, why is it necessary to state \"a lamb or a goat-kid, for a sin-offering\"? For it would follow a fortiori that (in our case) a burnt-offering should come with it (the sin-offering), viz.:",
                "8) Does it not follow? This one (the poor man in our case) brings what his hand can attain, and (the poor man in the case of) the leper brings what his hand can attain. Just as the leper brings two in place of two (i.e., in the instance of poverty he brings two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, respectively, in place of the (rich man's) he-lamb for a burnt-offering and ewe-lambs for a sin-offering — here (in our case), too, (I would think that) since the poor man brings two, the rich man also should bring two, (one for a burnt-offering, aside from the one for the sin-offering). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"a lamb or a goat-kid for a sin-offering.\" He brings one and not two.",
                "9) (In respect to a lamb, it is written (Vayikra 5:6) lit.,) \"from his sin\"; (in respect to a bird, Vayikra 5:10,) \"from his sin,\" (and, in respect to the tenth of an ephah, Vayikra 5:13,) \"on (i.e., in addition to) his sin.\" What is the intent of this? (The intent is that) One may bring from (the monies he set aside to) the sanctuary [hekdesh]: for a lamb, a goat-kid; for a goat-kid, a lamb; for a lamb or a goat-kid, turtle-doves or young pigeons; for turtle-doves or young pigeons, a tenth of an ephah.",
                "10) How so? If he set aside (monies for) a lamb or a goat-kid and he became poor, he may bring a bird (and use the remainder for mundane purposes — thus, \"from\" the monies). If he became poorer, he may bring a tenth of an ephah. If he became richer, he may (add money and) bring a bird. If he became richer he may (add money and) bring a lamb or a goat-kid (— thus, \"on, i.e., in addition to). If he set aside a lamb or a goat-kid and it became unfit — he may bring, from its monies, a bird, (this, too, being subsumed in \"from his sin.\") If he set aside the bird and it became unfit, he may not bring from its monies the tenth of an ephah (but he purchases from his own funds either a bird or a tenth of an ephah), for there is no redemption for a bird, (but only for a beast, viz. Vayikra 27:11). This (in summary) is the intent of \"from his sin,\" \"from his sin,\" \"on his sin.\" "
            ],
            "Chapter 18": [
                "1) (Vayikra 5:7): (\"And if his hand cannot attain enough for a lamb, then he shall bring (the offering) of his guilt wherein he has sinned, two turtle-doves, etc.\") \"his hand\": (The implication is that if he does not have the money, he is not told to borrow (for a rich man's offering, even if he has from whom to borrow) and not to ply his trade. If he has a lamb, and he does not have (enough for the food) that it needs (until he reaches Jerusalem), whence is it derived that he should bring a poor man's offering? From \"enough for a lamb.\" \"then he shall bring (the offering of his guilt wherein he has sinned, two turtle-doves or two young pigeons,\": He must bring two; one does not suffice.",
                "2) (For otherwise I would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori — This one brings what he can afford and a metzora (a leper) brings what he can afford. Just as a metzora brings one (bird sin-offering) for one (lamb sin-offering, and one bird burnt-offering for one bird burnt-offering), this one, too, (in our case), since the rich man brings one (lamb), the poor man should bring one! Therefore, (to negate this) it is written \"two turtle-doves or two young pigeons\" — he brings two and not one.",
                "3) (Vayikra 5:7) \"one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering\": (The dedication of) the sin-offering must precede (the dedication of) the burnt-offering. Alternately: that the burnt-offering be of the same species as the sin-offering (turtle-dove or young pigeon, respectively) (and that) if he separated his sin-offering and died, his heirs bring his burnt-offering. Alternately: What is the intent of \"one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering?\" I might think that since two (birds) are brought in place of a (lamb) sin-offering, they should both be sin-offerings, it is, therefore, written \"one for a sin-offering\" — and not two; \"one for a burnt-offering\" — and not two.",
                "4) \"one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering\": the owner must dedicate them thus. And whence is it derived that if the Cohein dedicated them, his dedication stands? From: \"one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering (Vayikra 5:6): \"and he shall bring them to the Cohein.\"",
                "5) (Vayikra 5:8) \"and he shall bring them\": A bird (that became defective) cannot be redeemed (and replaced with another bird with its monies). (\"And he shall bring them) to the Cohein\": The burden of getting them (to the Cohein) is his. \"And he shall sacrifice the one for the sin-offering first\": What are we taught hereby? If that the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering in all of its operations, is this not explicitly stated (Vayikra 5:10): \"And the second one he shall make a burnt-offering as prescribed (Vayikra 1:14)\"? Why, then, need this be repeated? To serve as a prototype (binyan av, see Hermeneutical Principles [Vayikra 1:3]) for all sin-offerings accompanied by burnt-offerings:",
                "6) a bird sin-offering with a bird burnt-offering, a beast sin-offering with a beast burnt-offering, a bird sin-offering with a beast bird-offering — (In all of these instances) the sin-offerings precede the accompanying burnt-offerings.",
                "7) \"and he shall pinch its head opposite (mul) its nape\": opposite the beholder of the nape, as it is written (Numbers 22:5): \"and it abides opposite (mul) me.\" \"but he shall not sunder (it)\": i.e., he shall pinch only one (shechitah) sign and not more. If he does it is unfit.",
                "8) \"And he shall sprinkle from the blood of the sin-offering\": from the body of the sin-offering (and not from a vessel). \"upon the wall of the altar\": not upon the wall of the ramp, and not upon the wall of the heichal (the hall containing the altar), but upon the lower wall (under the red line). It would (seem to) follow: Now if a beast, whose burnt-offering is below, its sin-offering is above — a bird, whose burnt-offering is above, should it not follow that its sin-offering is above? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Numbers 22:5): \"and what remains of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar, (the wall from which) the left-overs of the blood are drained to the foundation — the bottom wall.",
                "9) \"It is a sin-offering.\" All of its operations must be specifically intended as such — to exclude \"pinching\" which is not so intended.",
                "10) (Vayikra 5:10) \"And the second one he shall make a burnt-offering as prescribed\": As prescribed for the sin-offering of a beast or as prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird, (that does not require sundering in its \"pinching,\" viz. Vayikra 5:7) above)? (Vayikra 1:15) \"And the Cohein shall bring it\" (a bird burnt-offering — as distinct from the \"pinching\" of a bird sin-offering (Vayikra 5:8) —) distinguishes a burnt-offering from a sin-offering. For you could say \"as prescribed for the sin-offering of a beast\" — Just as the sin-offering of a beast comes from chullin (mundane monies, and not from monies of the second tithe), and (is sacrificed only in) the daytime, and (only with) the right hand, so (do these apply to) a bird burnt-offering. R. Yishmael says: \"As prescribed\" (means) as prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird, (which precedes [Vayikra 5:8]). Just as with the sin-offering of a bird — \"opposite its nape,\" so with the burnt-offering of a bird, opposite its nape. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: As prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird. Just as with the sin-offering of a bird, he holds its head and its body and sprinkles (viz. Vayikra 5:9), so (does he do) with the burnt-offering of a bird. I might think that just as there (with the sin-offering of a bird), (only) one sign (is severed), here, too, (with the burnt-offering of a bird), (only) one sign should be severed. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (in respect to the donative burnt-offering of a bird [Vayikra 1:15]): \"And he shall bring it,\" (and not the prescribed burnt-offering of a bird — our case — with the severing of the two signs)."
            ],
            "Chapter 19": [
                "1) (Vayikra 5:11) \"And if his hand does not attain to two turtle-doves or to two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering wherein he has sinned, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering.\": R. Yehudah says: Beloved is a mitzvah in its time. For he brings a tenth of an ephah immediately, and we do not wait for him until he becomes wealthy and brings a lamb or goat-kid.",
                "2) R. Eliezer says: Beloved is a mitzvah in its time. For in (the area of altar) valuations (arachin) he brings a sela immediately, and we do not wait for him until he becomes wealthy and brings fifty selaim.",
                "3) R. Shimon says: Beloved is a mitzvah in its time. For the fats (of the offerings) may be burned the entire night, and they override the Sabbath in their time, and we do not wait to burn them until the Sabbath has ended.",
                "4) \"then he shall bring his offering wherein he has sinned, a tenth of an ephah of soleth\": This tells me (only) that \"a tenth of an ephah\" obtains with his obligatory offering. Whence do I derive that it obtains also with his donative offering? From \"his offering (in any event) … a tenth of an ephah.\"",
                "5) \"a tenth of an ephah\": one-tenth of three sa'in, which is seven revi'in and an addition. \"soleth\": Just as soleth stated there (Exodus 29:2) is of wheat, so soleth stated here is of wheat. \"for a sin-offering\": Its monies must be designated as being for a sin-offering. \"he may not place oil upon it\": But he may place (oil) upon what remains (of the minchah offering). \"he shall not put frankincense upon it\": I might think that if he did place frankincense upon it, it becomes unfit; it is, therefore, written: \"for it is a sin-offering\" (and just as a beast sin-offering is not invalidated by frankincense, this bird sin-offering is, likewise, not invalidated by frankincense. Or, (I might think): \"it is a sin-offering\" — Even if he placed oil upon it, it is kasher; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written: \"it\" (with frankincense, is a sin-offering — but not with oil). And why do you see fit to permit it with frankincense and to invalidate it with oil? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I permit it with frankincense? Because it can be picked off — and I invalidate it with oil, because it cannot be picked off.",
                "6) (\"He shall not place oil upon it and he shall not put frankincense upon it.\"): I might think that this is speaking of two Cohanim, (one placing oil and the other, frankincense, but if one does both, he is liable for only one negative transgression; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"upon it,\" \"upon it\" — The focus is the body of the meal-offering, and not two Cohanim.",
                "7) Or, perhaps the meaning is that he is not to place the vessel (of the oil or the frankincense) upon the vessel of the meal-offering; (it is, therefore, written \"upon it\" (the body of the meal-offering) - \"upon it\")",
                "8) \"for it is a sin-offering\": R. Yehudah said: But the (daily) meal-offering of the high-priest is not a sin-offering and requires frankincense.",
                "9) (Vayikra 5:12): \"And he shall bring it to the Cohein, and the Cohein shall take a fistful from it, his entire fistful, as its remembrance; and he shall cause it to smoke upon the altar, upon the fire-offerings of the L–rd; it is a sin-offering.\" (\"upon the fire-offerings\":) It must be devoted to this end. And (\"of the L–rd\"): it must be dedicated to the L–rd. \"it is a sin-offering\": All of its operations (taking the fistful, etc.) must be in the name of a sin-offering. \"it\": \"It is a sin-offering\" — to exclude one from which the fistful was not taken in the name of a sin-offering (and so with the other operations).",
                "10) (Vayikra 5:13): \"And the Cohein shall make atonement for him, for his sin that he has sinned, of one of these.\" What is the intent of this (\"of these\")? For I might think: \"The most stringent of them (tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects) should be subject to lamb or goat-kid; the less stringent (a court-mandated oath), to a bird; the least stringent (an oath of \"pronouncement\"), to the tenth of an ephah. It is therefore, (to negate this) written \"of one of these\" — to equate the least stringent to the most stringent vis-à-vis lamb and goat-kid, and the most stringent to the least stringent vis-à-vis the tenth of en ephah.",
                "11) (Vayikra 5:13): \"and it shall be to the Cohein\": That is, the meal-offering service of the Cohein (if he himself is the sinner) can be performed by the Cohein himself. Or perhaps its intent is only to permit (the eating of what remains of) the tenth of an ephah of a Cohein (who sinned). And how would I satisfy (Vayikra 6:16): \"And every meal-offering of a Cohein shall be entire, (exclusively for the L–rd); it shall not be eaten\"? By his donative meal-offering; but his one tenth of the ephah may be eaten. It is therefore, (to negate this) written (\"and it shall be to the Cohein) as a meal-offering\" — as his donative meal-offering. Just as his donative meal-offering is not eaten, so the tenth of the ephah is not eaten. R. Shimon says: \"and it shall be to the Cohein as a meal-offering\": The tenth of an ephah of a Cohein is like the tenth of the ephah of an Israelite, viz. Just as a fistful is taken of the tenth of the ephah of an Israelite, so a fistful is taken of this tenth of an ephah (of a Cohein)."
            ],
            "Section 11": [
                "1) (Vayikra 5:15) (\"A soul, if it profanes, and sins unwittingly of the sanctified things of the L–rd, then he shall bring his guilt-offering to the L–rd\"): \"a soul\": to include the anointed (high-) priest as subject to profanation (me'ilah). (For I would think: It is written (Shemoth 30:33): \"If a man compounds its (the anointing oil's) like and places of it upon a stranger,\" but not upon the anointed priest, who is no stranger to it, (it is, therefore, written, to negate this, \"a soul,\" i.e., any soul). \"if it profanes (timol ma'al). \"Meilah\" is a change (from the sacred to the profane), viz. (Chronicles 5:25): \"And they profaned (vayimalu) the G d of their fathers, and went astray after the ba'alim,\" and (Bamidbar 5:12): \"A man, if his wife goes astray and profanes him.\"",
                "2) \"if he profanes and he sins unwittingly in the sanctified things of the L–rd\": I might think that (even) if he derived benefit (from the object), but did not damage it, or if he damaged it but did not derive benefit from it, or it were attached to the ground, or it involved a messenger that did not perform his embassy — (I might think that even then he were liable); it is, therefore, written (here) \"and he sins,\" and it is written \"sin\" in respect to terumah (Bamidbar 22:9).",
                "3) Just as with \"sin\" in respect to terumah, there is (liability only where there is) damage and benefit, he who damages benefits, the object damaged provides the benefit, the damage and the benefit are simultaneous, the object in question is not attached to the ground, and the messenger performed his embassy —",
                "4) so with the sin here.",
                "5) But why should I not say that just as with \"sin\" in respect to terumah it is (only) he (himself) who eats and derives benefit, here, too, (there is liability only where) he (himself) eats and derives benefit? Whence do I derive (that there is liability, too) for: his eating (of consecrated food) and the eating of his (invited) neighbor, that they combine (for the minimum liability amount), his derivation of benefit (e.g., from the anointment oil) and that of his neighbor, his eating and the benefit of his neighbor, his benefit and the eating of his neighbor? From (the repetition) \"timol ma'al\" (lit., \"profanes, profanes,\" in any event).",
                "6) But why should I not say that just as with \"sin\" in respect to terumah, two eatings (each one short of the required amount for liability) do not combine (for liability), here, too, two eatings do not combine? Whence is it derived that if he ate today and ate tomorrow, derived benefit today and derived benefit tomorrow, derived benefit today and ate tomorrow, ate today and derived benefit tomorrow — even after three years in one act of forgetfulness — (whence is it derived that they combine )for liability)? From (the repetition) \"timol ma'al,\" (in any event).",
                "7) But why should I not say that just as with \"sin\" in respect to terumah, (liability obtains only) when he takes it from (a state of) sanctity to (a state of) non-sanctity, here, too, the same applies? Whence do I derive that the same applies (even) when he takes it from (a state of) sanctity to (a state of) sanctity, as when there are brought from the sanctuary funds — the couple of sacrificial birds of those with a discharge (zavim), or of women who had given birth, one's sin-offering and guilt-offering, one's Pesach offering, or one's shekel? [Once he takes the monies out, he is guilty of meilah. These are the words of R. Shimon. And the sages say: He is not guilty of meilah until he sprinkles their blood] — (Whence is it derived that in the above instances he has committed an act of meilah? From (the repetition) \"timol ma'al,\" (in any event).",
                "8) \"and sins unwittingly\" — to exclude (from an offering) his sinning deliberately. Now does this not follow a fortiori? If in other mitzvoth, where deliberate transgression is punishable by kareth (cutting-off), deliberate transgression is exempt (from an offering), meilah, where deliberate transgression is not punishable by kareth, does it not follow that deliberate transgression is exempt (from an offering)? — No, this may be the case with other mitzvoth, which are not subject to death (at the hands of Heaven), as opposed to meilah, which is subject to death (at the hands of Heaven). And since it is subject to death (at the hands of Heaven), (I would say that) deliberate transgression should not be exempt (from an offering)! It is, therefore, (to negate this), written \"unwittingly\" — to exclude deliberate transgression.",
                "9) R. Elazar said: This one (the guilt-offering for meilah) comes for a sin, and a sin-offering comes for a sin. Just as a sin-offering does not come for deliberate transgression as it does come for unwitting transgression, this one, too, should not come for deliberate transgression as it does come for unwitting transgression.",
                "10) Or, go in this direction: This one is called a guilt-offering, as other guilt-offerings are called a guilt-offering. Just as other guilt-offerings (such as that for theft (Vayikra 5:25) and that for intercourse with a betrothed Canaanite maidservant (Vayikra 14:21) come for deliberate transgression as for unwitting transgression, this one, too, should come for deliberate transgression as for unwitting transgression.",
                "11) Let us see to what it is similar. Shall we derive a thing (meilah) that is subject to the death penalty (at the hands of Heaven) from a thing (such as the sin-offering for eating forbidden fats), which is subject to the death penalty (kareth, and which is not subject to an offering for deliberate transgression) and not be refuted by other guilt-offerings, which are not subject to the death penalty (and which come for both unwitting and deliberate transgression)? Or, go in this direction: Derive a two-year old male offering (the meilah ram [Vayikra 5:15]) from a two-year old male offering (that for unwitting transgression of forbidden fats, where there is no offering for deliberate transgression), and not be refuted by a one-year old female sin-offering (for other sins, where there is an offering for deliberate transgression). It is, therefore, (to resolve this impasse) written \"unwittingly\" — to exclude (from an offering) his sinning deliberately."
            ],
            "Chapter 20": [
                "1) (Vayikra 5:15): \"of the sanctified things of the L–rd\" — which are designated for the L–rd, to exclude lower-order sanctities, which are not \"for the L–rd\" (but are the property of the owners, for which reason they are not subject to meilah, neither in the flesh nor in the devoted portions, before the sprinkling of the blood.) This tells me (as being subject to meilah) only of bullocks that are burnt (on the altar) and kids that are burnt, which are entirely \"for the L–rd.\" Whence do I derive (for inclusion) a burnt-offering, whose skin is a gift to the Cohein; holy of holies, their flesh and their devoted portions, before the sprinkling of the blood; their devoted portions after the sprinkling of the blood; and lower-order offerings after the sprinkling of the blood? From \"the sanctified things of the L–rd,\" which is inclusive (in connotation).",
                "2) Whence do I derive forbidden fats as subject to meilah? (For I would say that the meilah prohibition does not \"take\" on that of forbidden fats.) From \"the sanctified things of the L–rd.\" I might think that the blood (of holy of holies before sprinkling) was also included. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"of (and not all of) the sanctified things.\" Why do you see fit to include forbidden fats and to exclude blood? After the verse includes, it excludes. I include (forbidden) fats, which are like flesh in that they are susceptible of pigul (Vayikra 7:18), nothar (Vayikra 7:17), and tumah and I exclude blood, which is not thus susceptible.",
                "3) Whence is it derived that things dedicated to Temple maintenance are subject to meilah? From: \"the sanctified things of the L–rd.\" This tells me only of his dedicating things appropriate for the altar to the altar; things appropriate for Temple maintenance, to Temple maintenance. But if he dedicated to Temple maintenance things appropriate for the altar; or to the altar, things appropriate for Temple maintenance; or to either of them things which are appropriate for neither of them, such as brine, vinegar, fish, or grasshoppers (the objects to be sold and the proceeds to revert to the source originally intended) — Whence is it derived that these objects are subject to meilah? From \"the sanctified things of the L–rd.\"",
                "4) If he dedicated a hen to Temple maintenance, both it and its eggs are subject to meilah; a she-ass to Temple maintenance, both it and its milk are subject to meilah; turtle-doves to Temple maintenance, both they and their eggs are subject to meilah. A pit full of water; refuse full of foliage; a dove-cote full of doves; a tree full of fruits; a field full of seed — Whence is it derived that both they and what they contain are subject to meilah? From \"the sanctified things of the L–rd.\"",
                "5) I might think that even if he dedicated turtle-doves to the altar their eggs would be subject to meilah; a pit and it was afterwards filled with water; refuse and it was afterwards filled with foliage; a dove-cote and it was afterwards filled with doves; a tree and it was afterwards filled with fruits; a field and it was afterwards filled with grass — I might think that what it contained was subject to meilah. It is, therefore, written, to exclude these, \"of the sanctified things of the L–rd.\" R. Yossi says: If one dedicates his field or his tree, both they and their growth are subject to meilah, for they are (regarded as) \"growths of the sanctuary.\"",
                "6) \"Then he shall bring\": Even after Yom Kippur (see Section 10:3). \"a ram\": a sturdy one, a two-year-old. \"flock\": anything that can be subsumed in flock, even one that is mute, imbecilic, or dwarfish. \"of the flock\": not a pilgess (see Section 10:5) (\"by your valuation, silver shekalim, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, for a guilt-offering.\") \"by your valuation, silver\": I might think dinarim (the cheapest of silver coins) was intended; it is, therefore, written \"shekalim.\" I might think copper shekalim; it is, therefore, written \"silver.\" I might think Babylonian, Median, or Cappaducian shekalim; it is, therefore, written \"according to the shekel of the sanctuary\" — selaim of kodesh, selaim of Tyre, (where all the weights of Moses were left). \"for a guilt-offering\": the money must be designated for a guilt-offering.",
                "7) (Vayikra 5:16) \"And for what he sinned from the holy he shall pay\": to that specific \"holy\" (area that he profaned. If that of the altar, he pays to the altar; if that of Temple maintenance, to Temple maintenance. Whence is it derived (that he is liable for meilah) for even less than the amount of a perutah? For I would think that since he is not (technically) liable for meilah (of less than a perutah), he should not be liable for payment; it is, therefore, written: \"from the holy,\" to make him liable for meilah of less than the amount of a perutah). Whence do I derive that one pays the fifth and the guilt-offering on meilah of these (the first) payments? From: \"the holy he shall pay\" (connoting that the payments themselves become holy and one who profanes them must add a fifth and bring a guilt-offering).",
                "8) \"and its fifth he shall add to it\": so that it and its fifth equal five (i.e., if the value is four, he shall not take one-fifth of that, but add an additional part). \"and he shall give it to the Cohein\": to exclude (his deriving benefit from) five dead sin-offerings, (which have no monetary value, in which instance he does not bring a meilah offering and does not add a fifth). \"and he shall give it to the Cohein and the Cohein\": I would think that if the meilah money came to the hands of the Cohein (to give to the Temple treasurer, and he did not do so, but used the money to purchase the intended offering), (I would think that) the Cohein would not be guilty of meilah; it is, therefore, written: \"and he shall give it to the Cohein and the Cohein\" to teach us that the Cohein is guilty of meilah.",
                "9) \"and the Cohein shall make atonement for him (with the ram of the guilt-offering\"): What is the intent of this? Whence is it derived that if he brought his meilah (the principal) and he did not bring his guilt-offering (the ram) or that if he brought his guilt-offering and he did not bring his meilah, he has not complied (and is not forgiven)? From \"with the ram of the guilt-offering (the principal) and it shall be forgiven,\" which indicates that both are required. I would think that just as \"the ram of the guilt-offering is a categorical requirement (for forgiveness) so the one-fifth is a categorical requirement; it is, therefore, written: \"with the ram of the guilt-offering\" — The ram of the guilt-offering is a categorical requirement, but not the one-fifth. \"and it shall be forgiven\": This teaches us that his sin is not left \"suspended\" until Yom Kippur. I might think that even if he (the Cohein) \"sat\" and did not offer it (the owner nevertheless receives atonement); it is, therefore, written (\"and it shall be forgiven) him\" (i.e., only him for whom the service has been performed.)"
            ],
            "Section 12": [
                "1) (Vayikra 5:17): (\"And if a soul sin and do one of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd which may not be done, and he not know, and he be guilty, then he shall bear his sin.\") \"And if\" is in addition to the preceding subject, teaching that a doubt of having been guilty of meilah is subject to a suspended guilt-offering (as when one is in doubt as to whether he had eaten consecrated or non-consecrated meat.) These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Tarfon said to him: Why should he bring two guilt-offerings, (this one, and the regulation one if he discovers that he has committed meilah)? Let him, rather, bring meilah (the principal of the loss by meilah) and its fifth, (for if not, he will not be able to bring the regulation guilt-offering), and then let him bring a guilt-offering for two selaim (the lowest possible amount) and say: If I have, indeed, committed meilah, this is my meilah (payment) and this is my guilt-offering, and if I have possibly committed meilah, the money is a gift (to the sanctuary), and the guilt-offering is in suspension (to protect me from afflictions, until it becomes known to me that I have committed meilah); for of the kind that he brings for knowledge (of having committed meilah), he brings for doubt (of having done so).",
                "2) R. Akiva said to him: Your words stand to reason for a minimal meilah; but if one suspects that he may have committed a meilah of one hundred maneh, is it not better for him that he bring a guilt-offering for two selaim and not bring a \"meilah in doubt\" for one hundred maneh? R. Akiva concedes, then, to R. Tarfon in the instance of a minimal meilah.",
                "3) \"and he do one of all the mitzvoth\": to be liable (for a suspended guilt-offering for each one.) So that if there came before him a doubt (i.e., a possibility of having transgressed) in respect to forbidden fats, blood, nothar (Vayikra 7:17), and pigul (Vayikra 7:18) in one span of forgetfulness, he is liable for each one. If forbidden fats and permitted fats came before him and he ate one of them and he did not know which he ate; if his wife and his sister were in the house, and he lay with one of them and did not know with which one; Sabbath or weekday — If he performed labor on one of them at twilight, and did not know on which day — Whence is it derived that he brings a suspended guilt-offering? From: \"And if a soul sin and do one of all the mitzvoth of the L–rd which may not be done, and he not know, and he be guilty, then he shall bear his sin.\"",
                "4) R. Yehudah says: If his wife, a niddah, and his sister were in the house and he sinned unwittingly with one of them and did not know with which one; Shabbath or Yom Kippur — If he performed labor on one of them at twilight and did not know on which one; if forbidden fats and nothar were before him and he ate one of them and did not know which one — R. Eliezer holds him liable for a sin-offering, (for, in any event, he sinned), and R. Yehoshua exempts him, (holding that a sin-offering is brought only for a particular sin). R. Yehudah said: R. Yehoshua also exempted him from a suspended guilt-offering. For it is written: \"if he sin … and he did not know\" — excluding this one (the above), who did know that he sinned. R. Shimon said: This itself (knowing that one has sinned, but not knowing the particular sin) is precisely what one brings a suspended guilt-offering for, it being written: \"if he sin and do … and he did not know (which sin)!\" He did, but he does not know what he did! The question to ask is: Whence is it derived that one brings a suspended guilt-offering when he is in doubt as to whether he has sinned or not?",
                "5) \"and he did not know\" — to exclude his knowing (afterwards, in which instance he brings only the sin-offering, for which he is liable). I might think that this applies to both the not knowing of the lesser sins (such as eating carrion and the like, of the negative commandments deliberate transgression of which is not punishable by kareth) and the not knowing of the graver sins, (deliberate transgression of which is punishable by kareth). All were in the category (of bringing a suspended guilt-offering). If I have exempt (from this offering) their knowing, does it not follow that I should exempt their not knowing? Or, the reverse: If I have made liable (for the guilt-offering) their not knowing, does it not follow that the knowing should be liable? (And which) \"knowing\" did Scripture exempt (from the guilt-offering)? That of the graver sins, their being exempt from the guilt-offering because of their being liable for the sin-offering; (but transgressors of negative commandments not liable for a sin-offering would be liable, in any event, for a guilt-offering).",
                "6) But is there not a different a fortiori argument, viz.: If in the place where the \"knowing\" of the graver sins is liable for a sin-offering, their \"not knowing\" is exempt from a sin-offering, in the place where the \"knowing\" of the lesser sins is exempt from a guilt-offering, should it not follow that their \"not knowing\" is exempt from a guilt-offering? Or, the reverse: If in the place where the \"not knowing\" of the graver sins is exempt from a sin-offering, their \"knowing\" is liable for a sin-offering, in the place where the \"not knowing\" of the lesser sins is liable for a guilt-offering, should it not follow that their \"knowing\" should be liable for a guilt-offering? A different a fortiori argument: If in the place where the \"knowing\" of the graver sins is liable for a sin-offering, the \"knowing\" of the lesser sins is exempt from a guilt-offering, in the place where the \"not knowing\" of the graver sins is exempt from a sin-offering, should it not follow that the \"not knowing\" of the lesser sins should be exempt from a guilt-offering? Or, the reverse: If in the place where the \"not knowing\" of the graver sins is exempt from a sin-offering, the \"not knowing\" of the lesser sins is liable for a guilt-offering, in the place where the \"knowing\" of graver sins is liable for a sin-offering, should it not follow that the \"knowing\" of the lesser sins should be liable for a guilt-offering? It is, therefore, written \"and he be guilty (ve'ashem)\" - \"and he be guilty,\" to posit an identity (gezeirah shava, viz. Hermeneutical Principles 2) — Just as the \"ve'ashem\" there (Vayikra 4:27, in respect to an individual sin-offering) speaks of a sin, deliberate transgression of which is punishable by kareth, and unwitting transgression by a sin-offering, so the ve'ashem here (Vayikra 5:17, in respect to a suspended guilt-offering) speaks of a sin, deliberate transgression of which is punishable by kareth and unwitting transgression by a sin-offering. (And the other negative commandments are not thus liable. And since (in the presence of a gezeirah shaveh) we do not entertain any a fortiori arguments, if it becomes known, too, he is exempt from a guilt-offering.)",
                "7) \"and he not know and be guilty, then he shall bear his sin.\" R. Yossi Haglili says: Scripture punishes one who does not know. If Scripture thus punishes one who does not know, how much more so one who knows (and transgresses)!",
                "8) R. Akiva says: If one eats forbidden fats, he brings a sin-offering for a sela. If he is in doubt as to whether or not he has eaten, he brings a guilt-offering for two selaim. If Scripture thus punishes one for an unwitting sin, how much more so will he be punished for a deliberate one!",
                "9) R. Menachem b. R. Yossi says: If one derives enjoyment the worth of a perutah from the sanctuary, he brings the meilah payment and a fifth and a guilt-offering for two selaim. Compute the number of perutoth in two selaim — close to two thousand. If Scripture thus punishes one who was accosted with a possibility of transgression, how much more will be the reward of the doer of a mitzvah!",
                "10) R. Yossi says: If you would like to know the reward of the righteous in time to come, go and learn it from the first man, who was commanded only one negative commandment, (not to eat from the tree), and transgressed it. See how many deaths were ordained for him and his generations and the generations of his generations until the end of all the generations. (If so,) one who repents of pigul and nothar and who afflicts himself on Yom Kippur, how much more so will merit be accorded him and his generations and the generations of his generations until the end of all the generations.",
                "11) R. Akiva says: It is written (Devarim 19:15): \"By word of two witnesses or by word of three witnesses, etc.\" If \"two\" constitutes valid testimony, why does Scripture specify \"three\"? To be as exacting in the punishment of the third as in that of the others. If Scripture thus punished the accessory to a transgression as (severely as) the transgressors themselves, how much more so will the accessories to a mitzvah be rewarded (as profusely) as the doers themselves!",
                "12) Rabbi says: It is written (Devarim 19:5): \"And one who comes with his neighbor in the forest to chop wood, and his hand swing the axe to cut the tree, and the iron slip from the haft and it find his neighbor and he die — he shall flee to one of these cities (or refuge), and he shall live.\" Scripture ordained the saving of the life of one who unwittingly slew another. Deduce therefrom: The collector of charity, the feeder of the poor, the doer of lovingkindness — how much more so will his life be granted him!",
                "13) R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: It is written (Devarim 24:19): \"When you reap your harvest in your field, if you forget a sheaf in the field, do not return to take it; to the stranger, to the orphan, and to the widow shall it be, so that the L–rd your G d will bless you in all the work of your hands.\" Scripture (hereby) ordained a blessing for one to whose hand a mitzvah came without his intending it. Derive from this that if a sela were tied in one's garment, and it fell, and a poor man found it, and fed himself with it that Scripture accords him a blessing just as (it does) one who forgets a sheaf in his field.",
                "14) See Chapter 20:6"
            ],
            "Chapter 21": [
                "1) (Vayikra 5:18) (\"And he shall bring a ram without blemish, from the flock, by your valuation for a guilt-offering to the Cohein. And the Cohein shall make atonement for his unwitting sin, wherein he sinned unwittingly. For he did not know, and it will be forgiven him.\") \"And the Cohein shall make atonement, etc.\": Whence is it derived that if there came before him a possibility of forbidden fats, and he did not know (that it came before him, or that it might possibly have come before him; and there came before him again) a possibility of forbidden fats and he did not know — and blood, and pigul in one span of forgetfulness — (Whence is it derived) that he is liable for each one? From \"his unwitting sin.\" If it came before him (definitely), and he did not know, whence is it derived that he is liable for only one (guilt-offering)? From \"wherein he sinned unwittingly.\" If there came before him a possibility of forbidden fats and he knew, (and, again,) a possibility of forbidden fats and he knew — Rebbi says: Whence is it derived that just as he brings a sin-offering for each one, so he brings a suspended guilt-offering for each one? From \"for his unwitting sin.\"",
                "2) R. Elazar b. R. Shimon and R. Shimon b. R. Yehudah said in the name of R. Shimon: He is liable for only one, it being written \"for his unwitting sin wherein he sinned unwittingly.\" \"For he did not know (of the 'possibility' having come before him)\" — to exclude his being informed by others. I might think (that he is not liable) even though he does not deny (their words); it is, therefore, written \"For he did not know, and it will be forgiven him\" — but if he does know, it will not be forgiven him.",
                "3) (Vayikra 5:19): \"It is a guilt-offering; he has been guilty (ashom asham) to the L–rd.\" Whence is it derived that if one brought a suspended guilt-offering, slaughtered it and sprinkled its blood, and afterwards it became known to him that he had sinned or it became known to him that he had not sinned — whence is it derived that he may eat it (and it is not reckoned as non-consecrated food (chullin) slaughtered in the Temple court)? From \"a guilt-offering.\" I might think (this to be so) even if the blood has not been sprinkled. It is, therefore, written \"It.\" What is to be done with it? The blood is spilled out and the flesh goes to the \"house of burning.\" If the blood has been sprinkled it may be eaten. R. Yossi says: Even if the blood is in the vessel, it may be sprinkled and the flesh eaten.",
                "4) I might think that even if it has not been slaughtered, (it should be slaughtered); it is, therefore, written \"It\" (to exclude such an instance.) What is to be done with it? It is to go out to pasture with the flock, (it being regarded as any other animal). These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: It is to graze until it contracts some blemish, after which it is sold and its monies used for a (communal) guilt-offering. R. Elazar says: It is to be offered up; for if it does not come for this sin, it comes for some other sin.",
                "5) \"he has been guilty to the L–rd\": to include (as going to the L–rd) monies left over (from guilt-offering dedications). I might think that all of it should go for Temple maintenance; it is, therefore, (to negate this,) written: \"It is a guilt-offering.\" If it is a guilt-offering, I might think that all of it should go to the Cohein; it is, therefore, written: \"he has been guilty to the L–rd.\" How is this (to be reconciled)? The surplus (monies) of guilt-offerings fall as a donation and burnt-offerings are purchased with them, the flesh to go (as a burnt-offering) to the L–rd; and the hides, to the Cohanim.",
                "6) This tells me only of the surplus of guilt-offerings. Whence do I derive the same for the surplus of sin-offerings, the tenth of the ephah of the bird-couples of zavim and zavoth (those with genital discharges), and the bird-couples of women who had given birth, and the bird-couples of the surplus of the offerings of a Nazirite and of a leper and of one who dedicates his possessions (to the sanctuary) and there are among them things appropriate for the altar — wines, oils, fine flours and birds — Whence is it derived that they are to be sold with those things in mind and burnt-offerings purchased with their monies? From: \"he has been guilty\": This was expounded by Yehoyada the high-priest: \"It is a guilt-offering; he has been guilty to the L–rd\" — This is the principle: Everything that comes because of sin or guilt — burnt-offerings should be purchased (with their monies), the flesh to go to the L–rd, and the hides to the Cohanim. Two verses are thus satisfied — \"a gift-offering to the L–rd\" and \"a gift-offering to the Cohein.\" And it is written (II Kings 12:17): \"The (surplus) monies of a guilt-offering and the (surplus) monies of sin-offerings shall not be brought to the house of the L–rd (for Temple maintenance); to the Cohanim shall they be.\"",
                "7) Whence is it derived that the guilt-offering brought for (cohabitation with) a betrothed Canaanite maidservant, shifchah charufah (Vayikra 19:20) should be bought only with silver shekalim? From (Vayikra 5:19) \"ashom asham\" (the connotation of which is that the valuation of all guilt-offerings is to be in silver shekalim). I might think that I also include the guilt-offering of a Nazirite and of a leper. It is, therefore, written (to negate this) (Vayikra 7:5) \"It (is a guilt-offering.\") And why do you see fit to include the shifchah charufah guilt-offering and to exclude that of a Nazirite and of a leper? — After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include the shifchah charufah guilt-offering, which (as in the above) is a ram, and I exclude that of the Nazirite and the leper, which is not a ram."
            ],
            "Chapter 22": [
                "1) (Vayikra 5:21) (\"If a soul sin, and commit a profanation against the L–rd, and deny to his neighbor a pledge or a deposit or a theft, or if he oppress his neighbor\") Why is \"his neighbor\" written twice? \"his neighbor\" — to exclude (from a guilt-offering for denial) the Exalted (i.e., the sanctuary); \"his neighbor\" — to exclude others (i.e., idolators). I might think (that this applies even) if one said to his neighbor \"I ate today,\" and he had not eaten; \"I went to this and this city,\" and he had not gone — it is, therefore, written \"if he sin … and deny.\" This applies only to a denial preceded by a sin and not to a denial not preceded by a sin.",
                "2) Rebbi says: \"and he deny to his neighbor a pledge or a deposit or a theft, or if he oppress his neighbor, (Vayikra 5:22) or if one find a lost object and deny it, and swear falsely\": All of these are of a monetary nature — to exclude such things which are not of a monetary nature.",
                "3) \"and commit a profanation against the L–rd\": R. Yossi Haglili says: to include lower order sanctities, which are the property of the owner. Ben Azzai says: to include peace-offerings, excluding the beast tithe, which is not considered his property. Abba Yossi b. Dostai says: Ben Azzai was speaking only of a bechor (a first-born). R. Shimon says: Both holy of holies and lower order sanctities, for which a man is responsible, come under \"and he deny to his neighbor.\" Those for which he is not responsible come under \"against the L–rd and he deny.\"",
                "4) R. Akiva says: What is the intent of \"and commit a profanation against the L–rd\"? Because the lender and the borrower and the taker and the giver act only in the context of writ and witnesses, therefore, when one denies, he denies the witnesses and the writ, but one who deposits a pledge with his neighbor wants no one to know about it but the \"Third Party\" among them, and when he denies, he denies the \"Third Party\" among them.",
                "5) \"and he deny to his neighbor\": I might think (a denial) of words; it is, therefore, written: \"a pledge,\" which is (a denial) of money — to exclude what is not money.",
                "6) (Why all these forms of denial? For if that of a pledge alone were written), I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of a pledge? Because he has no right to spend it — as opposed to the case of a loan, where he does have a right to spend it. It is, therefore, written \"or a deposit\" (i.e., a loan). Then I might say: Why (is there an expiatory guilt-offering) in the case of the others? Because they (the objects) were given to him freely — as opposed to the case of theft, where (the object) was not given to him freely. It is, therefore, written \"or a theft.\" Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For something is taken from the possession of the owner — as opposed to the case of withholding the wages of a hired man, where nothing is taken from the possession of an owner. It is, therefore, written \"or if he oppress his neighbor.\" Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For both of them know (that the second \"took\" something) — as opposed to the case of finding a lost object, where both do not know, (but only the finder). \"and he deny it\" (the object, and not (having seen) its finder (and denying having seen him). Ben Azzai says: There are three kinds of (oaths in connection with) lost objects: knowing of it but not knowing of its finder (and denying under oath that he had seen it in that neighborhood, which might have led to the owner's inquiring about it and recovering it); (knowing) of its finder, but not of it (i.e., of its identifying signs); (knowing) neither of it nor of its finder.",
                "7) Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For it is possible to know them (i.e., to see the damage) — as opposed to cases where it is impossible to know them, such as: mixing wine with water, oil with (extract of) galubia (a kind of grass), honey with mei mayan, resin with ass milk, myrrh with nettles, horse-bears with sand, folium with vine-leaves. It is, therefore, written (to include liability for such cases) (Vayikra 5:22): \"and he swears over falsehood\" — over anything which contains falsehood.",
                "8) Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For (they treat of things that) do not damage (others) — as opposed to things that do damage, such as: one man's wounding another, a possession against a possession (e.g., one ox against anther), a man against a possession, a possession against a man. It is, therefore, written (to include liability in such instances) (Vayikra 5:22): \"(and he swears falsely) in one of all these things that a man does to sin in them.\"",
                "9) Then I might say: Why (is there liability in) the case of the others? For (they treat of things that are subject to) payment of the principal — as opposed to double payment, \"four and five\" payment, (payment for) rape, inducement (to intercourse), and libel. It is, therefore, written (to include liability for these) (Vayikra 5:21): \"and he commit a profanation against the L–rd.\"",
                "10) \"one of all,\" \"in it\" and \"in them\" and \"of all\" are clauses of exclusion — to exclude: one saying to his neighbor, \"You injured me on the Sabbath\" and the other denying it; \"You set fire to my sheaves on the Sabbath\" and the other denying it; a father saying to his son, \"You struck me and wounded me,\" and the son saying, \"I did not strike you and wound you.\" It is, therefore, written, (in respect to these instances): \"one of all,\" \"in it\" and \"in them,\" and \"of all,\" for exclusion. Why do you see fit to include the others and to exclude these? After Scripture includes it excludes. I include the others, where capital judgment is not involved, and I exclude these, where capital judgment is involved.",
                "11) R. Shimon said: I might think that if one said to his neighbor: You raped or enticed my daughter, and the other denied it — (or) if one's servant said to him: You knocked out my tooth or: You blinded my eye, and he denied it — I might think that he were liable; it is, therefore, written: \"and he deny to his neighbor a pledge, or a deposit, or a theft, or if he oppress his neighbor, or if he find a lost object and deny it, and swear falsely, etc.\" What is common to all of the above is that they are not (i.e., they do not involve) penalty payments — to exclude the aforementioned, which are penalty payments."
            ],
            "Section 13": [
                "1) (Vayikra 5:23): (\"And it shall be, when he sinned and he is guilty, then he shall return the theft that he has stolen, or the oppression that he has oppressed, or the pledge which was deposited with him, or the lost object which he found.\") \"And it shall be\": Immediately, what shall he do? \"then he shall return, etc.\" If (only) \"then he shall return\" were stated, I might think: specifically (the stolen object, and if it were lost, he need not return anything). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 5:24): \"and he shall pay (for) it (if he cannot find it). (\"and he shall pay): I might think that he should (both) return (the object) and pay (in addition). And do not wonder about this, for a thief pays double, and, if he slaughtered and sold (the animal), four or five times (its worth). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written the theft,\" itself, and he does not (both) return (it) and pay (in addition).",
                "2) \"then he shall return the theft that he has stolen\": What is the intent of \"that he has stolen\"? I might think that he pays a guilt-offering for what his father stole. It is, therefore, written \"that he has stolen.\" He pays for his own theft and not for his father's. I might think that he need not return it at all (but simply pay its value). It is, therefore, written: \"(the thing) that he has stolen.\" ",
                "3) \"or the oppression that he has oppressed\": What is the intent of \"that he has oppressed.\" I might think that he pays a guilt-offering for the \"oppression\" of his father. It is, therefore, written \"that he has oppressed.\" He pays for his own \"oppression\" and not for his father's.",
                "4) I might think that he need not return it at all; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"eth the oppression\" (\"eth is a term of inclusion). What is the intent of \"which was deposited with him\"? So long as it is with him, he returns it (and may not pay for it instead). If it is not with him, he pays for it.",
                "5) And I still would say: When does he not pay a fifth and a guilt-offering for what his father stole? When neither he nor his father swore. But if he swore and not his father; his father and not he; he and his father (if they both swore on the same theft), whence is it derived (that he does not pay a fifth and a guilt-offering for what his father stole)? From \"that (asher) he has stolen,\" and \"asher he has oppressed,\" and \"asher was deposited with him,\" and \"asher was found,\" (the force of \"asher\" being to exclude the son from payment in all of these instances).",
                "6) I still would say: When does the son pay the principal for his father's theft? When both he and his father swore. But whence do I derive the same when there swore: he and not his father; his father and not he; neither he nor his father? From \"eth the theft,\" \"eth the oppression,\" \"eth the deposit,\" \"eth the lost object\" — they pay in any event, (the force of \"eth\" being to include the son for payment of the principal in all of these instances).",
                "7) Whence is it derived that what is stated above, (namely, \"a deposit\") (Vayikra 5:21), (but not repeated in 5:23) is included below (in all of the halachoth that apply to the others)? From (Vayikra 5:24): \"of all.\" \"that he swears upon it falsely\" — until he intends it (the falsehood, excluding an instance in which he mistakenly thought that he was swearing to the truth, in which case he is exempt). From here it is seen that there is liability for wittingness in the (false) oath, and for unwittingness in the oath (i.e., not knowing that it is forbidden) in combination with wittingness (in denial) of the pledge, and that there is no liability for (complete) unwittingness. What is the liability for wittingness? A guilt-offering (valuated) in silver shekalim.",
                "8) \"of all that he swears upon falsely and he shall pay … and its fifth\": He pays (the fifth) only after the oath (and not if there is denial alone, without an oath). Now does this not follow a fortiori? If one who (falsely) claims that something was stolen from him, who pays kefel (double payment), pays only after the oath, this one, who does not pay kefel, does it not follow that he should pay (the fifth) only after the oath? — No, (it may be argued that) this is true only of the first, who does not pay a fifth and a guilt-offering, whereas this one does pay a fifth and a guilt-offering, wherefore it may be contended that since he pays a fifth and a guilt-offering, he should pay it both before and after the oath. It is, therefore, written, to indicate that he pays only after the oath \"of all that he swears upon falsely and he shall pay … and its fifth.\" ",
                "9) \"and he shall pay it\": He pays it, but he does not pay kefel. Now should it not follow a fortiori (that he does pay kefel)? For if one who (falsely) claims that something was stolen from him, who does not pay a fifth and a guilt-offering, pays kefel, then this one, who does pay a fifth and a guilt-offering, should it not follow that he pays kefel! It is, therefore written (to negate this): \"and he shall pay it\" — It is it that he pays and not kefel.",
                "10) I would then exclude the payment of kefel, but not that of \"four and five\"! It is, therefore, written \"with its principal\" — It is its principal that he pays, and not kefel and not \"four and five.\"",
                "11) It would follow a fortiori that one who (falsely) claims that something was stolen from him should pay a fifth and a guilt-offering (along with kefel), viz.: Now if this one, who does not pay kefel pays a fifth and a guilt-offering, then the first, who does pay kefel, should it not follow that he pays a fifth and a guilt-offering! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written: \"with its principal and its fifth he shall add to it\" — One who pays with the principal adds a fifth; but one who pays kefel and four and five does not add a fifth.",
                "12) \"vechamishithav\" (lit., and its fifths\"): This teaches us that (if he gave the claimant the principal and swore that he had given him the fifth, and subsequently admitted that he had sworn falsely, the fifth is accounted a principal and) he pays a fifth on the fifth, (and so, progressively,) until the principal (of the fifth) is less than the value of a perutah. (\"and its fifth he shall add upon it\"): so that it and its fifth are five (equal parts). \"to whom it belongs shall he give it on the day of his guilt.\": and not to his (the sender's) messenger to bring it to him. I might then think that he shall not give it to beth-din (on his behalf) or to his heir. It is, therefore, written \"shall he give it\" (a superfluous construction, implying that there are others who may accept it for him).",
                "13) \"on the day of his guilt\": Beth Shammai say: (This refers to the status of the stolen object on the day that he was found guilty of the theft.) The owner suffers the loss (if the object decreased in value from the time of the theft to the time of the conviction) and he reaps the gain (if it increased in value). Beth Hillel say: (\"the day of his guilt\" refers to) the time it was removed (from the owner's domain). R. Akiva says: (It refers to) the time that he was indicted (in beth-din).",
                "14) (Vayikra 5:25): \"And his guilt-offering shall he bring to the L–rd, a ram without blemish from the flock, by your valuation, for a guilt-offering to the Cohein.\" (See Chapter 20:6). \"And the Cohein shall make atonement for him before the L–rd, and it shall be forgiven him for one of all (the transgressions) that he does to incur guilt thereby.\" (See Chapters 15 and Vayikra 5:16)"
            ],
            "Chapter 23": []
        },
        "Tzav": {
            "Chapter 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 6:2) (\"Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt-offering. It is the burnt-offering upon its firewood on the altar all the night until the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kindled thereby.\") \"Command\": \"Command\" connotes a prompting to zeal, for the immediate situation and for future generations. R. Shimon said: Such prompting is all the more necessary where monetary loss (\"upon its firewood on the altar all the night\") is entailed.",
                "2) R. Yossi Haglili says: From (Shemoth 29:37): \"All that touches the altar shall become consecrated,\" I would think that both things fit for the altar and things unfit for the altar are herein subsumed; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 29:38): \"And this is what you shall offer upon the altar: lambs, etc.\": Just as lambs are fit for the altar, (so all thus fit are included) — to exclude that which is not fit.",
                "3) R. Akiva says: From \"All that touches the altar shall become consecrated,\" I would think that both things fit for the altar and things unfit for the altar are herein subsumed; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra, Ibid.): (\"It is the) burnt-offering.\" Just as a burnt-offering is fit for the altar, (so all thus fit are included) — to exclude that which is not fit.",
                "4) R. Yehoshua says: \"It is the burnt-offering upon its firewood.\": Just as a burnt-offering, which is fit for the fire, once it goes up, does not come down (whether fit or unfit), so all things that are fit for the fire, once they go up, they do not come down.",
                "5) R. Gamliel says: \"It is the burnt-offering upon its firewood on the altar\": Just as a burnt-offering, which is fit for the altar, once it goes up, does not come down, so all things that are fit for the altar, once they go up, they do not come down.",
                "6) There is no difference between R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua but blood and libations (that have become unfit). R. Gamliel says they do not come down (being fit for the altar), and R. Yehoshua says they do come down (not being fit for the fire).",
                "7) R. Yehudah says: \"This,\" \"It,\" \"the burnt-offering.\" These are (three terms of) exclusion — to exclude: an animal that was slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled out, and one whose blood was brought outside the curtains, (in which cases, if it was brought up to the altar, it is taken down). R. Shimon says: \"burnt-offering\" — This implies one that is fit. Whence is it derived (that the following, if they were brought up are not taken down?): one that was allowed to remain overnight (without being sacrificed); one (whose blood or devoted portions) went outside (the curtains); one that became tamei; one that was slaughtered outside of its (authorized) time or place; one whose blood was received or sprinkled by those unfit (for this service); those (such as burnt-offerings and peace-offerings), (whose blood is) to be applied below (the red line), which (i.e., the blood of which) was applied above, and those (such as sin-offerings), (whose blood is) to be applied above, which was applied below; or those which were to be applied outside (the Temple court), which were applied inside; and a Pesach or a sin-offering which were not specifically slaughtered as such. (Whence is it derived that if the foregoing were brought up they are not to be taken down?) From \"This is the law of the burnt-offering\" (olah, lit., \"which goes up:) — There is one law for all (offerings) that go up (on the altar); if they go up, they are not to be taken down.",
                "8) I might think that the following, too, if they went up, should not come down: (an animal) that had sodomized (a man) or that had been sodomized; (an animal) that had been devoted (to idolatry); (an animal) that had been worshipped; (an animal given as) a harlot's hire or as the exchange (of a dog, viz. Devarim 23:19); (an animal born of) heterogeneous breeding; a torn animal (treifah); (an animal extracted by) caesarian section; and blemished animals. (Whence do I derive that if they went up, they are to be taken down?) From \"This (is the law of the burnt-offering.\") And why do you see fit to include these (mentioned before) and to exclude these (just mentioned)? — After Scripture included; it excluded. I include (as not to be taken down) those that became unfit after they had entered the azarah, and I exclude those that became unfit not after having entered (but before).",
                "9) The words of R. Shimon resolve themselves into a principle, viz.: Everything that became unfit in the azarah is accepted by the azarah (i.e., if it was brought up, it is not taken down.) If it did not become fit in the azarah, (but before entering), the azarah does not accept it. R. Akiva rules it (a blemished animal) fit (to remain on the altar), for a blemish in a bird is kasher. R. Chananiah, the adjutant high-priest says: My father would \"swipe\" (but not directly remove) blemished animals from the altar. I might think that the libations, too, (which accompany the sacrifices), once they went up were not taken down; it is, therefore, written, \"burnt-offering.\" Just as a burnt-offering comes \"because of itself,\" (so all offerings which come \"because of themselves\" are not taken down) — to exclude libations, which come not because of themselves (but became of the offerings which they are accompanying).",
                "10) From this it follows: If the offering is fit and the libations unfit; the offering unfit and the libations fit; even if both are unfit — the offering is not taken down and the libations are taken down, (for the libation came only because of the offering).",
                "11) From (Shemoth 29:37): \"All that touches the altar shall become consecrated\" we learn that the altar consecrates what is appropriate for it. Whence do we derive that even the ramp (leading to the altar) consecrates what is appropriate for the altar? From \"eth the altar\" (\"eth\" connoting inclusion). Whence do I derive that even the ministering vessels consecrate what is appropriate for them? From (Shemoth 30:29): \"And they (the ministering vessels) shall be holy of holies. All that touches them shall be consecrated.\"",
                "12) A (ministering) vessel for (things that are) wet, i.e., dishes and sprinklers for blood, wine, and oil) consecrates what is wet. A measure for (things that are) dry (e.g., meal) consecrates what is dry. And a vessel for wet does not consecrate what is dry; and a measure for dry does not consecrate what is wet. Ministering vessels that were punctured — if they can perform the function for which they were used when they were whole — consecrate (what touches them); if not, they do not. And all of them do so only in the azarah.",
                "13) \"It is the burnt-offering upon its firewood on the altar all the night until the morning\": They were to be placed (there at sunset if they had not been sacrificed in the daytime) and they were left burning on the altar the entire night. This tells me only of things which are fit to be burnt at night such as the limbs and fat-pieces of burnt-offerings and the fat-pieces of other offerings. Whence do we derive the same for those things which are fit to be burnt in the daytime (but were not), such as: the fistful, the incense, the frankincense, the wood (gift), the meal-offerings of the Cohanim, the meal-offering of the anointed (high-) priest, and the libation meal-offering? From \"the law of the burnt-offering,\" which is comprehensive (for all offerings).",
                "14) You say that \"all the night\" signifies that they were to be placed there at sunset and left burning on the altar the entire night. But perhaps it signifies that they are to be lifted from the ground to the altar the entire night. (This cannot be contended, for) \"There shall not remain the fat of My festival offering until morning\" (Shemoth 23:18) (already) teaches that they are to be lifted from the ground to the altar the entire night.",
                "15) How, then, am I to construe \"It is the burnt-offering upon its firewood on the altar all the night, etc.\"? That they are to be placed there at sunset (if they had not been sacrificed in the daytime) and left burning (on the altar) the entire night. What is the intent of \"until the morning\"? If it is not needed for the burning of the limbs, learn it as applying to the removal of the ashes, that they could be removed from the altar the entire night until the morning.",
                "16 \"and the fire of the altar shall be kindled thereby\": Whence is it derived that the fire of the inner (incense) altar is to be kindled only from that of the outer altar? From: \"the fire of the altar shall be kindled thereby.\" Whence is it derived that the same applies to the fire (i.e., the coals) of the coal pan (which were brought into the holy of holies for the burning of the incense of Yom Kippur) and to the (fire of) the menorah? It follows, viz.: \"Burning\" is stated in respect to the inner altar, viz. (Shemoth 30:7): \"shall he burn it\" (the incense, on the inner altar), and \"burning\" is stated in respect to the coal pan and the menorah. Just as the fire for the inner altar comes from the outer altar, so the fire for the coal pan and the menorah comes from the outer altar. — But why not go in this direction: \"Burning\" is stated in respect to the inner altar and \"burning\" is stated in respect to the coal pan and to the menorah — Just as the fire for the inner altar comes from the altar outside of it, so the fire for the coal pan and the menorah should come from the altar (directly) outside of them (i.e., the inner altar)! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (in respect to the outer altar, Vayikra 6:6): \"A continuous fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not be extinguished\" — The continuous fire, too, that I told you of (in respect to the menorah, Shemoth 27:20) should be only from the outer altar. This suffices for the fire of the menorah. Whence do I derive the same for (that of) the coal pan? It follows, viz.: \"Fire\" is written in respect to the menorah, and \"fire\" is written in respect to the coal pan. Just as there (the menorah, the fire is taken from that) on the outer altar; here, too, (in respect to the coal pan, the fire is taken from that) on the outer altar. — But why not go in this direction: \"Fire\" is stated in respect to the incense, and \"fire\" is stated in respect to the coal pan. Just as there (in respect to the incense (altar), the fire is taken from that) nearest it (i.e., the outer altar); here, too, (in respect to the coal pan, the fire should be taken from that altar) nearest it (i.e., the inner altar)! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written(Vayikra 16:12): \"And he shall take a full coal pan of coals of fire from off the altar before the L–rd.\" Which is the altar, part of which, but not all of which, is \"before the L–rd\"? The outer altar, (which faces the sanctuary, as opposed to the inner altar, which is entirely in the sanctuary). "
            ],
            "Chapter 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 6:3) \"And the Cohein shall put on his linen (bad) garment (middo)\": \"middo\": kemidatho (\"fit to size\"). \"bad\": byssus; \"bad\": new; \"bad\": doubled (with six-folded strands); \"bad\": that other garments not be worn with them. I might think that flaxen garments should not be worn with them, but that woolen garments could be worn with them; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"bad.\" I might think that consecrated garments should not be worn with them, but mundane garments could be worn with them. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"bad.\" \"shall he put on his flesh\": What is the intent of (the seemingly superfluous) \"shall he put on\"? To include the mitznefeth (the turban) and the avnet (the belt). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Dossa says: To include the (four linen) garments of the high-priest as being kasher for the ordinary Cohein. Rebbi says: There are two arguments against this: Is the avnet of the high-priest (on Yom Kippur) the same as that of the ordinary priest? (The first was of linen alone and the second, of a variety of materials!) And, furthermore, will the garments that served for the highest holiness \"descend\" to the service of a lesser holiness! The intent of \"shall he put on,\" rather, is that even worn garments may be used. ",
                "2) R. Shimon says: From \"bad\" I already know that the four garments (of the high-priest) are subsumed, it being written (Vayikra 16:32): \"And he (the high-priest) shall put on the linen garments, the holy garments.\" If so, why is \"middo bad\" needed? For kemidatho (\"fit to size\").",
                "3) \"and linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh\": and not a plaster (intervening) on his flesh. The intent of \"linen breeches shall there be upon his flesh,\" stated elsewhere (Vayikra 16:4) is that nothing is to be put on before the breeches.",
                "4) (Vayikra 6:3): (\"And he shall lift up the ashes from the fire consuming the burnt-offering upon the altar\") I might think (that this refers to the ashes of) the wood; it is, therefore, written \"burnt-offering.\" If \"burnt-offering,\" I might think (that this refers to) the limbs of the burnt-offering; it is, therefore, written \"from the fire consuming\" (lit., \"that the fire shall consume\"). How is this effected? He scoops out the inner coals (i.e., the wholly consumed portions), and goes down. (\"and he shall place them beside the altar\"): \"and he shall place\": gently; \"and he shall place them\": all of them; \"and he shall place them\": that they not scatter. \"beside the altar\": close to the altar. Whence is it derived that the limbs and fat-pieces that had not been consumed since the evening are removed to the sides of the altar, and if the sides cannot contain them they are arranged on the sovev (the gallery around the altar) or on the ramp until the wood pile is arranged, when they are returned to it? From: \"that the fire shall consume the burnt-offering upon the altar.\"",
                "5) Whence is it derived that (fire-hardened) limbs that sprang off the fire before midnight must be returned and that they are subject to me'ilah (their mitzvah not yet having been performed)? From \"that the fire shall consume the burnt-offering upon the altar.\"",
                "6) (Vayikra 6:4) (\"And he shall take off his garments, and he shall put on other garments, and he shall take out the ashes outside the camp to a clean place.\" \"And he shall take off … and put on\": I might think that just as (the high-priest on) Yom Kippur (changes his garments from one sacrificial service to the next), he (the ordinary priest, too,) should change from consecrated garments (after removing the ashes) and put on everyday garments (to carry them out). It is, therefore, written \"and he shall take off his garments\" \"and put on other garments.\" The garments that he puts on are likened to the garments that he takes off. Just as the garments that he takes off are consecrated ones, so the garments that he puts on must be consecrated ones. If so, why is \"other garments\" written? (They must be) lesser (than the first in value). R. Elazar says: \"acherim (others), and he shall take out the ashes\": We are hereby taught that blemished Cohanim, (\"others\"), who are unfit for other services, are kasher for taking out the ashes, (it not being considered a priestly service and not requiring consecrated garments).",
                "7) (Vayikra 6:5) (\"And the fire upon the altar shall burn thereby; it shall not be extinguished. And the Cohein shall kindle wood on it every morning. And he shall arrange the burnt-offering upon it. And he shall cause to smoke upon it the fats of the peace-offerings.\") R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that the kindling of the fire is to take place only on top of the altar (and not by means of splinters kindled below)? From: \"And the fire upon the altar shall burn thereby.\" R. Yossi said: Whence is it derived that a wood pile is provided for the sustenance of the fire? From \"And the fire upon the altar shall burn thereby.\" Whence is it derived that all who put out (the altar fire) transgress a negative commandment? From \"it shall not be extinguished.\"",
                "8) \"And the Cohein shall kindle wood on it every morning (lit., \"in the morning, in the morning\")\": It is written here \"in the morning, in the morning,\" and in respect to the daily burnt-offering (the tamid) \"in the morning\" (Bamidbar 28:4): \"And the one lamb shall you offer in the morning.\" I would not know which takes precedence, (the placing of the two logs on the wood pile, \"wood\" in our instance, or the slaughtering of the tamid). — Let that of which it is written \"in the morning, in the morning\" take precedence to that of which only one \"in the morning\" is written. It is written in respect to the wood \"in the morning, in the morning,\" and in respect to the incense (Shemoth 30:7): \"in the morning, in the morning, when he cleans the lamps he shall burn it (the incense).\" I would not know which takes precedence. Which is a prerequisite for which? The wood (i.e., the placing of the two logs) is a prerequisite for the incense, (being a prerequisite for the entire altar service). — Let them precede the incense.",
                "9) It is written in respect to the incense \"in the morning, in the morning,\" and it is written in respect to the lamps (Shemoth 30:7) \"in the morning, in the morning.\" I would not know which takes precedence. \"when he cleans the lamps he shall burn it (the incense)\" indicates that they, too, precede the incense. Whence is it derived that the great wood pile (on the altar) is to be set up so as to accommodate all of the burnt-offerings (both the mussaf burnt-offerings and the gift burnt-offerings, as well as that of the tamid)? From (Vayikra 6:2): \"It is the burnt-offering,\" (implying all burnt-offerings). Whence is it derived that the devoted portions of the peace-offerings, those of the guilt-offering, those of holy of holies, and those of lower order offerings, (of the atzereth peace-offerings, are also sacrificed thereon)? From \"upon it the fats of the peace-offerings,\" (implying the other offerings as well). Whence do we derive (the same for) the fistful, the frankincense, the meal-offering of the Cohanim, the meal-offering of the anointed (high-) priest and the libation meal-offering? From \"upon it.\" (Vayikra 6:2): \"And he shall cause to smoke, etc.\": I might think that (the fire for the daily burning of the) incense, too, should be upon it (i.e., that it should be taken from the great wood pile to the inner altar). It is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"And he shall arrange the burnt-offering upon it. And he shall cause to smoke upon it\": Arrange one burning for the wood pile and a separate burning for the incense.",
                "10) Whence is it derived that nothing is to take precedence to the morning tamid? From \"upon it the burnt-offering,\" (implying that nothing is to take precedence to it). Whence is it to be derived that nothing is offered up later than the afternoon tamid? From \"upon it (the afternoon tamid, the shelamim, lit., the \"completers,\" i.e., complete all of the offerings with it). (Vayikra 6:6) (\"A continuous fire shall burn upon the altar; it shall not be extinguished.\") \"continuous\" — (The wood pile is to be made for the temidim and the mussafim) even on the Sabbath; \"continuous\" — even (if the Cohanim are) in a state of tumah. \"it shall not be extinguished\" — even during their journeyings. What did they do (to keep the fire from going out)? They inverted a psachter (a large vessel) over it. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: In their journeyings they would remove the fire from the altar (and place it in a vessel until they camped), as it is written (Bamidbar 4:13): \"And they shall remove the fire from the altar and spread upon it (the vessel) a purple cloth.\"",
                "11) R. Yehudah says: There were two wood piles (on the altar) every day, and three on Yom Kippur, (a pile being added for the coals taken in the fire pan). R. Yossi says: There were three every day and four on Yom Kippur: one, the great wood pile; one, the wood pile for (the daily burning of) the incense; one, for the sustenance of the fire (on the great wood pile); and one, added for Yom Kippur. R. Meir says: There were four wood piles every day and five on Yom Kippur: one, the great wood pile; one, for the incense; one, for the sustenance of the fire; one, for the limbs and the fat-pieces that had not been consumed in the evening; and one, for Yom Kippur. "
            ],
            "Section 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 6:7) (\"And this is the law of the meal-offering: The sons of Aaron shall bring it near before the L–rd in front of the altar.\") \"This is the law of the meal-offering\" — for the eternal house (the Temple), i.e., one law obtains in the Temple as it does in the tabernacle (the mishkan). \"This (is the law\"): It does not apply to a bamah (a temporary altar). \"the law of the meal-offering\": There is one law for all meal-offerings, that they require oil and frankincense, (even the meal-offering of the Cohanim, and of the high-priest, which is entirely burnt).",
                "2) Whence did they (oil and frankincense) leave (the general ruling, that they must be reincluded)? Because it is written (Vayikra 2:1): \"and he shall pour oil upon it and he shall put frankincense upon it … (Vayikra 2:3) and what is left from the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons,\" I might think that only meal-offerings whose remainders are eaten (by the Cohanim) require oil and frankincense, but those which are not eaten, do not. Therefore, it is written \"the law of the meal-offering\" — There is one law for all meal-offerings, that they require oil and frankincense.",
                "3) R. Akiva said: Just as we find that Scripture did not discriminate between the sinner's meal-offering of an Israelite and that of a Cohein in respect to not placing (oil and frankincense upon it, viz. Vayikra 5:11), so we should not discriminate between them in respect to the gift meal-offering of an Israelite and that of a Cohein in respect to placing (oil and frankincense upon it, i.e., it should be required in both instances. Why, then, do we need the \"one law\" teaching for this?) R. Chananiah b. Yehudah countered: Would you compare a negative (not placing) to a positive? doing to not doing? (Certainly not!) It must, therefore, be written \"the law of the meal-offering\" — There is one law for all (gift) meal-offerings, that they require oil and frankincense.",
                "4) \"The sons of Aaron shall bring it near\" — one that is fit, and not one that has become unfit; \"it\" — all of it at the same time. \"the sons of Aaron\" — and not the daughters of Aaron (they may not present their own meal-offerings). \"before the L–rd\": I might think, in the west (of the altar, before the sanctuary); it is, therefore, written \"in front of the altar.\" If \"in front of the altar,\" I would think the south, (where the ramp is). It is, therefore, written \"before the L–rd.\" On which side, then, is it presented? At the southwest corner (at the point of the horn).",
                "5. R. Eliezer says: I might think that he could present it (either) at the south of the horn or at the west. — This cannot be said! If there are two verses, one satisfying itself and satisfying the other, and one satisfying itself but nullifying the other, we choose the former and negate the latter. If you say \"before the L–rd\" at the west, you have nullified \"in front of the altar\" at the south; and if you say \"in front of the altar\" at the south, you have satisfied \"before the L–rd\" at the west. At which side, then, is it presented? At the south of the horn. (Vayikra 6:8) (\"And he shall lift up from it with his fistful from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil and all the frankincense that is on the meal-offering; and he shall cause it to smoke upon the altar, a sweet savor, a remembrance to the L–rd.\") \"And he shall lift up from it\": from what is all joined together, that he not bring one issaron (a tenth of an ephah) in two vessels. \"with his fistful\": that he not make a vessel for the fistful. \"from the fine flour of the meal-offering\": and not from the fine flour of its neighbor, (i.e., he should not bring two meal-offerings in one vessel so that they become intermixed and the fistful is taken from both). \"and from its oil\": and not from the oil of its neighbor — that he not bring two meal-offerings in one vessel. \"from the fine flour of the meal-offering and from its oil and all the frankincense\": (Even though it is not taken with the fistful), frankincense must be in the vessel when it is taken. \"and all the frankincense that is on the meal-offering and he shall cause it to smoke\": He picks out the frankincense and brings it up on the fire.",
                "6) \"and he shall cause it to smoke upon the altar, a sweet savor, a remembrance to the L–rd.\" It is a remembrance through it, (i.e., through its presentation), and through (the smoking of) its fistful, and through (the smoking of) its frankincense.",
                "7) (Vayikra 6:9) (\"And what is left of it shall be eaten by Aaron and his sons. It shall be eaten unleavened; in a holy place, in the court of the tent of meeting shall they eat it.\"): \"And what is left of it\": of a valid offering, and not of one that became unfit. \"shall be eaten by,\" \"It shall be eaten,\" \"shall they eat it\": \"eatings\" are multiplied here (to indicate that they may be eaten in any manner they desire, (fried, cooked, etc.) and that non-consecrated food and terumah may be eaten together with it when it does not suffice (for a meal).",
                "8) See Gift Offerings, Chapter 11:1",
                "9) \"It shall be eaten unleavened\": This is a mitzvah (and not just an option). I might think that (since in the beginning, before it was consecrated), it was in the category of the permitted (i.e., it could be eaten either leavened or unleavened), and then (after it was consecrated until the fistful was taken) it became forbidden, and then (after the fistful was taken) it became permitted again — I might think that it returned to its original permissibility; it is, therefore, written \"It shall be eaten unleavened\" — It is a mitzvah ( to do so).",
                "10) Similarly, (in respect to levirate marriage) (Devarim 25:5): \"Her yavam (her dead husband's brother) shall come upon her\": This is a mitzvah. I might think that (since in the beginning, before she married) she was in the category of the permitted, and then (upon her marriage) she was forbidden, and then (after her husband died) she was permitted again — I might think that she returned to her original permissibility (and that he might just as well resort to chalitzah [release from levirate marriage]); it is, therefore, written \"Her levir shall come upon her\" (It is a mitzvah for him to come upon her.)",
                "11 \"It shall be eaten unleavened\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written \"shall they eat it,\" I might think only all of it (i.e., only if the entire remainder is intact.) Whence do I derive that even part of it (is to be eaten if the rest went lost)? From \"It shall be eaten\" — any amount.",
                "12) \"in a holy place shall it be eaten\": I might think, in the Levite encampment; it is, therefore, written \"in the court of the tent of meeting (i.e., in the azarah) shall they eat it.\" This tells me only of the court of the tent of meeting. Whence do I derive for inclusion the (Temple) chambers that are built in a non-consecrated area and open into a consecrated one? From \"in a holy place.\" \"shall they eat it\": They shall not eat along with it non-consecrated food and terumah when it is ample (in itself)."
            ],
            "Chapter 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 6:10) (\"It shall not be baked with leaven. Their portion have I given it of My fire-offerings; it is holy of holies, as the sin-offering and as the guilt-offering.\") \"It shall not be baked with leaven\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 2:1) \"It shall not be made of leaven,\" I would think that there was one negative commandment for all of them (i.e., for all of the operations that go into making it); it is, therefore, written: \"It shall not be baked with leaven.\" Baking was in the category (of \"It shall not be made of leaven.\") Why did it leave that category (to be singled out here)? So that it serve as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as baking is characterized by its being a particular act and subject to liability in and of itself, so I include its kneading, its rolling and all of its particular acts as being subject to individual negative commandments in and of themselves.",
                "2) \"Their portion have I given it of My fire-offerings\": They are permitted to take of it only what is left over from the fire (i.e., they are not permitted to apportion the meal-offering among themselves until after consigning the fistful to the fire. This tells me only of this instance. Whence do I derive the same for all offerings, (that they are not to be apportioned until their devoted portions have been burned)? From \"It is holy of holies.\" I might think that what has become unfit must also be apportioned; it is, therefore, written (\"Their portion have I given) it\" — one that is fit, and not one that is unfit. I might think that if it were apportioned (before the burning of the fistful) it becomes unfit; it is, therefore, written \"it (is holy of holies\") — it remains in its state of holiness.",
                "3) \"as the sin-offering\": Just a sin-offering comes (only) from what is non-consecrated (chullin, and not from the tithe, ma'aser), and (is offered only) in the daytime, and (its blood is applied only) with his right hand, so this. If so, we should say: Just as a sin-offering not slaughtered for that specific end is unfit, so this, if its fistful is not taken for that specific end, is unfit. It is therefore, (to negate this) written \"as the guilt-offering.\" Just as a guilt-offering not slaughtered for that specific end is fit, this, too, if its fistful is not taken for that specific end is fit.",
                "4) R. Shimon says: There are of them (meal-offerings) which are like a sin-offering, and there are of them which are like a guilt-offering. The meal-offering of a \"sinner\" (in defilement of the sanctuary or of sanctified objects) is similar to a sin-offering. Therefore, if its fistful were not taken for the express purpose of that offering, it is unfit. A gift meal-offering is similar to a guilt-offering, so that if its fistful were not taken for the express purpose of that offering it remains fit.",
                "5) (Vayikra 6:11) (\"Every male among the children of Aaron shall eat it. It is a statute forever for your generations of the fire-offerings of the L–rd. Whatever touches them shall become sanctified.\") \"Every male\": to include those who are blemished. To what end? If for eating, this is already written (viz. Vayikra 21:22). If so, why is \"Every male\" written? To include those who are blemished for apportionment. \"shall eat it\": if it is fit, but not if it has become unfit. \"It is a statute forever.\" — for the eternal house (the Temple). \"For your generations\" — to span the generations (for the second Temple and beyond). \"of the fire-offerings of the L–rd\": They may not eat it (even if it had been apportioned earlier) until after the fire-offering.",
                "6) \"Whatever touches them shall become sanctified\": I might think that this were so even if it (what touched them) had not absorbed (its oiliness); it is, therefore, written (\"whatever touches, lit.) \"in them\" — only if it had absorbed it. I might think that if it touched only a part of it, it became entirely unfit (if the offering itself were unfit); it is, therefore, written: \"Whatever touches them shall become sanctified.\" Only the part touching it becomes unfit. What does he do? He cuts off that part. \"shall become sanctified\" — to become like it. If it is unfit, then it (what touches it) becomes unfit; and if it is fit, then what touches it is to be eaten with its attendant stringencies."
            ],
            "Section 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 6:13) (\"This is the offering of Aaron and his sons, which they shall offer up to the L–rd on the day that he is anointed; the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, a perpetual meal-offering — half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening.\"): \"This is the offering of Aaron and his sons\": I might think that Aaron and his sons offer up this offering as one. It is, therefore, written \"his sons, which they offer up.\" How so? Aaron brings for himself and his sons bring for themselves.",
                "2) \"his sons\": These are ordinary Cohanim. But perhaps they are the high-priests, (who are like him in the high-priesthood). \"The priest that is anointed in his place from among his sons shall offer it\" (Vayikra 6:15) already refers to the high-priest. How, then, am I to understand \"his sons\" (here)? As referring to ordinary priests.",
                "3) When the Cohein draws near to the service in the beginning (i.e., at his investiture), he brings his tenth part of an ephah and sacrifices it by himself. Both the high-priest and an ordinary priest who served before bringing his tenth of an ephah — their service is invalid.",
                "4) \"on the day that he is anointed\": The high-priest is anointed only in the daytime. \"he\": Two high-priests are not anointed together. \"on the day that he is anointed\": From the day that he is anointed he brings the tenth of an ephah, perpetually. But perhaps it means: On that day he brings a tenth of an ephah and stops! It is, therefore, (to negate the latter) written \"a meal-offering perpetually.\" How, then, am I to satisfy \"On the day that he is anointed?\" On that day he brings a tenth of an ephah (and he does so) perpetually. \"the tenth part of an ephah\": one-tenth of three sa'im, which is seven quarters and a fraction (equivalent to seven login, one egg, and a fifth of an egg).",
                "5) \"meal\" (soleth): Just as the soleth mentioned elsewhere (Shemoth 29:2) is wheat, so the soleth mentioned here is wheat. \"a meal-offering\": like all meal-offerings, requiring a fistful. \"perpetual\": even in a state of tumah, even on the Sabbath.",
                "6) If it had been written \"half in the morning and half in the evening,\" I might think that he could bring a half issaron in the morning and a half issaron in the evening. It is, therefore, written \"its half.\" He brings half of a whole one.",
                "7) How is this affected? He brings a whole issaron and divides it, and he offers up half in the morning and half in the evening. If the half of dusk became tamei, I might think he could bring a half issaron from his house in the evening. It is, therefore, written \"and its half in the evening.\" He must bring it from a whole (meal-offering).",
                "8) How is this affected? He brings a whole issaron and divides it. Half is sacrificed and half goes lost. A Cohein who sacrificed half in the morning (and then died or became blemished), and another Cohein was appointed in his stead — I might think he could bring a half issaron from his house. It is, therefore, written \"its half in the morning and its half in the evening.\" He brings half of a whole one in the evening.",
                "9) How is this affected? He brings a whole issaron and divides it, and he offers up half, and half goes lost — (so that) it is found that two halves are sacrificed and two halves go lost. "
            ],
            "Chapter 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 6:14) (\"On a griddle with oil, shall it be made; soaked shall you bring it; well-baked, a meal-offering of pieces shall you offer it, a sweet savor to the L–rd.\") \"On a griddle\": We are hereby taught that it is a (ministering) vessel. \"with oil\": Oil is to be added to it (above the amount for the griddle offering of an Israelite). I would not know how much (oil to use). I, therefore, induce: This requires oil and the libation meal-offering (Shemoth 29:40) requires oil. Just as the libation meal-offering (requires) three logs for the issaron (viz. Shemoth 29:40), this, too, requires three logs for the issaron.",
                "2) But why not go in this direction: This requires oil and a gift meal-offering requires oil. Just as a gift meal-offering requires one log for the issaron, this, too, requires one log for the issaron!",
                "3) Let us see what it most closely resembles. We derive it from a meal-offering (the libation meal-offering) which is offered always (every day, with the tamid offering) and which overrides Shabbath and tumah, and not from a gift meal-offering, which lacks these factors. ",
                "4) But why not go in this direction: We derive an individual meal-offering, which comes in its own right (and not as an adjunct to another offering) and which requires frankincense, from an individual (gift-) offering, which comes in its own right and which requires frankincense; and this is not to be refuted by the libation meal-offering, which lacks these factors! ",
                "5) R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan b. Berokah says: \"Minchah tamid\" here (Vayikra 6:13) is like minchath temidim (the libation meal-offering). Just as with the minchath temidim, three logs for the issaron, here, too, three logs for the issaron. R. Shimon says: Oil is added for the griddle meal-offering (of the high-priest, here) and oil is added for the meal-offering of (i.e., accompanying) sheep, (the libation meal-offering). Just as with the sheep meal-offering, three logs for the issaron, here, too, three logs for the issaron. But why not go in this direction: Oil is added for the griddle meal-offering and oil is added for the ram meal-offering (Bamidbar 15:6). Just as with the ram meal-offering, two logs for one issaron; here, too, two logs for one issaron! Let us see what it most closely resembles. We derive a meal-offering (the high-priest's offering), all of which is one issaron, from a meal-offering (the libation meal-offering), all of which is one issaron, and not from the ram meal-offering, all of which is not one issaron, (but two).",
                "6) \"soaked shall it be made\": We are hereby taught that it is to be scalded with hot oil to saturation (before baking). There is no other \"soaked\" (revuchah) in the Torah but this and that of the thanksgiving offering (Vayikra 7:12) and that of the investiture offering (of the Cohanim, Shemoth 29:23). \"shall you bring it\": I might think after the libations; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 29:23): \"shall you offer it\" — before the libations. \"tufinei\" — tofeh na (Bake it lightly). R. Yehudah says: \"tofeh na'ah (Bake it beautifully). R. Yossi says: Bake it many (times). \"a meal-offering of pieces\": We are hereby taught that he folds it once into two parts and does not separate them, and the meal-offering of an ordinary Cohein is folded once into two and two into four and he does not separate them. "
            ],
            "Chapter 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 6:15) (\"And the Cohein that is anointed in his place from his sons shall offer it, a statute forever for the L–rd; it shall be entirely smoked.\") \"anointed\": This tells me only of the (high-priest) anointed with the anointing oil. Whence do I derive the same (that he brings a griddle meal-offering every day) for the many-vestmented priest (see Shemoth 29:30)? From \"and the Cohein that is anointed.\" I might think that I include also the priest anointed for war. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"in his place from his sons.\" Only one whose son stands in his place brings the tenth of an ephah — to exclude the priest anointed for war, whose son does not stand in his place. And whence is it derived that his son does not stand in his place? From (Shemoth, Ibid.): \"Seven days shall he clothe himself in them, his son that is priest in his place, who comes to the tent of meeting to minister in the holy place.\" Only the son of one \"who comes to the tent of meeting, etc.\" stands in his place — to exclude (the son of) the priest anointed for war, who does not come to the tent of meeting to minister in the holy place.",
                "2) \"… from his sons shall offer it\": We are hereby taught that his son takes precedence to all others. I might think that this is so even when he cannot fill his father's place (in wisdom and in fear of Heaven). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 16:32): \"… who shall fill his place\": When he is qualified to fill his father's place, he takes precedence to all others. If he is not qualified to do so, let another come and serve in his stead.",
                "3) Whence is it derived that if the high-priest died and another Cohein had not been anointed in his stead that his meal-offering is offered up by his heirs? From \"… from his sons shall offer it.\" (even if he has not been appointed as high-priest). I might think that they could bring it by halves (as he does). It is, therefore, written \"it\" — I have spoken of its whole and not of its parts. (All of it is to be sacrificed with the morning tamid.) These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: It is offered only by the congregation, it being written: \"a statute olam\": It should come from the olam (lit., the world, i.e., the congregation). \"all of it shall be smoked\": All of it is for smoking (and not parts of it when it is brought by the congregation).",
                "4) (Vayikra 6:16) (\"And every meal-offering of a Cohein shall be entirely (smoked); it shall not be eaten.\") The meal-offering of a Cohein is not eaten. The meal-offering of the daughter of a Cohein is eaten. This tells me only of his required meal-offering (above, the griddle meal-offering). Whence do I derive the same for his gift meal-offering? From \"every meal-offering of a Cohein.\" This tells me (that he transgresses only if he eats) all of it. Whence do I derive the same for (his eating) part of it? From \"shall it be\" — even part of it. This tells me only that the above (Vayikra 6:15) (the griddle meal-offering) comes under \"it shall be entirely smoked\" and that the lower (Vayikra 6:16) (the gift meal-offering comes under \"it shall not be eaten\" Whence do I derive that the upper (also) comes under \"it shall not be eaten\" and the lower under \"it shall be entirely smoked\"? From the identity of \"entire\" (kalil, in both instances, so that what applies to one applies to the other). R. Eliezer says: \"It shall be entirely (kalil) smoked; it shall not be eaten\" — \"All that comes under kalil\" (even a burnt-offering and devoted portions, which are to be entirely consumed) — if he eats them, he transgresses a negative commandment. "
            ],
            "Section 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 6:18) (\"Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall the sin-offering be slaughtered, before the L–rd; it is holy of holies.\") \"This is the law of the sin-offering\": This (the sin-offering) does not obtain on a bamah (a temporary altar). \"the law of the sin-offering\": There is one law for all sin-offerings, that their blood (if it sprinkled onto a garment) requires washing. — Now where is it excluded (from washing that we need a verse to include it)? — Because it is written (Vayikra 6:19): \"The Cohein who offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it\" and (Vayikra 6:20): \"and what shall be sprinkled of its blood upon a garment … shall be washed,\" I would think that only outer sin-offerings, (which are eaten by the Cohanim) require washing, but not inner sin-offerings, (which are burnt). And (what is more) it would follow a fortiori, viz.: Now if holy of holies (guilt-offerings), which are similar to outer sin-offerings in requiring scouring and rinsing (of the vessels in which they have been cooked), do not require washing (of garments), then inner sin-offerings, which are not similar (to them) in requiring scouring and rinsing, (not being eaten and not being cooked), how much more so should they not require washing. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"the law of the sin-offering\": There is one law for all sin-offerings, that their blood requires washing.",
                "2) I would think that the sin-offering of a bird, (that is \"pinched\") also requires washing (of the blood on the garment, it also being called a \"sin-offering\"); it is, therefore, written \"This is the law of the sin-offering. In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered\" (by shechitah) and not by \"pinching\" (melikah). \"In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, there shall the sin-offering be slaughtered before the L–rd.\": This is to include every sin-offering for shechitah in the north (of the altar) only. R. Eliezer says: From here we derive that a fixed burnt-offering is to be slaughtered only in the north. \"it is holy of holies.\": This is to include communal peace-offerings (the Atzereth sheep) for shechitah in the north only. \"it is holy of holies\": to exclude the thank-offering and the ram of the Nazirite, (which are lower-order) offerings (from shechitah in the north).",
                "3) (Vayikra 6:19) (\"The Cohein that offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it. In a holy lace shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting.\") \"The Cohein that offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it\": with the exclusion of one who immersed in the daytime (and is not clean until the evening, and one lacking atonement, and a mourner. \"it\": a fit (offering) and not one that is unfit, (such as one that went out of the azarah or became tamei). \"it\": an offering whose blood was applied above (the upper half of the altar), and not one whose blood was applied below. — Now where are you coming from (to assume that it would be fit if its blood were placed below)? — Because it is written (Devarim 12:27): \"And the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of the L–rd your G d, and the flesh you shall eat,\" I would assume that a sin-offering whose blood was applied on the lower half was fit. And how would I satisfy \"on the horns of the altar\"? As being a mitzvah (but not a categorical requirement). For I would think that just as it requires four applications (of blood on the horns of the altar), but if he made (only) one application it atones, so, it would require the application of blood above, but if he did so below it would be fit. And does this not follow, viz.: Blood is applied below (the red line, in the instance of a bird sin-offering, (Vayikra 5:9): \"And he shall sprinkle from the blood of the sin-offering on the wall of the altar,\" which is expounded to be the lower wall), and blood is applied above (the red line, in the instance of beast sin-offering, where \"horns\" is written). Just as (it is derived by exegesis) that if what was to be applied below was applied above, there is no atonement, so, if what was to be applied above, was applied below, there is no atonement. But (this could be countered, viz.:) Why does the lower applied above not atone? Because none of it is to be offered up above. Would you then say (because of this) that the higher applied below does not atone — when part of it is offered below! (So that \"it\" is required to tell us that it does not atone.) — But this would be countered by the instance of the inner (blood), part of which is offered outside, notwithstanding which if it (the inner blood) was offered outside, it would not atone. (So, the question returns: Why is the \"it\" exclusion necessary?) (Because it could be countered) Why is it that if the inner blood is applied outside it does not atone? Because the inner altar does not complete the process of atonement, whereas with the higher blood, since the horns do complete the process of atonement, I would say that if it were placed below, it would be fit; it is, therefore, written (to negate this): \"it\" — an offering whose blood was applied above, and not one whose blood was applied below.",
                "5) \"In a holy place shall it be eaten\": I might think, in the Levite encampment. It is, therefore, written \"in the court of the tent of meeting.\" This tells me only of the court of the tent of meeting? Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the chambers built in a non-sanctified area and opening into the sanctuary? It is, therefore, written (to include these): \"In a holy place shall it be eaten.\"",
                "6) (Vayikra 6:20): \"All that touches its flesh shall be sanctified\" (see Section 2, Chapter 3:6)"
            ],
            "Chapter 6": [
                "1) (Vayikra 6:20) (\"And what shall be sprinkled of its blood upon a garment, that which has been sprinkled on, you shall wash in a holy place.\") \"what shall be sprinkled of its blood\": of the blood of an animal that is fit, and not of that of an animal which is unfit. R. Akiva says: If it had a time of fitness and its blood became unfit, (as when its blood remained overnight or became tamei), washing is required. If it did not have a time of fitness and its blood became unfit, (as when it became unfit in being slaughtered or in the receiving of its blood), washing is not required. R. Shimon says: Even if it had a time of fitness and it became unfit, washing is not required.",
                "2) \"of its blood\": and not of the blood of holy of holies, (such as the blood of communal peace-offerings or of guilt-offerings. If it were sprinkled on a garment, it does not require washing.) For would it not follow a fortiori (that it does require washing), viz.: If inner sin-offerings, which are not similar to outer sin-offerings in (requiring) scouring and rinsing (of vessels in which they are cooked), are similar to them in (requiring) washing, then holy of holies, which are similar to outer sin-offerings in (requiring) scouring and rinsing, does it not follow that they should be similar to them in (requiring) washing! It is, therefore, (to negate this,) necessary to write \"of its blood.\" \"of its blood\": and not of its broth (If its broth sprinkled on a garment, it does not require rinsing.) For would it not follow a fortiori (that it does require washing), viz.: If blood, which does not require scouring and rinsing (of vessels), requires washing (of garments), then broth, which does require scouring and rinsing, should it not follow that it requires washing! It is, therefore, (to negate this,) necessary to write \"of its blood\" and not of its broth.",
                "3) \"upon a garment\": If it sprinkled upon part of a garment, I might think the entire garment required washing. It is, therefore, written \"that which has been sprinkled upon you shall wash\" — the place of the blood requires washing, and not the entire garment.",
                "4) If it sprinkled from its neck onto a garment, I might think it required washing. It is, therefore, written \"And what shall be sprinkled (upon it) of its blood … you shall wash in a holy place\": (blood from) a place (i.e., a ministering vessel) from which it is kasher to sprinkle upon it requires washing, and (blood from a place, i.e., the neck,) from which it is not kasher to sprinkle upon it does not require washing.",
                "5) If (the blood) sprang from the hand of the sprinkler (onto the garment) before he sprinkled (it on the altar horn), it requires washing. If after he sprinkled, it does not require washing, (for the blood that was left on his finger after sprinkling on the altar horn is not fit for sprinkling.) If it spilled from the vessel onto the floor and he gathered it up and then it sprang upon the garment, it requires washing, (for the blood was still fit for sprinkling). (If it sprang) from the animal's neck onto the floor and was gathered up (and then sprang upon the garment), it does not require washing, (it not being fit for sprinkling, not having been received in the ministering vessel). (If it sprang) from the horn and from the base (of the altar), it does not require washing, (it being written \"what shall be sprinkled,\" and not what was already sprinkled).",
                "6) \"a garment\": This tells me only of a garment (as requiring washing). Whence do I derive for inclusion stripped (animal) hide? From \"what (i.e., anything that) has been sprinkled upon you shall wash.\" I might think to include (even) hide which has not been stripped. It is, therefore, written \"a garment.\" Just as a garment is fit to acquire tumah, so all tings that are fit to acquire tumah (are included, excluding unstripped hide). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Eliezer says: \"a garment\": This tells me only of a garment. Whence do I derive for inclusion a sack and any (other) thing that acquires tumah? From \"what has been sprinkled upon you shall wash.\" I might think to include hide (immediately) after it has been stripped, (before it has been made a kli, an \"implement\"). It is, therefore, written \"a garment.\" Just as a garment, which acquires tumah, (being a kli), requires washing, so, all things that acquire tumah, require washing, excluding a thing which, not acquiring tumah, (like an unstripped hide, not having been made a kli), does not require washing.",
                "7) \"You shall wash in a holy place\": This teaches us that the washing must be done in a holy place. How so? A garment which went outside of the curtains (after blood had sprung upon it) must be returned and washed in a holy place. This tells me only of washing in a holy place. Whence do I derive the same for the breaking of earthenware vessels? From: (the juxtaposition) \"shall be washed in a holy place (Vayikra 6:21) And an earthenware vessel … shall be broken.\" Whence do I derive the same for the scouring of copper vessels? From (Vayikra 6:21): \"And if it is cooked in a copper vessel, etc.\"",
                "8) From here they ruled: A garment which went outside of the curtains must be returned and washed in a holy place. If it became tamei outside of the curtains, (and it is forbidden to bring things that are tamei into the azarah), it must be torn and returned and be washed in a holy place. An earthenware vessel which went outside of the curtains must be returned and broken in a holy place. If it became tamei outside of the curtains, it must be punctured and returned and broken in a holy place. A copper vessel which went outside of the curtains must be returned and scoured and rinsed in a holy place. If it became tamei outside of the curtains, it must be \"reduced\" and returned, and scoured and rinsed in a holy place."
            ],
            "Chapter 7": [
                "1) (Vayikra 6:21) (\"And an earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken. And if it is cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured and rinsed with water.\") \"an earthenware vessel\": This tells me only of an earthenware vessel. Whence do we derive for inclusion (as requiring breaking) a vessel made of alum crystals? From \"and an earthenware vessel.\" \"in which it is cooked shall be broken\": This tells me only of (a vessel) in which it was cooked. Whence do I derive the same for one into which hot water was poured? From (lit.) \"and which shall be cooked in it shall be broken.\" This tells me only of an earthenware vessel into which boiling water was poured. Whence do I derive the same for a copper vessel? From \"and which shall be cooked in it shall be broken.\"",
                "2) \"and if in a copper vessel\": This tells me only of a copper vessel. Whence do I derive for inclusion all other metals? From \"and if in a copper vessel.\" \"it is cooked\": This teaches us that it could have been cooked in repeatedly, and, in the end, scoured and rinsed. This tells me (in this regard) only of a copper vessel. Whence do I derive the same for an earthenware vessel? From \"(an earthenware vessel) shall be broken. And if in a copper vessel it is cooked\" (implying that in this regard what applies to a copper vessel applies to an earthenware vessel.) R. Tarfon says: If he cooked in it at the beginning of the festival, he can continue cooking in it the entire festival. And the sages say: Until the time of eating. \"it shall be scoured and rinsed\": Scouring, in the manner of scouring the (grace) cup (from within). Rinsing, in the manner of rinsing the cup (on the outside). Scouring and rinsing, with cold water (after haga'alah, removal of what has been absorbed, by boiling water). A spit and a grate can be cleansed by haga'alah (and do not require libun [\"firing\"]).",
                "3) \"it shall be scoured and rinsed\": I might think that just as \"rinsing\" elsewhere (Vayikra 15:11) is in forty sa'ah; here, too, it is in forty sa'ah; it is, therefore, written \"with water\" — any amount; \"with water\" — and not with wine; \"with water\" — and not with a dilution (of wine and water); \"with water\" — all water (and not just \"living waters\"); and it follows a fortiori that kiyor (laver) water (may be used).",
                "4) (Vayikra 6:22) (\"Every male among the Cohanim may eat it; it is holy of holies.\") I might think that even (the utensils of an offering that became) unfit (for the altar) required scouring and rinsing; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"Every male among the Cohanim may eat it.\" Only (the vessels of) a fit one, (which may be eaten,) require scouring and rinsing, and not (those of) an unfit one. R. Yaakov says: If it had a time of fitness and became unfit, scouring and rinsing (of the vessels) is required. If not, it is not required. R. Shimon says: Even if it had a time of fitness and became unfit, scouring and rinsing are not required.",
                "6) \"Every male\": to include all those with blemishes. Why need this be stated? If (to tell us that they are fit) for eating, this has already been stated (Vayikra 21:22), and if for apportionment, (that he receive a portion as one of the fit ones), this has already been stated (Vayikra 6:11, see Chapter 3:5 here). If so, why is \"Every male\" written? For (if it were not written) I might think that only those with passing blemishes (were permitted). Whence would I derive (for inclusion) even those with permanent blemishes? It is, therefore, written: \"Every male among the Cohanim may eat.\" \"it\": one that is consecrated and not one that is unfit. \"it is holy of holies\": Why is this mentioned? I might think that (the vessels of) a sin-offering alone require scouring and rinsing. Whence do I derive the same for all offerings? From \"holy of holies.\" I might think that the same holds true for terumah. It is, therefore, written (\"may eat) it\" — excluding terumah. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: (Vessels of) higher order offerings require scouring and rinsing. (Those of) lower order offerings do not.",
                "7) I would exclude (from scouring and rinsing) these, but I would not exclude the thank-offering and the ram of the Nazirite, which are eaten for one day, as are higher order offerings. It is, therefore, written \"It [the sin-offering] (is holy of holies.)\" If he cooked in it consecrated together with non-consecrated food, higher order together with lower order offerings — if it (the lesser) imparts a taste (to the mixture), the lesser may be eaten as (i.e., with the same constraints as) the more stringent, and they (the vessels) do not render unfit by touch and they do not require scouring and rinsing."
            ],
            "Chapter 8": [
                "1) (Vayikra 6:23) (\"And every sin-offering, whereof any of its blood is brought to the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place, shall not be eaten. In fire shall it be burned.\") \"sin-offering\": This tells me only of sin-offerings. Whence do I derive the same for all offerings? From \"And every sin-offering.\" These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yossi Haglili said to him: Akiva, even if you \"include\" all the day only \"sin-offering\" is written here. Why, then, is \"every\" written? I would think that only an individual sin-offering were meant. Whence would I derive the same for communal sin-offerings (such as the goats of Rosh Chodesh and of the festivals)? From \"every.\" This tells me only of a male sin-offering. Whence do I derive the same for a female sin-offering? From \"And every sin-offering.\" R. Eliezer says: The guilt-offering, too, (is included), it being written (Vayikra 7:7): \"As the sin-offering, so the guilt-offering.\"",
                "2) \"whereof any of its blood is brought\": even part of its blood — whence it was ruled: A sin-offering whose blood was received in two cups — If one of them went outside (the azarah), the inner one is kasher, (the blood applications may be made, and the offering is valid). If one of them went within (the sanctuary), R. Yossi Haglili rules the offering fit with the (application of) the outer blood, and the sages rule it unfit. R. Yossi Haglili said: Now, if in a place where a thought (i.e., where one thought at the time of slaughtering the animal to scatter its blood outside), (that thought of) the outside renders the offering unfit — and yet the outside blood does not render the inside blood unfit — then a place where a thought (i.e., where one thought at the time of slaughtering the animal to apply inside (the sanctuary) the blood that is to be applied outside), (that thought of) the inside does not render the offering unfit — does it not follow that the inner blood should not invalidate the outer blood! They said to him: It is written \"of its blood\" — even part of its blood (invalidates the offering if it is brought within).",
                "3) He said to them: Now we have an a fortiori argument for blood that goes out (of the azarah)! viz.: If in a place where a thought of bringing the blood inside (the sanctuary) does not render the offering unfit, the blood brought inside (the sanctuary) renders the blood brought outside (it) unfit — then in a place where a thought (of taking the blood) outside (the azarah), renders the offering unfit, does it not follow that blood taken outside (the azarah) should render unfit the inside blood! They said to him: It is written: \"(whereof any of its blood is brought) into the tent of meeting (… in fire it shall be burned.\") (The blood) that enters (the tent of meeting) renders unfit, and not (the blood) that leaves (the azarah).",
                "4) \"to the tent of meeting\": This tells me only of the tent of meeting. Whence do I derive that the same applies in Shiloh and in the Temple? From \"to make atonement in the holy place.\" If one went in (with the blood) to make atonement, even if he did not make atonement, it becomes unfit. These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Eliezer said: It is written here \"to make atonement in the holy place,\" and elsewhere (Vayikra 16:17): (\"And no man shall be in the tent of meeting when he (Aaron) comes) to make atonement in the holy place.\" Just as there (\"to make atonement\" implies) that he has not (yet) made atonement, here, too, (the implication is) that he has not yet made atonement. R. Shimon says: It is written here \"to make atonement in the holy place,\" and elsewhere (Vayikra 16:27) (\"And the bullock of the sin-offering and the he-goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought) to make atonement in the holy place (… and they shall burn in fire, etc.\") Just as there (\"to make atonement\" implies) that he has already made atonement, (for burning comes after atonement), here, too, (the implication is) that atonement has already been made, (the blood having been applied to the altar, but his entering alone does not make the blood unfit.) And if he brought it in unwittingly, it remains kasher, (even if he made atonement on the altar).",
                "5) \"in the holy place … in fire shall it be burned.\": We are hereby taught that it is burned in a holy place (the azarah). This tells me only of this (sin-offering) alone. Whence is it derived that the same applies for invalidated higher order offerings and for the devoted portions of lower order offerings? From \"And all … in the holy place … in fire shall it be burned.\"",
                "6) From here they ruled: The flesh of higher order offerings that became tamei, either by an av hatumah (\"proto-tumah\") or by a vlad hatumah (generated tumah), whether inside (in the azarah) or outside (the azarah) — Beth Shammai say: All must be burned inside; and Beth Hillel say: All must be burned outside, unless it became tamei by a vlad hatumah inside, (in which case it is burned inside). These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: Beth Shammai say: All is burned inside unless it became tamei by an av hatumah outside, (in which case it is burned outside). And Beth Hillel say: All must be burned outside, unless it became tamei by a vlad hatumah inside.",
                "7) R. Eliezer says: What became tamei by an av hatumah, whether inside or outside, is burned outside. What became tamei by a vlad hatumah, whether inside or outside, is burned inside. R. Akiva says: What became tamei outside, whether by an av hatumah or a vlad hatumah is burned outside. What became tamei inside, whether by an av hatumah or a vlad hatumah is burned inside. R. Eliezer says: \"it shall not be eaten; in fire shall it be burned\": The intent of Scripture is to add (violation of) a negative commandment (in addition to the positive \"in fire shall be burned\") for eating it.",
                "8) R. Yossi Haglili says: This entire section (\"it shall not be eaten, etc.\") applies (not to a sin-offering, but) to (unfit) bullocks which are to be burnt and unfit he-goats which are to be burned, to add (violation of) a negative commandment for eating it, to teach that their unfit offerings are burned before the Temple. They asked him: Whence, then, is it to be derived that (an outer) sin-offering whose blood entered inside (the sanctuary) becomes unfit? He answered: From (Vayikra 10:18): \"Behold, its blood was not brought into the sanctuary within. (You should have eaten it in the sanctuary,\" and not burned it, the implication being that if it had entered within, it, indeed, should have been burned.)"
            ],
            "Section 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 7:1) (\"And this is the law of the guilt-offering; it is holy of holies.\") \"This is the law of the guilt-offering\": for the Temple. It does not obtain on a bamah (a temporary altar). \"the law of the guilt-offering\": There is one law for all guilt-offerings (even that of a leper), that their blood is applied below (the red line on the altar).",
                "2) Now where is it excluded (from such application, that we need a verse to include it)? — Because it is written (in respect to the guilt-offering of a leper (Vayikra 14:13): \"For, as the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering to the Cohein,\" (I would think that just as the blood of a sin-offering is applied above (with the Cohein's finger on the corners of the altar), so, the blood of this (guilt-offering); it is, therefore, written, (to negate this,) \"the law of the guilt-offering\" (including the guilt-offering of the leper). (Vayikra 7:2) (\"In the place where they slaughtered the burnt-offering shall they slaughter the guilt-offering; and its blood shall he sprinkle on the altar roundabout.\") \"and its blood shall he sprinkle\": All guilt-offerings, including that of a leper, are herein subsumed, for the application of their blood below (the red line). Whence do we derive that if the blood of a guilt-offering became intermixed with that of peace-offerings (both being applied below the red line) it is (still) to be sprinkled (for whichever he desires)? From \"holy of holies … and its blood shall he sprinkle.\" I might think that the same applied if they became interchanged when alive; it is, therefore, (to negate this,) written \"it (is holy of holies,\" i.e., it must be specially designated by type). What, then, can he do? He lets them graze until they sustain a blemish, after which he sells them and offers a higher priced animal as one type, (guilt-offering or peace-offering, as he chooses), and a higher priced animal as the other type, making up the difference (between higher priced and lower priced) from his pocket, (for either guilt-offering or peace-offering could have been higher priced originally). R. Shimon says: If a guilt-offering became interchanged with a peace-offering, both are to be slaughtered in the north (of the altar, as per the stringency of a guilt-offering); one, as a guilt-offering; the other, as a peace-offering; and each is to be eaten according to the more stringent of them (the guilt-offering, which is eaten for a day and a night). They said to him: But do not peace-offerings require waving (viz. Shemoth 29:26), and guilt-offerings not require waving? He said to them: What of it? Let him wave the guilt-offering! They answered: Offerings, (in this case, peace-offerings,) are not brought to \"the house of unfitness\" (i.e., By doing this you are opening the door to the invalidation of peace-offerings).",
                "3) \"shall they slaughter\": Many slaughterers are herein subsumed: even proselytes, even women, even servants. Shechitah (slaughtering) connotes drawing-forth, viz. (I Kings 10:16): \"zahav shachut\" (\"drawn-forth gold\"). R. Eliezer says: From here (\"they shall slaughter\") we derive that a communal burnt-offering (and not only an individual burnt-offering) is slaughtered only in the north.",
                "4) (Vayikra 7:5) (\"And the Cohein shall smoke them upon the altar, a fire-offering to the L–rd; it is a guilt-offering.\")",
                "5) R. Eliezer says: \"a fire-offering\" — consigned to the fire; \"a guilt-offering\": even though he did not place his hands upon it. (\"it is) a guilt-offering\": I might think (that it is valid) even if he did not slaughter it to that end. It is, therefore, written \"it\" (— only if it were intended as such.)",
                "6) R. Eliezer says: A sin-offering comes for a sin, and a guilt-offering comes for a sin. Just as a sin-offering not intended as such is unfit, so a guilt-offering not intended as such is unfit.",
                "7) They said to him (in refutation): No, this may be so with a sin-offering, whose blood is placed above, but not with a guilt-offering, whose blood is placed below. He countered: This is refuted by the Pesach offering, whose blood is placed below, (and even so,) if he did not slaughter it as such, it is unfit.",
                "They countered: This may be so because it has a set time. He countered: Non-intention invalidates a sin-offering because it is written of it \"It,\" and non-intention invalidates a Pesach because it is written of it \"It\" — and of a guilt-offering, too, it is written \"It\"! They countered: Of a Pesach and a sin-offering it is written \"It\" in respect to slaughtering, but in respect to a guilt-offering it is written \"It\" after the smoking of the devoted portions, and even if they were not smoked, it is kasher! Why, then, is it written \"It\"? It is sacrificed, but its exchange is not sacrificed.",
                "9) (Vayikra 7:6) (\"Every male among the Cohanim may eat it. In a holy place shall it be eaten; it is holy of holies.\") \"Every male\": to include those with blemishes. Why (is this mentioned)? If for eating, this has already been mentioned (as permitted). If for apportionment, this has already been mentioned. If for those with permanent blemishes, this has already been mentioned. If for those with passing blemishes, this has already been mentioned. Why, then, is it mentioned! For I might think (were it not mentioned) that it were permitted only if he was born unblemished and became blemished; but how would I know that it were so (even) if he was born blemished? It is, therefore, written \"Every male among the Cohanim.\"",
                "\"may eat it\": if it were kasher and not unfit (as an offering). \"holy of holies\": to include communal peace-offerings as being eaten only by the males of the Cohanim. \"It (is holy of holies\") — excluding the thank-offering and the ram of the Nazirite. "
            ],
            "Chapter 9": [
                "1) (Vayikra 7:7) (\"As the sin-offering, so the guilt-offering. There is one law for them. The Cohein that makes atonement with them, to him shall it be.\") \"As the sin-offering, so the guilt-offering\": Just as a sin-offering comes (only) from what is non-consecrated (chullin, and not from the tithe, ma'aser) and (its blood is applied only) with his right hand, and (is offered only) in the daytime, so, a guilt-offering. \"There is one law for them\": as requiring semichah (placing of the hands.) \"The Cohein that makes atonement with them, to him shall it be\": to exclude one who has immersed in the daytime (and is not clean until the evening), one who lacks atonement (until he brings a sacrifice), and a mourner (before the burial of his kin). (Vayikra 7:8) (\"And the Cohein that offers up the burnt-offering of a man, the hide of the burnt-offering which he offered up is the Cohein's. To him shall it be.\") \"And the Cohein that offers up the burnt-offering of a man\": to exclude a burnt-offering of (i.e., devoted to) the Temple (where the hide does not go to the Cohanim, but is sold, and its monies given to the Temple). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: To exclude the burnt-offering of a proselyte. \"the burnt-offering of a man\": Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the burnt-offering of proselytes, (who have died without heirs [this, in opposition to R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah]), women, and servants? From the hide of the burnt-offering.\" If so, why is it written \"the burnt-offering of a man\"? A burnt-offering that is accounted to the man, to exclude one that was slaughtered outside of its (proper) place.",
                "2) I might think to include also one that was not slaughtered as a burnt-offering, viz.: Since it is not accounted to the owner to satisfy his obligation, its hide should not revert to the Cohanim (but to Temple maintenance). It is, therefore, written \"the hide of the burnt-offering,\" to include (the Cohanim for this reversion). This tells me only of the hide of the burnt-offering. Whence do I derive (the same for) the hides of (all) higher order offerings? From \"which he offered up.\" I might think to include also the hides of lower order offerings. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"the burnt-offering\" — Just as a burnt-offering is a higher order offering, (so all that are so classified are included), excluding lower order offerings.",
                "3) R. Yishmael says: \"the hide of the burnt-offering\": This tells me only of the hide of the burnt-offering. Whence do I derive (the same for) the hides of (all) higher order offerings (that they revert to the Cohanim)? By a fortiori deduction, viz.: If in a place (the burnt-offering), where the Cohanim did not acquire the flesh, they acquired the hides, here (the other higher order offerings), where they acquired the flesh, does it not follow that they should acquire the hides? — This is refuted by the altar, which acquired flesh but did not acquire hides.",
                "4) No (i.e., this is no refutation. This may be so of the altar, which did not acquire any of them (the hides), whereas the Cohanim did acquire some of them (those of a burnt-offering), and since they acquired some of them, they should acquire all of them (i.e., the hides of all the higher order offerings!) Rebbi says: The truth is that we need to be apprised of (the status of) the hide of the burnt-offering alone (and we need no a fortiori arguments for the status of the hides of other higher order offerings). For in all instances, the hide \"follows\" the flesh: In the instance of the burnt-bullocks and the burnt he-goats, their hides are burnt with them, viz. (Vayikra 16:27): (\"… he shall take outside the camp) and they shall burn in fire their hides and their flesh and their dung.\"",
                "5) The sin-offering and the guilt-offering and the communal peace-offerings are given as gifts to the Cohanim. If they wish to flay them, they flay them. If they wish to eat them together with their skins, they do so. But in the instance of the burnt-offerings, because it is written (Vayikra 1:6): \"And he shall flay the burnt-offerings,\" Scripture is constrained to state: \"The hide of the burnt-offering which he offered up … to him shall it be.\" \"to him shall it be\": to exclude one who has immersed in the daytime (and is not clean until the evening), one who lacks atonement (until he brings a sacrifice), and a mourner (before the burial of his kin). For I might think they should not share in the flesh, which is for eating, but they could share in the hides, which are not for eating. I must, therefore, be apprised: \"The hide of the burnt-offering which he offered up is the Cohein's (i.e., It reverts to the Cohein who was fit to offer it up); to him shall it be\": excluding one who immersed in the daytime, one who lacks atonement, and a mourner."
            ],
            "Chapter 10": [
                "1) (Vayikra 7:9) (\"And every meal-offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is made in the stewing-pan and on the griddle, to the Cohein who offers it up, to him shall it be. (Vayikra 7:10) And every meal-offering mixed with oil or dry, to all the sons of Aaron shall it be, one man as well as another.\") R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that if one said: \"I vow (to bring) a burnt-offering of meal baked in an oven\" that he should not bring half-cakes (challoth) and half-wafers (rekikim)? From \"every meal-offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is made in the stewing-pan and on the griddle … and every meal-offering mixed with oil or dry.\" Just as the latter (\"stewing-pan and griddle\" and \"mixed with oil or dry\") are (respectively) two kinds, so, these (\"cakes and wafers\" — viz. Vayikra 2:4 (\"baked in an oven…) cakes and wafers\") are two kinds (and cannot combine with each other to constitute a vow connoting a single kind). \"and all that is made in the marchesheth (stewing-pan) and the machavath (griddle).\" These terms connote the vessels (themselves) and not their products. Just as a tanur (\"oven\") is a vessel, so marchesheth and machavath are vessels.",
                "2) \"to the Cohein who offers it up, to him shall it be.\": I might think, to him alone; it is, therefore, written \"to all the sons of Aaron shall it be.\" I might think, to all of them; it is, therefore, written \"to the Cohein who offers it up.\" How is this to be reconciled? It is (divided among) the (particular) priestly household that offers it up.",
                "3) Whence is it derived that meal-offerings are not apportioned against flesh offerings (i.e., that one Cohein should not say to another: You take the flesh offerings and I will take the meal-offerings)? From \"Every meal-offering that is baked in the oven … to all the sons of Aaron shall it be\" (i.e., the meal-offerings shall be shared by all of the Cohanim.)",
                "4) I might think that meal-offerings baked in the oven are not apportioned against flesh offerings, but that other meal-offerings are apportioned against flesh offerings; it is, therefore, written \"All that is made in the stewing-pan and on the griddle, etc. … to all the sons of Aaron shall it be.\"",
                "5) I might think that meal-offerings are not to be apportioned against flesh offerings, (because nothing is substituted for meal-offerings in a state of poverty) but that bird-offerings are apportioned against meal-offerings, (for meal-offerings are substituted for bird-offerings in a state of poverty; it is, therefore, written \"and on the griddle, etc. to all the sons of Aaron shall it be.\"",
                "6) I might think that bird-offerings are not to be apportioned against meal-offerings, but that meal-offerings are to be apportioned against (other) meal-offerings; it is, therefore, written \"and every meal-offering mixed with oil or dry, to all the sons of Aaron shall it be.\"",
                "7) I might think that machavath is not to be apportioned against marchesheth and marchesheth against machavath, but that (one type of) machavath is apportioned against (a second type) of machavath, and marchesheth against marchesheth; it is, therefore, written \"… or dry, to all the sons of Aaron shall it be.\"",
                "8) I might think they do not make apportionment with higher order offerings, but they do make apportionment with lower order offerings; it is, therefore, written (after (Vayikra 2:11) \"And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings [lower order offerings]\"), (Vayikra 2:12) \"If for thanksgiving (a lower order offering) he shall offer it\" — Just as apportionment is not made with higher order offerings, they are not made with lower order offerings.",
                "9) \"one man as well as another\" shares, even if he is blemished; but a minor does not share, even if he is unblemished."
            ],
            "Section 6": [
                "1) Whence is it derived that the time (for eating offerings) of the bamoth (temporary altars, when such altars were permitted), is the same as that of the time (for eating them) in the tent of meeting (i.e., two days and one night for peace-offerings and a day and a night for thank-offerings)? Since Scripture states that lan, an offering that remains overnight (without being eaten in its prescribed time), is to be burnt, and that an offering that becomes tamei is to be burnt — just as tamei is unfit in a bamah, so, lan is unfit in a bamah. Or, go in this direction: lan is unfit, and yotzei (an offering leaving its prescribed bounds) is unfit (in the tent of meeting) — just as yotzei does not obtain in a bamah, (for which there are no prescribed bounds), lan, too, does not obtain in a bamah!",
                "2) But does it not follow a fortiori (that lan obtains in a bamah), viz.: If a bird, which is not rendered unfit (as an offering) by a blemish, is rendered unfit by lan, bamah offerings, which are rendered unfit by a blemish — how much more so should they be rendered unfit by lan! — No, why is it that a bird, even though it is not rendered unfit by a blemish is rendered unfit by lan? Because (sacrifice by) a zar (a non-Cohein) renders it unfit. But would you, therefore, say of bamah offerings that because a blemish renders them unfit, lan should render them unfit? (This is not so,) because a zar does not render them unfit. And because a zar does not render them unfit, lan should not render them unfit! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:11): \"And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … (Vayikra 7:12) If for thanksgiving he shall offer it, etc.\" (i.e., there is one law for all offerings, whether in the tent of meeting or in a bamah) — equating the time (and the lan) factor in a bamah with that in the tent of meeting.",
                "3) \"the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … If for thanksgiving he shall offer it\": We are hereby taught that a thank-offering may be slaughtered as a thank-offering or as a peace-offering. I might think that a peace-offering, too, may be slaughtered as a peace-offering or as a thank-offering; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"This (is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings.\")",
                "4) \"the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … If for thanksgiving\": Just as a peace-offering requires placing of the hands (semichah), and libations, and waving of breast and thigh, so, a thank-offering.",
                "5) They said in the name of R. Yishmael: Because the thank-offering departed (from the general category of peace-offerings) for a new learning (that it required loaves, unlike peace-offerings), I might think that it retains only its new learning (see Hermeneutical Principle 11); it is, therefore, written, (to restore it to its category): \"the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … If for thanksgiving\" — Just as a peace-offering requires placing of the hands, and libations, and waving of breast and thigh, so, a thank-offering.",
                "6) \"the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings … If for thanksgiving\": Just as peace-offerings may be brought from the tithe [ma'aser], (if he vowed to bring a peace-offering from second-tithe monies), so a thank-offering may be brought from the tithe.",
                "7) If one vowed to bring (a thank-offering) without qualifying (from which monies), I might think that he could bring it from the tithe; it is, therefore, written \"the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings\" — Just as with peace-offerings if he specified \"from the tithe,\" he brings from the tithe, and if he does not specify \"from the tithe,\" he brings only from chullin (non-consecrated) monies, so, with the thank-offering.",
                "8) Whence is it derived that the loaves of the thank-offering (Vayikra 7:13) may be brought from the tithe? From (the redundant) \"which he shall offer (to the L–rd\" [Vayikra 7:11]). Just as the peace-offerings may be brought from the tithe, so the loaves may be brought from the tithe.",
                "9) If one vowed to bring a thank-offering from the tithe, but did not specify that its loaves were to be brought from the tithe, I might think that he could bring it and its loaves from the tithe; it is, therefore, written \"the peace-offerings which he shall offer\": Just as with peace-offerings, if he specified \"from the tithe\" he brings from the tithe; but if he did not specify \"from the tithe,\" he brings only from chullin, so, with the loaves. If he vowed to bring a thank-offering from chullin and its loaves from the tithe, I might think that since he specified, he could do so; it is, therefore, written \"the peace-offerings which he shall offer\" — When he says \"I vow to bring a thank-offering, it and its loaves from the tithe,\" he may do so, but when he says \"I vow to bring a thank-offering from chullin,\" even if he specifies \"its loaves from the tithe,\" he brings them only from chullin.",
                "10) I might think that he can bring them from the wheat of the tithe itself; it is, therefore, written \"the peace-offerings which he shall offer. Just as peace-offerings are brought (from what is bought with the monies of the tithe, so, the (thanksgiving) loaves.",
                "11) And whence is it derived that if one vowed to bring peace-offerings, he may do so only with chullin? From (Devarim 16:2): \"And you shall offer a Pesach-offering to the L–rd your G d, sheep and cattle.\" Now does the Pesach offering not come only from lambs and kids? Why, then, is it written \"sheep and cattle\"? To liken everything that comes from sheep and cattle to the Pesach offering, viz.: Just as the Pesach offering is mandatory and comes only from chullin, (there having been no consecrations and no tithe at the time of the exodus from Egypt,) so, everything that is mandatory comes only from chullin — so that if one vowed to bring a thank-offering or a peace-offering, since they are mandatory, (having been vowed), they are to be brought only from chullin; and libations, in all instances, (even if he specified \"from the tithe\") are to be brought only from chullin, (their not having been likened to peace-offerings, as the thanksgiving loaves were). "
            ],
            "Chapter 11": [
                "1) (Vayikra 7:11) (\"And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings which one shall offer to the L–rd. (Vayikra 7:12) If for thanksgiving he shall offer it, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened cakes spread with oil, and cakes of soaked fine flour mixed with oil.\") What is the intent of (Vayikra 7:11) \"which one shall offer\" (and (Vayikra 7:12) \"he shall offer it\")? (It could simply have been written \"If for thanksgiving, then he shall offer, etc.\") (They are written for the following purpose:) Whence do we derive that if one set aside his thank-offering and it was lost, and he set aside a different one in its place, after which the first was found, so that now both are standing before him — whence do we derive that he may offer up whichever he wishes, and its loaves along with it? From (a thank-offering) \"which one shall offer.\" I might think that both required loaves. It is, therefore, written \"he shall offer it\" — one requires loaves and not both.",
                "2) And whence is it derived that the offspring and substitutes for (a thank-offering are to be sacrificed (even if atonement has been effected by the first)? From \"If for (im al) thanksgiving,\" (\"im al\" being a term of inclusion). I might think that all of them require loaves; it is, therefore, written \"the thank-offering\" (hatodah). The thank-offering (itself) requires loaves, and not its offspring, or exchange, or substitute.",
                "3) \"then he shall offer with the sacrifice\": Loaves are hereby prescribed for each offering (when he brings several thank-offerings). (And the inclusion clause is needed. For otherwise I would reason thus:) Does it not follow (that loaves are not needed for each offering, for) if an instance (the atzereth offering), where loaves are few (only two), sheep are (relatively) many (two) — here, where loaves are many, should it not follow that they suffice for the number of sheep? It is, therefore, (to negate this) written: \"then he shall offer (loaves) with the sacrifice\" — for each sacrifice individually.",
                "4) \"then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened cakes spread with oil\": Why is \"with oil\" written twice? R. Akiva said: If \"with oil\" were written only once, I would say that it (i.e., the amount) was as that for all the meal-offerings — a log. The additional \"with oil\" increases (the amount), and (the hermeneutical rule is) \"increase after increase denotes decrease\").",
                "5) They, therefore, decreased it to half a log. I would think that the half log were divided among the three kinds: cakes, wafers, and soaked flour; it is, therefore, written: \"cakes of soaked fine flour mixed with oil\" (a third mention) — and increase after decrease denotes increase!",
                "6) How, then, does he apportion (the half log)? He gives a quarter of it to the soaked fine flour (this, being the \"increase\") and a quarter to the two (other) kinds, half to the cakes and half to the wafers. R. Shimon b. Yehudah says in the name of R. Shimon: He anoints the wafers in the form of (the Greek letter) chi, and returns what is left to the cakes. R. Elazar b. Azaryah said to R. Akiva: Even if you say the whole day: \"with oil\" — to decrease; \"with oil\" — to increase, I shall not heed you. But: a half log of oil for the thank-offering (half for the soaked fine flour and half for the cakes and the wafers), a quarter log of oil for the Nazirite (for his cakes and wafers), and the eleven-day interval between one niddah period and another — (these are) \"a halachah to Moses on Sinai.",
                "7) \"soaked (revuchah) fine flour (soleth)\": This teaches us that the revuchah is soleth. Whence is it derived that they are all (cakes [challoth], wafers, and leavened bread) of soleth? From \"challoth - challoth.\" Just as \"challoth\" in respect to revuchah are soleth, so are \"challoth\" (written) in respect to all are soleth.",
                "8) But \"challoth\" are not written in respect to wafers. Whence is it derived, then, that they must be of soleth? From \"matzoth - matzoth.\" Just as \"matzoth\" in respect to challoth are soleth, so \"matzoth\" in respect to wafers are soleth.",
                "9) Or, if you will, \"and soleth murvecheth\" adds (all that precede, including \"wafers\") to revuchah. Just as revuchah is soleth, so all are soleth.",
                "10) (Vayikra 7:13) (\"With cakes of leavened bread shall he offer his offering, with the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offerings.\") \"With cakes of leavened bread\": With the same measure (of soleth) as that for leavened bread (chametz) he brings matzah (unleavened cakes). Just as that for chametz is ten esronoth, so, that for matzah. \"with cakes of leavened bread\": We are hereby taught that the bread is not consecrated until its surface becomes crusted in the oven. \"with the sacrifice (zevach) of his thanksgiving\": We are hereby taught that the bread becomes consecrated only with slaughtering, (zevach connoting slaughtering). \"with the sacrifice of his thanksgiving\": We are hereby taught that the bread is not consecrated unless the animal is slaughtered as a thank-offering. From here they said: If he slaughtered them as thank-offerings, but did not sprinkle their blood as such, the bread is (still) consecrated. If he did not slaughter them as such and did not sprinkle their blood as such, the bread is not consecrated. If he slaughtered them as such and did not sprinkle their blood as such, it is \"consecrated and not consecrated.\" These are the words of Rebbi. R. Eliezer b. R. Shimon says: It is not consecrated until he slaughters it and sprinkles its blood as such.",
                "11) (\"his thanksgiving) peace-offerings\": to include the peace-offerings of a Nazirite. I might think, for all that is stated herein, (including the revuchah requirement); it is, therefore, written (in connection with the Nazirite ram, Bamidbar 6:15): \"matzoth\" — It comes (with matzoth and not (with) revuchah, (where \"matzoth\" is not mentioned). How, then, do I satisfy (the redundant) \"his peace-offerings\"? To include the Nazirite peace-offerings for ten Jerusalem kavim (of flour) and a quarter (log) of oil."
            ],
            "Section 7": [
                "1) (Vayikra 7:14) (\"And he shall offer of it, one of each offering, a gift-offering (terumah) to the L–rd. To the Cohein who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings, to him shall it be.\") \"And he shall offer of it\": of the conjoined loaves. \"one\": he must not take a broken one. \"of each offering\": All the offerings must be equal. (He may not take a greater portion of one on behalf of the other), and he may not take from one offering for the other. \"terumah to the L–rd\": I would not know from how many (challoth he takes one); it is, therefore, written here \"terumoth,\" and, in respect to terumath ma'aser (Numbers 18:29) \"terumah.\" Just as there, one of ten; here, too, one of ten.",
                "2) Or go in this direction. It is written here \"terumah,\" and, in respect to bikkurim (first-fruits) \"terumah\" (Devarim 12:17). Just as \"terumah\" of bikkurim has no limit, this, too, has no limit!",
                "3) Let us see to what it (\"terumah\" in our verse) is similar. We deduce \"terumah\" (in our verse), following which (terumah) there is no (other) terumah, from terumah (terumath ma'aser), following which there is no (other) terumah; and this (deduction) is not to be refuted by terumath bikkurim, following which there are (other) terumoth (i.e., After taking terumath bikkurim, he must still take all of his other terumoth.) Or, go in this direction: We deduce (our) terumah, which is eaten in a distinct place (Jerusalem) from terumah (terumath bikkurim), which is eaten in a distinct place (Jerusalem), and this is not to be refuted by terumath ma'aser, which is not eaten in a distinct place. It is, therefore, (to resolve this) written (in respect to terumath ma'aser): \"of it as a gift-offering,\" for a gezeirah shavah (an identity). Just as \"terumah\" written there is one of ten, so \"of it as a gift-offering\" written here is one of ten.",
                "4) We have learned of terumah that it is one of ten, but I still do not know from how much (flour) he takes each loaf. We derive it by deduction. It is written here (Vayikra 7:13) (\"With cakes of) leavened bread,\" and, elsewhere, in respect to the two loaves, (Vayikra 23:17) \"leavened.\" Just as there, an issaron (of flour) for one loaf; here, too, an issaron for one loaf.",
                "5) Or, go in this direction. It is written here (Vayikra 23:13) \"challoth,\" and, in respect to the show-bread, (Vayikra 24:5) \"challoth.\" Just as there, two esronim for one challah, here, too, two esronim for one challah!",
                "6) Let us see to what it (our verse) is similar. We deduce a meal-offering which comes from leavened bread and which comes with a sacrifice (our verse) from a meal-offering (the two loaves) which comes from leavened bread and which comes with a sacrifice, and this is not to be refuted by the show-bread, which does not come leavened and does not come with a sacrifice.",
                "7) Or, go in this direction. We deduce a meal-offering (our verse), which comes (both) from the land (Eretz Yisrael) and from outside the land, from the new grain and from the old grain, from a meal-offering (the show-bread), which comes (similarly) from all of the aforementioned. And this is not to be refuted by the two loaves, which come only from the land and only from the new grain! It is, therefore, written (of the two breads, Vayikra 23:17): \"From your habitations shall you bring the wave-bread.\" Let Scripture not state \"shall you bring.\" (It is seemingly redundant.) — The intent is: What you bring from a different place (our instance), (which is similar to this), is like this, viz.: Just as this is one issaron for a loaf; so, what you bring from a different place (our instance), one issaron for a loaf.",
                "8) Why, then, do I not say that just as these (the two loaves) total two esronim; so these, (our instance) total two esronim (instead of ten); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 23:17) \"shall they be\" (\"tihyenah,\" an extra yod (numerical equivalent 10) in the word, signaling ten loaves for our instance).",
                "9) We learn for \"chametz\" that it is ten esronoth. Whence do we learn the same for \"matzah\"? From (Vayikra 7:13) \"With cakes of leavened (chametz) bread\" — Against chametz bring matzah. Just as chametz, ten esronim; so matzah, ten esronim. I might think that the ten esronim should be only of one kind (i.e., either challoth or wafers or revuchah; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:12): \"Then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving, unleavened cakes mixed with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes of soaked fine flour mixed with oil,\" and (Vayikra 7:14): \"And he shall offer of it, one of each offering, a gift-offering to the L–rd,\" so that we are left with three and a third esronim for each kind, and three challoth for an issaron, so that the thanksgiving challoth are found to be forty. He takes one of each kind — four challoth — and gives it to the Cohein. (Vayikra 7:14): \"To the Cohein who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings, to him shall it be,\" and the rest is eaten by the owners."
            ],
            "Chapter 12": [
                "1) (Vayikra 7:15): \"And the flesh of the sacrifice of his thanksgiving peace-offerings, on the day of his offering shall it be eaten.\" This comes to teach us of those (offerings) that are eaten for a day, that their eating is one day and one night. This tells me of the thank-offering (itself). Whence do I derive the same for the bread? From \"his offering,\" (bread having been referred to as \"offering\" in the preceding verse). Whence do I derive the same for the offering and substitutes (of a thank-offering)? From (the redundant) \"And the flesh.\" Whence do I derive the same for sin-offering and guilt-offering? From \"the sacrifice.\" Whence do I derive the same for the peace-offerings of a Nazirite, (which require bread as it does) and peace-offerings that come from the (surplus of the) Pesach offering? From \"his peace-offerings.\"",
                "2) \"on the day of his offering shall it be eaten.\": This tells me only that its eating is for one day. Whence is it derived that its sacrifice at the outset be with the thought of eating it for one day?",
                "3) From (Vayikra 22:29): \"And when you slaughter a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the L–rd, that it be acceptable for you shall you slaughter it. (Vayikra 22:30) On that day shall it be eaten.\" This need not be stated, (for we know it already). If it is not needed for (the halachah of) eating, learn it as applying to sacrifice, that its sacrifice at the outset must be with the thought of eating it for one day.",
                "4) This tells me only of the thank-offering. Whence do I derive the same for all (offerings) that are eaten for one day? From (the redundant) \"And when you slaughter a sacrifice.\"",
                "5) (Vayikra 7:15): \"He shall not leave over of it until morning.\" But he may eat it the entire night. Why, then, did the sages say (that he may eat it only) until midnight? To keep one far from transgression. But (adverse) thought (at the sacrifice) does not render them unfit and they are not rendered nothar (abiding beyond the prescribed time) until the morning star rises.",
                "6) (Vayikra 7:16) (\"And if a vow or a gift is the sacrifice of his offering, on the day that he offers his sacrifice shall it be eaten, and on the next day, that which remains of it may be eaten.\") This comes to teach about those offerings that are eaten for two days that they are eaten for two days. This tells me only of peace-offerings (viz. Vayikra 7:18). Whence do I derive (the same for) the festive offering (chagigah)? I would derive a festive offering that comes in its time (the first day of the festival). Whence would I derive a chagigah that comes (all seven days) as indemnity (for the first day), peace-offerings (of joy) that come in the midst of the festival (in addition to those of the chagigah and (left-over) peace-offerings (of joy) that come after the festival? From (the redundant) \"And if a vow or a gift\" (Vayikra 7:16).",
                "7) Whence do we derive (the same for) the chagigah that comes with the Pesach (on the fourteenth of Nissan)? Because it is written (Devarim 16:4) \"And there shall not remain of the flesh that you sacrifice towards evening on the first day until the morning,\" which teaches us about the chagigah of the fourteenth that it is eaten for two days and one night. I might think (that it is eaten) for one day and one night. It is, therefore, written \"until the morning\" — the morning of the second day. And how would I satisfy \"a chagigah is eaten for two days\"? (A different chagigah,) aside from this one. It is, therefore, written (to negate this, the redundant) \"And if a vow or a gift.\"",
                "8) And whence do I derive (for the same learning) the substitutes and the offspring (of those eaten for two days)? From (the redundant) \"And if a vow or a gift.\" Whence do I derive (the same learning) for a first-born and a tithe? From (the redundant) \"the sacrifice.\"",
                "9) \"on the day that he offers his sacrifice shall it be eaten, and on the next day\": This tells me only of their eating (the offering) for two days. Whence do I derive that even at the outset their sacrifice must be with the thought of eating them for two days; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 19:5): \"And when you slaughter a sacrifice of peace-offerings to the L–rd … (Vayikra 19:6) on the day that you slaughter it shall it be eaten, and on the next day.\" Let this not be written, (for we already know about their eating from here.) If it is not needed for eating, learn it as applying to slaughtering — that even at the outset their slaughtering must be with the intent of eating them for two days.",
                "10) This tells me only of peace-offerings. Whence do I derive the same for all (offerings) that are eaten for two days? From (the redundant) \"And when you slaughter a slaughtering of peace-offerings.\"",
                "11) (Vayikra 7:16) \"on the day that he offers his sacrifice shall it be eaten\": on the first day. I might think, for two days. It is, therefore, written \"and on the next day.\" If \"on the next day,\" I might think it is a mitzvah to eat it for two days. It is, therefore, written \"and what remains\" — If he left something over, he left it over.",
                "12) Or, \"and what remains\": I might think that if he left all of it over (on the first day) it becomes unfit. It is, therefore, written \"it shall be eaten\" — even all of it.",
                "13) I might think it could be eaten on the eve of the third day. And this would follow, viz.: There are sacrifices that are eaten for one day and there are sacrifices that are eaten for two days. Just as with the former, its night follows it (for eating), so, with the latter, its night follows it. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 19:6): (\"And what remains) until the third day (shall be burned with fire\") — until the (end of the second) day it is eaten, and it is not eaten on the eve of the third.",
                "14) I might think that it must be burned immediately (at nightfall after the second day), and this would follow, viz., There are sacrifices that are eaten for one day and there are sacrifices that are eaten for two days. Just as (what remains of) the sacrifices eaten for one day are burned immediately after eating, so (what remains of) the sacrifices eaten for two days are to be burned immediately after eating. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:17) (\"And what remains from the flesh of the sacrifice) on the (third) day, (with fire shall it be burned.\") It is burned in the daytime and not at night. Or, perhaps the meaning is that on the third day it is to be burned; but if the third day passed it is not to be burned (but buried). It is, therefore, written \"it shall be burned\" — even forever.",
                "15) \"from the flesh\": and not from the bones, and not from the sinews, and not from the horns, and not from the hooves. (\"from the flesh of) the sacrifice\" — to exclude the fetus and the placenta. \"on the third day, with fire shall it be burned\": This is the prototype for all (consecrated food) that is burned, that it is to be burned only in the daytime."
            ],
            "Section 8": [
                "1) (Vayikra 7:18) (\"And if there be eaten of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings on the third day, it shall not be accepted. He that offers it shall not bethink himself. It shall be piggul (\"rejected\"), and the soul that eats of it shall bear his sin.\") \"And if there be eaten … on the third day, it shall not be accepted\": R. Eliezer said: Incline your ear to hear: (Scripture is speaking not of actual eating, but of thinking, i.e.,) \"If one thinks to eat of his sacrifice on the third day, it shall not be accepted.\" R. Akiva said: I would understand the verse (literally) as meaning that if he (actually) ate of it on the third day it becomes unfit. — But it is impossible to say this. For after it has been validated (by the priestly service), can it then become unfit? — Yes, (indeed it may)! For we find in respect to a zav (a man with a genital emission) or a zavah (a woman with a genital emission), or a woman who watches a day (without emission) against a day (of emission), that when they are in a state of taharah (ritual cleanliness) and (again) witness an emission, they annul (that state of taharah) — this (offering), too, if he ate of it on the third day, it becomes unfit. It is, therefore, written (to negate this,) \"he that offers\" — It is at the time of offering (with wrong intent) that it becomes unfit, and not on the third day (when it is eaten).",
                "2) But perhaps it could be contended that \"he that offers\" is none other than the officiating Cohein (i.e., that he is disqualified from future service)! It is, therefore, written (\"he that offers) it\" — It is the offering that is being referred to and not the Cohein.",
                "3) Ben Azzai says: What is the intent of \"it\" (above)? Because it is written (Devarim 23:22): \"If you make a vow to the L–rd your G d, you shall not delay to pay it,\" I might think that if he does delay his vow he is in transgression of \"It shall not be accepted\"; it is, therefore, written: \"It (the offering in our instance) shall not be accepted, but one who delays his vow is not in transgression of \"It shall not be accepted.\" Others say: (It is written (here): \"He shall not bethink himself.\" It (the offering) becomes unfit by thinking (to eat it on the third day), but it does not become unfit by delaying (its sacrifice) beyond three festivals.",
                "4) I might think that \"bethinking\" (above) renders it unfit only if he has such a thought at the sprinkling of the blood. Whence do I derive (that it is similarly invalidated by such thought at the time of) slaughtering or receiving of the blood? From (the redundant) \"eaten, eaten\" — to include (all the preliminaries to \"eating,\" such as) slaughtering and receiving the blood. I might think to include (as invalidating the offering, such thought at the time of disposing of) the left-over blood and the burning of the fats. It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written \"he that offers it,\" (i.e., he that sprinkles the blood). Sprinkling was in the class (of all the sacrificial services). Why was it singled out for special mention? To make it the basis of a comparison, viz.: Just as sprinkling is characterized by its being a sacrificial service upon which atonement is contingent, so I include ([for piggul rejection] such thought at the time of) slaughtering and receiving the blood, upon which atonement is contingent — and I exclude (from piggul rejection such thought at the time of disposing of) the left-over blood and the burning of the fats, upon which atonement is not contingent.",
                "5) R. Meir says: It (piggul thought) at the time of hiluch (\"leading\" the blood from the azarah to the altar) invalidates (the offering), the sacrificial service being impossible without hiluch. And R. Shimon says: There is no (invalidating piggul) thought in hiluch. For the priestly service is impossible without slaughtering, receiving (of the blood), or sprinkling, but it is possible without hiluch — he can slaughter on the side of the altar and fling (the blood upon it). R. Elazar says: If one \"leads\" (the blood) in a place where he must lead, (piggul) thought invalidates; in a place where he need not lead, (piggul) thought does not invalidate. (Piggul) thought invalidates only something which may serve as an offering per se (and not something which serves some other function), and (obtains only) with one who is fit for the priestly service (and not with a Cohein who is blemished), and only in a place which is fit for the priestly service, (as when the altar is intact, and not when it is defective).",
                "6) I would think that (piggul) thought invalidates only in respect to the eating of flesh (out of its time). Whence do I derive the same for sprinkling, burning of fats, and (disposal of) left-over (blood out of its time)? From (the redundant) \"eaten, eaten\" — There is \"eating\" for a man (the eating of flesh) and \"eating\" for the altar.",
                "7) We learned of sacrifices that may be eaten for two days that a thought (to eat of them) on the third day invalidates them. Whence do we derive the same for sacrifices that may be eaten for one day? It follows by induction, viz.: Sacrifices are eaten for two days and sacrifices are eaten for one day. Just as with sacrifices eaten for two days, a (piggul) thought invalidates them, so with sacrifices eaten for one day, a (piggul) thought (to eat them) on the second day invalidates them. — But \"it suffices that what is derived by induction be as that which it is derived from\" — Just as the former (invalidates only) on the third day, so the latter should invalidate only on the third day, (and not on the second)!",
                "8) I will derive it otherwise, viz.: Some sacrifices are eaten on one day and some sacrifices are eaten on two days. Just as sacrifices which are eaten on two days are invalidated by a (piggul) thought to eat them on the third day after their eating time, so sacrifices which are eaten on one day are invalidated by a (piggul) thought to eat them on the second day after their eating time.",
                "9) Now, if you have invalidated (a sacrifice) by a (piggul) thought (to eat it) on the third day, which is not kasher for the eating of any sacrifice, would you thereby invalidate (a sacrifice) by a (piggul) thought (to eat it) on the second day, which is kasher for the eating of holy of holies! It is, therefore, written (in negation of this argument): \"if eaten eaten\" — to include sacrifices eaten for one day for invalidation by a (piggul) thought to eat them on the second day."
            ],
            "Chapter 13": [
                "1) I might think that (piggul) thought invalidated only outside of its (the offering's) prescribed time. Whence do I derive (that it also invalidates) outside of its prescribed place? It follows by induction, viz.: Time invalidates and bound invalidates. Just as (piggul) thought invalidates outside of the prescribed time it should also invalidate outside of the prescribed bound.",
                "2) — Now if (piggul) thought invalidates outside of its prescribed time, which (invalidation) obtains in a bamah (a temporary altar), should it also invalidate outside of its prescribed bound, which (invalidation) does not obtain in a bamah! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 19:7): \"And if it is eaten on the third day, it is rejected (piggul); it shall not be accepted.\" Let this not be stated, (for it is already written here). If it is not needed for (piggul invalidation) outside of its time, learn it as applying to (piggul invalidation) outside of its place. I might think that it (piggul thought outside of its place) entails kareth liability); it is, therefore, written in respect to peace-offerings (Vayikra 7:18) (\"And the soul that eats of it) shall bear its sin\" — Outside of its time entails kareth, and not outside of its place. I might think that even one who slaughters for gentiles or for those who are tamei (to eat it or to offer up the devoted portions) should come under (Vayikra 7:18) \"It shall not be accepted\"; it is, therefore, written (\"It shall not be accepted; he that offers) it.\" It (burning the devoted portions after they have become invalidated by piggul thought) comes under the interdict, but not slaughtering for gentiles or for those who are tamei.",
                "3) I might think that one is in violation of \"It shall not be accepted\" only (for an offering) that was slaughtered outside of its time and place. Whence do I derive the same for one that was slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled out or went outside the (tabernacle) curtains, one (whose blood or devoted portions) was left overnight, one (whose devoted portions) went outside the azarah, one whose blood was received or sprinkled by those who are unfit, one whose blood was to be applied below (the red line on the altar), which was applied above, or the opposite; one (whose blood was to be applied inside (the sanctuary), which was applied outside, or the opposite; and a Pesach and a sin-offering, which were not offered as such (— Whence is it derived for all of these that if one transgressed and sacrificed them he receives stripes by reason of \"It shall not be accepted\")? From (the redundant) \"it shall not be accepted\" and \"it shall not be reckoned.\" I might think that these entail kareth liability. It is, therefore, written (\"He that offers) it.\" He (one who thinks to eat it outside of its time) and its eaters are subject to kareth, and not the others.",
                "4) You say that this is the purpose of these phrases of exclusion (like \"it\" above). But perhaps its intent is to limit what is said to peace-offerings alone, (that only they entail kareth liability for piggul and nothar). Whence do we derive the same for all offerings? From (Vayikra 22:3): \"A man who draws near of all your seed to the holy things (all of the offerings), etc.\" — But perhaps only those offerings are included which are like peace-offerings, viz.: Just as peace-offerings are characterized by being eaten for two days, so, all that are thus characterized (are included). Whence do I derive (for inclusion) those which are eaten for only one day? From (the redundant) \"flesh\" (Vayikra 7:18 \"the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings.\") This tells me only of those (offerings) whose flesh is eaten. Whence do I derive (the same) for those who flesh is not eaten? From \"the sacrifice\" — even birds, which are a kind of sacrifice. And whence do I derive (the same) for meal-offerings, which are not a kind of sacrifice? (And whence do I proceed) until I derive (the same for) the log of oil of the leper? From (Vayikra 22:3) (all) \"the holy things that the children of Israel make holy to the L–rd.\"",
                "5) Now that we have included things that are like peace-offerings and things that are not like peace-offerings, why is \"peace-offerings\" (specifically) mentioned? Just as peace-offerings are distinctive in having \"permitters\" (the sprinkling of the blood, which permits eating) to the man and (burning of the devoted portions) to the altar, so, I include only those offerings which have permitters to the man or to the altar — like the bird sin-offering, which has permitters (blood) to the man, and not to the altar, and like the bird burnt-offering, which has permitters to the altar, and not to the man, and like the burnt bullocks and the burnt he-goats, which have permitters to the altar and not to the man. What do I exclude (from piggul invalidation)? The fistful, and the frankincense, and the incense, and the meal-offering of Cohanim, (which are completely burnt and no fistful taken therefrom), the meal-offering of the anointed (high-) priest, the libation meal-offering, and the blood — all of which have no permitters, neither to the man nor to the altar. R. Shimon says: Peace-offerings are distinctive in being offered on the outer altar — I (therefore) exclude the burnt bullocks and the burnt he-goats, which are not offered on the outer altar.",
                "6) R. Elazar says in the name of R. Yossi: If one had a piggul thought concerning something done outside (in the azarah), it is piggul; concerning something done inside (in the sanctuary), it is not piggul. How so? If he slaughtered (outside) with the intent of sprinkling the blood (inside) on the next day, it is not piggul; for the thought was outside concerning something (sprinkling) which is done inside.",
                "7) If he sprinkled the blood (inside) with the intent of burning its devoted portions (outside) on the next day, it is not piggul; for the thought was inside concerning something which is done outside.",
                "8) But if he slaughtered and received the blood (on the outside) with the intent of spilling the remaining blood and burning the devoted portions (on the outside) on the next day, it is piggul, for the thought was outside concerning something which is done outside.",
                "9) (Vayikra 7:18) (\"And the soul that eats of it shall bear its sin\") \"the soul\": and not the congregation. \"that eats\": and not that makes (someone else) eat, (in which instance the \"maker\" is not subject to kareth, but does transgress placing a stumbling block before the blind). \"that eats\": an olive-size. \"shall bear (tissa) its sin\": There is an identity (gezeirah shavah) between \"shall bear (tissa) its sin\" here and \"shall bear (yissa) his sin\" elsewhere (Vayikra 19:8). Just as there, (in respect to nothar), the punishment is kareth; so, here, (in respect to piggul), the punishment is kareth."
            ],
            "Section 9": [
                "1) (Vayikra 7:19) (\"And the flesh (of consecrated peace-offerings) that shall touch anything that is tamei shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire. And the flesh — everyone that is clean may eat the flesh.\") I might think one who is tamei makes consecrated flesh tamei by carrying it, and that it follows a fortiori, viz.: Now if the ashes of purification (of the red heifer), which a tvul yom (one who immersed in the daytime) does not make tamei by touch, makes it tamei by carrying, then consecrated flesh, which a tvul yom does make tamei by touch, does it not follow that he makes it tamei by carrying it! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"that shall touch\" — he makes it tamei by touch and not by carrying it.",
                "2) This tells me (as not imparting tumah by carrying) only of the lesser forms of tumah (such as that of a sheretz (a creeping thing) or of carrion, which do not make a man tamei). Whence do I derive the same for graver forms of tumah, such as dead-body tumah, and that of cohabiting with a niddah, and all (forms of tumah) which make a man tamei? From \"anything that is tamei\" (imparts tumah to consecrated flesh) — even one who is lacking atonement (viz. Vayikra 12:7). R. Yossi said: Whence is it derived that fourth-degree tumah invalidates consecrated offerings, and that it follows a fortiori? (From the following:) If one lacking atonement, who is permitted to eat terumah, invalidates consecrated offerings, then third-degree tumah, which does invalidate terumah, does it not follow that it should invalidate offerings (in rendering it fourth-degree tumah)? We derive, then, (the invalidation of) third-degree tumah from the verse (\"and the flesh that shall touch, etc.\"), and of fourth-degree tumah from the argument a fortiori.",
                "3) \"it shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire\": We know (from Scripture) as requiring burning only what is tamei and nothar (flesh left over from the offering) and a sin-offering whose blood entered within (the sanctuary). Whence do we derive the same for the other offerings? From (Shemoth 29:34): \"And if anything is left over from the flesh of the miluim … until morning, you shall burn what is left over in fire.\" Let it not be written \"what is left over in fire\" (i.e., it is redundant). But (we must say, then, that) it is a binyan av (see Hermeneutical Principle 3) (the intent of which is that) all that is nothar (in all offerings) requires burning.",
                "4) This tells me (as requiring burning) only of nothar. Whence do I derive the same for an offering that was slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled out or went outside the (tabernacle) curtains, one (whose blood or devoted portions) was left overnight, one (whose devoted portions) went outside the azarah, one that was slaughtered outside of its time or outside of its place, one whose blood was received or sprinkled by those who are unfit, one whose blood was to be applied below (the red line on the altar), which was applied above, or the opposite; one (whose blood was) to be applied inside (the sanctuary), which was applied outside, or the opposite; and a Pesach and a sin-offering, which were not offered as such, and a bird sin-offering brought for a possibility (of its being required), and a suspended guilt-offering (in an instance where it became known to him that he had not sinned, before its blood was sprinkled, in which case it is like a sacrifice that has become unfit) — (Whence is it derived that all of the above require burning?) From (Shemoth 29:33) \"… he shall not eat, for they are holy\" — everything that is holy (and that has become unfit) requires burning (see Shemoth 29 verse 34).",
                "5) I might think that they were to be burned even if they had died (after they were separated as an offering) or had miscarried, (in which case the fetus was to be burned), or had become tamei outside (the azarah); it is, therefore, written (to counterindicate this) (Shemoth 29:34): \"for it is holy\" (excluding the latter, whose unfitness did not take place in \"holiness.\") R. Yehudah says: I might think that a bird sin-offering brought for a possibility (of its being required), and a suspended guilt-offering (in an instance where it became known to him that he had not sinned), and chullin (a non-consecrated animal that had been slaughtered in the azarah — (I might think) that they must be burned; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Shemoth 29:34): \"for it is holy\" (excluding the above).",
                "6) (\"And the flesh — everyone that is clean may eat flesh.\") \"And the flesh\": (This is redundant) to include as permitted the inner flesh (of a limb that has projected beyond the permitted bounds). For I might reason: Since what is tamei is unfit and what leaves the permitted bounds (yotzei) is unfit, then just as with tamei, if part has become tamei, the whole is tamei, so with yotzei, if part has left (the permitted bounds), then all of it should be unfit; it is, therefore, written \"And the flesh,\" to include the inner flesh as permitted.",
                "7) From this it was ruled: If the limb of a Paschal offering projected beyond the wall (the permitted bound), he cuts until he reaches the bone and strips (the flesh) until he reaches the joint, wherefrom he frees it and cuts it off, (it being forbidden to break the bone of a Paschal offering). And with (other) offerings, he chops it off at any place (including the bone), breaking the bone not being interdicted in the others.",
                "8) (Vayikra 7:19) \"Everyone that is clean may eat (the) flesh\": What are we taught hereby? Because it is written (Devarim 12:27): \"And the blood of your sacrifices (peace-offerings) shall be spilled on the altar of the L–rd your G d, and the flesh shall you eat,\" I might think that only the owner can eat it, a fortiori from the Pesach offering (where only the owner and his appointees eat it), it is, therefore, written \"Everyone that is clean may eat (the) flesh.\" I might think that there is tumah liability (for eating consecrated flesh even) before the sprinkling of the blood; it is, therefore, written \"Everyone that is clean may eat (the) flesh,\" followed by (Devarim 12:20) \"And the soul that eats flesh, etc.\" — There is tumah liability only for flesh that is permitted to (be eaten by) the clean. But, before the sprinkling of the blood, when the flesh is not permitted to the clean, it does not entail tumah liability. You say that this is the intent of the verse; but perhaps the intent is: For what may be eaten by the clean, there is tumah liability; but if it left (its permitted bounds) after the sprinkling of the blood, since it may not be eaten by the clean, there is no tumah liability. It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written (Devarim 12:20): (\"the sacrifice of the peace-offerings) which is the L–rd's\" — to include (in the kareth interdict for tumah) one that left (its permitted bounds) or abided beyond its prescribed time (for eating, i.e., nothar).",
                "9) Or, I might think to include (in \"which is the L–rd's\") piggul (thought) as well as nothar; it is, therefore, written \"of (and not all of) the sacrifice of the peace-offerings\" — an exclusion. Why do you see fit to include yotzei and lan (i.e., nothar) and to exclude piggul (thought)? After Scripture included, it excluded. I include yotzei and lan, where they (the offerings) had a time of fitness (before the sprinkling of the blood), and I exclude piggul, where they did not have a time of fitness.",
                "10) If you say that he became tamei before the blood was sprinkled (and he ate it in a state of tumah after it was sprinkled), why is he liable for tumah-kareth violation) after it was sprinkled? (i.e., the offering never had \"a time of fitness\" for him!) Because the tzitz (the high-priest's head-plate) \"atoned\" for him (and the offering is accounted as having been \"permitted to the clean\" by the sprinkling.)"
            ],
            "Chapter 14": [
                "1) R. Yehoshua says: A Pesach offering that came (i.e., that was slaughtered, when the entire congregation [as opposed to an individual] was) in a state of tumah, (this being permitted), and zavim and zavoth (men and women with genital discharges) and niddoth and women who had given birth ate of it, (even though it is forbidden for them to do so) — I might think that they are liable (for tumah-kareth transgression); it is, therefore, written \"Everyone that is clean may eat (the) flesh, and the soul that eats flesh, etc.\" — There is tumah (-kareth) liability only for that which is slaughtered for the clean, but not for that which is slaughtered for the unclean (as in the Pesach instance).",
                "2) R. Eliezer says: If zavim and lepers, (who had been sent out of the camp) pushed their way in and entered the azarah, I might think they were liable (for kareth in the above instance, as they are at other times); it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 5:2): \"And they shall send out of the camp every leper and every zav, and everyone who has become tamei by a dead body\" — When those who are tamei by a dead body are liable, zavim and lepers are liable; when those who are tamei by a dead body are not liable, (as in an instance of congregational tumah), zavim and lepers are not liable.",
                "3) (Vayikra 7:20) (\"And the soul that eats flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings which is the L–rd's, and his tumah is upon him, that soul shall be cut off from its people.\") \"and tumatho is upon him\": the tumah of the body (i.e., his tumah.) — But perhaps the tumah of the flesh (of the offering is being referred to [i.e., its tumah]); it is, therefore, written \"and tumatho is upon him: \"tumatho-tumatho for a gezeirah shavah (identity), viz.: Just as the tumah there (Bamidbar 19:13, \"tumatho is yet upon him,\" clearly) refers to the tumah of his body and not to the tumah of flesh, so tumatho here refers to the tumah of his body and not to the tumah of flesh.",
                "4) Rebbi says: (The gezeirah shavah is not necessary, for) \"and he shall eat\" (in the next verse) clearly indicates that \"and tumatho is upon him\" (in our verse) refers to the tumah of his body (viz. \"nefesh\" in both verses).",
                "5) R. Chiyya says: (The gezeirah shavah is not necessary, for) the offerings are in the plural (\"peace-offerings\"), and \"tumatho,\" in the singular. How, then, must \"tumatho\" be understood? As referring to the tumah of his body and not to the tumah of the flesh (their tumah).",
                "6) Others say: (The gezeirah shavah is not necessary, for) Scripture (\"— tumah is yet upon him\") speaks of that from which tumah can depart (i.e., the man), as opposed to the flesh, from which tumah cannot depart.",
                "7) \"and that soul shall be cut off\": (\"that soul\") and not the congregation. \"that soul\": and not one who was forced, or unwitting, or mistaken. \"from its people\" — and the people remain at peace (without punishment [if they were not in a position to protest])."
            ],
            "Chapter 15": [
                "1) (Vayikra 7:21) (\"And if a soul touch any thing that is tamei — the tumah of a man, or a beast that is tamei or any abomination that is tamei — and he eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which is the L–rd's, then that soul shall be cut off from its people.\") I might think that in the area of the consecrated what is tamei can impart tumah to one who is clean, through carrying (i.e., by the one carrying the other); it is, therefore, written \"And if a soul touch\" — He imparts tumah by touching and not by carrying.",
                "2) \"any thing that is tamei\": even one who is tamei through (having touched) a dead body (and not by reason of tumah issuing from his own body). \"the tumah of a man, or a beast that is tamei, or any abomination that is tamei\": If the lesser forms (zav, neveilah, and sheretz) are mentioned (as liable to kareth), why mention the graver form (dead-body tumah)? For if the lesser forms were mentioned and not the graver form, I would say that with the lesser forms he is liable (only) for the tumah of the body (that imparts the tumah) and not for the tumah of the flesh (of the offering), and with the graver form he is liable for both. And if the graver form were mentioned and not the lesser forms, I would say that for the graver form he is liable, but not for the lesser forms. Therefore, both the lesser and the graver must be mentioned.",
                "3) \"and he eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings, which is the L–rd's, then that soul shall be cut off from its people\": I might think that there is tumah-kareth liability for peace-offerings alone. Whence do I derive that it obtains for all offerings? From (Vayikra 22:3): \"Throughout your generations, every man who draws near of all your seed to (eat) the holy things (… with his uncleanliness upon him, that soul will be cut off before Me.\") I might think (that there are included) only what is like peace-offerings, which are eaten for two days and one night. Whence do I derive the same for those offerings that are eaten for one day? From (Vayikra 7:21) \"of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings.\" (For without this verse I would say:) This tells me only (of those offerings) whose remnants are eaten. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) a burnt-offering, whose remnants are not eaten? From \"the sacrifice.\" This tells me only of sacrifices. Whence do I derive for inclusion birds and meal-offerings, which are not kinds of sacrifices, (shechitah not obtaining there), until the inclusion (for tumah-kareth liability) of the log of oil of the leper? From (the generalization): \"Every man who draws near of all your seed to the holy things, etc.\"",
                "4) I might think that tumah-kareth liability obtains only with things for which there is piggul (thought) liability. And this, indeed, would follow, viz.: If piggul (transgression) which is subject to a standard (sin-offering) (for unwitting transgression) and which obtains with only one awareness, (at the end, after his having transgressed, his never having been aware that it was piggul before he ate it, [as opposed to tumah, where there is awareness in the beginning, awareness at the end, and non-awareness in the middle]), and where nothing of its class is permitted, (piggul being forbidden even where the entire congregation transgresses, as opposed to tumah, which was permitted in such an instance) — (If piggul) obtains only (with offerings) where there are \"permitters\" (see Chapter 13:5), then tumah transgression, which obtains with two awarenesses, and is subject to a sliding-scale (and not a standard) offering, and where something of its class (congregational tumah) is permitted — how much more so should it obtain only where there are \"permitters.\" Whence, then, (do we derive tumah-kareth liability) for the fistful, the frankincense, the incense, the libation meal-offering, the meal-offering of Cohanim, and the meal-offering of the anointed (high-priest, where there are no \"permitters\")? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3): \"to (eat) the holy things which they make holy,\" to include all.",
                "5) I might think that they would be liable for it (immediately if they ate the flesh in a state of tumah before the blood was sprinkled); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3) \"Every man who draws near.\" R. Elazar explains: Now is one who touches it liable? (Is he not liable only if he eats it, as it is written (Vayikra 22:4): \"A man of the seed of Aaron, if he is a leper or a zav, shall not eat, etc.\"?) What, then, is the intent of \"who draws near\"? The intent is that there is no (tumah-kareth) liability for eating it until it has been made fit to be offered. How so? An offering that has permitters, (such as the devoted portions and the flesh, which are \"permitted\" by the sprinkling of the blood) — when its permitters have \"drawn near\" (And this is the sense of \"Every man who draws near\"). An offering that does not have \"permitters,\" (such as the meal-offering of Cohanim, etc.) — when they are consecrated in a vessel (for the \"eating\" of the altar).",
                "6) Now that we have included (for tumah-kareth liability) things that are like peace-offerings and things that are not like peace-offerings, why are \"peace-offerings\" mentioned (Vayikra 7:21, \"and he eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings\")? — To exclude (the eating of) blood (from tumah-kareth liability. That is, this liability obtains only with what is like peace-offerings, which are not forbidden in themselves — as opposed to blood, which is forbidden in itself.) R. Shimon says: As peace-offerings are characterized by being fit for eating, so, all that are fit for eating (are subject to tumah-kareth liability). To exclude (the eating of) wood, frankincense, and incense, which are not fit for eating.",
                "7) You (the first tanna and R. Shimon) come to say that the intent of the verse (\"and he eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings\") is to distinguish between different types of tumah (\"blood\" and \"wood, etc.\", respectively). But perhaps its intent is to distinguish between offerings and offerings — to say that lower order offerings (like \"peace-offerings\") are subject to (tumah-kareth) liability (only) after the sprinkling of the blood, and higher order offerings, both before and after the sprinkling of the blood. It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written \"and he eat the flesh,\" \"and he eat the sacrifice,\" and (not) \"and he eat peace-offerings\" (to indicate that not only peace-offerings, but all other offerings are subject to tumah-kareth liability only after the sprinkling of the blood.) (Vayikra 7:21) \"and that soul shall be cut off\": (see Chapter 14:7)."
            ],
            "Section 10": [
                "1) (Vayikra 7:23) (\"Speak to the children of Israel, saying: All fat (cheilev) of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat.\") The children of Israel are exhorted against eating cheilev, and non-Jews are not exhorted against eating cheilev. For it would follow a fortiori (that they are thus exhorted), viz.: Now if (the prohibition against (eating) ever min hechai (a limb torn from a living animal), which is not liable to kareth, obtains with the sons of Noach (non-Jews) as it does with Jews, then the prohibition against (eating) cheilev, which is liable to kareth, how much more so should it obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Jews! It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written \"the children of Israel\" — The children of Israel are exhorted against cheilev, and not non-Jews.",
                "2) This tells me only of the (native) children of Israel. Whence do I derive for inclusion (in the prohibition against cheilev) proselytes and freed slaves? From (Vayikra 7:25) \"For all who eat cheilev.\" \"All cheilev of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat\": This excludes (from the cheilev prohibition) unclean beasts, animals, and birds.",
                "3) For would it not follow a fortiori (that they are thus prohibited), viz.: Now if (the prohibition against eating) blood, which is not liable for piggul (thought), nothar and tumah (— if that prohibition) obtains with unclean beasts, animals, and birds — then cheilev, which is liable for piggul (thought), nothar, and tumah, how much more so should it obtain with unclean beasts, animals, and birds! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written: \"All cheilev of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat\" — to exclude the cheilev of unclean beasts, animals, and birds.",
                "4) This tells me only of (the prohibition of the) cheilev of full-breed oxen, sheep, or goats. Whence do I derive that of kilaim (hybrids) (of sheep and goats for inclusion in the prohibition)? From \"of ox or sheep or goat.\" These are the words of R. Akiva. And if you wish, you can say that it is derived from (Vayikra 7:25) (\"For all who eat cheilev) of the beast,\" including a hybrid. What is the intent of (Vayikra 7:23) \"all cheilev\"? I might think that only what is included in the punishment (kareth) is included in the exhortation (against eating cheilev), (but the cheilev of) a koi (an animal whose status is in doubt, i.e., is it \"domesticated\" [whose cheilev is forbidden] or \"non-domesticated\" [whose cheilev is permitted]?) or less than an olive-size (the minimum for kareth), (I might think that since they are not included in the punishment (kareth) they are not included in the exhortation (not to eat). It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written \"all cheilev.\"",
                "5) (Vayikra 7:24) (\"And the cheilev of a [beast that is] neveilah (carrion) or the cheilev of a treifah (\"torn\" animal) may be used for all service, but you shall not eat it.\") Scripture here speaks of the neveilah of a clean (kosher) animal. (i.e., The cheilev of a kosher animal may be used for all service for it is distinct from its flesh and is not subject to neveilah-tumah, as opposed to the cheilev of an unkosher animal, which is not distinct from its flesh, and both are subject to neveilah-tumah). I might think that the neveilah of an unclean animal is intended, and that this follows by induction, viz.: There is absence of (the kareth of) cheilev and there is absence of (the tumah of) neveilah. It stands to reason that the absence of neveilah-tumah obtains with an unclean animal just as the absence of cheilev-kareth obtains only with an unclean animal. Or go in this direction: There is absence (of neveilah-tumah) where there is cheilev (our instance), and there is absence (of neveilah-tumah) where there is shechitah, (i.e., Just as we find that the latter obtains only with a clean (kosher) animal, (i.e., If an unclean animal is slaughtered through shechitah, neveilah-tumah still obtains), so, the former, (our instance), obtains only with a clean animal. (We now find ourselves in a predicament:) When you go in one direction, only a clean beast is being spoken of. When you go in the other direction, only an unclean beast is spoken of. It is, therefore, written (in the same context as \"neveilah\"), \"treifah\" — This excludes an unclean beast, where treifah does not obtain.",
                "6) The implication (of \"treifah\") is that I exclude (from permission to use the cheilev of a neveilah) an unclean beast, where treifah does not obtain, and that I include (for such permission) a clean animal (as opposed to \"beast\") where treifah does obtain. It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written \"cheilev … you shall not eat\" — The cheilev that was forbidden to be eaten, (that of a clean beast,) is permitted (for use). The cheilev of a clean animal, that was permitted to be eaten, is excluded (from use).",
                "7) (Vayikra 7:24) \"lo tochluhu\": I might think this means that he shall not feed it to others (non-Jews). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:24) \"ve'achol\" — You may feed it to others. But perhaps \"ve'achol\" signifies that cheilev from which benefit may be derived is clean (of neveilah-tumah and may be used for all service), but the cheilev of an ox that was stoned, and that of an eglah arufah (the heifer of the broken neck, Devarim 21:1-9, [if it died before its mitzvah was performed]), from which benefit may not be derived, is not clean (of neveilah-tumah). It is, therefore, written (Devarim 21:9) (the redundant) \"and the cheilev … and the cheilev\" (to include the cheilev of the foregoing as permitted for all use).",
                "8) \"may be used for all service\": What is the intent of this? R. Yossi Haglili says: I might think that it may be used for the service of what is kodesh (consecrated, e.g., to anoint the hides of offerings), but not for that of what is chullin (mundane). It is, therefore, written \"for all service\" R. Akiva says: I might think that it may be used for the service of what is chullin, but not for that of what is kodesh. It is, therefore, written \"for all service.\"",
                "9) (Vayikra 7:25) (\"For all who eat cheilev of the beast of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd, the soul that eats shall be cut off from its people.\") \"For all who eat cheilev of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd\": This tells me only of the cheilev of non-blemished animals, which are fit for offering. Whence do I derive the same for blemished animals? From \"of the beast\" (connoting any manner of beast). Whence do I derive the same for (an animal of) chullin? From \"For all who eat cheilev.\" If so, why is it written \"of which one presents a fire-offering to the L–rd\"? (The verse speaks of) the type of cheilev which stands to be sacrificed, to exclude (from use) the cheilev of the (chest) walls, which does not stand to be sacrificed, viz. Shemoth 29:13).",
                "10) \"And there shall be cut off the soul\": the soul, and not the congregation (for the sin of the single soul). \"the soul\": to include the drinker (i.e., one who dissolves the cheilev and drinks it). (\"the soul) that eats\": and not the soul that forces another to eat. (i.e., the forcer is not subject to kareth.) \"that eats\": the size that constitutes \"eating,\" an olive-size. \"from its people\": But its people remain at peace, (i.e., unpunished).",
                "11) (Vayikra 7:26) (\"And all blood you shall not eat, in all of your habitations, of bird and of beast.\") \"All blood you shall not eat\": I might think that also included is the blood of bipeds (men), the blood of reptiles, the blood of eggs, the blood of grasshoppers, and the blood of fish. It is, therefore, written \"of bird and of beast.\" Just as bird and beast are characterized by being subject to minor uncleanliness (that of food) and to major uncleanliness (that of neveilah, which confers tumah through carrying), and by (states of) prohibition (before shechitah) and by (states of) permission (after shechitah), and by being of the class of meat, (so all thus characterized are included in the stricture against eating blood.) This excludes the blood of bipeds (men), which are not subject to minor uncleanliness (If one touches a dead body, the clothes upon him become tamei), the blood of reptiles, which are not subject to major uncleanliness, (not causing tumah through carrying), the blood of eggs, which are not of the class of meat, and the blood of grasshoppers and of fish, which are always in a state of permission. \"of bird and of beast\": (If only \"bird\" were stated, I would say:) Just as a bird, which is not subject to kilaim (the law against admixture of materials), so, a beast which is not subject to kilaim (comes under the stricture of forbidden blood, [to exclude sheep, which are subject to kilaim by way of their wool]. It is, therefore, written \"and of beast\" (to include all beasts). Or (if only \"beast\" were stated, I would say:) Just as a beast, which is not subject to the law against taking the mother with the young (Devarim 22:6), so a bird which is not subject to that law (comes under the stricture of forbidden blood, but not a clean bird). It is, therefore, written \"and of bird.\""
            ],
            "Section 11": [
                "1) (Vayikra 7:29) (\"Speak to the children of Israel, saying: He who presents the sacrifice of his peace-offerings to the L–rd shall bring his offering to the L–rd from the sacrifice of his peace-offerings. (Vayikra 7:30) His hands shall bring the fire-offerings of the L–rd. The fat of the breast shall he (a Cohein) bring it. The breast, to wave it, as a wave-offering before the L–rd.\") The children of Israel wave; non-Jews (who offer vows and gifts as the Jews do) do not wave. Now which measure is greater? That of semichah (the placing of the hands on the animal's head) or the measure of tenufah (waving)? The measure of semichah is greater than the measure of tenufah. For semichah obtains with all partners (to the offering), but not tenufah. If I exclude them from semichah, the greater measure (viz. Vayikra 1:2), should I not exclude them from tenufah, the lesser measure! (so that the exclusion verse for tenufah would seem to be superfluous). Perceived thus, semichah is (indeed) the greater measure, and tenufah, the lesser. But perceived otherwise tenufah is the greater measure and semichah, the lesser. For tenufah obtains both with things that have a spirit of life (i.e., animals) and with things that do not have a spirit of life, (e.g., first-fruits, the two breads, etc.), with the living (peace-offerings) and with the slaughtered, whereas semichah obtains only with things that have a spirit of life, and with the living alone. Tenufah obtains both with individual offerings and communal offerings, whereas semichah obtains only with communal offerings alone. If I exclude them from semichah, the lesser, would I (without the verse) exclude them from tenufah, the greater? So that because there obtains with semichah what does not obtain with tenufah, and with tenufah, what does not obtain with semichah, it must be written \"Speak to the children of Israel, etc.\" The children of Israel perform semichah and not the gentiles; the children of Israel perform tenufah and not the gentiles.",
                "2) (\"the children (lit., the sons) of Israel\") The sons of Israel wave; the daughters of Israel do not wave. R. Yossi said: If we find that Scripture did not distinguish between the offerings of gentiles and the offerings of women for semichah (that they do not obtain with both), let us not distinguish between the offerings of gentiles and the offerings of women for tenufah (that they do not obtain with both) (i.e., Why do we need a verse to exclude women from tenufah?) (This is countered:) Why is it that Scripture did not distinguish between the offerings of gentiles and the offerings of women for semichah? Because semichah obtains only with the owners (of the offerings, and both cannot enter the azarah.) (Should we, therefore, not distinguish between the offerings of gentiles and those of women, when tenufah is performed by the Cohein (and say that the Cohein should not perform tenufah for gentiles, but he should perform it for women!) (Therefore, to negate this,) it must be written \"the sons of Israel\" — the sons of Israel wave, but the daughters of Israel do not wave.",
                "3) This tells me only of the sons of Israel. Whence do I derive (for inclusion in tenufah) proselytes and freed slaves? From (Vayikra 1:19) \"He who presents\" (connoting in context all who are bound by all the mitzvoth of Israel). Variantly, \"he who presents\" is the Cohein. \"His hands shall bring the fire-offerings of the L–rd\" (Vayikra 1:30); this includes the hands of the owner. How is this to be effected? The Cohein places (his hands) under the owner's hands (and waves).",
                "4) I might think that all of the offerings require lifting; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:29) \"sacrifice\" (zevach, denoting something slaughtered by shechitah), excluding birds, (which are slaughtered by \"pinching\" [melikah]) and meal-offerings, which are not sacrifices.",
                "5) I exclude (from tenufah) birds and meal-offerings, which are not zevachim; but I would not exclude a bechor (a first-born), a tithe, and a Pesach offering, which are zevachim. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:29) \"of the zevach,\" and not all of the zevachim (to exclude the above).",
                "6) I would exclude (from tenufah) bechor, Pesach, and tithe, which do not require semichah, but I would not exclude a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, which do require semichah; it is, therefore, written \"his peace-offerings\" (to exclude the above). I would exclude a sin-offering, in whose class there is no tenufah, but I would not exclude a guilt-offering, in whose class there is tenufah (the guilt-offering of a leper, which requires the tenufah of a living animal (viz. Vayikra 14:25), so that other guilt-offerings are also not to be excluded from the tenufah of their fats). I might exclude all guilt-offerings, but I would not exclude the guilt-offering of a leper as requiring tenufah after shechitah. It is, therefore, written (a second time, Vayikra 14:25) \"his peace-offerings,\" and not the guilt-offering of a leper.",
                "7) (Vayikra 7:32) (\"And the right shok shall you give as an offering to the Cohein) from the sacrifices of your (plural) peace-offerings\" — to include the sacrifices of communal peace-offerings (the two Atzereth lambs) as requiring tenufah after shechitah.",
                "8) But (why do I need a verse for this?) Can I not derive it a fortiori, viz.: If individual peace-offerings, which do not require tenufah living, require it after shechitah, then communal peace-offerings, which require tenufah living, how much more so do they require it after shechitah!",
                "9) (The verse is needed, for) this could be countered by the guilt-offering of the leper, which, though requiring tenufah living, does not require it after shechitah, so that it would be no cause for wonder if communal peace-offerings, which though they require tenufah living would not require tenufah after shechitah. So that \"from the sacrifice of your (plural) peace-offerings is needed to include communal peace-offerings as requiring tenufah after shechitah.",
                "10) I might think (if it were not specified otherwise) that the entire sacrifice required tenufah. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 7:30) \"cheilev.\" This tells me only of cheilev. Whence do I include the breast? From (Vayikra 7:30) \"breast.\" \"he shall bring\" includes the fat-tail.\" \"the fire-offerings of the L–rd\" — to include the two kidneys. \"shall he bring it\": to include the lobe of the liver.",
                "11) We have (thus) learned that they all require tenufah. Whence do we derive the same for terumah (lifting up and down)? From \"the shok (from knee to thigh) of terumah.\" This tells me only of the shok for lifting and all for tenufah. Whence do I derive that what applies to the one applies to the others? From (Shemoth 29:27): \"And you shall consecrate the breast of waving and the shok of lifting, which was waved and which was lifted.\" Let it not be written \"which was waved and it was lifted.\" (i.e., it sounds redundant). But it is (written as) a binyan av (see Hermeneutical Principle 13) — whatever requires tenufah (waving) requires haramah (lifting) and whatever requires haramah requires tenufah."
            ],
            "Chapter 16": [
                "1) Or, (this binyan av) adduces (the tenufah-haramah identity) only for what is similar to it (the miluim [investiture] ram [viz.: Shemoth 29:27]). (That is,) just as this (investiture offering) is a sturdy, two-year-old ram and requires bread, so (the binyan av applies only to a thanksgiving ram [similar to the miluim ram]), sturdy, two years old, and requiring bread. Whence do I derive (that it applies also to an offering that is) \"sturdy\" and does not require bread (i.e., a peace-offering ram); to one that is \"soft\" and requires bread (i.e., a one-year-old thanksgiving lamb); and to one that is soft and does not require bread (a peace-offering lamb)? — until you include \"cattle, lambs, and goats\" (that obtained at the miluim)? From (Shemoth 29:28): \"For it is terumah and terumah shall it be from the children of Israel from the sacrifices of their peace-offerings, their terumah to the L–rd\" — to include all of them (in the tenufah-haramah identity).",
                "2) If all (the pieces that require tenufah) became tamei and (only) one of them were left, whence is it derived that it requires tenufah? From (the redundant) \"the breast\" (Shemoth 29:30). \"to wave it\" — even one kidney. I might think that he can wave (one piece) and then another; it is, therefore, written \"a waving\" (of all the pieces together) and not \"wavings.\"",
                "3) How does he execute (tenufah)? He (a Cohein) brings the fats (from the slaughtering site) to the hand of the owner, the two kidneys and the lobe of the liver above them, and the breast and shok above them. and if there were bread (as in the terumah of the thanksgiving loaves and the ram of the Nazirite and of the miluim), he places the bread above them.) And he (a second Cohein, places his hand under the hand of the owner and) brings it forward and back, and up and down, as it is written (Shemoth 24:27): \"which was waved and which was lifted.\" Tenufah was in the east (of the altar), and hagashah (presentation at the corner of the altar, in the instance of the meal-offering of the omer and the meal-offering of rancor) in the west. Tenufah preceded hagashah (viz. Bamidbar 5:25). \"before the L–rd\" — in the east.",
                "4) Whence is it derived that the breast and the shok do not revert to Aaron and his sons until after the smoking of the fats? From (Bamidbar 5:31) \"And he shall smoke the cheilev upon the altar\" followed by \"and the breast shall be for Aaron and for his sons.\"",
                "5) If the devoted portions became tamei or were lost, I might think that the shok would not revert to Aaron and to his sons; it is, therefore, written \"it shall be\" (in any event). And thus is it written in respect to the sons of Eli (I Samuel 2:15): \"Even before they would smoke the fats, the Cohein's youth would come and say to the slaughterer: Give flesh for roasting to the Cohein. He will not take from you cooked meat but only raw.\" What is written of them? (I Samuel 2:17) \"And the sin of the youths was very great before the L–rd, for the men cheapened the offering of the L–rd.\"",
                "6) (Vayikra 7:32): \"the right shok\": This tells me only of the shok, that it must be the right shok. Whence do I derive the same (that it must be the right) for the shoulder of chullin (non-consecrated food, [Devarim 18:3])? From \"shall you give.\" Whence do I derive the same for (the shoulder of) consecrated food (the ram of the Nazirite)? From \"terumah.\" \"from the sacrifices of your peace-offerings\": This is as we have said (Chapter 15:9): To include communal peace-offerings as requiring tenufah after shechitah.",
                "7) Whence is it derived that if he (the Cohein) is tamei at the time of sprinkling (of the blood) and clean at the time of the burning of the fats, he does not share (in the flesh)? From \"He who offers the blood of the peace-offerings and the cheilev of the sons of Aaron (to him shall be the right shok as a portion.\")",
                "8) Abba Shaul says: whence is it derived that if he is clean at the time of sprinkling (of the blood) and tamei at the time of the burning of the fats, he does not share in the flesh? From \"He who offers the blood of the peace-offerings and the cheilev of the sons of Aaron.\"",
                "9) R. Shimon says: \"He who offers (midrashically: he who acknowledges the offering, etc.) of the blood of the peace-offerings and the cheilev\": Whoever i.e., any Cohein) who does not acknowledge the priestly service (as having been commanded by G d) has no share in the (gifts of the) priesthood. This tells me only of (not acknowledging) these alone. Whence do I derive the same for (not acknowledging) pourings and mixings (of oil), breaking into pieces (of meal-offerings), saltings, tenufoth, hagashoth, taking of fistfuls (of meal-offerings), \"pinchings\" (of birds), receivings (of blood), sprinklings, administrations of the sotah's draught, the breaking of the heifer's neck, the cleansing of the leper, and the lifting of the hands (in the priestly blessing) within (the sanctuary) and outside it? (Whence is it derived that he has no share in the gifts of the priesthood?) From \"of the sons of Aaron\" — (to include) every service that is relegated to the sons of Aaron.",
                "10) And R. Shimon was wont to say (Malachi 1:16) \"Who among you, too, would (not) close doors (the doors of the Temple) and not kindle My altar for nothing, says the L–rd of hosts. And I desired no gift from your hand.\" There are two things which serve the body and which people do not desist from doing and for which they do not take payment. The two things which a man asks of his neighbor — Light this candle for me and close the door after me — which people do not desist from doing and for which they do not take payment, you did not do them for Me for nothing (i.e., I rewarded you for them). Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If things for which people do not take payment, you did not do for Me for nothing, things for which they do take payment, how much more so (will you be richly reworded for them)!"
            ],
            "Chapter 17": [
                "1) R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: A (Cohein) tvul yom (one who immersed in the daytime, and becomes clean at sunset) came and said to (another) Cohein: Give me of the meal-offering (of an Israelite) to eat it (tonight). The Cohein: Now if in a place (i.e., an instance) where you are \"strong,\" in your sin-offering, (i.e., a Cohein who is liable for a sin-offering may bring it at any priestly watch and take its priestly portions), I have pushed you away from the sin-offering of an Israelite (A tvul yom does not share in it, viz. Vayikra 6:19), then in a place where you are \"weak,\" in your meal-offering, (Even a clean Cohein may not eat his own meal-offering, it being entirely burnt), does it not follow that I should push you away from the meal-offering of an Israelite today (when you are a tvul yom and unfit to sacrifice the meal-offering of an Israelite)! The tvul yom: Why would you push me away from the sin-offering of an Israelite? Because you are \"strong\" in your own sin-offering. Would you then push me away from the meal-offering of an Israelite, when you are \"weak\" in your own meal-offering? The Cohein (Vayikra 7:9): \"To the Cohein that sacrifices (a meal-offering), to him shall it be\" — Come, sacrifice (when you are clean) and eat!",
                "2) The tvul yom: If not (i.e., if you do not give me of the meal-offering), give me to eat of the sin-offering. The Cohein: Now, if in a place where I am \"weak,\" in my meal-offering, I have pushed you away from the meal-offering of an Israelite, then in a place where I am strong, in my sin-offering, does it not follow that I should push you away from the sin-offering of an Israelite! The tvul yom: No, if you have pushed me away from the meal-offering of an Israelite, it is because I am \"weak\" in my own meal-offering. Would you then push me away from the sin-offering of an Israelite, when I am strong in my own sin-offering? The Cohein (Vayikra 6:19): \"The Cohein who offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it.\" Come, sacrifice a sin-offering (when you are clean), and eat!",
                "3) The tvul yom: And if not, give me to eat of the breast and shok of the peace-offerings. The Cohein: Now if in a place where you are \"strong,\" in holy of holies (offerings), where all (that is eaten of them) is yours, I have pushed you away, then in a place where you are \"weak,\" in lower order offerings, where you have only the breast and the shok, does it not follow that I should push you away! The tvul yom: Now if you have pushed me away from holy of holies, where I am \"weak,\" not being permitted to feed my wives and servants of them, would you then push me away from lower order offerings, where I am \"strong,\" being permitted to feed my wives and slaves of them? The Cohein (Vayikra 7:14): \"To the Cohein who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings, to him shall it be.\" Come and sprinkle (when you are clean) and eat!",
                "4) The tvul yom left with his (unavailing) \"weaknesses and strengths,\" an onein (a mourner) on his right hand, and a mechussar kippurim (\"one lacking atonement\") on his left, (these, too, being \"pushed away\" by these verses.)",
                "5) (Vayikra 7:34) (\"For the breast of the tenufah and the shok of the terumah have I taken from the children of Israel from the sacrifices of their peace-offerings, and I have given them to Aaron the Cohein and to his sons as an everlasting statute from the children of Israel.\") \"the breast\": This is the breast (itself); \"hatenufah\": This is (to include as reverting to the Cohein what is added in the offering of the ram of the Nazirite in) the tenufah of the basket (viz. Numbers 6:19). \"shok\": This is the shok itself. \"haterumah\": This is (to include as reverting to the Cohein the terumah of the four challoth of the thanksgiving offering (viz. Vayikra 7:14). \"have I taken from the children of Israel\": They should have reverted to the (first-born of the) Israelites, (who were originally slated to be the priests), but when they sinned (with the golden calf), they were taken from them and given to the Cohanim. I might think that just as they were taken from them because they sinned, so they will be restored to them (in the future, when their sin is atoned). It is, therefore, written \"and I have given them to Aaron the Cohein and to his sons as an everlasting statute\" — They are given to the Cohein as an everlasting gift.",
                "6) I might think that the offerings, too, should be subject to the (priestly) gifts (shoulder, cheeks, and maw, viz. Devarim 18:3), and that it follows a fortiori, viz.: Now if chullin (non-consecrated food), which is not subject to the giving of breast and shok (to the Cohein), is subject to the (priestly) gifts (above), then the offerings, which are subject to the giving of breast and shok, how much more so should they be subject to the (priestly gifts! It is, therefore, written \"and I have given them (breast and shok) to Aaron the Cohein and to his sons\" — only those that are referred to in that context. \"from the children of Israel\": (only) by the consent of all of Israel (to give them to the Cohanim from their peace-offerings, i.e., the Cohanim may not seize them by force)."
            ],
            "Chapter 18": [
                "1) (Vayikra 7:35) (\"This is the anointment of Aaron and the anointment of his sons from the fire-offerings of the L–rd on the day He drew them near to minister to the L–rd.\") \"This is the anointment\": R. Shimon said: I might think that unless Aaron and his sons had been combined with each other they would not have merited the oil of anointment; it is, therefore, written \"This is the anointment of Aaron and the anointment of his sons. Each was worthy of the anointment in his own right. I might think that Aaron and his sons would require (re-anointment with) the oil of anointment in the future (i.e., at the resurrection); it is, therefore, written: \"This is the anointment of Aaron and the anointment of his sons.\" How, then, are we to understand (Zechariah 4:14): \"These are the two sons of the oil who stand before the L–rd of all the earth\"? (i.e., Aaron and his sons are three!) The reference is to Aaron (anointed for priesthood) and David (anointed for kingdom). \"from the fire-offerings of the L–rd\": We are hereby taught that the fire (destined to descend from Heaven upon the altar) also \"assisted\" (in Aaron and his sons' meriting the oil of anointment). \"on the day he drew them near to minister to the L–rd\": We are hereby taught that the (holiness of the) day also \"assisted.\"",
                "2) (Vayikra 7:36) (\"which the L–rd commanded to give to them on the day He anointed them, from the children of Israel, a statute forever, throughout their generations.\") \"which the L–rd commanded to give to them\": R. Shimon said: Whence is it derived that Israel separated the gifts of the priesthood (the breast and the shok of their peace-offerings [and gave them to the first-born]) from Mount Sinai (viz. Shemoth 24:5) and that they did not revert to Aaron and his sons until they were anointed with the oil of anointment? From \"which the L–rd commanded to give to them on the day He anointed them.\" \"from the children of Israel\": (only) by the consent of (all of) Israel. \"a statute forever\": for the eternal house (the Temple). \"throughout their generations\": (The original oil of anointment \"holds\") for all the generations (even in the absence of the oil of anointment).",
                "3) (Vayikra 7:37): \"This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the miluim (the offering of investiture of the priesthood), and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings.\": Just as the general rule and the particulars of the miluim were given at Sinai (before the tabernacle was set up, viz. Shemoth, Tetzaveh,), so, the general rules and particulars of all of them (those mentioned in the verse) were given at Sinai.",
                "4) But perhaps, just as the miluim is a communal offering (peace-offerings), so we should derive that only (the general rules and particulars of) communal offerings (were given at Sinai). Whence do I derive the same for an individual offering? From \"and of the guilt-offering.\" But perhaps just as the guilt-offering is an individual offering, so I can derive from it only an individual offering. Whence would I derive the same for communal offerings? From \"and of the miluim\" (itself)! When you reflect upon this, you can say: \"of the burnt-offering\": both individual and communal; \"of the meal-offering\": both individual and communal; \"and of the sin-offering\": both individual and communal; \"and of the sacrifices of the peace-offerings\": both individual and communal.",
                "5) (Vayikra 7:38) (\"which the L–rd commanded Moses on Mount Sinai on the day that He commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings to the L–rd in the desert of Sinai.\") \"to present their offerings to the L–rd\": (This is redundant) to include a bechor (a first-born), the tithe, and the Pesach offering (in the comparison to miluim), to include the general rules and particulars of all of these as having been given at Sinai.",
                "6) \"which the L–rd commanded Moses on Mount Sinai on the day that He commanded\": From here we derive that all of the offerings are to be sacrificed only in the daytime.",
                "7) R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan b. Beroka says (Shemoth 24:6): \"And Moses took half of the blood and he placed it in basins\": From here we learn that the burnt-offering of Sinai required a vessel.",
                "8) And whence do we derive the same for the burnt-offering of (future) generations? From (Bamidbar 28:6): \"a perpetual burnt-offering (like those) offered up (in the days of the investiture) at Mount Sinai.\" The burnt-offering of (future) generations (i.e., the tamid) is hereby likened to the burnt-offering of Mount Sinai. Just as the burnt-offering of Mount Sinai required a vessel, so the burnt-offering of the generations requires a vessel.",
                "9) This tells me only of the burnt-offering. Whence do we derive the same for all of the offerings? From (Vayikra 2:37): \"This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the miluim, and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings\" — to include all of them as requiring a vessel.",
                "10) \"which the L–rd commanded Moses in Mount Sinai (on the day, etc.\"): From here we derive that the commands in the desert of Sinai were stated only in the daytime. And whence do we derive that the commands in Egypt were stated only in the daytime? From (Shemoth 6:28): \"And it was on the day that the L–rd spoke to Moses in the Land of Egypt.\" And whence is it derived that the commands in the tent of meeting were stated only in the daytime? From (Bamidbar 1:1): (\"And the L–rd said to Moses) in the desert of Sinai in the tent of meeting.\" The commands in the tent of meeting are hereby likened to the commands in the desert of Sinai. Just as the commands in the desert of Sinai were stated only in the daytime, so, the commands in the tent of meeting."
            ],
            "Mechilta d'Miluim 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 8:1) (\"And the L–rd spoke to Moses, saying (Vayikra 8:2): \"Take Aaron, and his sons with him, and the garments, and the oil of anointment, and the bullock of the sin-offering and the two rams and the basket of unleavened bread.\") \"Take Aaron and his sons with him\": What is the intent of this? Because (Shemoth 32:35): \"And the L–rd smote the people with plague because they had made the calf that Aaron had made\" implies that Aaron was rejected, from \"Take Aaron and his sons with him\" all knew that he was (re-) accepted. Whence is it derived that Moses knew that Aaron was rejected? From (Devarim 9:20): \"And against Aaron the L–rd was wroth to destroy him, and I prayed also on Aaron's behalf at that time,\" and it is not written there (as it is in the preceding verse in respect to Moses' prayer on behalf of Israel) \"And the L–rd hearkened to me at that time too.\" From \"Take Aaron and his sons with him,\" Moses knew that Aaron was (re-) accepted. Whence do we derive that it was in Aaron's heart that he had been rejected? It is written at the end of the episode (Vayikra 9:7) (\"And Moses said to Aaron) draw near to the altar.\" (Why was this command necessary?) Had not Moses just presented to him the entire order of sacrifices? (We must say, then, that Moses saw Aaron hesitating, apparently feeling that his service would be rejected, and) to dispel this from his heart, he told him that the L–rd had said to him \"Take Aaron and his sons with him,\" thus apprising Aaron that he had been (re-) accepted.",
                "2) Variantly: \"Take Aaron and his sons with him\": What is the intent of this? In many places the \"taking\" of men is mentioned in respect to Moses, viz. (Numbers 3:41): \"And you shall take the Levites for Me — I am the L–rd.\" (Numbers 11:16): \"And you shall take them (the seventy elders) to the tent of meeting.\" (Numbers 1:17): \"and Moses… took these men who were designated by name.\" (Numbers 27:18): \"Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun.\" Now did Moses \"string men over his shoulders\"? (The intent is that) the Holy One Blessed be He said to him: \"Take\" them with words so that their hearts not be tied to other things.",
                "3) \"and the garments\": These are the garments concerning which I commanded you, viz. (Shemoth 28:4): \"And these are the garments that they shall make: a choshen, an ephod, etc.\" \"and the oil of anointment\": This is the oil of anointment concerning which I commanded you, viz. (Shemoth 30:25): \"And you shall make of it oil of sacred anointment, etc.\" \"and the bullock of the sin-offering\": viz. (Shemoth 29:10): \"And you shall bring the bullock before the tent of meeting.\" \"and the two rams\": viz. (Shemoth 29:15): \"And you shall take the one ram … (Shemoth 29:19) and you shall take the second ram.\" \"and the basket of unleavened bread\": (Not according to the order that they are mentioned there (Shemoth, Tetzaveh) are they mentioned here.)",
                "4) (Vayikra 8:3): (\"And assemble all of the congregation at the door of the tent of meeting\": Do it in the presence of the entire congregation so that they accord honor to the priesthood. (Vayikra 8:4): \"And Moses did as the L–rd commanded him.\": Just as Moses had set forth the (sacrificial) service of the sanctuary, he set forth the service of the Cohanim and the Levites, the vestments of each (Cohein) according to his (sacrificial) function.",
                "5) (Vayikra 8:6): \"And Moses drew near Aaron and his sons and he washed them with water.\": At that time they merited the laving of hands and feet and the immersions of Yom Kippur.",
                "6) (Vayikra 8:7) \"And he put upon him the kutoneth and he girded him with the avneit, etc.\" (See Shemoth 29): We are hereby taught that Moses was made an aid to Aaron. And just as he was made his aid in his lifetime, so, he was made his aid in his death. And he would dress him and he would undress him, as it is written (Bamidbar 20:25): \"Take Aaron and Elazar his son… (Bamidbar 20:26) and strip Aaron of his vestments, etc.\" And whence is it derived that Moses did this? From (Bamidbar 20:27): \"And Moses did as the L–rd commanded, and they went up to Hor Hahar … (Bamidbar 20:28) and Moses stripped Aaron of his vestments.\" Now how could Moses strip his vestments in order and dress Elazar in order. Do not the outer garments remain outer garments, and the inner garments remain inner garments? (i.e., We see from Scripture that Aaron did not die until he saw Elazar dressed in the priestly vestments. Is it possible that Aaron stood naked until Elazar donned all the eight vestments?) This transpired miraculously. Variantly: The Holy One Blessed be He accorded him greater honor in his death than in his life. Moses stood him on a rock and stripped him of his priestly vestments, and vestments of the Shechinah clothed him in their stead. Moses stripped his vestments (in order) and clothed Elazar with them in order.",
                "7) (Vayikra 8:8) \"And he placed the choshen upon him.\": This section was learned for its time and for future generations (for the donning of the priestly vestments) for the daily service and for the Yom Kippur service. (It is just that) every day he serves in the golden vestments, and on Yom Kippur, in the white (linen) vestments.",
                "0",
                "9) (Vayikra 8:10): \"And Moses took the oil of anointment and he anointed the mishkan and all that was in it, and he sanctified them.\": R. Yehudah says: Many miracles were wrought with the anointing oil that Moses compounded in the desert — from beginning to end. For in the beginning there were only twelve logs of oil. A hin of olive-oil (viz. Shemoth 30:24) does not suffice for the anointment of the roots (of the incense). How much is burnt by the fire? How much is absorbed by the roots? How much is absorbed by the kettle (in its compounding)? And yet with it were anointed Aaron and his sons all the seven days of investiture, and with it were anointed the mishkan and all of its vessels, and with it were anointed high-priests and kings. And even a high-priest the son of a high-priest requires anointment. And a king the son of a king is not anointed. And why was Solomon anointed? Because of the contention of Adoniyahu. And Yehoash? Because of the contention of Ataliah. And Yehoachaz? Because of Yehoyakim, who was two years older than he. And that oil remains intact for time to come, viz. (Shemoth 20:31): \"Holy anointing oil shall this (zeh) be to me throughout your generations. (The gematria [numerical equivalent] of \"zeh\" is twelve [logs]).",
                "10) \"And he anointed the mishkan and all that was in it\": Not as the anointment of Aaron and his sons, where after he clothed them he anointed them, viz. (Tehillim 133:2): \"As the goodly oil upon the head.\" I might think that he anointed them (the vestments) before he clothed them; it is, therefore, written (Tehillim 133:2): \"descending (from his beard) upon his vestments.\" But, in the anointing of the other vessels, each vessel required anointment in itself, viz. (Vayikra 8:11): \"And he anointed the altar and all of its vessels, and the laver and its base, to sanctify them\" — whereby we are taught that each vessel required anointment in itself.",
                "11) (Vayikra 8:13): \"And Moses drew near the sons of Aaron, and he clothed them with kutanoth.\": Just as Moses was made an aid to Aaron, so he was made an aid to his sons. Just as he was appointed over the vestments of Aaron, so he was appointed over the vestments of his sons, as it is written (Shemoth 29:2): \"and you shall make consecrated garments for Aaron your brother, for honor and for glory,\" and (Shemoth 29:8): \"And his sons shall you draw near and dress them in kutanoth.\"",
                "12) (Vayikra 8:14): (\"And he presented the bullock of the sin-offering, and Aaron and his sons placed their hands on the head of the bullock of the sin-offering.\") \"And he presented the bullock of the sin-offering\": In the beginning, it was not called \"the bullock of the sin-offering,\" viz. (Shemoth 29:1): \"And this is the thing that you shall do to them to sanctify them to minister unto Me: Take one young bullock and rams, etc.\" In its specific accounting it is called \"the bullock of the sin-offering,\" viz. (Shemoth 29:14): \"And the flesh of the bullock and its hide and its waste you shall burn in a fire outside the camp — it is a sin-offering.\" We do not know whether this refers to the sin-offering of Aaron and his sons or to the communal sin-offering. \"Take Aaron and his sons with him … and the bullock of the sin-offering\" (Vayikra 8:2) tells us that it is the sin-offering of Aaron and his sons and not the communal sin-offering.",
                "13) \"and Aaron and his sons placed their hands on the head of the bullock of the sin-offering.\": We find that Aaron and his sons perform semichah (the placing of the hands) on all of their offerings. But because they do so because they are their offerings, the offerings of partners are compared to their offerings, viz.: Just as their offerings require semichah for each of the participants, so the offerings of partners require semichah for each partner.",
                "14) (Vayikra 8:15) (\"And he slaughtered, and Moses took the blood and he put it on the horns of the altar roundabout with his finger. And he purified the altar, and the (remaining) blood he poured out at the base of the altar, and he sanctified it to make atonement upon it.\") \"And he slaughtered, and Moses took the blood\": All the seven days of miluim Moses served in the high-priesthood. He slaughtered, he sprinkled, he purified, he poured, he atoned. This is the intent of \"And he slaughtered, and Moses, took, etc.\" To what may this be compared? To (the instance of) a princess who was wed as a minor, it being stipulated with her mother that she (the mother) officiate until her daughter had learned (the protocols of majesty). Here, too, Aaron, at first was a Levite, viz.: (Shemoth 4:14): \"Is not Aaron your brother the Levite?\" When he was chosen to be high-priest, the Holy One Blessed be He said to Moses: You serve Me until Aaron learns (the service). Moses slaughtered and Aaron observed him; he sprinkled (the blood) and Aaron observed him; he sprinkled (the anointing oil on the altar) and Aaron observed him; he purified (the altar) and Aaron observed him; he poured out (the blood at the base of the altar) and Aaron observed him; he atoned and Aaron observed him.",
                "15) \"And he slaughtered and Moses took the blood … and he sanctified it (the altar) to make atonement upon it.\": I do not know what this atonement is. Moses said (When the L–rd of the world ordained donations for the sanctuary, the Israelites prodded each other and they brought offerings unwillingly.) Moses said: Let this (blood) serve as atonement, that there not be theft in the sanctuary. And thus is it written (Isaiah 61:8): \"For I am the L–rd. I love justice and hate theft (even) for (the bringing of) a burnt-offering.\"",
                "16) (Vayikra 8:16) \"And he took all the fat that was upon the innards … (and Moses smoked it on the altar.\"): From here we learn, from these two sections, (i.e., from the command in Tetzaveh and from its implementation in this section) proper conduct for future generations. For I would say: The bullocks for burning and the he-goats for burning, since they are not eaten, they should be entirely burnt and nothing left over of them for the altar; it is, therefore, written \"And he took all the fat, etc.\" This was their offering for the altar, and the rest of the bullock he burned, viz. (Vayikra 8:17): \"And the bullock, with its skin, and its flesh, and its dung, he burned with fire outside the camp.\"",
                "17) (Vayikra 8:18) \"And he presented the ram of the burnt-offering, and Aaron and his sons placed their hands on the head of the ram.\": From here we derive the requirement of semichah for a burnt-offering. (Vayikra 8:19): \"And he slaughtered, and Moses sprinkled the blood upon the altar roundabout.\": From here we derive the requirement of sprinkling for a burnt-offering. (Vayikra 8:20): \"And he cut the ram into its pieces\": Everything stated explicitly about an individual burnt-offering is stated here, except flaying. And some say there is no cutting into pieces without flaying.",
                "18) \"and Moses smoked the head, and the pieces, and the suet\": as it is written (Vayikra 1:12): \"And he shall cut it into its pieces, and its head and its suet.\" (Vayikra 8:21): \"And the innards and the legs he washed with water\": as it is written (Vayikra 1:13): \"And the innards and the legs he shall wash with water.\" (Vayikra 8:21) \"and Moses smoked the whole ram upon the altar\": as it is written (Vayikra 1:13): \"and he shall smoke it upon the altar.\" (Vayikra 8:21): \"It is a burnt-offering for a sweet savor\": as it is written (Vayikra 1:13): \"a fire-offering, a sweet savor to the L–rd.\" From here it is derived that all (the limbs of the burnt-offering) are consigned to the fire.",
                "19) (Vayikra 8:22): \"And he presented the second ram\": Now has Scripture not already mentioned the two rams, (viz. Vayikra 8:2: \"and the two [connoting \"identical\"] rams\")? Why, then, is it necessary to state \"And he presented the second ram\"? (To imply) that if he brought a bullock and (only) one of the rams, he has not effected the sanctification; two rams and no bullock, he has not effected the sanctification; two rams and a bullock and not the basket of unleavened bread, (viz. Vayikra 8:26) he has not effected the sanctification.",
                "20) \"the ram of the miluim\": (\"miluim\") connoting that it completes the entire (service), ending (the service) for Aaron and his sons. \"and Aaron and his sons placed their hands on the head of the ram\": They placed their hands upon it in joy, as in a festival, as one who paid off his debt and made a festival (of it). Here, too, Aaron and his sons, ending the service of the day and its sanctifications and the service of the vessels and its sanctifications, brought a ram and placed their hands upon it in joy, making a \"festival\" (of it).",
                "21) (Vayikra 8:23): \"And he slaughtered, and Moses took of its blood\": The three bloods mentioned in this section are not similar one to the other (see Vayikra 8:33 below). The first requires six applications; the second, two; and the third, thirteen. This is the intent of \"And he slaughtered and he took its (particular) blood.\" \"and he placed it on the tnuch of Aaron's right ear\": This (tnuch) is the middle wall. \"and upon the thumb of his right hand\": This is the middle joint.",
                "22) (Vayikra 8:24): \"And he brought forward Aaron's sons, and Moses put of the blood upon the tnuch of their right ear\": This is the middle wall. \"and upon the thumb of their right hand\": This is the middle joint.",
                "23) (Vayikra 8:25): \"And he took the fat\": There is no thing (i.e., there is no gift given to a man) where there is no mitzvah for the L–rd (Thus, \"And he took the fat, etc.\"): Fruits have many mitzvoth: terumoth, ma'asroth, challah, bikkurim, leket, shikchah, and peah. The gates of houses and of provinces have their mitzvoth to the L–rd, (Devarim 6:9): \"And you shall write them on the doorposts (mezuzoth) of your house and on your gates.\"",
                "24) Garments have their mitzvah to the L–rd, viz. (Devarim 22:11): \"You shall not wear sha'atnez.\" A ta'alith, (Devarim 22:12): \"Fringes shall you make for yourself.\"",
                "25) A clean beast has its mitzvah to the L–rd, viz. (Devarim 15:19): \"Every firstling (bechor) which is born in your herd and in your flock, the male, shall you consecrate to the L–rd your G d.\"",
                "26) An unclean beast has its mitzvah to the L–rd, viz. (Shemoth 34:20): \"And the firstling of an ass you shall redeem with a lamb.\" An animal of the wild and a bird flying in the air — Scripture has exhorted us concerning them that when they come to your hand they should not be lacking a mitzvah, viz. (Vayikra 17:13): \"A man of the children of Israel … that shall hunt a hunting of animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.\" And other beasts and animals, unspecified by name, are subsumed in a general ruling so that they not be lacking in mitzvoth, viz. (Vayikra 27:28): Every devotion (cherem) which a man shall devote to the L–rd, etc.\" — Thus, for consecrations outside of the Temple. With Temple consecrations, there are levels upon levels. How so? Of bullocks that are to be burned and he-goats that are to be burned, Scripture states that their blood and devoted portions are to go to the altar.",
                "27) Of a burnt-offering, which is to be entirely burned, Scripture states that their hide is to go to the Cohanim. Of peace-offerings, that are eaten by the owners, Scripture states that their blood and devoted portions are to go to the altar, wherefore Scripture states (Vayikra 8:25): \"And he took the fat and the fat-tail … and the right shok\" as their terumah to the altar.",
                "",
                "29) (Vayikra 8:27) (\"and he waved them as a wave offering before the L–rd.\"): We are hereby taught (the procedure for) the waving of the offerings. (Vayikra 8:28): \"And Moses took them from their hands\": We are hereby taught how he takes the meal-offering from the hands of the sotah and waves it.",
                "30) (Vayikra 8:28): \"They are a miluim (investiture) offering for a sweet savor\": We are hereby taught that the miluim offering is called \"a sweet savor.\" And does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If a king of flesh and blood who acquires a lover makes a festival for him, the King of kings, the Holy One Blessed be He, who invests a Cohein for Himself, how much more so!",
                "31) (Vayikra 8:29): \"And Moses took the breast and waved it, a wave-offering before the L–rd. From the ram of the miluim to Moses was it for a portion, as the L–rd had commanded Moses\": We are hereby taught that the Holy One Blessed be He does not hold back the reward of any creature. And thus is it written (Malachi 1:10): \"Who among you, too, would (not) close doors and not kindle My altar for nothing\"? (see Chapter 16:10).",
                "32) \"From the ram of the miluim to Moses was it for a portion. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If one who serves in the high-priesthood for only a brief time (as Moses did) takes a portion in the high-priesthood, then one who serves in it forever (as Aaron did), how much more so!",
                "33) (Vayikra 8:30): \"And Moses took of the oil of anointment and of the blood which was upon the altar, and he sprinkled it upon Aaron, upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him. And he sanctified Aaron, his garments, and his sons, and the garments of his sons with him.\": The three \"bloods\" mentioned in this section (the bullock of the sin-offering, the ram of the burnt-offering, and the ram of the miluim) are not alike. The first requires six applications; the second, two; and the third, thirteen. The first (the bullock of the sin-offering) requires sprinkling, application roundabout (on the four corners of the altar), purification (chitui, by application of the blood on the roof of the altar, viz. Shemoth 29:36) and spilling (yetzikah, of the blood at the base of the altar). The second (the ram of the burnt-offering) requires sprinkling and application roundabout. The third (the ram of the miluim) requires six \"thumb\" applications: three on Aaron (on the thumb of his hand, the big toe of his foot, and the tnuch of his ear), and three (respectively) on (each of) his sons. Others say: nine (\"thumb\" applications): three on Aaron and six on his sons. Others say: fifteen: three on Aaron and twelve on his four sons, viz. (Bamidbar 3:3): \"These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the anointed Cohanim, whom he invested to minister.\" And it required (one) sprinkling on the altar (in sum, thirteen applications: six \"thumb\" applications, one altar sprinkling, and six sprinklings on Aaron and on his sons).",
                "34) And it requires six sprinklings: three on Aaron and three on his sons. Others say: nine: three on Aaron and six on his sons. Others say: fifteen: three on Aaron and twelve on his sons, viz. (Vayikra 8:30): \"and he sprinkled it upon Aaron, upon his garments, and upon his sons with him (and he sanctified Aaron, etc.\") We are hereby taught that the sanctification of Aaron and his sons was consummated only with the sprinkling of the blood.",
                "35) (Vayikra 8:31): \"And Moses said to Aaron and to his sons: Cook the flesh at the door of the tent of meeting,\" as it is written (Shemoth 29:32): \"And Aaron and his sons shall eat the flesh of the ram and the bread that is in the basket, etc.\" And it is written (Shemoth 29:32): \"And what is left over of the flesh and of the bread you shall burn with fire,\" whereby we are taught that what remains of the miluim is to be burnt.",
                "36) (Vayikra 8:33): \"And from the door of the tent of meeting you shall not go out seven days, (until the day of the fulfillment of the days of your investiture.\") From here they derived: On the twenty-third of Adar, they sacrificed miluim (twenty-three and seven brings us to the thirtieth of Adar; thus) on the first of Nissan they completed the miluim. (Vayikra 8:33): \"For seven days shall He invest your hands\": All the seven days of the miluim Moses would set up the mishkan every morning and sacrifice his offerings therein and take it apart. On the eighth day he set it up and did not take it apart. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: On the eighth day, too, he set it up in the morning and took it apart. In the evening he set it up and did not take it apart.",
                "37) (Vayikra 8:34) \"As He has done this day, so has the L–rd commanded to do to make atonement for you\": From here they said: Seven days before Yom Kippur (corresponding to the seven days of the miluim) the high-priest is separated from his house to the \"counselors' cell\" (in the Temple). And just as they separated the high-priest from his house, so they separated the Cohein who was to burn the red heifer from his house. And why would they separate him for seven days? Lest his wife be found to have possibly been a niddah (during intercourse) and he be disqualified from (the atonement service) all seven days. (Vayikra 8:34) \"the L–rd has commanded to do to make atonement for you\": He said to them: This service shall atone for you until the resurrection.",
                "38) (Vayikra 8:35): \"And at the door of the tent of meeting shall you sit day and night seven days. And you shall keep the charge of the L–rd seven days.\": Now does this not follow a fortiori: If the L–rd receives (with favor) one who fulfills the words of flesh and blood (i.e., Moses, who is only His emissary), how much more so does He (thus) receive one who fulfills the words of the L–rd Himself (i.e., the words uttered at Mount Sinai)! (Vayikra 8:36): \"And Aaron and his sons did\" with joy and gladness in fulfilling what they had heard from the mouth of Moses just as if they had heard it from the mouth of the Holy One Blessed be He Himself! — wherefore it is written: \"And Aaron and his sons did all the things that the L–rd had commanded.\" \"by the hand of Moses\": Worthy is the messenger, of his Sender! Worthy is the commanded (Aaron and his sons) of the command! "
            ]
        },
        "Shemini": {
            "Mechilta d'Miluim 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 9:1) (\"And it was on the eighth day that Moses called to Aaron and to his sons and to the elders of Israel\"): This is one of the verses that needs expounding: It is written here: \"And it was on the eighth day,\" and elsewhere (Shemoth 19:16): \"and it was on the third day.\" We do not know whether (this refers to) the third day of the month (Sivan) or the third day of the number (of days of separation, viz. Shemoth 19:15). Its being written (Shemoth 19:11): \"… for on the third day the L–rd will go down before the eyes of all the people on Mount Sinai\" and then \"And it was on the third day, when it was morning etc.\" tells us that it is the third day of the number, and not of the month, that is being referred to. Here, too, it is written: And it was on the eighth day,\" and we do not know whether it is the eighth day of the number (of days of miluim [i.e., the first of Nissan]) or the eighth day of the month (of Nissan). Its being written (Vayikra 8:33): \"For seven days shall He invest your hands\" tells us that it is the eighth day of the number and not the eighth day of the month. That day (the first of Nissan) took ten crowns: It was first for creation of the universe; first for the (sacrificial service of the) nesi'im (the chiefs of the tribes); first for the (sacrificial service of the) Cohanim, (that service having previously been performed by the first-born, and, on the seven days of miluim, by Moses); first for the (sacrificial) service (of the daily offerings [temidim] and all of the communal offerings); first for the descent of fire (upon the altar from Heaven); first for shechitah in the north (of the altar); first for the prohibition of bamoth (temporary altars); first for roshei chodoshim (the beginnings of months); first for the reposing of the shechinah in Israel; first for the (priestly) blessing of Israel.",
                "2) \"Moses called to Aaron and to his sons\": Because the L–rd honored Aaron at first, so, Moses honored him afterwards. Where is it seen that the L–rd honored him at first? In (Shemoth 19:24): \"And go up, you and Aaron with you\" — so, Moses honored him afterwards, viz.: \"Moses called to Aaron and to his sons and (only afterwards) to the elders of Israel.\"",
                "3) (Vayikra 9:2): \"And he said to Aaron: Take for yourself a bull-calf for a sin-offering\": We are hereby taught that Moses said to Aaron: Aaron, my brother, even though the Holy One Blessed be He has consented to forgive your sins (in the episode of the golden calf), you must \"place something in Satan's mouth.\" Send your gift before you before entering the sanctuary lest he condemn you upon your entering the sanctuary. And lest you say: Is it only I who need atonement? Israel, too, needs atonement, viz. (Vayikra 9:3): \"And to the children of Israel shall you speak, saying: Take a kid of goats for a sin-offering, and a calf, etc.\" And why was it Israel's lot to bring more than Aaron? He said to them: You are culpable in the beginning and culpable in the end. In the beginning (at the sale of Yosef) — (Bereshith 37:31): \"And they slaughtered a kid of goats, etc.\"; in the end — (Shemoth 32:8): \"They have made for themselves a molten calf.\" Let a kid of goats come and atone for the \"act\" of goats, let a calf come and atone for the \"act\" of the calf.",
                "4) (Vayikra 9:4): \"and an ox and a ram for peace-offerings\": Because their sin was two-faceted, viz.: \"They have made themselves a molten calf and (Tehillim 106:20): \"And they exchanged their glory for the likeness of an ox eating grass\" — let an ox come and atone for the \"act\" of the ox; let a calf come and atone for the \"act\" of the calf. Know that the L–rd has been conciliated to atone for your sins. The transgression that you are in fear of lies already slaughtered before the L–rd, viz. (Vayikra, Ibid.) \"to slaughter before the L–rd.\" Israel said before Moses. How can a province praise a king without seeing his face? He responded: Even so, \"for today the L–rd will appear to you\" (to repose His shechinah in the work of your hands.)",
                "5) (Vayikra 9:5): \"And they brought what Moses had commanded\" — with zeal! \"and all the congregation drew near and stood before the L–rd\": They all drew near with joy and stood before Him. An analogy: A king grew angry at his wife and sent her away. After several days he was reconciled to her. Immediately, she girded her thighs, braced her shoulders and served him more assiduously than ever. Israel, likewise — when they saw that the L–rd had been conciliated to atone their sins, they all drew near with joy and stood before Him. Thus: \"and all the congregation drew near and stood before the L–rd.\"",
                "6) (Vayikra 9:6) \"And Moses said: This thing that the L–rd commanded shall you do\": Moses said to Israel: That yetzer hara (for idolatry) — remove it from your heart, and let all of you be of one fear and of one counsel — to minister before the L–rd. Just as He is One in the world, let your worship be \"one\" before Him, as it is written (Devarim 10:16): \"And you shall circumcise the foreskin (i.e., the occlusion) of your hearts.\" Why? (Devarim 10:17): \"For the L–rd your G d — He is the G d of gods and the L–rd of lords. If you do so, then (Vayikra, Ibid.): \"There shall appear to you the glory of the L–rd.\"",
                "7) (Vayikra 9:7): \"And Moses said to Aaron: Draw near to the altar, etc.\" (Of) this (moment, Moses inducting Aaron into the service on the eighth day of the miluim, to serve with him in the priesthood, [Moses having served alone the first seven days]), it is written (Tehillim 99:6): \"Moses and Aaron (the elect of) His priests, and Samuel (among the elect of) the invokers of His name. They called to the L–rd and He answered them. (Tehillim 99:7) In a pillar of cloud He spoke to them\" — whereby we are taught that the three were on a par.",
                "8) \"Draw near to the altar\": An analogy: A king of flesh and blood married a woman and she was ashamed in his presence — whereupon her sister came in to her and said: Why did you enter into this? Is it not only for the sake of ministering to the king? Embolden yourself and serve the king! Similarly, Moses says to Aaron: My brother, why were you chosen as high-priest? Is it not only for the sake of ministering before the Holy One Blessed be He? Embolden yourself and perform your service! (Thus: \"Draw near!\") Others say: Aaron perceived the (horned) altar as an ox and was frightened by it, whereupon Moses said to him: My brother, don't be afraid — \"Draw near.\" Embolden yourself and draw near to Him.",
                "9) (Vayikra 9:8): \"And Aaron drew near to the altar\": with zeal! \"and he slaughtered the calf of the sin-offering which was his\": He started with his offering. (Vayikra 9:15): \"And he presented the offering of the people\": When he finished with his offerings, he came to the offering of the people. Know that his offering atones more than does the offering of the people. For the offering of the people atones only for themselves, whereas his offering atones both for himself and for the people, viz.: (Vayikra 9:7): \"And offer your sin-offering and your burnt-offering and make atonement for yourself and for the people; and offer the offering of the people and make atonement for them.\" (Vayikra 9:15): \"And he slaughtered it (the sin-offering of the people) and he offered it as a sin-offering, like the first (his calf)\": Just as the fist required chitui (application of the blood on the horn with the finger), so this required chitui. Just as the first required four applications, this, too, required four applications. ",
                "10) (Vayikra 9:16): \"And he presented the burnt-offering and he offered it according to the ordinance\": Just as a burnt-offering requires flaying and cutting into pieces, this, too, required it. Just as a burnt-offering is entirely burnt by the (altar) fire, so, this. Just as with a burnt-offering, he stands on the side of the altar and flings (the blood beneath the red line), here, too. Just as with a burnt-offering, if limbs are jetted from the altar (to the ground), they are returned to the wood pile, here, too.",
                "11) (Vayikra 9:17): \"And he presented the meal-offering and he filled his hand from it\": \"filling\" is stated here, and \"filling\" is stated elsewhere (Vayikra 5:2). Just as the \"filling\" there is \"his full fistful,\" so the \"filling\" here is his full fistful. And just as with the \"filling\" there, if he took a fistful and there entered into it a pebble, a grain of salt, or a particle of frankincense, it is invalid; here, too, it is invalid.",
                "12) (Vayikra 9:17): \"and he smoked it upon the altar aside from the burnt-offering of the morning\": What does this come to teach us? If about the daily meal-offering, it is already written (Bamidbar 28:5): \"and a tenth of an ephah of flour for the meal-offering.\" If to teach us about the meal-offering of the burnt-offering, it is already written (Bamidbar 28:16 above): \"And he presented the burnt-offering and he offered it according to the ordinance.\" Why, then, is it written? To teach us that two meal-offerings are sacrificed one after the other.",
                "13) (Vayikra 9:18): \"And he slaughtered the ox and the ram, the sacrifice of the peace-offerings, which was the people's\": From here we learn of peace-offerings. (Vayikra 9:21): \"And the breasts and the right thigh Aaron waved as a wave-offering before the L–rd\": To teach us the greatness of Aaron and of his sons — that in a brief time they mastered seven (sacrificial) services: slaughtering, receiving (of the blood), dashing, sprinkling, purification, spilling and waving.",
                "14) (Vayikra 9:1): \"And it was on the eighth day\": the eighth day of the consecration of Aaron and his sons. — But perhaps the eighth day of the month is being referred to! — (This cannot be, for) it is written (Shemoth 40:17): \"And it was in the first month of the second year on the first of the month that the mishkan was set up\" — whereby we are taught that the mishkan was set up on Rosh Chodesh (Nissan). I might think that it was set up on Rosh Chodesh and the shechinah reposed upon it on the eighth of the month; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 9:15): \"And on the day that the mishkan was erected, the cloud covered the mishkan) — whereby we are taught that on the very day that the mishkan was set up the shechinah reposed on the handiwork of Aaron. For all of the (first) seven days of the miluim Moses served (as high-priest) and the shechinah did not repose (there) through him — until Aaron came (on the eighth day) and ministered in the vestments of the high-priesthood and the shechinah reposed (there) through him, as it is written thereof (Vayikra 9:4): \"For today the L–rd will appear to you.\"",
                "15) What is the intent of (Vayikra 9:1) \"And it was (on the eighth day\")? We are hereby taught that (the day of the erection of the mishkan was as joyous before Him on high as the day of the creation of heaven and earth, of which it is written (Bereshith 1:5): \"And it was evening and it was morning.\" And here it is written \"And it was.\" And when Israel finished the work of the mishkan, Moses came and blessed them, viz. (Shemoth 39:43): \"And Moses saw all the work … and Moses blessed them.\" With what blessing did he bless them? He said to them: \"May the shechinah repose on the work of your hands. R. Meir says: He blessed them thus: \"May the L–rd, the G d of your fathers, add to you, such as you, a thousand times!\" (Devarim 1:11), and they responded: \"And may the pleasantness of the L–rd our G d (His shechinah and His consolations) be upon us. And establish the work of our hands (the mishkan) upon us (that the shechinah reside therein), and the work of our hands (in our daily lives) establish it (that blessing repose upon it\"). (Tehillim 90:7). And of that time it is written: \"Go out and see, O daughters of Zion (children who are distinctive [\"metzuyanim\" (like \"Zion\")] with mitzvoth), the king Shelomoh (the King who is the source of peace [shalom] with the crown wherewith his mother crowned him.\" (Shir Hashirim 3:11). \"his mother\": This is the tent of meeting, which was distinctive with blue and purple wool, with scarlet and with linen. \"his mother\": This is none other than Israel, viz. (Isaiah 51:4): \"And my nation (leumi), give ear to me.\" Read it not \"leumi\" but \"leimi\" (my mother).",
                "16) (Shir Hashirim 3:11): \"on the day of his wedding\": on the day the shechinah came to repose in the sanctuary.\" and on the day of the rejoicing of his heart\": on the day a new fire descended (from Heaven) and lapped up the burnt-offering and the fats on the altar.",
                "17) (Vayikra 9:22): \"And Aaron lifted his hands to the people and he blessed them (the priestly blessing)\": At that time he attained to the priestly gifts and to the lifting of the hands (in the priestly blessing) for himself and for his future generations until the resurrection.",
                "18) (Vayikra 9:22): \"And he came down from offering the sin-offering and the burnt-offering and the sin-offerings\": Having acquitted himself of his offerings, he descended from the altar in joy.",
                "19) (Vayikra 9:23): \"And Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting\": When Aaron saw that all the offerings had been sacrificed and all the services had been performed and the shechinah had not descended upon Israel, he stood and grieved: I know that the L–rd is wroth with me. Because of me the shechinah has not descended upon Israel. This is what my brother Moses has done to me: I entered and was put to shame and the shechinah did not descend upon Israel — whereupon Moses entered with him, they implored mercy and the shechinah descended upon Israel. This is the intent of \"And Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting.\"",
                "20) (Vayikra 9:24): \"And a fire came forth from before the L–rd\": When they saw a new fire descending from on high and lapping up upon the altar the burnt-offering and the fats, they opened up their mouths in song. And of that moment it is written (Tehillim 33:1): \"Sing joyfully, you righteous ones, in the L–rd. Praise (of the L–rd) becomes the just.\"",
                "21) At that time destruction \"sprang upon\" Nadav and Avihu. Others say: It accrued to them from Sinai. They saw Moses and Aaron going first, themselves going after them, and all of Israel after them — whereupon Nadav said to Avihu: Soon these two old ones will die and we will lead the congregation — at which the Holy One Blessed be He said: We shall see who shall bury whom. They will bury you, and they will lead the congregation!",
                "22) A different view: When the sons of Aaron saw that all the offerings had been sacrificed and all the services performed and that the shechinah had not descended for Israel, Nadav said to Avihu: Now is there such a thing as cooking a meal without fire? — whereupon they took a strong fire and entered the holy of holies, viz. (Tehillim 33:24): \"And the sons of Aaron took, each his coal pan, and they put the fire therein\" — at which the Holy One Blessed be He said to them: I will honor you more than you have honored Me. You have brought before Me an impure fire; I will burn you with a pure fire.",
                "23) What was their death like? Two strands of fire came forth from the holy of holies and parted into four. Two entered the nostrils of one, and two, the nostrils of the other, burning their bodies and leaving their garments intact, viz. (Tehillim 33:25): \"And a fire came forth from before the L–rd (i.e., from the holy of holies) etc.\" Aaron stood in astonishment, saying: Woe unto me! There must be transgression in me and in my sons that such has befallen me! Thereupon Moses entered and comforted him, saying: Aaron, my brother, from Sinai it was revealed to me: I (the L–rd) am destined to consecrate this house (the mishkan) — I will do so with a great man. I thought to myself that the house will be consecrated either through me or through you. We find now that your two sons are greater than both of us, the house having been consecrated through them. When Aaron heard this, he vindicated G d's judgment upon him and he was silent, as it is written (Vayikra 10:3): \"And Aaron kept his peace.\" And the righteous are wont to vindicate G d's judgment upon them. Abraham did so, viz. (Bereshith 18:27): \"… and I am dust and ashes.\" Jacob did so, viz. (Bereshith 32:11): \"I am too small for all of the lovingkindness and for all of the truth that You have conferred upon Your servant.\"",
                "24) David did so, viz. (Tehillim 38:6): \"My wounds have oozed forth and putrefied (my flesh) because of my wrongdoing.\"",
                "25) (Vayikra 10:4): \"And Moses called to Mishael and to Eltzafan, the sons of Uziel, the uncle of Aaron (Uziel was Amram's brother)\":",
                "26) From here we see that Cohanim do not make themselves tamei for the dead. For Elazar and Ithamar (the brothers of Nadav and Avihu) were Cohanim and they did not make themselves tamei for them. Who did make themselves tamei for them? The Levites (Mishael and Eltzafan).",
                "27) (Vayikra 10:5): \"And they drew near and they carried them in their (the dead ones') tunics.\": We are hereby taught that the L–rd was more solicitous for them in their deaths than in their lives. For if their bodies had been burned and their garments not been intact, they would have been exposed and despised. But their bodies were burned and their garments left intact. Now does this not follow a fortiori: If for these, who had angered the L–rd, having entered before Him against His will, He did thus, how much more so, for the other righteous ones!",
                "28) (Vayikra 10:6): \"And Moses said to Aaron and to Elazar and to Ithamar, his sons: Your hair do not grow long … (Vayikra 10:7) and from the door of the tent of meeting do not go out.\": From here they ruled: Those who were executed by beth-din are not to be attended upon for any purpose. \"and from the door of the tent of meeting do not go out\": From here they ruled: If a high-priest lost one of his kin, he does not follow the litter. When they (the members of the funeral cortege) are concealed (from his sight), he may reveal himself. When they are revealed, he must conceal himself. Lest you say: We shall go to our houses and mourn and grieve and wail, has the L–rd not commanded us not to leave the sanctuary? (Vayikra 10:6): \"And let your brethren, the entire house of Israel, mourn the burning that the L–rd has burned … (Vayikra 10:7): and they did according to the word of Moses\": They vindicated G d's judgment upon them and they were silent.",
                "29) (Vayikra 9:22): \"And Aaron lifted his hands to the people and he blessed them (the priestly blessing), and he came down from offering the sin-offering and the burnt-offering and the peace-offerings.\" The verse is (to be understood as) inverted, (i.e., First \"he came down, etc.\" and then \"Aaron lifted his hands, etc.\"). In going down, he lifted his hands and blessed the people. \"and he blessed them\": while standing. You say \"while standing,\" but perhaps (it could be done) standing or not standing! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 10:8): \"to stand before the L–rd to serve Him and to bless in His name.\" Blessing is being likened to serving. Just as serving is \"standing,\" so is blessing. And thus is it written (II Divrei Hayamim 30:27): \"And the Cohanim and the Levites stood up, and He heard their voice, and their prayer came to His holy abode in heaven.\" In the generation of Chizkiyahu, king of Judah, when they occupied themselves with Torah, what is written of them? \"and their prayer came to His holy abode in heaven.\" In other generations, when they served idolatry, what is written of them? (Isaiah 1:15): \"And when you spread out your hands (in prayer), (I will hide My eyes from you, etc.\")",
                "30) \"and He blessed them\": (The formula of) this blessing is undisclosed (here). Scripture discloses it elsewhere, viz. (Bamidbar 6:24-26): \"The L–rd bless you and keep you; the L–rd cause His countenance to shine upon you and grant you favor; the L–rd lift His countenance unto you and confer peace upon you.\" (Vayikra 9:23): \"And Moses and Aaron came into the tent of meeting\": Why did Moses and Aaron come in together? (For Moses) to teach Aaron the service of the incense. But perhaps he entered for some other reason. I derive it (thus): Coming down (from offering sacrifices) entails a blessing (the priestly blessing) and coming in (to the tent of meeting) entails a blessing. Just as (the blessing upon) coming down follows a service (sacrificing), so, (the blessing upon) coming in (to the tent of meeting) follows a service (that of the incense [whence it is seen that they went in for that purpose and not for some other reason]). Whence is it derived that coming in entails a blessing? It follows a fortiori, viz.: Now if leaving (the tent of meeting), which does not require laving entails a blessing (viz. Vayikra 9:23: \"And they went out and they blessed the people\"), then coming in, which does require laving (viz. Shemoth 30:20) how much more so should it entail a blessing! — But why not reverse it! (viz.:) Now if coming in, which (we do not find) to entail a blessing, requires laving, then going out, which does entail a blessing, how much more so should it require laving! No — this may be so (that washing is required), for coming in, where he goes from the mundane to the holy. But would you say the same for going out, where he goes from the holy to the mundane! The \"reversion,\" then, is nullified and we return to the original formulation, viz.: Coming down entails a blessing and coming in entails a blessing. Just as coming down follows a service, so coming in follows a service (that of the incense). Why, then, did Moses come in with Aaron? To teach him the service of the incense.",
                "31) (Vayikra 9:24): \"And a fire came forth from before the L–rd, and it consumed upon the altar the burnt-offering and the fats. And all the people saw and they exalted (the L–rd), and they fell upon their faces.\": When they saw a new fire which descended upon the altar and lapped up the burnt-offering and the fats, they fell upon their faces and praised the L–rd. And in the days of Solomon, too, they fell upon their faces, as it is written (II Chronicles 7:3): \"And all the children of Israel saw when the fire came down and the glory of the L–rd was upon the house. And they knelt on the floor with their faces to the ground, and they prostrated themselves in thanks to the L–rd — (saying:) 'For He is good; for His lovingkindness endures forever.'\" And of that time it is written (Malachi 3:40: \"Then the offerings of Judah and of Jerusalem shall be as pleasant to the L–rd as in days of old and as in former years.\": \"as in days of old\" — the days of Solomon; \"and as in former years\" — the years of Moses. Rebbi says: \"as in days of old\" — the days of Noach (viz. Bereshith 8:21); \"and as in former years\" — the years of Hevel (viz. Bereshith 4:4), when idolatry had not yet appeared in the world.",
                "32) (Vayikra 10:1): (\"And the sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, took, each of them his coal pan, and they put fire therein, and they laid incense thereon; and they offered before the L–rd a strange fire, which He had not commanded them.\"): \"And the sons of Aaron took\": They, too, in their joy, when they saw the new fire, added \"love to love.\" \"and they took\": \"taking\" is nothing other than joy. \"the sons of Aaron\": What is the intent of this? (i.e., Do we not know that they were the sons of Aaron?) (The intent is that) they did not accord honor to Aaron, (as they should have, by consulting him). (Nadav and Avihu did not consult Moses.) \"each of them his coal pan\": each (took) of his own accord, without consulting each other. \"and they offered before the L–rd a strange fire, which He had not commanded them\": R. Yishmael says: I might think \"a strange fire,\" literally; it is, therefore, written \"which He had not commanded them.\" They introduced it without consultation. R. Akiva says: They brought it in from the (common) stove, this being the intent of \"and they brought before the L–rd a strange (common) fire.\" Why, then, is it written \"which he had not commanded them\"? The intent is that they had not consulted Moses, their master, (\"he,\" referring to Moses.) R. Eliezer says: They were liable only for \"having taught a halachah in the presence of their master\"; and all who teach a halachah in the presence of their master are liable to death (at the hands of Heaven).",
                "33) Once, a certain disciple taught (a halachah) before him, whereupon he said to Imma Shalom, his wife: He will die before Shabbath ends. After Shabbath, sages came to him and asked: Rebbi, are you a prophet? He answered: I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. But thus have I received it from my teachers: All who teach a halachah in the presence of their master are liable to death.",
                "34) (Vayikra 10:2): \"And a fire came out from before the L–rd\": We are hereby taught that a fire came forth from the holy of holies and burned their souls. Abba Yossi b. Dostai says: Two strands of fire came forth from the holy of holies and parted into four, and entered, two into the nostrils of one, and two, into the nostrils of the other, and burned them, but not their garments, it being written (Vayikra 10:2) \"and it consumed them,\" but not their garments. And it is written (Vayikra 10:5) \"And they carried them in their tunics\": In the tunics of the carried (their garments not having been burned) or the tunics of the carriers? It is, therefore, written (Shemoth 28:40): \"And for the sons of Aaron (here, the carried,) shall you make tunics,\" (and not for the sons of the Levites; here, the carriers).",
                "35 (Vayikra 10:2): \"And they died before the L–rd\": R. Eliezer says: They died outside (the tent of meeting, in the court of the Israelites and the Cohanim), a place where the Levites are permitted to go, as it is written (Vayikra 10:5) \"and they (the Levites) drew near and they carried them in their tunics.\" Why, then, is it written \"and they died before the L–rd\"? An angel smote them (in the holy of holies), and pushed them out (of the tent of meeting). R. Akiva says: They died inside, as it is written \"and they died before the L–rd.\" If so, what is the intent of \"and they drew near and they carried them in their tunics\"? They hurled an iron spear and dragged them and (thus) took them out.",
                "36) (Vayikra 10:3): \"And Moses said to Aaron: This is what the L–rd spoke, saying: With My near ones will I be sanctified, and before all the people will I be slaughtered. And Aaron kept his peace.\" This (in essence) was spoken to Moses on Sinai, and he did not know it (i.e., its intent) until what it spoke of (the deaths of Nadav and Avihu) materialized before him. And when it came to pass Moses said to Aaron: Aaron, my brother, your sons died only to sanctify the Name of the Holy One Blessed be He, as it is written (Shemoth 29:43): \"And I shall be appointed there (in the tent of meeting), and it will be sanctified with My glory,\" (the death of Aaron's sons there, intensifying its awe in the eyes of the people). When Aaron saw how exalted were his sons in the eyes of the L–rd, he kept his peace and was rewarded for doing so, (by G d's addressing to him exclusively the following section [viz. Shemoth 10:8-11]). From here it was derived: All who accept (G d's decrees) upon themselves and remain silent — it is an auspicious sign for them. As expressed by David (Tehillim 37:7): \"Be silent in the L–rd, and hope to Him.\" And, as expressed by Solomon (Koheleth 3:7): \"a time to be silent and a time to speak.\" There are times for all (things). There are times when a man remains silent, and there are times when a man speaks.",
                "37) (Vayikra 10:4): \"And Moses called to Mishael and Eltzafan, the sons of Uziel, the uncle of Aaron\": From (Shemoth 6:18) \"And the sons of Kehoth: Amram and Yitzhar and Chevron and Uziel\" do I not know that Uziel is the uncle of Aaron? Why, then, need it be stated? The deportment of Uziel is being likened to the deportment of Aaron. Just as Aaron was a pursuer of peace in Israel, so, Uziel. Where is it seen that Aaron was a pursuer of peace in Israel? It is written (Bamidbar 20:29): \"And the entire congregation saw that Aaron had died, and the entire house of Israel mourned Aaron thirty days.\" And in respect to Moses it is written (Devarim 34:8): \"And the children of Israel mourned Moses, etc.\" Why is it that the entire house of Israel mourned Aaron for thirty days and the house of Israel (but not the entire house of Israel) mourned Moses? For Aaron never told a man or a woman: You have offended; but Moses, because he reproved them, it is written of him \"And the children of Israel, (but not all) mourned Moses.\" And thus does Scripture apply (the following verse) to Aaron in the tradition (Malachi 2:5): \"My covenant was with him, the life and the peace\" — he pursued peace in Israel; \"and I gave him fear and he feared Me\" — he took upon himself all the words of Torah in awe and trembling and trepidation; \"and before My name he cowered\": What is the intent of this? When Moses spilled the anointment oil on Aaron's head, he recoiled and fell backwards, saying: Woe unto me for defiling the anointment oil! (He feared that too much of it had been spilled and that he may have derived benefit from it), whereupon he was reassured by the Holy Spirit (Tehillim 133:1): \"Behold, how good and how pleasant is the dwelling of brothers together, (Tehillim 133:2) as the precious oil upon the head, running down upon the beard, the beard of Aaron, running down over his garments, (Tehillim 133:3) as the dew of Chermon running down upon the hills of Zion\" — Just as the dew is not defiled, the oil of anointment is not defiled.",
                "38) (Malachi 2:6): \"The Torah of truth was in his mouth\" — he did not rule something clean, unclean, or something unclean, clean; \"and wrong was not found upon his lips\" — he did not forbid the permitted or permit the forbidden; \"in peace and in righteousness he walked with Me\" — he did not question the L–rd's (assurances), as Abraham did not; \" and he turned aside many from sin\" — he returned sinners to Torah.\" And it is written ([Shir Hashirim 1:4] in praise of Aaron's quality): \"Just words cause You to be beloved.\"",
                "39) (Vayikra 10:6): \"And Moses said to Aaron and to Elazar and to Ithamar, his sons\": Rebbi says: In (affirming) greatness (as in this instance), we begin from the greater, and in (affirming) derogation, we begin from the lesser. Whence is this (the latter) derived? From (Bereshith 3:14): \"And G d said to the serpent: Because you have done this … (Bereshith 3:15) and hatred shall I place between you and between the woman … (Bereshith 3:16) to the woman He said .. (Bereshith 3:17) and to the man He said…\" — first the serpent was cursed, then Eve, then Adam.",
                "40) (Vayikra 10:6): \"Your heads al tifrau (lit., 'do not uncover')\": I might take this to mean that you should not remove your hat, but we derive (otherwise), viz.: It is written here periah (\"tifrau\"), and elsewhere, (in respect to a Nazirite, Bamidbar 6:5), \"periah.\" Just as \"periah\" there refers to letting the hair grow long; here, too, it refers to letting the hair grow long, (so that the translation above becomes \"Your hair do not grow long\" (in mourning).",
                "41) (Vayikra 10:6): \"and your garments you shall not rend and you will not die.\" The negative implies the positive (if you do rend them). \"and let your brethren, the entire house of Israel, mourn the burning that the L–rd has burned\": \"burning\" is mentioned here, and \"burning\" is mentioned in respect to (fornication with) a woman and with her mother (Vayikra 20:14) and in respect to the daughter of a Cohein (Vayikra 21:9). Just as the \"burning\" here is burning of the soul with the body remaining intact, so the \"burning\" there is burning of the soul with the body remaining intact.",
                "42) (Vayikra 10:7): \"And from the door of the tent of meeting you shall not go out\": I might think (that they shall not go out) whether or not they are officiating; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 21:12): \"and he shall not go out (to follow the litter) and he will not profane (the sanctuary of his G d\") [by serving while he is an onein (a mourner)]. When is it that he does not go out and does not profane? When he is officiating. Here, too, \"you shall not go out\" (speaks of an instance) when he is officiating. (Vayikra 10:7) \"lest you die\": The negative implies the positive (if you do go out).",
                "43) \"for the anointing oil of the L–rd is upon you\": What is the intent of this? I might think that only Aaron and his sons who were exalted with the oil of anointment, if they went out while officiating, would be liable to death — it is, therefore, written \"for the anointing oil of the L–rd is upon you\" (upon all high-priests, even if not anointed). \"and they did according to the word of Moses\": They fulfilled in themselves the mitzvah of Moses their teacher. And thus does Scripture praise Israel in the section of the sending (out of the camp) those who had become tamei, viz. (Bamidbar 5:4): \"And the children of Israel did so, and they sent them outside the camp.\" And thus does Scripture praise Joshua, viz. (Joshua 11:15): \"As the L–rd had commanded Moses, so had Moses commanded Joshua, and so did Joshua do.\" "
            ],
            "Section 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 10:9): \"Wine and strong drink you shall not drink\": I might think any amount and (even) from his wine press (when it has not yet fermented); it is, therefore, written \"strong drink,\" only enough to cause drunkenness, (the quantity of) a revi'ith and (only) after forty days. If so, why mention \"wine\"? With wine, he is exhorted (even) for any amount and even from his wine press.",
                "2) R. Yehudah says: \"Wine … you shall not drink.\" This tells me only of wine. Whence do I derive all intoxicants? From \"strong drink.\" If so, why mention \"wine\"? Wine makes one liable to death. All other intoxicants, to (violation of) an exhortation. R. Eliezer says: \"Wine you shall not drink\" and \"strong drink you shall not drink\": You shall not drink it by way of intoxication. But if he paused (in its drinking) or diluted it he is not liable.",
                "3) (Vayikra 10:9): \"you and your sons\": I might think that this (stricture against drinking wine) includes also chalalim (those disqualified from the priesthood); it is, therefore, written \"with you\" (i.e., those who come with you to share in the offerings, excluding chalalim). But then I would exclude (only) chalalim, but I would not exclude those with blemishes, (who do come to share in the offerings); it is, therefore written \"you and your sons.\" Just as you are fit (to officiate), so must your sons be fit, (to come under the stricture against drinking), excluding chalalim and those with blemishes.",
                "4) (Vayikra 10:9) \"when you come (to the tent of meeting\"): I might think that this (stricture) applies only upon entering (the tent of meeting). Whence do I derive that it applies also upon leaving? From (\"you and your sons) with you.\" Whence is it derived that (intending to sacrifice on) the altar (outside the tent of meeting) is comparable to (entering) the tent of meeting (in this respect)? It is, therefore, written (\"you and your sons) with you.\" (in any area in which they are with you [i.e., distinct in being Cohanim]). And whence is it derived that he is liable only at the time of officiating (i.e., if he drank and then officiated)? From (\"you and your sons) with you.\" Rebbi says: It is written here \"when you come (to the tent of meeting\") and elsewhere (Shemoth 28:43): \"when they come to the tent of meeting.\" Just as there, leaving is equated with entering, and the altar with the tent of meeting, and there is liability only at the time of officiating, the same is true here.",
                "5) (Vayikra 10:9) \"the tent of meeting\": This tells me only of the tent of meeting. Whence am I to derive the same for Shiloh and the Temple? From (Vayikra 10:9) \"an everlasting statute.\" \"so that you not die\": The negative implies the positive.",
                "6) I might think that Israelites are liable to death for teaching (after drinking, just as Cohanim are liable for officiating after drinking). It is, therefore, written \"You and your sons.\" You and your sons are liable to death, and not Israelites.",
                "7) I might think that Israelites are not liable for teaching (after drinking), but that Cohanim are liable for doing so. But it follows a fortiori (that we should not say so), viz.: Now if Israelites, who are exhorted against entering the tent of meeting, having drunk or not having drunk, are not liable to death for teaching (after drinking), then Aaron and his sons, who are exhorted against entering the tent of meeting only after drinking, how much more so should they not be liable to death for teaching after drinking. Israelites, then, are excluded (from the death penalty by Scripture (see Vayikra 10:6) above); Aaron and his sons, a fortiori.",
                "8) (Vayikra 10:9) \"an everlasting statute throughout your generations\": to include (for invalidation of the service after drinking): spillings (of blood), mixings (of wine or oil), wavings (of offerings), presentings (to the altar), (takings of) fistfuls (of meal-offerings), smokings of incense, \"pinchings\" (of bird offerings), receivings, and sprinklings (of blood). Whence is it derived that if a Cohein officiates after drinking his service is invalid? From (Vayikra 10:10): \"So that you distinguish between the holy and the profane.\" And whence is derived (the invalidity of the service of) a Cohein who officiates lacking one of the priestly vestments or not having laved his hands and his feet? From the identity (gezeirah shavah) of \"an everlasting statute\" (here) — \"for an everlasting statute\" (Shemoth 29:9, in respect to the priestly vestments\" — \"an everlasting statute,\" (Shemoth 30:21, in respect to laving of hands and feet).",
                "9) (Vayikra 10:10) \"so that you distinguish between the holy and the profane\": This refers to (inebriation as disqualifying one for) valuations (of animals dedicated to the sanctuary), allotments (for sacred use), and Temple dedications; \"and between the unclean and the clean\": This refers to (rulings in matters of) uncleanliness and cleanliness; (Vayikra 10:11): \"and to teach the children of Israel\": These are the teachings (of what is forbidden and what is permitted); \"all the statutes\": These are the expoundings (of halachoth); \"that the L–rd spoke to them\": These are the halachoth (spoken to us by Moses but not written in the Torah); \"by the hand of Moses\": This is Gemara. I might think that it is also forbidden to teach Mishnah (after drinking); it is, therefore, written \"and to teach\" (halachah), (excluding Mishnah, from which halachah is not taught.)"
            ],
            "Chapter 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 10:12): \"And Moses spoke to Aaron and to Elazar and Ithamar his sons\": His sons were equal to him in (deserving) honor and they were equal to him in keeping silent (viz. Vayikra 10:3). I might think that his first sons, too, (Nadav and Avihu) were equal to him in honor. It is, therefore, written (of Elazar and Ithamar) \"his remaining sons.\" His remaining sons were equal to him in honor, but not the first ones.",
                "2) R. Shimon b. Gamliel said in the name of R. Elazar b. Azaryah: It is written (Bamidbar 3:4): \"And Nadav and Avihu died before the L–rd in offering a strange fire before the L–rd in the desert of Sinai; and they did not have sons. And Elazar and Ithamar officiated as priests in the presence of Aaron their father.\" For if they did have sons, they would have taken precedence to Elazar and Ithamar. For all who take precedence in inheritance take precedence in (assuming a position of) honor. If so, why is it written \"his remaining sons\"? Moses said to them: Should you not observe (i.e., imprint upon your minds) what happened to these (Nadav and Avihu) because they did not take counsel (see Miluim Shemini 32) and they were swept away? R. Eliezer says: They were close to being swept away (because of the sin of the golden calf made by Aaron), but the L–rd pitied Aaron (and left a \"remnant\" for him).",
                "3) (Vayikra 10:12) \"Take the meal-offering\": This is the meal-offering of Nachshon (viz. Bamidbar 7:12-13). \"remaining (from the fire-offerings of the L–rd\"): This is the meal-offering of the eighth day (viz. Vayikra 9:4). \"from the fire-offerings of the L–rd\": They can eat it only after (the sacrifice of) the fire-offerings.",
                "4) (Vayikra 10:12) \"and eat it unleavened\": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it has already been stated, viz. Vayikra 6:9). Because it is a communal meal-offering, and was prescribed only for that time, and not for succeeding generations, it had to be stated \"and eat it unleavened.\"",
                "5) \"beside the altar\": and not in the sanctuary, and not on top of the altar. This tells me only of this (the meal-offering). Whence do we derive for inclusion (all) holy of holies? From: (\"for it is) holy of holies.\" \"it\" (above) and \"it\" (Vayikra 6:13) (\"And you shall eat it\") and \"it\" (Vayikra 6:13) (\"and the portion of your sons is it\") are (three) terms of exclusion — to exclude (from being eaten beside the altar): the thanksgiving offering and its bread, the ram of the Nazirite and its bread, the miluim ram and its bread, (which may be eaten in all of Jerusalem).",
                "6) \"And you shall eat it in a holy place\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written \"beside the altar,\" I might think that (it must be eaten) right next to the altar. Whence do I derive for inclusion the compartments built outside the (azarah), but opening into it? From \"in a holy place.\"",
                "7) \"for it is your portion and the portion of your sons\": but not that of your daughters. \"from the fire-offerings of the L–rd\": They can eat it only after (the sacrifice of) the fire-offerings.",
                "8) (Vayikra 10:12): (\"Take the meal-offering remaining) … (Vayikra 10:13) for thus have I been commanded.\" (Vayikra 10:16): (\"And for the goat of the sin-offering [of the additional offerings of the New Moon] Moses inquired … (Vayikra 10:18) You should have eaten it in the holy place) as I had commanded.\" (Vayikra 10:14): (\"And the breast of the waving and the shok of the lifting shall you eat in a clean place) … (Vayikra 10:15) as the L–rd has commanded.\" (Why are all of these \"commanded\" needed?) \"for thus have I been commanded\" — to tell you that you should eat the meal-offering even though you are in mourning (aninuth, for Nadav and Avihu). \"as I had commanded\" — at the time (in respect to the meal-offering, that it should be eaten). \"as the L–rd has commanded\" — and it is not of my own volition that I tell you to eat it (in your mourning).",
                "9) (Vayikra 10:14): \"And the breast of the waving and the shok of the lifting shall you eat in a clean place\": \"the breast\" — as stated; \"the waving\" — This is the waving of the basket; \"shok\" — as stated; \"lifting\" — This is the lifting of the thank-offering. \"shall you eat in a clean place\": R. Nechemiah queried: Are the first ones (mentioned), then, not to be eaten in a clean place! — (The reference is to) a clean place which is not (entirely) tamei, (i.e., the encampment of Israel), which is clean of leper tumah, (lepers being sent out of that encampment), (but not clean of other types of tumah), which is to say that they are to be eaten in the midst of Jerusalem.",
                "10) \"you and your sons and your daughters\": (Does this mean) you and your sons having a portion, and your daughters (not having a portion, but being permitted) a gift? Or, you, your sons, and your daughters having a portion? — \"for it is your portion and the portion of your sons\" (Vayikra 10:13) tells us that daughters do not have a portion. How, then, am I to understand \"you and your sons and your daughters\"? You and your sons have a portion; your daughters (are permitted) gifts.",
                "11) (Vayikra 10:14): \"They are given from the sacrifices of the peace-offerings of the children of Israel\" — including the communal peace-offerings that obtained that day, as it is written (Vayikra 9:4) \"and an ox and a ram for peace-offerings to sacrifice before the L–rd.\" (Vayikra 10:15): The shok of the lifting and the breast of the waving, on the fire-offerings of the fats shall they bring\" — whereby we are taught that the fats were below."
            ],
            "Chapter 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 10:16): \"And for the goat of the sin-offering Moses inquired, inquired, and, behold, it was burned\": \"the goat\": This is the goat of Nachshon (Bamidbar 7:16, for the consecration of the altar); \"the sin-offering\": This is the sin-offering of the eighth day (of miluim, Vayikra 4:3);",
                "2) \"Moses inquired, inquired\": This is the goat of Rosh Chodesh (Nissan). I might think that all three were burned; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"and, behold it was burned\" — one was burned and not all three. What is the intent of \"Moses inquired, inquired\" — two inquiries: Why was this one burned and why were the others eaten (i.e., if you were concerned about aninuth for Nadav and Avihu, you should have burned all of them; and if not, you should have eaten all of them!) I would not know which was burned if it were not written (Vayikra 4:17): \"and He has given it to you to forgive the sin of the congregation to make atonement for them.\" Which goat forgives the sin of the congregation? The Rosh Chodesh goat, as it is written (in that regard): \"and one goat for a sin-offering to make atonement for you.\"",
                "3) (\"And he was wroth with Elazar and Ithamar, the remaining sons of Aaron, to say\"): \"And he was wroth with Elazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron\": We are hereby taught that he faced his sons (out of deference to Aaron) and directed his anger to Aaron, whereby we are apprised that Aaron, too, was the object of his wrath. \"the remaining\": Pinchas was not among them, (not yet having entered the priesthood). \"to say\": (He said to them:) Answer my words.",
                "4) (Vayikra 10:17) \"Why did you not eat the sin-offering in the holy place?\": Now did they eat it in an unholy place? Was it not burned? viz. (Vayikra 10:16): \"and it was burned!\" If so, why did he say \"Why did you not eat it, etc.\"? — He said to them: Perhaps it went outside of the (court) curtains? For a sin-offering that leaves the precincts of the curtains is unfit. This tells me only of this (\"a sin-offering\") alone. Whence do I derive the same for holy of holies? From (Vayikra 10:17): \"for it is holy of holies.\" Whence is it derived that the eating of offerings (by the Cohanim) is atonement for Israel? From (Vayikra 10:17): \"And it has He given to you to forgive the sin of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the L–rd.\" How so? Cohanim eat and the owners are atoned for.",
                "5) (Vayikra 10:18): \"Behold, its blood was not brought within the sanctuary.\": He had said to them: Perhaps some of its blood entered within (the sanctuary). For if the blood of an \"outer\" sin-offering enters within, it becomes unfit (viz. Vayikra 6:23). R. Yossi Haglili says: This tells us that if the blood of a sin-offering entered the holy of holies (kodesh kadashim) it becomes unfit. This tells me only of the holy of holies. Whence do I derive (the same for) the sanctuary? From \"within the sanctuary (kodesh).\"",
                "6) (Vayikra 10:18): \"You should have eaten it in the holy place\" — whereby we are taught that it is to be eaten in the sanctuary. Whence is it derived that it is also to be burned in the sanctuary (if it became unfit)? From \"achol (consume) tochlu (consume) it in the sanctuary\" (— two \"consumings,\" one for the mouth; the other, for the fire). I might think that even if it became tamei outside, it should be burned inside. It is, therefore, written (\"You should have eaten) it\" Just as it, \"its tumah is inside and its burning is inside,\" so (the other), if its tumah is outside, its burning is outside.",
                "7) (Vayikra 10:19): \"And Aaron spoke (vayedaber) to Moses\": \"dibbur\" connotes \"strong\" speech, as in (Bamidbar 21:25): \"And the people spoke (vayedaber) against G d and against Moses.\"",
                "8) (Vayikra 10:19): \"Now did they (Elazar and Ithamar, who are forbidden to officiate when onenim [mourners]) this day offer their sin-offering and their burnt-offering before the L–rd?\" (It is I [the high-priest (who does officiate when an onein)] who did so.) \"And if there had befallen me (even the death of other kin for whom I must become an onein) such as these (my sons) and I had eaten the sin-offering this day, would it be good in the eyes of he L–rd!\" (for which reason I burnt it.) R. Nechemiah says that it was burned because of aninuth, (for which reason \"these\" is mentioned.)",
                "9) What is the intent of \"such as these\"? I might think that only (the death of) sons forbids one (to eat) in (a state of) aninuth. Whence do I derive (the same) for all mentioned in that section (of aninuth), including (by Rabbinical enactment) one's brother and sister by his mother and his married sister? From \"such as these.\" R. Yaakov says: I might think that Levites in a state of aninuth would be forbidden to sing (the Levitical songs); it is, therefore, written (\"and if there had befallen) me.\" I (i.e., a Cohein) am forbidden in (a state of aninuth), but Levites in aninuth are not forbidden to sing.",
                "10) R. Yehudah and R. Shimon say: Now was it burned because of aninuth? Was it not burned because of tumah? For if it were burned because of aninuth, then they should have burned all three. Variantly: Could they not have eaten them at night? Variantly: Was not Pinchas with them (who was not an onein)? What is the intent of (\"such as) these\"? (according to R. Nechemiah, who says that it was burned because of tumah and not because of aninuth)? (Moses had said to Aaron: Perhaps you were so overwrought with grief that you allowed the offering to become tamei, and he replied in strong denial:) Should I not have been deterred therefrom by seeing what happened to these (Nadav and Avihu), who failed to take counsel and were swept away! And what is the intent of \"such as these\"? He said: Even if I had buried not only these, but also these and these, not thus would I shame the offerings of the sanctuary (by allowing them to become tamei!)",
                "11) (Vayikra 10:19) \"and if I had eaten the sin-offering this day, etc.\": It is forbidden for me in the daytime, but it is permitted at night. And in future generations, it is forbidden both in the daytime and at night. These are the words of R. Yehudah. Rebbi says: An onein is forbidden to eat offerings at night only by interdict of the scribes. Know this to be so, for they said: An onein immerses and eats his Pesach offering at night.",
                "12) (Vayikra 10:20): \"And Moses heard, and it was good in his eyes\": He admitted immediately that he had heard the halachah and had forgotten it, and was shamed into saying: I did not hear it. R. Yehudah said: Chananiah b. Yehudah was wont to expound all his days: Sore is officiousness (in this instance, Moses' officiousness with Aaron), which caused Moses to err (in the halachah). After his death, I demur: What caused him to be officious? His erring."
            ],
            "Section 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 11:1) \"And the L–rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron to say to them\": (to say) to the sons, to Elazar and Ithamar, or to say to Israel? \"Speak to the children of Israel\" (Vayikra 11:2) is the speaking to Israel. How, then, are we to understand \"to say to them\"? To say to the sons, to Elazar and to Ithamar.",
                "2) (Vayikra 11:2) \"This is the animal that you may eat\": We are hereby taught that Moses took hold of each animal and showed it to Israel and said to them: This you may eat and this you may not eat. (Vayikra 11:9): \"This you may eat of all that is in the waters\" — This you may eat and this you may not eat. (Vayikra 11:9): \"These shall you hold in detestation of the fowl\" — These shall you hold in detestation and these shall you not hold in detestation. (Vayikra 11:29): \"This to you is what is tamei among the creeping things\" — This is tamei and this is not tamei.",
                "3) (Vayikra 11:2): \"This is the animal that you may eat, of every beast that is upon the earth\": One declaration replaces another. From (Bereshith 9:3): \"As the green herb, I have given you (the sons of Noach) everything,\" I might assume that everything was permitted; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 14:4): \"This is the beast that you may eat: the ox, the lamb of sheep, and the kid of goats, (Devarim 14:5) the hart, the gazelle, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the dyshon, and the wild ox, and the chamois.\"",
                "4) I might think that the entire beast is permitted; it is, therefore, written (Bereshith 9:4): \"Only the flesh with its life, its blood, you shall not eat\" — ever min hechai (a limb torn from a living animal) is forbidden. (Bereshith 32:33): \"Therefore, the children of Israel may not eat the thigh sinew (gid hanasheh)\" — the gid hanasheh is forbidden. (Vayikra 7:3): \"All fats (cheilev) of ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat\" — cheilev is forbidden. (Vayikra 7:26): \"And all blood you shall not eat\" — blood is forbidden. I might think that they are permitted whether slaughtered (by shechitah) or not slaughtered, (but killed in some other way); it is, therefore, written (Devarim 27:7): \"And you shall slaughter (by shechitah) … and you shall eat.\"",
                "5) I might think that only \"the lamb of sheep\" (i.e., of two sheep) \"and the kid of goats\" (i.e., of two goats), (were permitted). Whence would I derive (as also permitted) kilaim (an admixture, e.g., the offspring of a lamb and a goat)? From the fact that it is written (Vayikra 11:2) \"animal\" and \"beast\" (unqualified, to indicate that anything called \"animal\" or \"beast,\" with the required cleanliness signs, may be eaten.) This tells me only of kilaim of (one kind of) animal (begotten) from (a different kind of) animal, or of beast from beast. Whence do I derive (the same for) beast from animal or animal from beast? From (Vayikra 11:2): \"the animal … of every beast\" — \"animal,\" in any event; \"beast,\" in any event.",
                "6) I might think that the same applies to an animal and a sea-beast (i.e., that a sea-beast or a sea-animal begotten by a (land) animal could be eaten); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:2) \"that is on the land\" — to exclude a sea creature.",
                "7) Bur perhaps \"that is on the land\" signifies that (if the offering is on the land, it is permitted with the signs (of clean land animals, and if on the sea, (it is permitted) with or without those signs. It is, therefore, written \"This … that is on the land\" — only what is on the land is permitted.",
                "8) This is the animal that you may eat of every beast that is on the land.\": We are hereby taught that \"beast\" is in the category of animal. Whence is it derived that \"animal,\" too, is in the category of \"beast\"? From (Devarim 14:4): \"This is the beast that you may eat: the ox, the lamb of sheep, and the kid of goats, (Devarim 14:5) the hart, the gazelle, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the dyshon, and the wild ox, and the chamois.\" (The latter mentioned are animals.)",
                "9) (Devarim 14:6): \"And every beast that has split hooves, entirely cloven in two, and which chews the cud in the beast — it may you eat\" — to include the embryo (as permitted with the slaughtering of the mother). If the fetus stuck out its hand and returned it, it (the fetus, excluding the hand) may be eaten (with the slaughtering of its mother.) I might think that even if it stuck out its head and returned it, it is permitted with the slaughtering of its mother; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Devarim 14:7): \"Only (this may you not eat\") Why do you see fit to say that if the fetus stuck out its hand and returned it, it (the fetus) may be eaten (with the slaughtering of its mother)? Because it is not considered to have been born (and to require its own slaughtering). And why do you see fit to say that if the fetus stuck out its head, it (the fetus) may not be eaten (with the slaughtering if its mother)? Because it is considered to have been born (and to require its own slaughtering).",
                "10) You say that this is the intent of Scripture (in \"Only, etc.\") — to distinguish between limbs and limbs, (i.e., between head and hand). But perhaps the intent of Scripture is to distinguish between fetuses and fetuses. That is: Which fetus should be permitted (with the slaughtering of its mother)? One, that had it been born, would be permitted. And which is that? A living, nine-month old fetus. In chullin (a mundane, non-sanctified animal), whence do we derive (permission to eat) a dead nine-month old fetus or a living or dead eight-month old fetus (found in its mother after shechitah)? In sanctified animals, a dead nine-month old fetus or a living or dead eight-month old fetus? In a tithed animal, a dead nine-month old fetus or a living or dead eight-month old fetus? From (Vayikra 11:3) \"Whatever (including the above) has split hooves and whose hooves are wholly cloven, and which chews the cud in the beast — it may you eat.\""
            ],
            "Chapter 3": [
                "1) \"All … in the beast (may you eat\"): to include (as permitted) the fetus (found \"in the beast\" after its mother had been slaughtered). I might think (that this were so) even if part of it had emerged. It is, therefore, (to negate this,) written \"Only (this may you not eat.\") \"it (one with the signs of cleanliness) may you eat.\" It may be eaten (and not an unclean beast.)",
                "2) This tells me only of a positive commandment. Whence do I derive (that he also transgresses) a negative commandment (if he eats an unclean beast)? From \"the camel, the hare, the coney … and the swine … you shall not eat.\" This tells me only of these alone. Whence do I derive (the same for) the other unclean beasts? It follows a fortiori, viz.: Now if a negative commandment against eating attaches to these, which have certain cleanliness signs, how much more so does it attach to those which do not have any cleanliness signs! It is found, then, that the camel, the hare, the coney and the swine (are prohibited) by Scripture, and the other unclean beasts, by a fortiori reasoning. Their positive commandment is written; their negative commandment is (derived) a fortiori.",
                "3) \"Only this may you not eat of those which chew the cud and of those which have cloven hooves\": There are among those that chew the cud, which you do not eat. Which is that: A clean animal born of an unclean one.",
                "4) I might think that the same is true of an unclean animal born of a clean one; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:4): \"the camel … it is unclean.\" This (a camel born of a camel) is unclean (and not the other). R. Shimon says: Why is the camel mentioned twice? (Vayikra 11:4 and Devarim 14:7). One for a camel born of a camel; the other for a camel born of a cow.",
                "5) \"Only this you shall not eat of those that chew the cud and of those whose hooves are parted\": There are those among the cloven footed, which you do not eat. These are the treifoth (animals with organic defects leading to death):",
                "6) (an animal in which:) the gullet is perforated; most of the windpipe is detached (in its breadth); the spine is broken and the spinal cord is cut; the heart is perforated up to its chamber; the liver is diminished and nothing remains of it; the lung is perforated or diminished (R. Shimon says: until the perforation reaches the bronchiae); the stomach is perforated; the intestines are perforated (R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: Even if the gall bladder is perforated, it is unfit);",
                "7) the inner stomach (the maw) is perforated or most of the outer stomach is torn (R. Yehudah says: In a large (ox) a handbreadth, and in a small one, the majority [even if it is not a handbreadth]);",
                "8) the omasom and the reticulum is perforated (until its perforation is seen) on the outside; it fell from a roof (even if breaks are not visible from the outside); most of its ribs were broken; it was trodden by a wolf (R. Yehudah says: Being trodden by a wolf, for a small animal, and being trodden by a lion, for a large one); it was trodden by a hawk, for a small bird; it was trodden by a large bird, for a large bird. I might think that if the skull were diminished, but the brain membrane not perforated; if the heart were perforated, but not up to its chamber; if the spine were broken, but the cord not severed; if the liver were diminished, but an olive-size remained of it; if the omasom and the reticulum were perforated into each other;",
                "9) if the kidneys were removed; if the spleen were removed; if the lower jaw were removed; if the womb were removed; if the (lungs) were shrunk by some natural shock, (such as thunder) (I might think that these are considered treifah); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:8): \"neveilah (carrion) or treifah (he shall not eat\") — Just as neveilah is not alive, so treifah is not viable, to exclude the above, which are viable.",
                "10) If its skin were stripped, R. Meir permits it and the sages forbid it (as treifah). And they concede that if there remains upon its skin the size of a sela (i.e., enough to cover the spinal column), it is kasher. "
            ],
            "Chapter 4": [
                "1) Whence is it derived that five (animals in the class of) sin-offerings must (be allowed to) die (and not be eaten)? From (the redundant) \"of those that chew the cud … it is unclean to you.\" (i.e., even though they have both cleanliness signs they are unclean) (the five sin-offerings: the offspring of a sin-offering, the substitute for a sin-offering, a sin-offering whose owner had died, a sin-offering which had been lost and which was found after atonement had been made with another animal, and a sin-offering whose year (of acceptability) had expired) Whence is derived for inclusion (as being allowed to die), (a substitute for) invalidated sanctified animals (i.e., sanctified animals which had sustained a blemish and been redeemed)? From \"and of those whose hooves are parted … it is unclean to you.\" Whence is derived for inclusion the milk of the five sin-offerings which must die? From \"of those that chew the cud … it is unclean.\" Whence is derived for inclusion the milk of invalidated sanctified animals? From (Devarim 14:7): \"of those whose hooves are parted, the shesua … they are unclean to you.\" Whence is derived for inclusion the milk of an unclean animal? It follows, viz.: An unclean animal is forbidden, and grapes are forbidden to a Nazirite — Just as with grapes to a Nazirite, what is extracted from them is (forbidden) like them; so, with a beast, what is extracted from it (milk) is (forbidden) like it. ",
                "2) But, if wine is (forbidden) like grapes, it is because it is found in their body, (the body collapsing when the wine is removed from it). Shall the milk of a beast, then, be (forbidden) like the beast, when it is not in its body (but something extraneous to it)! R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: If wine is (forbidden) like grapes, it is because their residue (their kernels and their husk) is forbidden. Shall the milk of a beast, then, be (forbidden) like the beast, when its residue (its feces and its urine) is not forbidden! — This (argument) is refuted by (the instance of grapes of) terumah, where, (even though) their residue (i.e., kernels and husks) is not forbidden, yet what is extracted from them (wine) is forbidden!",
                "3) — But, if this stringency obtains in (the instance of the eating of) terumah (by a non-priest), a grave transgression, (punishable by death), shall this stringency obtain in the instance of an (unclean) beast, (the eating of which is) a lesser transgression! It is, therefore, written (to indicate that it does obtain, the redundant \"camel\" (Vayikra 11:4) - \"camel\" (Devarim 14:7), two times. If it (the redundancy) is not needed for (forbidding) its flesh, learn it as (forbidding) its milk.",
                "4) I might think that one would be in transgression of the negative commandment against eating the flesh of bipeds (men) and the milk of bipeds (women); and it would follow a fortiori, viz.: Now if (in the instance of) an (unclean) beast, where you have been lenient vis-à-vis its touch (i.e., it is permitted to touch an unclean beast), you have been stringent vis-à-vis its flesh (it is forbidden to eat it), then bipeds, where you have been stringent vis-à-vis touching them (i.e., niddah), how much more so should you be stringent vis-à-vis (drinking) their milk! It is, therefore, written, (in negation): \"This\" — \"This … (is unclean\"), but the milk of bipeds is not unclean. — But then I would exclude (from the negative commandment) (only) milk, which does not obtain with all (bipeds), but I would not exclude flesh, which does obtain with all bipeds! It is, therefore, written (two terms of exclusion): \"This … unclean is it\" — This (the flesh of an unclean beast) is subject to the negative commandment (against eating), but the flesh of bipeds and the milk of bipeds is not subject to the negative commandment against eating.",
                "5) (Vayikra 11:4): \"the camel, because it chews the cud, etc. (Vayikra 11:5) and the coney because it chews the cud, etc. (Vayikra 11:6) and the hare because it chews the cud, etc.\" What is the intent of this? It is already written (Devarim 14:7): \"the camel, and the hare, and the coney, for they chew the cud, etc.\"! Why are they mentioned? To include the aforementioned inclusions.",
                "6) (Vayikra 11:4): \"the camel, because it chews the cud\": What is the intent of this? I might think that one sign (chewing the cud) would permit it. Would I think so? If the swine, which has split hooves, is unclean, does it not follow that the camel, which does not have split hooves is unclean! (Why, then, need it be written that the camel is unclean?) — If so, I would say: Who forbade the swine? (The fact that it does not chew) the cud. Let that permit the camel. It must, therefore, be written \"the camel because it chews the cud.\" — Let it, then, be stated for the camel, and, a fortiori for the swine! viz.: If the camel which chews the cud is unclean, how much more so, the swine, which does not chew the cud! (Why, then, need it be written that the swine is unclean?",
                "7) If so, I would say: Who forbids the camel? (The fact that it does not have) cloven hooves. Let that permit the swine. It must, therefore, be written (Devarim 14:8) \"And the swine, because its hooves are parted, but it does not chew the cud, it is unclean.\"",
                "8) (Vayikra 11:8) \"Of their flesh you may not eat\" — but not of their bones, or sinews, or hooves (i.e., you may eat those). \"and their carcass do not touch\": I might think that Israelites (as opposed to Cohanim) are exhorted against touching a carcass; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 21:1): \"Speak to the Cohanim, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: For a dead body he (a Cohein) shall not become tamei among his people.\" Cohanim are not to become tamei to the dead; Israelites are to become tamei to the dead.",
                "9) Now if they are to become tamei to the dead, a severe form of tumah, should they not become tamei to carcass, a lesser form? How, then, am I to understand \"and their carcass do not touch\"? On a festival (when they are commanded to appear in the azarah).",
                "10) Others say: \"and their carcass do not touch\": I might think that if one touched a carcass he receives forty stripes; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:24): \"and to these you shall become tamei.\" I might (then) think that if one saw a carcass, he should go and become tamei to it; it is, therefore, written \"and their carcass do not touch.\" How are these verses to be reconciled? (As expressing) an option (i.e., if you wish to be clean, be careful not to touch their carcass, because if you do, you will become tamei).",
                "11) (Vayikra 11:8): \"They are unclean to you\": We are hereby taught that they (unforbidden quantities of different unclean animals) combine with each other (to form forbidden quantities) — flesh with flesh, milk with milk, flesh with milk, both alive (vis-à-vis ever min hechai [flesh torn from a living animals]) or dead (vis-à-vis carcass uncleanliness).",
                "12) (Devarim 14:7): \"They are unclean to you\": including their brine, their marrow, and their jelly. \"They\": (\"they,\" as they are) — to exclude (their becoming intermixed with something to which) they do not impart their flavor. \"to you\": They are permitted to you for benefit (not for eating [if you happen to acquire them]). "
            ],
            "Section 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 11:9): (\"This you may eat of all that is in the waters: All that have fins and scales in the water, in the seas and in the rivers — those may you eat.\") From its being written \"you may eat\" what has (fins and scales), I understand not to eat what does not have (fins and scales); and from its being written (Vayikra 11:11) not to eat what does not have, I understand that I may eat what does have. Why was this repeated? To make them subject to (transgression of) a positive commandment and a negative commandment. \"You may eat of all that is in the waters.\": For I might think that since (small fish found in basins [as opposed to fish found in running streams]) are permitted explicitly (even without the signs of cleanliness) and by implication (I might think that) just as explicitly they are permitted only in basins, so by implication they are permitted only in basins — Whence would I derive that even if they are found in holes, pits, or caves, he may bend down and drink from them without apprehension? From (\"You may eat of all) that is in the waters.\"",
                "2) \"All that have fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers — those may you eat': \"in the seas (yamim)\": This is the Great Sea (the Mediterranean), as it is written (Bereshith 1:10): \"And the (great) ingathering of the waters, He called yamim.\" \"and in the nechalim\": These are the rivers, as it is written (Bereshith 2:10): \"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden.\" This tells me only of oceans and rivers, that flow (both) in the dry season and in the rainy season. Whence do I derive for inclusion other waters, and other rivers, that flow in the rainy season but not in the dry season, until you include water in holes? From (the repetition of) \"in the waters\" (Bereshith 11:8, Bereshith 11:9).",
                "3) I might think that in respect to permitting (Vayikra 11:9), all waters were equated with seas and rivers. Whence do I derive the same in respect to forbidding (Vayikra 11:10)? From (the repetition of) \"seas\" (Vayikra 11:9, Vayikra 11:10) and \"rivers\" (Vayikra 11:9, Vayikra 11:10), creating an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: Just as with \"seas and rivers\" in respect to permitting, all waters are equated with seas and rivers, so, with \"seas and rivers\" in respect to what is forbidden.",
                "4) You say that \"in the waters, in the seas\" comes to tell us that the waters that I permitted are the waters that I forbade. But perhaps it comes to tell us that the species that I permitted is the species that I forbade. And which species did I permit? Those which have bones and which reproduce, (which are found only in those which have fins and scales); so, I forbade only those species which have bones and which reproduce. Whence do we derive (that I forbade also) those which have bones and do not reproduce, and those which do not have bones and which do not reproduce — until you include (as forbidden) galim and frogs which grow in the water and on the land? From (Vayikra 11:10): \"All that do not have, etc.\"",
                "5) (\"fins and scales\") This tells me only of (fish with) an abundance of scales and fins, such as kiponoth. Whence do I derive the same for a fish that has only one fin and one scale? From (Vayikra 11:10) \"All that do not have (lit.) a fin and a scale (kaskas).\" R. Yehudah says: two scales. And even though there is no proof for this, there is an \"intimation\" for it, viz. (I Samuel 17:5): \"and in armor of scales (kaskasim, plural) was he clothed.\" R. Yossi b. Dormaskita says: The leviathan is a clean fish, as it is written (Iyyov 41:7): \"Its (the leviathan's) pride is the strength of shields\" — these are its scales; (Iyyov 41:22): \"Beneath it are sharp shards\" — these are its fins.",
                "6) (Vayikra 11:9): \"This you may eat\": to include a clean fish (found) in the maw of an unclean fish. I might think that also (included as permitted) is an unclean fish in the maw of a clean fish; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:9) \"those (clean fishes themselves) (you may eat\"), (and not unclean fishes swallowed by them). Why do you see fit to say vis-à-vis beasts (see Chapter 3:3 and Vayikra 11:4) that (a clean beast) in the maw of an unclean beast is unclean, and that (an unclean beast) in the maw of a clean beast is clean, whereas vis-à-vis fish, (an unclean fish) in the maw of the clean fish is unclean, and (a clean fish) in the maw of an unclean fish is clean? — Because it (what is found inside the fish) did not grow there, (but was just swallowed, as opposed to the instance of the beast). \"you may eat\": to include a clean fish which was pickled together with an unclean one. I might think that this were so even if it (the unclean fish) dissolved (into the brine); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:4) \"those [clean fish by themselves] (you may eat\"), (and not the forbidden element that they have absorbed).",
                "7) (Vayikra 11:10) \"And all that do not have fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers, of every creeping thing of the waters, and of every living (chayah) creature of the waters that is in the waters — they (hem) are detestable to you.\") \"chayah\" — this is the sea-animal. \"creature (nefesh)\" — to include (as forbidden) the siren (half-human, half-fish). I might think that it causes tent-tumah according to R. Chanina b. Chachinai; it is, therefore written (Bamidbar 19:14): \"This (is the Torah: a man (i.e., a whole man) if he die in a tent, etc.\")",
                "8) \"detestable\" — to forbid their brine, their marrow, and their jelly. \"they (hem)\": to exclude (as forbidden) an instance in which they are not present to the taste. \"to you\": They are permitted for benefit (but not for eating).",
                "9) (Vayikra 11:11): \"And detestable shall they be to you\": to include their admixtures (if an unclean fish became mixed up with clean fish and cannot be recognized). How much (of the unclean fish) must be in it (the admixture) to be forbidden? The weight of ten zuz in Judah, which are ten selaim in the Galil, in a keg which contains two sa'ah. The brine of an unclean fish is forbidden. R. Yehudah says: (How much of the unclean must be in the clean to forbid the brine?) A revi'ith (of a log of unclean fish) in two sa'ah (of clean fish). R. Yossi says: One in sixteen.",
                "10) \"Of their flesh you shall not eat\": (The exhortation) does not apply to their bones and to their fins. \"and their carcass shall you hold in detestation\": to include midges filtered (from their native element).",
                "11) (Vayikra 11:12) \"Whatever has no fins and scales in the water is detestable to you.\" What is the intent of this? (i.e., it has been stated already.) I might think (that it is permitted) only when it brings its signs of cleanliness with it to the dry land. If it left them in the water, how do I know (that it is still permitted)? From \"in the water.\" \"it is detestable to you\": it is forbidden to trade in them.",
                "12) (Vayikra 11:13) (\"And these shall you hold in detestation (teshaktsu) of the fowl. They shall not be eaten.\") \"teshaktsu\": to forbid their brine, their marrow, and their jelly, and their eggs, and their skins, and their admixtures. \"They\" and \"of\" signal exclusions — to exclude (from the exhortation) their beak, claws, wing (feathers) and plumage."
            ],
            "Chapter 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 11:13): \"They shall not be eaten\": to make one who feeds it (to others) liable as the one who eats it (himself). But perhaps the intent is that it is forbidden to derive benefit from them! (This cannot be for it is already written (Devarim 14:12): \"You may not eat\" — It is permitted to derive benefit from them; (only) to eat them is it forbidden. How, then, must I understand \"they shall not be eaten\"? As signifying that the one who feeds is liable as the one who eats.",
                "2) (Vayikra 11:13): \"the great vulture (nesher), the bearded vulture, and the osprey\": R. Yishmael says: \"nesher is written here and elsewhere (Devarim 14:12). Just as with \"nesher\" here, all (of the birds) mentioned with the nesher, are subject to \"you shall not feed\" as well as to \"you shall not eat,\" so, with \"nesher\" there, all mentioned with the nesher (including \"ra'ah\" and \"dayah,\" which are not mentioned here) are subject to \"you shall not feed\" as well as \"you shall not eat.\"",
                "3) R. Akiva says: \"Ayah\" is written here and \"ayah\" is written elsewhere (Devarim 14:13). Just as with \"ayah\" there, \"ra'ah\" is a kind of \"ayah,\" (making it subject to \"you shall not eat,\") so, with \"ayah\" here, \"ra'ah\" is a kind of \"ayah,\" (making it subject to \"you shall not feed\").",
                "4) (Vayikra 11:15) (\"Every raven after its kind\") \"raven\": This is the (black) raven; \"every raven\": to include the \"deep\" (i.e., white) raven and the pigeon-headed raven; \"after its kind\" (lemino): the starling; \"after its kind\" (lemineihu, Vayikra 11:16): to include the swallow.",
                "5) (Vayikra 11:16): \"and the hawk after its kind\": \"the hawk\": as indicated; \"after its kind\": to include bar charya. Why is \"lemineihu\" (after its kind) mentioned four times? For I might say that only these (birds that are mentioned) are forbidden, but the rest (that are not mentioned) are permitted; it is, therefore, stated \"lemineihu\" to include (the others of its kind that are not mentioned). How so? I deduce from what is mentioned, viz.:",
                "6) Just as the nesher (Vayikra 11:13) which is mentioned, has no crop and does not have an additional claw (on the hind part of the leg) and has a craw which does not peel easily, and grasps (with its claws) and eats, so, all birds of this kind are unclean. Just as turtle-doves and young pigeons have a crop and have an additional claw and have a craw that peels easily and do not grasp (with their claws) and eat, so, all birds of this kind are clean.",
                "7) (Vayikra 11:20): \"All creeping things that fly, which walk on four are detestable to you.\" I might think that all are forbidden. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:21): \"Only this may you eat of all creeping things that fly, which walk on four, etc.\" I might think that all are permitted; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:22): (\"These of them you may eat:) the arbeh [the locust] (after its kind), and the salam [the bald locust] (after its kind), and the chargol [the cricket] (after its kind), and the chagav [the grasshopper] (after its kind.\") This tells me only of these alone. Whence do I include others? From (the repetition) of \"lemineihu.\" How so? I derive it from what is mentioned, viz.:",
                "8) Just as the arbeh, which is mentioned, has four legs and four wings and jointed legs (for leaping), and its wings cover most of it, so, all of this kind are permitted. R. Yossi says: (In addition,) it must lend itself to the name \"chagav\" (grasshopper). R. Elazar b. R. Yossi says (Vayikra 11:21): \"that which has joined legs\" — even though it does not have them yet, but is destined to grow them.",
                "9) Arbeh is (known as) gubai; salam, as charshon; chargol as nafol; chagav, as nadyan. What is the intent of \"lemineihu,\" four times? To include tziporeth keramim, yochna Yerushalmith, artzuvia, and razvanith, (which though not similar in appearance to those in the verse, have the same species signs).",
                "10) Rabbi says (Vayikra 11:23): \"And every creeping thing that flies, which has four legs; it is detestable to you\" — If it has five legs, it is clean. \"it is detestable\" — to exclude their admixture. From here the sages ruled: Unclean grasshoppers which were pickled together with clean ones do not render their (common) brine unfit. R. Tzadok testified about the brine of unclean grasshoppers that it (itself) is clean."
            ],
            "Section 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 11:24) \"And by (touching) these you will become unclean; all who touch their carcass will be unclean until evening.\" (Vayikra 11:26) By (touching) every beast whose hoof (parsah) is parted (mafreseth), and cloven (shesa) is not cloven (shosa'ath) or the cud (gera) does not chew …\" I might think that in respect to all that is mentioned in the (preceding) section, viz.: Beasts, animals, birds, fish, and grasshoppers, (I would think that) ever min hechai (flesh torn from a living animal) [to which these verses also refer, viz., below; 2) and Vayikra 11:5)]) renders one unclean in all of them; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:26) \"beast.\" I would exclude fish, which are found in the sea, which do not contract tumah, but I would not exclude grasshoppers; it is, therefore, written \"mafreseth.\" I would exclude grasshoppers, in whose species we do not find tumah, but I would not exclude birds, in whose species we do find tumah; it is, therefore, written \"parsah.\" I would exclude unclean birds, but I would not exclude clean birds. And it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If a beast, which does not render one's clothes tamei (if a piece of neveilah is stuffed down) his throat, ever min hechai of it does confer tumah, then a bird, that renders one's clothes tamei (if a piece of neveilah is stuffed down) his throat, how much more so should ever min hechai confer tumah. It is, therefore, written \"shesa.\" This tells me (that ever min hechai tumah is conferred) only on a clean beast. Whence do I derive the same for an unclean beast? From \"every beast.\" Whence do I derive (the same for) a clean animal? From \"mafreseth.\" Whence do I derive (the same for) an unclean animal? From \"parsah.\" Whence do we derive (the same for) the cloven-footed? From \"and shesa.\" Whence do we derive the (same for) the non cloven-footed? From \"is not shosa'ath.\" Whence do we derive (the same for) one that chews the cud? From \"that chews gera.\" Whence do we derive (the same for) one that does not chew the cud? From \"that does not chew.\"",
                "2) Of what is this (Vayikra 11:24) speaking? If (of beasts) in their death (i.e., neveilah), this has already been stated (viz. Vayikra 11:39). If of flesh torn from a dead animal, this has already been stated below (see Chapter 6:6). What, then, must it be speaking of? Ever min hechai.",
                "3) (But why is a verse needed for this?) Can it not be derived through reason, viz.: There is tumah in a man and tumah in a beast. Just as with a man, ever min hechai from him confers tumah, so with a beast, ever min hechai from it confers tumah. (Why, then, do I need 11:24 to tell me this?)",
                "4) (I do need it,) for if Scripture has been stringent (for seven days) with the graver tumah of a man, should we be stringent (until the evening of the same day) with the lesser tumah of a beast? I can derive it, then, from the lesser tumah of sheratzim (creeping things), viz.: There is tumah in a beast and tumah in a sheretz. Just as with a sheretz, ever min hechai from it confers tumah, so, with a beast, ever min hechai from it confers tumah.",
                "5) — Now if Scripture is stringent with a sheretz, whose blood is like its flesh, shall we then be stringent with a beast, whose blood is not like its flesh? — I will derive it, then, from ever min hameth (a limb from a dead animal), viz.: If ever min hameth, whose prohibition does not obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites, (the former being permitted to eat of a dead animal that has not been slaughtered by shechitah), yet (it) confers tumah, then ever min hechai, whose prohibition does obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites, should it not confer tumah? — No, this may be so with ever min hameth, where the flesh that falls off from it is tamei, but would you say (the same for) ever min hechai, where the flesh that falls off from it (as opposed to being torn off from it) is clean? Since the flesh that falls off from it is tahor, it (the flesh torn off from it) should not confer tumah! (It is, therefore, necessary) to write \"all who touch their carcass\" (Vayikra 11:24), and \"all who carry of their carcass\" (Vayikra 11:25) (are tamei), to include ever min hechai.",
                "6) I might think that flesh which falls off from a living animal should also confer tumah; it is, therefore, written \"neveilah\" (carcass) — Just as neveilah, which has no regrowth (confers tumah), so, ever min hechai, which has no regrowth, (confers tumah, as opposed to flesh that falls off from a living animal, which does have regrowth). These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva says: Just as neveilah has sinews and bones, so ever min hechai (to confer tumah) must have sinews and bones. Rebbi says: Just as neveilah (to confer tumah must be) as in its creation — flesh, sinews, and bones, so, ever min hechai.",
                "7) (Vayikra 11:24) \"All who touch their carcass will be unclean until evening\": The toucher becomes unclean until evening, but the toucher does not confer tumah upon clothing. (Why is a verse needed for this?) Should it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If carrying (where the instances of tumah) are few (relative to touching), confers tumah upon clothing, then touching (where the instances of tumah) are many (relative to carrying), how much more so should it confer tumah upon clothing! It must, therefore, be written that the toucher becomes unclean until evening (but he does not confer tumah upon clothing).",
                "8) (Vayikra 11:25) \"And everyone that carries of their carcass shall wash his clothing and he shall be unclean until evening\": We are hereby taught that the carrier confers tumah upon clothing. (Why is a verse needed for this?) Should it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If touching (where the instances of tumah) are many (relative to carrying), does not confer tumah upon clothing, then carrying (where the instances of tumah) are few (relative to touching), how much more so should it not confer tumah (upon clothing)! It must, therefore, be written that the carrier must wash his clothing, whereby we are taught that the carrier does confer tumah upon clothing.",
                "9) I might think (that such tumah obtains) even with raw wool; it is, therefore, written \"beged\" (clothing). If \"beged\" (alone were written), I might think (that tumah obtained) only with a large, white beged which confers tumah (in the instances of zav and plague-spots). Whence would I derive (the same for) a large, colored beged, a small, white beged, a small, colored beged, until there would be included (even) a net-band or a small wrap? From \"beged\"-\"begadav\" (i.e., from the use of the longer form, \"begadav,\" rather than the base form, \"beged\") for (purposes of) inclusion. Whence is it derived that other implements are equated with begadim (in this connection)? From (the superfluous) \"vetamei\" (\"and he shall be clean.\") (Vayikra 11:25). I might think that he also confers tumah upon men and upon earthenware (which, for tumah purposes is likened to man); it is, therefore, written \"beged\" — he confers tumah upon clothing, and not upon men or earthenware."
            ],
            "Chapter 6": [
                "1) (Vayikra 11:26) \"By (touching) every beast\": to include the embryo, that ever min hechai from it confers tumah (i.e., if one cut a limb from it in the womb, it is tamei as ever min hechai.). (Vayikra 11:26): \"They are tamei\": We are hereby taught that they combine with each other (i.e., half a limb from one beast and half a limb from another combine to constitute the required amount for tumah). I might think that they (half-limbs of a beast also) combine with (half-limbs of) dead (men to constitute the required amount for ever min hechai tumah). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:26): \"They are tamei to you,\" (to exclude the above). I might think that they do not combine with (the tumah of) the dead, which is stringent (seven days), but they do combine with (the tumah of) neveiloth (of beasts), which is \"light\" (one day). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:27): \"They are tamei to you\" (and not half a limb of ever min hechai in combination with half a limb of neveilah). (Vayikra 11:26): \"Everyone who touches them shall be tamei\": to include an unclean beast, its shechitah not freeing it (of neveilah tumah).",
                "2) (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow inductively? viz.: A sheretz (a creeping thing) may not be eaten and an unclean beast may not be eaten — Just as the shechitah of a sheretz does not free it (of neveilah tumah, viz. Chapter 7:5), so, the shechitah of an unclean beast does not free it (of neveilah tumah).",
                "3) Or, perhaps go in this direction: A treifah (an animal with an organic defect) may not be eaten and an unclean beast may not be eaten — Just as the shechitah of a treifah frees it (of neveilah tumah), so, the shechitah of an unclean animal should free it (of neveilah tumah)!",
                "4) Let us see what it (an unclean animal) is (most) similar to — We derive something (i.e., an unclean animal) in whose kind shechitah does not (normally) obtain from something in whose kind shechitah does not (normally) obtain (i.e., a sheretz), and this is not to be refuted by treifah, in whose kind shechitah does normally obtain. Or, go in this direction: We derive something which confers tumah through being carried (i.e., an unclean animal, when it dies) from something (a treifah), which confers tumah (when it dies), and this is not to be refuted by sheretz, which never confers tumah through being carried. It must, therefore, be written \"Everyone that touches them shall be tamei\" to include an unclean beast, its shechitah not freeing it (of neveilah tumah).",
                "5) (Vayikra 11:27): \"that walks upon its soles\": This is the ape. \"And all that walk\": to include (in all of these laws of tumah, even though they have no hooves at all) the long-tailed ape, the porcupine, the adnei hasadeh, and the sea-dog. (Vayikra 11:27): \"the animal\": This is the clean animal. Whence do I derive (for inclusion in the laws of tumah) the unclean animal? From \"which walk on four.\" \"among all animals\": to include the elephant (though it is \"unique\").",
                "6) If they are mentioned above, why are they mentioned below? (i.e., Why mention here \"All who touch their carcass will be unclean until the evening. And he that carries their carcass shall wash, etc.\", if this has already been stated above [Vayikra 11:23-24])? What is stated above speaks of ever min hechai, and what is stated below speaks of ever min hameth (even if it lacks an olive-size of meat. [For if it has an olive-size of meat, it is tamei in any event by reason of an olive-size of neveilah]). (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If ever min hechai, where meat that falls from it (a living animal) is clean, confers tumah, then ever min hameth, where meat that falls from it (a dead animal) is tamei, how much more so should it confer tumah? — No, this may be so in the case of ever min hechai, the prohibition of which obtains with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites. Would you say the same for ever min hameth, the prohibition of which does not obtain with the sons of Noach as it does with Israelites? Since this is so, (we would say that) it should not confer tumah. It must, therefore, be written \"one who touches\" and \"one who carries\" to include ever min hameth (as conferring tumah).",
                "7) (Vayikra 11:27): \"All who touch their carcass will be unclean until the evening\": But the toucher does not confer tumah upon (his) clothing. (Without this verse we would say) does it not follow a fortiori (that the toucher does confer tumah upon his clothing, viz.:) if in an instance — that of carrying — where they (the clothes) do not become tamei of themselves (e.g., if being in one balance of a scale, the clothes lifted the other balance containing neveilah) — they yet become tamei by virtue of the carrier (of neveilah, that they clothe), then how much more so, in an instance where they do become tamei of themselves (i.e., when the clothes themselves touch neveilah), (how much more so) should they become tamei by virtue of the toucher (of the neveilah, who wears them)! It must, therefore, be written that the toucher (himself) becomes tamei until evening, but the toucher does not confer tumah upon (his) clothing.",
                "8) (Vayikra 11:28): \"And he that carries their carcass shall wash his clothes\": We are hereby taught that the carrier confers tumah upon (his) clothing. (Without this verse we would say) does it not follow a fortiori (that the carrier does not confer tumah upon his clothing, viz.:) if in an instance — that of touching — where they become tamei of themselves (i.e., when the clothes themselves touch neveilah), they do not become tamei by virtue of the toucher (of the neveilah, who wears them), then how much more so, in an instance where they do not become tamei of themselves — that of carrying — (how much more so) should they not become tamei by virtue of the wearer! It must, therefore, be written that the wearer shall wash his clothes, whereby we are taught that the wearer confers tumah upon (his) clothing.",
                "9) We could reason a fortiori that they (clothes) should not become tamei of themselves by touching (neveilah), viz.: If in an instance where they become tamei through the carrier, they do not become tamei of themselves (by lifting neveilah in a balance scale), then, in an instance where they do not become tamei through the toucher (who wears them), how much more so should they not become tamei of themselves by touching (neveilah)! It is, therefore, written \"Everything that touches them will be unclean,\" both men and implements.",
                "10) We could reason a fortiori that they should become tamei of themselves by carrying (i.e., by lifting neveilah in a balance scale), viz.: If in an instance where they do not become tamei through the toucher (who wears them), they become tamei of themselves by touching (neveilah), then, in an instance where they do become tamei through the carrier (who wears them), how much more so should they become tamei of themselves by carrying (i.e., by lifting neveilah in a balance scale)! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:28): \"they are tamei to you,\" and neither food, nor drink, nor implements become tamei by carrying (neveilah in a scale). It is the carrier (that confers the tumah), and not that which is being carried (the neveilah)."
            ],
            "Section 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 11:29-31): \"And this to you is what is unclean among the creeping things (sheratzim) which creep upon the earth: the weasel and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kind. And the gecko, and the land-crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand lizard, and the chameleon. These are what are unclean to you among all that creep.\" What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 11:43): \"Do not make yourselves tamei by them (sheratzim) and you will become tamei through them,\" I might think that inner-body tumah and the tumah of offerings are being spoken of; it is, therefore, written \"And this (i.e., only this to you is what is unclean … the weasel and the mouse, and the great lizard, after its kind, etc.\" I might think that these confer tumah on men and implements and the others confer tumah on men but not on implements, or on implements but not on men; it is, therefore written (Vayikra 11:31): \"These (are what are unclean to you\"). Only these (confer tumah). Or, perhaps only these are excluded which are like the particular (kinds mentioned here, viz.:) Just as the particular have bones and reproduce, so, only those are excluded which have bones and reproduce. Whence do we derive (that also excluded are) those which have bones and do not reproduce or those which do not have bones and reproduce? From \"These\" are tamei to you among all that creep\" — Only these among the sheratzim confer tumah.",
                "2) (Vayikra 11:29): \"And this to you is what is unclean\": to include its blood as being tamei as is its flesh. (Without the verse I would reason a fortiori, viz.:) If a beast, which confers tumah by being carried — its blood is not tamei as is its flesh, then a sheretz, which does not confer tumah by being carried, how much more so should its blood not be (tamei) as is its flesh. It must, therefore, be written \"And this to you is what is unclean\" — to include its blood as being tamei as is its flesh.",
                "3) I might think that (the blood of a sheretz) could render seeds susceptible (to tumah), and that this would follow a fortiori, viz.: If the blood of a beast, which does not confer acute tumah, (i.e., it does not confer tumah upon men and implements, but only upon food and drinks), yet renders seeds susceptible (to tumah), then the blood of a sheretz, which does confer high-degree tumah, how much more so should it render seeds susceptible (to tumah)! It is, therefore, written \"to you\" — It is unclean to you (i.e., to render you tamei) and not to render seeds susceptible (to tumah).",
                "4) (Vayikra 11:29) \"the mouse\": I would think that the sea-mouse is also tamei. But does it not follow a fortiori (that it is not tamei), viz.: The \"weasel\" (preceding \"the mouse\" in the verse) is tamei), and the mouse is tamei. Just as the weasel grows (only) on the ground, so \"the mouse\" must be of the type that grows (only) on the ground. — But perhaps just as \"weasel\" is, as the name implies, (i.e., any weasel [and all weasels grow on the ground]), so, in \"mouse\" I would include the sea-mouse. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:29) \"on the earth\" — to exclude what is in the sea.",
                "5) But perhaps I should understand \"on the earth\" as meaning that it confers tumah only when it is on the earth, but if it enters the sea (and touches an object there) it does not confer tumah. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:29) \"that creeps (hashoretz on the earth\") — Anywhere it \"creeps\" (even the sea) it confers tumah.",
                "6) But perhaps \"hashoretz\" connotes \"reproduces,\" and (the meaning is that) only a sheretz that reproduces confers tumah, but a mouse that is half-mouse and half-earth, (being generated from the earth and not reproducing) does not confer tumah (and \"on the earth\" means that if it enters the sea it does not confer tumah there.) It is, therefore, written \"among the sheretz\" — to include (as conferring tumah the mouse that is half-flesh and half-earth. What touches the flesh (portion) becomes tamei; what touches the earth (portion) remains clean. R. Yehudah says: What touches the earth (portion) adjoining the flesh (portion) behind it becomes tamei.",
                "7) (Vayikra 11:29): \"tzav\": This is the great lizard; \"after its kind\": to include kinds of tzav — chabarbar, ben hanefilim, and salamander. When R. Akiva came to this verse, he would say (Tehillim 104:24): \"How manifold are Your works, O L-td, etc.\" You have creatures living in the sea and creatures living on the land. If the sea-creatures would come up to the land, they would perish; if the land-creatures would go down to the sea, they would perish. You have creatures (e.g., the salamander) living in the fire and creatures living in the air. If the fire-creatures would leave to the air, they would perish; if the air-creatures would leave to the fire, they would perish. The living place of the first is the death (place) of the other; the living place of the second is the death (place) of the first — \"How manifold are Your works, O L–rd!\""
            ],
            "Chapter 7": [
                "1) (Vayikra 11:31): \"These are what are tamei to you among all that creep\": \"what are tamei\" (rather than just \"tamei\"): to include their skins (as well as their flesh). I might think (that this refers to) the skins of all of them. It is, therefore, written \"These are (the skins of) what are tamei\" — the skins of (Vayikra 11:30) the gecko, the land-crocodile, the lizard, and the sand-lizard. R. Yehudah says: The lizard is like the weasel (Vayikra 11:29). R. Yochanan b. Nuria says: Eight sheratzim have skins.",
                "2) \"unclean\": to include the egg of the sheretz. I might think (that it is tamei) even if the embryo were not formed; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:29) \"in the sheretz\" — Just as \"sheretz\" (implies that) the embryo has been formed, so, the egg. I might think (that this is so) even if the egg is completely closed; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:31) \"Everyone who touches them 'will be tamei'\" — it must be possible to touch them. How much must it be pierced for this possibility to exist? A hairsbreadth, that it be possible to reach it with a hair.",
                "3) \"are tamei\": We are hereby taught that they (these sheratzim) combine with each other (to constitute the requisite amount for tumah): blood with blood, flesh with flesh, blood with flesh, and flesh with blood, whether in one species or in two species.",
                "4) \"Everything that touches them will be tamei\": to include the handles of vessels (i.e., if the handle touches them, the entire vessel becomes unclean.) But I might think that this is so even (if the sheretz touched a part of the handle) which is greater than the amount (needed for the vessel's manipulation). It is, therefore, written \"them\" — everything that is needed for their (the vessel's) use. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yochanan b. Nuria said to him: Scripture (in \"them\") speaks of the causer of the tumah (i.e., the sheretz), and you speak of that which becomes tamei (the vessel)! R. Akiva responded (I agree with you.) I understand the verse as \"All who touch them (the sheratzim) will be unclean until the evening.\" One who eats what is tamei and one who drinks what is tamei does not become unclean until the evening, (but only one who touches what is tamei. As to my applying \"them\" to the vessels, I did so only by way of asmachta [a kind of \"support\" for what is already understood]).",
                "5) \"All who touch them will be tamei\": I might think (\"all who touch them\") when they are alive. It is, therefore, written \"in their death.\" If \"in their death,\" I might think this excludes \"in their shechitah.\" It is, therefore, written \"them,\" even in their shechitah (i.e., their shechitah does not free them of their state of tumah.) How, then, am I to understand \"in their death\"? In their death, (they confer tumah), and not in their life.",
                "6) \"All who touch them\": I might think (that he would have to touch all of them (i.e., an entire sheretz, to become unclean.) It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:32) \"of them\" (i.e., even a piece of them). If \"of them,\" I might think that any amount of them (suffices for tumah). It is, therefore, written \"them.\" How is this to be reconciled? He must touch an amount of it that can be considered all of it. The sages estimated this as the size of a lentil. For the sea-lizard is initially of lentil-size. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: (It must be the size of) the tail of a lizard."
            ],
            "Section 6": [
                "1) (Vayikra 11:32) \"And all (vessels) upon which there falls of them (sheratzim) in their death shall be tamei.\" Of what is this verse speaking? If of their death, this has already been stated (Vayikra 11:31). If of ever min hameth (a limb of a dead animal), this is stated below (Vayikra 11:35). It must be speaking, then, of ever min hechai (a limb of a living animal, [and \"in their death\" signifies the death of the limb]). (But why is a verse needed for this?) Is it not derivable a fortiori? viz.: If a beast, whose blood was not equated with its flesh (to confer tumah), ever min hechai of it confers tumah, then a sheretz, whose blood was equated with its flesh, how much more so should ever min hechai of it confer tumah! (Why, then, is the verse needed?) No, if this is so with a beast, it may be so because it confers tumah by being carried. Would you, then, say the same for a sheretz, which does not confer tumah by being carried, (but only by being touched)? Since it does not confer tumah by being carried, (I would say that) ever min hechai of it does not confer tumah. It must, therefore, be written \"And all (vessels) upon which there falls of them (sheratzim) in their death shall be tamei\" — to include ever min hechai.",
                "2) I might think (that it confers tumah) even if it (the limb of the sheretz) is hanging on it like a hair. It is, therefore, written \"upon which there falls.\" It does not confer tumah until it falls (from the sheretz).",
                "3) I might think that flesh which separates from a living creature confers tumah. It is, therefore, written \"in their death.\" Just as death has no \"replacement,\" so, a limb from a living creature has no replacement, (to exclude flesh, which does replace itself.) These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva says: Just as death (involves) sinews and bones, so ever min hechai (to confer tumah, must involve) sinews and bones. Rebbi says: Just as a sheretz is flesh, sinews, and bones, so ever min hechai (must be) flesh, sinews, and bones.",
                "4) (Vayikra 11:32): \"vessels of wood\": I might think (to include) a ladder, a rack, a tray, and a lamp. It is, therefore, written \"of … wood,\" and not all wood. Or I might think (to exclude) a table, a tavla, and a dolfaki (also kinds of tables). It is, therefore, written \"all … wood,\" for inclusion. Why did you see fit to include these and to exclude these? After Scripture included, it excluded. It is, therefore, written \"sack.\" Just as sack is distinct in serving both man (He can clothe himself in it) and his servers (He can put his vessels in it), so I include table and dolfaki, which serve man (He can support himself on them) and the servers of man (He can place his vessels in them), and I exclude ladder, which serves man but not the servers of man, and (I exclude) rack, tray, and lamp, which serve the servers of man, but do not serve man.",
                "5) (Vayikra 11:32): \"of every vessel of wood (…where there shall fall of them\"): I might think (this to include) a chest, a box, a closet, a straw receptacle, a reed receptacle, and the (wooden, water) reservoir of an Alexandrian boat, which have rims and which hold forty sa'ah in liquid measure, equivalent to two kor in dry measure. It is, therefore, written \"of… vessel of wood,\" and not all vessels of wood. Or, I might think to exclude a (wooden water) tank on wheels, the provision boxes of kings, the tanners' trough, the reservoir of a small boat, and an ark. It is, therefore, written \"every vessel of wood,\" to include them. Why do you see fit to include these and to exclude these? After Scripture included, it excluded. It is, therefore, written \"sack.\" Jus as a sack is distinct in that it is moved when full, so I include a wheeled tank, kings' boxes, the tanners' trough, the reservoir of a small boat, and an ark, which are moved when full, and I exclude chest, box, and closet, straw receptacle, reed receptacle, and the reservoir of an Alexandrian boat, which have rims and which hold forty sa'ah in liquid measure, equivalent to two kor in dry measure, which are not moved when full.",
                "6) R. Meir says: All that the sages enumerated as clean (i.e., chest, box, closet, etc.) are clean, and the rest are tamei. R. Yehudah says: All that the sages enumerated as tamei (i.e., a tank on wheels, etc.) are tamei, and the rest are clean. There is no difference between the words of R. Meir and R. Yehudah but a householder's trough. (According to R. Meir, since it is not enumerated among the clean, it is tamei. According to R. Yehudah, since it is not enumerated among the tamei, it is clean.)",
                "7) R. Nechemiah says: The big baskets and the big vessels, which have rims and hold forty sa'ah in liquid measure, equivalent to two kor of dry measure (are tamei). For, (being light,) even though they are not moved when full, they are moved with what remains in them.",
                "8) See Section 4:9. Whence is it derived that felt-materials are included (as becoming tamei)? From \"or garment.\"",
                "9) \"or skin\": I might think that even sea-skins become tamei. (Initially,) I would reason: There is plague-spot tumah and sheretz tumah. Just as sea-skins are not made tamei by plague-spots, so they should not be made tamei by sheratzim.",
                "10) And this would follow a fortiori, viz.: If plague-spots, which confer tumah upon warp and woof, do not confer tumah upon sea-skins, then sheratzim, which do not confer tumah upon warp and woof, how much more so should they not confer tumah upon sea-skins! — No, this may be so with plague-spots, which do not confer tumah upon dyed stuff. Would you say the same for sheratzim, which do confer tumah upon dyed stuff! Since it confers tumah upon dyed stuff, it should confer tumah upon sea-skins. It is, therefore, written \"garment.\" Just as a garment comes from what grows on the land, so skin (to be tamei) must come from what grows on the land. I might think to exclude (from tumah) (even) connecting to it (a sea-skin) something of what grows on the land. It is, therefore, written (\"garment) or skin.\" If \"garment\" includes connecting it (a sea-skin) with something that grows on the land, it may be even a thread, even a cord, so long as it is connected as required for conferring tumah.",
                "11) I might think that (included for tumah) are even untanned hide and partially processed hide, with which (the entire) work (of processing) has not been done; it is, therefore, written \"with which work is done.\" I would then exclude (from tumah) untanned hide and partially processed hide, with which work has not been done; but I would not exclude the skins of thongs and sandals, with which work has been done. It is, therefore written \"vessel,\" to exclude sandal-thongs, which are not vessels. I might then think to exclude tent-skins, which are not vessels. It is, therefore, written \"all … with which work is done,\" to include tent-skins."
            ],
            "Chapter 8": [
                "1) (Vayikra 11:32): \"sack\": This tells me only of sack. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) kalkali and chebek (types of saddle bands)? From \"or sack.\" I might think that (also included) as requiring tumah are ropes and cords. It is, therefore, written \"sack.\" Just as sack is reticulated, so all must be reticulated (to acquire tumah).",
                "2) And thus is it written in respect to dead-body (tumah, Bamidbar 31:20): \"and every work of goats.\" I might think (to include) ropes and cords (as acquiring tumah). (But) it follows (by reason that they should not be included), viz.: A dead body confers tumah and a sheretz confers tumah. Just as a sheretz confers tumah only on what is reticulated, so a dead body confers tumah only on what is reticulated.",
                "3) But if Scripture was lenient with a sheretz, a lesser (form of tumah, should we, therefore, be lenient with dead-body (tumah), an acute (form)? But (by reason alone a dead body) should confer tumah on ropes and cords. It must, therefore, be written \"a garment … skin\" (Vayikra 11:33, in respect to sheretz) — \"a garment … skin\" (Bamidbar 31:20, in respect to dead-body tumah), as an identity (gezeirah shavah) — Just as a sheretz confers tumah only on what is reticulated, so a dead body confers tumah only on what is reticulated; and just as a dead body confers tumah on \"every work of goats,\" so a sheretz confers tumah on every work of goats.",
                "4) This (\"sack\" [Vayikra 11:32]) tells me only of a sack made of goats. Whence do I derive (as also acquiring tumah) a sack made of pig or of a cow's tail? From \"or sack.\" This tells me only of sheretz. Whence do I derive the same for dead-body tumah. It follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the instance of) sheretz, a lesser form (of tumah), the work of pig is equated with the work of goats, then (in the instance of) dead-body (tumah), the more acute form, should the work of pig not be equated with the work of goats!",
                "5) Now if Scripture included (for tumah in the instance of that which comes from the tail of a cow and from a pig,) tumah until evening, which obtains with many (types of tumah by touching), should I, then, include (for dead-body tumah what comes from the tail of a cow and from a pig), tumah for seven days, which obtains with only a limited (type of tumah, that of touching a dead body)? It must, therefore, be written \"garment … skin\" - \"garment … skin,\" for a gezeirah-shavah — Just as with sheretz, the work of a pig is equated with that of goats, so, with dead-body tumah, the work of a pig is equated with that of goats.",
                "6) (Vayikra 11:32): \"every vessel\": to include the sling, the amulet, and the phylactery. I might think that also included are the yoke-eye (tied to the hopper) and the yoke-pole; it is, therefore, written \"with which (vessels) work is done,\" and not where the work is done with others (i.e., the horses, to which the yoke is attached).",
                "7) Or I might think to include the coverings of vessels; it is, therefore, written \"with them,\" excluding the coverings of vessels.",
                "8) \"it shall be put into water\": I might think even part of it (i.e., piece after piece). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:7): \"And when the sun sets, he shall be clean.\" Just as there, the coming (i.e., setting) of the sun is all at once; here, too, the coming of the vessel (into the water must be) all at once.",
                "9) \"And it shall be tamei until the evening\": I might think for all things (i.e., even for use of the vessel for second-tithe). It is, therefore, written \"and it shall be clean.\" How so? (How can it be clean and unclean at the same time?) Clean for second-tithe, (even) in the daytime, and for terumah (only) when it gets dark."
            ],
            "Section 7": [
                "1) (Vayikra 11:33) (\"And every earthen vessel where there shall fall of them into its midst\") This tells me only of an earthen vessel. Whence do I derive for inclusion a natron vessel? From \"and … earthen vessel.\" Whence would I (think to) include (earthen) tents (for tumah that I need a verse to exclude them)? I would reason thus: If (with) wooden vessels, where flat ones are tamei, tents are clean, then (with) earthen vessels, where flat ones are clean, how much more so should tents be clean! — No, if wooden tents are clean, it is because their atmosphere is clean. Should earthen tents, then, be clean, whose atmosphere is not clean? It must, therefore, be written (\"earthen) vessel,\" to exclude (earthenware) tents (from tumah). Whence do I include (for tumah) earthen shards? From \"and every earthen vessel.\"",
                "2) From here they ruled: The fine and small earthen vessels, they, (or if they were broken), their bottoms, or their sides, (if they) can rest without support — then the (minimum) requisite amount (for their being considered vessels vis-à-vis acquiring tumah) is (their being able to hold) enough (oil) to anoint (the small finger of a one-day-old) infant. (This is the criterion for vessels which can hold) up to a log. (The amount increases progressively for larger vessels:) (If they could originally hold) from a log until a sa'ah, (the minimum amount is) a revi'ith; from a sa'ah until two sa'ah, a half-log; from two sa'ah until three and until five sa'ah, a log. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: I do not assign measurements to them, but: the fine and small earthen vessels, they, (or if they were broken), their bottoms, or their sides, (if they) can rest without support — then the (minimum) requisite amount is enough to anoint an infant. (This is the criterion) up to small pots. From small pots until Lyddan jugs, a revi'ith; from Lyddan until Bethlemite, a half-log; from Bethlemite until large jugs — this cannot be recollected. R. Nechemiah and R. Eliezer b. Yaakov say: The (minimum) requisite amount for large jugs is two logs. Galilean jars and very small jugs — the amount for their bottoms is any amount, and they do not have sides.",
                "3) \"upon which there falls of them\": There are of them (sheratzim) which confer tumah, and there are of them which do not confer tumah. If a rooster swallowed a sheretz and fell into the atmosphere of an oven, (the oven is) clean, (swallowed tumah not conferring tumah); and if it died (before it could assimilate the sheretz), the oven is tamei.",
                "4) (Vayikra 11:33): \"into its midst\": (An earthenware vessel) that has a \"midst\" acquires tumah; one that does not have a midst, does not.\" This excludes (from acquiring tumah) an earthen bed, or chair, or bench, or table, or menorah, (which are not made for receiving objects). This testimony was given by Chizkiah avi Akash before R. Gamliel in Yavneh in the name of R. Gamliel in the name of R. Gamliel the elder: Whatever has no \"midst\" in earthenware has no back (for purposes of acquiring tumah).",
                "5) \"its midst\": We are hereby taught that it (an earthen vessel) acquires tumah, through its atmosphere (e.g., by a sheretz hanging in its atmosphere, even if it does not touch it). It acquires tumah through its midst (e.g., if liquid that is tamei touches its midst); but it does not acquire tumah through its back. (We need the verse for this, for otherwise we would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori (that it should become tamei through its back) viz.: If vessels that require rinsing (to rid them of their tumah, i.e., vessels of wood and metal), which do not acquire tumah through their atmosphere, do acquire tumah through their back, then earthenware vessels, that do acquire tumah through their atmosphere, how much more so should they acquire tumah through their back! It is, therefore, written \"its midst.\" It acquires tumah through its midst, and not through its back.",
                "6) (But) it (now) follows a fortiori that a vessel that requires rinsing should acquire tumah through its atmosphere!, viz.: If an earthen vessel that does not acquire tumah through its back, does so through its atmosphere, then a vessel that requires rinsing, that does acquire tumah through its back, how much more so should it do so through its atmosphere! It is, therefore, written \"an earthen vessel … into its midst,\" and not a vessel that requires rinsing, into its midst.",
                "7) (Vayikra 11:33): \"into its midst\": when it falls into its midst, and not when it falls into the midst of its midst. How so? A jug is in an (earthen) stove, its mouth above the stove; a sheretz is in the jug. The stove is clean (and not tamei). Which (state) is more potent? That of conferring tumah or that of acquiring tumah? That of conferring is more potent than that of acquiring. For it (an earthen vessel that is tamei) confers tumah from its back (i.e., upon objects that touch its back), but does not acquire tumah from its back (but only from something tamei in its midst). Now if in a place where tumah is conferred from its back, it is not conferred from the midst of its midst, then, in a place where tumah is not acquired from its back, how much more so is it not acquired from the midst of its midst! (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?) (For perhaps we would say that) the (state of) acquiring tumah is more potent than that of conferring tumah. For it (food in the oven) acquires tumah from a yeast container (in its midst which contains a sheretz), but it (a sheretz in the oven) does not confer tumah upon the yeast (in the container). So that it (the oven), too, should acquire tumah from what is in the midst of its midst even though it does not confer tumah (via a sheretz within it) upon (food that is found in) the midst of its midst! It must, therefore, be written \"into its midst\" — When it (the sheretz) falls into its midst it is tamei, but not when it falls into the midst of its midst.",
                "8) (Vayikra 11:33): \"all that is in its midst shall become tamei,\" and not what is in the midst of its midst. How so? A jug is in an (earthen) stove, its mouth above the stove. A sheretz is in the stove. The food and drink in the jug are clean. Which (state) is more potent? That of conferring tumah or that of acquiring tumah? That of acquiring is more potent than that of conferring. For it (food in the oven) acquires tumah from a yeast container (in its midst which contains a sheretz), but it (a sheretz in the oven) does not confer tumah upon the yeast (in the container). Now if in a place where it acquires tumah from the yeast container, it does not acquire tumah from what is in the midst of its midst, then, in a place where it does not confer tumah upon the yeast, how much more so should it not confer tumah upon what is in the midst of its midst! (Why, then, is a verse needed to tell us this?) (For perhaps we would say that) the (state of) conferring tumah is more potent than that of acquiring tumah. For it (an earthen vessel that is tamei) confers tumah from its back (i.e., upon objects that touch its back), but does not acquire tumah from its back (but only from something tamei in its midst). So that it, too, should confer tumah upon what is in the midst of its midst, even though it does not acquire tumah from the midst of its midst! It must, therefore, be written \"all that is in its midst shall become tamei,\" and not what is in the midst of its midst.",
                "9) I might think that even if it (the jug) were pierced (the food within it does not become tamei); it is, therefore, written \"all that is in its midst (including what is in a pierced jug) shall become tamei. How large must the hole be (to render the jug susceptible of tumah)? In (vessels) designated for liquids, (large enough) to admit liquids, and in those designated for foods, (large enough) to release olives.",
                "10) From here they ruled: A defective kevereth (a large round vessel) stuffed with straw, hanging in the atmosphere of an oven — If the sheretz were in it, the oven is tamei; if the sheretz were in the oven, the food and drink in it are tamei. R. Eliezer says: It (the kevereth) shields (against tumah). R. Eliezer said: If it shields against the acute (tumah of) a dead body, how much more so should it shield against the lesser tumah of earthen vessels! They responded: If it shields against the acute (tumah of) a dead body, it is because a partition avails to shield in such instances. Shall it do so in the instance of the lesser tumah of earthen vessels, where a partition does not avail to shield!",
                "11) R. Yochanan b. Nuri said: I said to R. Eliezer: If tents (analogous to the straw-stuffed kevereth) shield against tents in instances of acute, dead-body tumah, where tents avail (to create such) partitions, shall they shield against tents in instances of the lesser earthen vessel tumah, where such partitions do not avail! R. Yossi said: I said to R. Yochanan b. Nuri: I would be surprised if R. Eliezer accepted that answer from you, for it is (now) being deliberated. But this is the answer: If tents shield against tents in instances of acute, dead-body tumah — for (it is a halachah to Moses from Sinai in respect to dead-body uncleanliness) that if one makes (a partition of) a tefach by a tefach, one tefach high, (the vessels therein) are clean — should tents shield against tents in instances of the lesser, sheretz tumah, where if one makes (a partition of) a tefach by a tefach, one tefach high (the vessels therein) are tamei! He responded: This, too, can be (similarly) contested.",
                "12) \"all that is in its midst shall become tamei\": R. Akiva says: It is not written \"tamei\" (\"it is tamei\"), but \"yetamei\" — it confers tumah, to make others tamei — to teach that the loaf (in the earthen stove), of second degree tumah, confers third-degree tumah (upon terumah, and even upon chullin [non-consecrated food]). How so? The oven is of first-degree tumah; the loaf, of second degree; and what touches the loaf, of third degree. R. Yehoshua said: \"Who will clear the dust from between your eyes, R. Yochanan b. Zakkai, who was wont to say: A future generation is destined to cleanse the third-degree loaf, for which (tumah) there is no verse in the Torah! — when Akiva, your disciple, has adduced a verse from the Torah (to the effect that) it is tamei! For it is written 'All that is in its midst yetamei.'\"",
                "13) (Vayikra 11:33): \"It shall you break.\" I might think that it is a mitzvah to break it. Behold, it is written in respect to a zav (one with a genital discharge) (Vayikra 15:12): \"And an earthen vessel which a zav touches shall be broken, and every wooden vessel shall be rinsed in water.\" Just as (the rinsing of) wooden vessels is for cleansing (and not for mitzvah), so, (the breaking of) earthen vessels is for cleansing (and not for mitzvah.) I might think that it is a mitzvah to break it (an earthen vessel that has become tamei); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:33) \"It shall you break,\" and you shall not break (as a mitzvah) the earthen vessel of a zav. Now we can derive this a fortiori (without a verse), viz.: If (a vessel) that touches a zav, an acute (state of tumah does not require breaking (as a mitzvah) then (a vessel) that touches a sheretz, a lesser state, how much more so should it not be broken! If so, what is the intent of \"It shall you break\"? We are hereby taught that its only cleansing is its breaking, (but if one wishes to retain it in its state of tumah, he may do so). Variantly: It shall you break to cleanse it but you do not \"break\" food and drink to cleanse it. "
            ],
            "Chapter 9": [
                "1) I might think that vessels, too, acquire tumah in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:34): \"all the food … and all drink\": Food and drink acquire tumah in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel, but vessels do not. I might think that animal food, too, acquires tumah; it is, therefore, written \"the food,\" the distinctive food of human beings. I might then think that I exclude (from tumah) animal food that one thought to use for human consumption; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"all food (… shall be unclean\"). I might think that even foul food (that is not fit for dogs, is included for tumah); it is, therefore, written \"which shall be eaten,\" to exclude foul food. \"food … shall be tamei\": We are hereby taught that any amount of food becomes tamei. I might think that any amount (of food that is tamei) can confer tumah upon others; it is, therefore, written \"which shall be eaten\" (in one swallow). Only the size of an egg can confer tumah (upon others).",
                "2) I might think (that food) which is sealed air-tight in an earthen vessel and placed in the atmosphere of a stove becomes tamei; it is, therefore, written \"of all the food,\" and not \"all of the food,\" to exclude the above. I might think (that food) which is sealed air-tight in a \"rinsing\" vessel (i.e., one of wood or metal) placed in the midst of the oven is clean, and that this follows a fortiori, viz.: If an earthen vessel, which does not rescue itself (from tumah) without an air-tight seal in the tent of the dead, rescues therein what is sealed air-tight within it, then a \"rinsing\" vessel, which rescues itself without an air-tight seal in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel (see Vayikra 11:1) above) — how much more so should it rescue what is sealed air-tight within it! It is, therefore, written \"the food,\" to include (as tamei) what is sealed air-tight in a \"rinsing\" vessel placed in the midst of the oven. An a fortiori argument that a rinsing vessel should not rescue itself (from tumah) without an air-tight seal in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel: If an earthen vessel, which rescues what is sealed air-tight in it in the tent of the dead, does not rescue itself therein without an air-tight seal, then a \"rinsing\" vessel, which does not rescue what is sealed air-tight within it in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel, how much more so should it not rescue itself therein without an air-tight seal! It is, therefore, written (in negation of the above): \"the food.\" Food acquires tumah in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel, but (other) vessels do not. An a fortiori argument that an earthen vessel does not rescue what is sealed air-tight in it in the tent of the dead: If a \"rinsing\" vessel, which rescues itself without an air-tight seal in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel does not rescue what is sealed air-tight within it in the atmosphere of an earthen vessel, then an earthen vessel, which does not rescue itself without an air-tight seal in the tent of the dead, how much more should it not rescue what is sealed air-tight in it in the tent of the dead! It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 19:15): \"And every open (earthen) vessel, over which there is no air-tight seal is tamei.\" But if it does have an air-tight seal over it, it is clean."
            ],
            "Section 8": [
                "1) I might think that even a gourd which fell into the atmosphere of the oven and was not predisposed (to the acquisition of tumah) would become tamei; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:34) \"upon which water came.\" This tells me only of water (as a predisposing element). Whence do I derive the same for dew, wine, oil, blood, honey and milk? From \"drink\" — this is wine; \"that is drunk\" — this is blood, as it is written (Tehillim 110:7): \"From a river, on the way, shall he drink (blood), wherefore he shall lift (his) head.\" Whence are other liquids derived (as predisposing elements)? From \"and every drink.\" If \"every drink,\" I would think (even) mulberry juice, fruit-juice, pomegranate juice, and (the juice of) all other kinds of fruits. It is, therefore, written \"water.\" Just as \"water\" is characterized by the absence of a qualifying epithet, so I include dew, wine, oil, blood, honey, and milk, which have no qualifying epithets, and I exclude mulberry juice, pomegranate juice, and (the juice of) all other kinds of fruits, which have qualifying epithets.",
                "2) I might think that also included (are fruits that fell into waters of) holes, pits, and caves; it is, therefore, written \"which shall be drunk.\" This tell me (as predisposing to tumah) only of waters that he filled himself. Whence do I derive the same even for those that descended of themselves? From \"upon which water comes.\" I might think that this applies even if he did not think (to drink them; it is, therefore, written \"which shall be drunk.\" This tells me only (of waters) that he thought to drink. Whence do I derive the same for (waters) with which he thought to knead clay and to rinse dishes? From \"upon which water comes.\" I might think that this applies even (to waters found in) holes, pits, and caves; it is, therefore, written \"in every vessel.\" I might think (that they predispose to tumah) even if he thought to collect them in holes, pits, and caves; it is, therefore, written \"in a vessel.\" This tells me only of a vessel. Whence do I derive the same for trees and stones? From \"in every,\" to include all that is separate from the ground.",
                "0",
                "4) \"which shall be drunk\": to exclude foul drink. These are the words of R. Eliezer. They said to him: No drink is out of bounds for birds or cows, (so that foul drink, too, predisposes to tumah).",
                "5) \"And every drink which shall be drunk in every vessel shall (make it) unclean.\" We are hereby taught that drink (which is tamei) confers tumah upon the vessels. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Yossi says: There is no drink-tumah for vessels mandated by the Torah, but only by the words of the scribes. R. Yehoshua b. Karchah said: I said to Yehudah: Why do we not subscribe to the words of R. Yossi beRebbi, who says that there is no drink-tumah for vessels mandated by the Torah, but only by the words of the scribes? Because there is no Torah-mandated tumah which terminates on the same day (that it is contracted), yet vessels made tamei by drink are freed from their tumah (by immersion) on the same day. Rebbi says: Know that there is no drink-tumah for vessels mandated by the Torah, but only by the words of the scribes; for there is no Torah-mandated tumah which confers tumah upon a \"rinsing\" vessel from the back without its midst becoming tamei, yet the midst of vessels made tamei by drink is clean. What, then, is the intent of \"drink … in every vessel, it shall be unclean\"? The vessels confer tumah upon the drinks! R. Eliezer says: There is no drink-tumah at all. Know this to be so; for Yossi b. Tzreidah testified about the slaughter-houses that they are clean, (the blood and the water there, not acquiring tumah). R. Akiva says: The sheretz confers tumah upon the vessels, and the vessels confer tumah upon the food, and the food confers tumah upon the drink — whereby we learn that three confer tumah through the sheretz. "
            ],
            "Chapter 10": [
                "1) (Vayikra 11:35): \"And all that there shall fall of their carcass (that of sheratzim) upon it shall be tamei\": Of what is this speaking? If of their death (i.e., touching the carcass itself) this has already been mentioned (Vayikra 11:31). If of ever min hechai, this has been mentioned above (Vayikra 11:32 [see Section 6:1]). It must be speaking, then, of ever min hameth (a limb of a dead animal).",
                "2) \"of their carcass\": not of the bones, not of the teeth, not of the claws, and not of their hair. An oven or a stove, if whole, it is tamei, and if severed, it is clean. From here they ruled: An oven which came in parts from the workshop — if he made frames for it and placed frames upon it, (it being clean), it (now) acquires tumah. If he removed the frames, it is clean; if he (afterwards) returned the frames, it (remains) clean. If he plastered it (after returning the frames), it (again) acquires tumah, and he need not heat it (to render it susceptible of acquiring tumah), for it has already been heated (in the workshop). (Vayikra 11:35): \"an oven or a stove shall be torn down\": If it were whole, it is tamei, and if it were severed, it is clean. From here they ruled: If a stove were tamei, how is it cleansed? It is divided into three, and he scrapes off the plaster (coating) until it is on the ground. R. Meir says: He need not scrape off the plaster and it need not be on the ground, but he diminishes it (from) four tefachim from within. R. Shimon says: He must move it (from its place and separate the pieces, and if he wishes, he may rejoin them).",
                "3) If it were divided into two parts; one large, the other small — the large is tamei, (the name \"stove\" adhering to it), and the small is clean. If he divided it into three parts, one (as large) as two, and the two (others), small — the large is tamei, and the two small ones, clean. If he divided it into two equal parts, they are (both) tamei, for it is impossible (to \"equalize\" exactly, and we suspect each part as being the larger one).",
                "",
                "5) By \"oven,\" I understand (as being tamei) both one that is new (i.e., one that was not heated in a furnace, but dried in the sun) and one that is old (i.e., one that was heated in a furnace). And this follows, viz.: An earthen vessel acquires tumah and an oven acquires tumah. Just as an earthen vessel (acquires tumah) when its fashioning is complete; so, an oven. These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Akiva responded: Do you deduce what is possible (i.e., an oven, which it is possible to heat in a furnace) from what is impossible (i.e., an earthen vessel, which it is impossible to heat thus)? R. Eliezer: Even though it is possible, the proof holds!",
                "6) R. Akiva retracted and reversed the rationale, viz.: An earthen vessel acquires tumah and an oven acquires tumah. Just as (something is called) \"an earthen vessel\" when its fashioning is completed in the flame (of a furnace), so (something is called) \"an oven\" only when its fashioning is completed in the flame (of a furnace). — But perhaps just as an earthen vessel, by its name, (and it is not called an \"earthen vessel\" until it is heated), so, an oven by its name, and it is called \"an oven\" even before it is heated! It is, therefore, written (\"oven … [Vayikra 11:36]) But\" (to teach us that an oven does not acquire tumah until it is heated.) When does it acquire tumah? When it has been heated enough for the baking of crackers. R. Yehudah says: When the new one has been heated enough to bake crackers in an old one, (this being the completion of its fashioning).",
                "7) (Vayikra 11:35): \"… shall be torn down. They are tamei\": What is subject to tearing down is tamei by reason of \"oven and stove,\" and what is not subject to tearing down is not tamei by reason of \"oven and stove,\" except an oven of stone and of metal and a stove of stone and of metal. From here they ruled: A stove of stone and of metal is clean (One of stone is completely clean and one of metal is clean of the halachah of an earthen vessel, not conferring tumah through its atmosphere and being subject to cleansing in a mikveh), and it is tamei by reason of a metal vessel, (acquiring tumah through its back and becoming a progenitor (av) of tumah when touched by an olive-size of a dead body; and when it is attached to the ground, it does not confer tumah. If it were perforated, damaged, or split, and a plaster or an addition of clay were made for it, it is tamei. And how large must the perforation be (for the plaster over it to render it an earthen vessel)? (Large) enough to emit light; and so, with a stove.",
                "8) A stove of stone and of metal is clean, and it is tamei by reason of a metal vessel. If it were perforated, damaged, or split, and an (earthen) tripod were made for it, it is tamei. If it were smeared with clay, both inside or outside, it is clean, (for one does not cook or bake inside the stove itself, but places a pot in it or on top of it).",
                "9) (Vayikra 11:35): \"… shall be torn down. They are tamei\": What is subject to tearing down is subject to tumah; what is not subject to tearing down is not subject to tumah. From here they ruled: If (a pot) were placed upon a stone and upon an oven (the stone being joined to it by plaster); upon it and upon a stove; upon it and upon a kupach (a kind of stove), it is tamei because it is subject to \"tearing down.\" (If it were placed) upon it and upon (another) stone; upon it and upon a rock (which had never been dislodged); upon it and upon a wall, it is clean, for it is not subject to \"tearing down.\" upon it and upon a projection (from the wall) — if we perceive that it could stand by itself (if the projection were removed), it is tamei; if not, it is clean.",
                "10) (Vayikra 11:35) \"shall be torn down\": I might think that it is a mitzvah to tear them down; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:35) \"and tamei shall they be\" (i.e., they may be retained in a state of tumah and need not be cleansed). (\"and tamei) shall they be to you): for all that serves your needs, including the handles of vessels. From here they ruled: A stone that protrudes a tefach from the oven (to serve as a \"handle\" of the oven), and three fingers from the stove is (considered) a connection (to the oven, so that if the oven becomes tamei, the stone becomes tamei, [but what is added to the tefach does not become tamei, the oven not requiring it]). What protrudes from a kupach — If it were made for baking, its size (for tumah) is that of an oven. If it were made for cooking, its size is that of a stove. R. Yehudah said: Did they not say: Any amount (of protrusion) of the stone from the oven, (even more than a tefach) is tamei, (being considered a handle of the stove). They said (that it is tamei only up to) a tefach (but not longer, when the oven is) between the stone and the wall, (the amount beyond a tefach being slated for removal so that the oven can be moved closer to the wall). If there were two ovens near each other, each is allowed a tefach (for purposes of handle-tumah), and the rest (beyond a tefach) is clean. — But perhaps I include more than that amount (for tumah). — (No, for) it is written \"Tamei shall they (themselves) be\" (and not their protrusions [unless they are needed for your use]). "
            ],
            "Section 9": [
                "1) (Vayikra 11:36) (\"But a spring or a pit where waters are gathered shall be clean; and he who touches their carcass [the carcass of the animals mentioned above] shall be tamei.\") If it were written (only) \"a gathering of waters shall be clean,\" I would think that even if he filled up (containers of water and carried them) on his shoulder and made a mikvah ab initio that it would be valid; it is, therefore, written \"a spring\" — Just as a spring is made by Heaven, so a mikveh must be made by Heaven. — But if so, I would say: Just as there is no involvement of man in a spring, so there must be no involvement of man in a mikveh — to exclude one's placing his vessels on the roof to dry, their filling up with (rain) water, (their breaking, and filling up a pit, in which instance I would think that the water is considered \"drawn\" and that the pit is pasul as a mikvah) — it is, therefore, (to negate this,) written \"a pit.\" If so, I would think that a pit in a boat (i.e., a cavity into which sea water is admitted) would be valid; it is, therefore, written \"a spring.\" Just as a spring is ground-based, a pit, too, must be ground-based. If so, I might think that just as a spring cleanses with any amount (that covers the object), so a mikvah cleanses with any amount. It is, therefore, written \"But a spring\" — a spring cleanses with any amount, but a mikvah requires forty sa'ah.",
                "2) If so, I might think that just as a spring cleanses through running waters, so a mikvah cleanses through running waters; it is, therefore, written \"But a spring\" — a spring cleanses through running waters, but a mikvah, through standing ones.",
                "3) Whence is it derived that if it were tamei (i.e., lacking forty sa'ah), it may be cleansed (i.e., brought up to par)? From \"it shall be clean.\" He responded: But whence do I derive (the same for funneling water from) spring to mikvah, one mikvah to another, a mikvah to a pit, a pit to a pit, a pit to a mikvah? From (reading it as) \"spring … shall be clean,\" \"pit … shall be clean,\" \"and a mikvah of water shall be clean.\"",
                "4) \"a mikvah of water\": and not a mikvah of other liquids. (\"a mikvah of water\":) to exclude (from kashruth), there having fallen into it pickling brine or dye-water and having changed its appearance, (in which instance it invalidates the mikvah even if it lacks three logs). These are the words of R. Meir. For R. Meir was wont to say: Pickling brine and dye water, and all that invalidates with three logs, invalidates also with changing the appearance (of the mikvah water). R. Yossi says: All that invalidates it with three logs (by reason of \"drawn water\") does not invalidate it (with less than three logs) by reason of changing its appearance.",
                "5) \"and he who touches their carcass shall be tamei\": Hillel says: Even if they are in the midst of the water. For I would say: Since (being connected to) the earth rescues (what is connected to it) from becoming tamei (viz. Vayikra 11:27) and the mikvah rescues what is tamei from their tumah, then just as the earth rescues the clean from becoming tamei, so the mikvah rescues the clean from becoming tamei. It is, therefore, written \"and he who touches their carcass shall be unclean,\" even if they are in the midst of the water.",
                "6) R. Yossi Haglili says: \"And he who touches their carcass shall be tamei\": They confer tumah through touching, and not through being carried. (The verse is needed to tell us this,) for should it not follow (otherwise), viz.: If a beast, whose blood was not equated with its flesh, confers tumah through being carried, then a sheretz, whose blood was equated with its flesh, how much more so should it confer tumah through being carried! It must, therefore, be written \"And he who touches their carcass shall be tamei\" — They confer tumah through touching, and not through being carried.",
                "7) R. Akiva says: \"And what touches their carcass shall be tamei\": (\"what\") to include a vessel of bone. (Why is a verse needed for this?) Should it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If wood, whose \"father\" (the tree) is clean, the vessels made of it acquire tumah, then bone, whose \"father\" (flesh) is tamei, how much more so should the vessels made of it acquire tumah! — No, this may be true of wood, which is instrumental in (the tumah of) a plague-stricken house. Would you say the same for bone, which is not instrumental in (the tumah of) a plague-stricken house? Since it is not instrumental in (the tumah of) a plague-stricken house, then the vessels made of it should not acquire tumah. It is, therefore, written \"And what touches their carcass shall be tamei,\" to include vessels made of bone. R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan b. Broka says: (This verse is not needed for this inclusion.) It is already written (Bamidbar 31:20) \"and all work of goats,\" to include (as acquiring tumah) everything that is made from goats, even from their horns (i.e., bones!) and from their hooves. Whence do I derive the same for other beasts and animals? From \"and all work.\" If so, why is \"goats,\" (specifically,) written? To exclude (vessels made from the bones of) birds."
            ],
            "Chapter 11": [
                "1) (Vayikra 11:37) (\"And if there fall of their carcass on any variety of seed which is sown, what is sown, it is clean.\") \"And if there fall of their carcass\": There is of their carcass which imparts tumah, and there is of their carcass which does not impart tumah. This excludes a dried up carcass, which cannot (return to its moistness) by soaking.",
                "2) Whence is it derived that seeds which were tamei, which were sown, are clean? From \"what is sown it is clean.\" I might think that this is so even if it did not take root; it is, therefore, written \"it is\" (i.e., if it did not take root, it remains in its original state of tumah.)",
                "3) \"And if there fall of their carcass on any variety of seed which is sown, what is sown, it is clean. (Vayikra 11:38): And if water be placed upon a seed, and aught of their carcass fall on it, it is unclean to you.\": There are in this (formulation numerous variables): seeds that are tamei and seeds that are clean, rooted to the ground and uprooted from the ground, placing (of water on the seed) by man and placing by Heaven, (seed for) human consumption and (seed for) animal consumption. Distinctions must be made. If you say the rooted are tamei and the uprooted are clean, you have made everything unclean! (for everything was originally rooted.) And if you say the rooted are clean and the uprooted are tamei, you have made a part tamei and a part clean.",
                "4) If you say that \"by Heaven\" they are tamei and \"by man\" they are clean, you have made everything \"tamei\" (for it is impossible that no water fell upon them from the time they were uprooted.) And if you say \"by Heaven\" they are clean and \"by man\" they are tamei, you have made some tamei and some clean. If you say that for animal consumption they are tamei and for human consumption they are clean, you have made everything tamei (for all seed is fit for animal consumption). And if you say that for human consumption they are tamei and for animal consumption they are clean, you have made some tamei and some clean.",
                "5) \"And if water be placed upon a seed\": This teaches us that a sheretz does not confer tumah upon a seed until it has been conditioned (to acquire it by water). — (But why is a verse needed for this?) Can it not be derived inductively? viz.: An earthen vessel confers tumah and a sheretz confers tumah. Just as an earthen vessel confers tumah upon seed only after it (the seed) has been conditioned by water (viz. Vayikra 11:34), so a sheretz confers tumah upon seed only after it has been conditioned. — Would you say such a thing? If you are lenient with an earthen vessel (which is only of first-degree tumah [rishon letumah]), would you be lenient with a sheretz (which is proto-tumah [av hatumah])? You would say that it confers tumah whether or not the seed has been conditioned! It is, therefore, written \"And if water be placed … it is tamei,\" to teach us that a sheretz confers tumah upon seed only after it has been conditioned.",
                "6) This tells me (of susceptibility to tumah) only after conditioning by water. Whence do I derive for inclusion other liquids, like water? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If with earthen vessels, the lesser (tumah, i.e., rishon,) other liquids are equated with water (Vayikra 11:34), then with sheretz, the grave (tumah, i.e., av,) how much more so should other liquids be equated with water! — But, perhaps go in this direction — earthen vessels are the graver, for (even) their atmosphere confers tumah, (as opposed to sheretz, which confers tumah only through touch). It is, therefore, written \"water\"-\"water\" (to cerate an identity [gezeirah shavah]). \"Water\" is written above (Vayikra 11:34) and \"water\" is written below (here). Just as with \"water\" above, other liquids are equated with water, so, with \"water\" below other liquids are equated with water.",
                "7) A different a fortiori argument (to equate other liquids with water, so that the question remains: Why is a verse needed for this?), viz.: If water (that is tamei), which returns to its \"father\" (water) to become clean, (through \"hashakah, [\"leveling\" with clean water]), (yet it) conditions seed (to contract tumah), then (other) liquids, which do not return to their \"father\" to become clean — how much more so should they condition seed (to contract tumah)! — No, this may be so with water, which becomes an av hatumah to confer tumah upon the man (who carries it), and upon his clothing (in the instance of the sprinkling waters of the red heifer), as opposed to (other) liquids, which do not become an av hatumah to this end. And since they do not become an av hatumah to this end, (I would say that) they do not condition seed (to contract tumah. It must, therefore, be written \"water\"-\"water,\" etc.",
                "8) Whence is it derived that thought (i.e., desiring the water that has fallen upon the seed in the instance of sheretz) is equivalent to placing (it there, for purposes of its contracting tumah?) And it follows a fortiori that it should be so, viz.: If with earthen vessels, the lesser (tumah [see Vayikra 11:6) above]), thought is equivalent to placing, then with sheretz, the graver (tumah), how much more so should thought be equivalent to placing! — But, perhaps go in this direction — earthen vessels are the graver, for (even) their atmosphere confers tumah, (as opposed to sheretz, which confers tumah only through touch). It is, therefore, written \"water\"-\"water\" (to create an identity [Gezeirah shavah]). \"Water\" is written above (Vayikra 11:34) and \"water\" is written below (here). Just as with \"water\" above, thought is equivalent to placing, so, with \"water\" below, thought is equivalent to placing.",
                "9) This tells me only of water having been placed upon the seed and still being there. Whence do I derive (the same for) its having dried? From (Vayikra 11:34) \"It is tamei to you\" (in any event). \"It is tamei to you\": all that is for your needs, including the stems of foods (by which they are held), whence they said: The stem of the vine (acquires tumah) a tefach on one side and a tefach on the other. The spine of the bunch, whatever it be. The tail of the bunch, sharikna (whatever it be, of the berries). The stem of the \"broom\" of the palm, four tefachim. The reed of the ear, three tefachim. The \"handle\" of all that is cut, three. And what is not the practice to cut, whatever it be. And the outer husks of grains. I might think (that this is so) even if they were trodden in the threshing floor; it is, therefore, (to exclude these) written \"It (and not what is attached to it) is tamei to you.\""
            ],
            "Section 10": [
                "1) (Vayikra 11:39) (\"And if there die of the beast which it is yours to eat, he who touches its carcass shall be tamei until the evening.\") \"And if there die of the beast\": \"die,\" literally, (and not ever min hechai). \"of the beast\": There is that of the beast which confers tumah, and there is that of the beast which does not confer tumah — to exclude a treifah (an organically defective animal) which was slaughtered, (the shechitah \"cleansing\" it). But does this not follow (even without a verse)? viz.: If we find with an unclean beast that it is not the designation (\"tamei\") that forbids it to be eaten which brings it to a state of tumah, but its death — treifah, too; it is not the designation (\"treifah\") that forbids it to be eaten which brings it to a state of tumah, but its death, (but if there was shechitah before death, it remains clean of tumah). Or go in this direction: An unclean beast was forbidden (for eating) before its death, and a treifah is forbidden before its death. Just as an unclean beast is not cleansed (from carcass tumah) by shechitah, so, a treifah is not cleansed by shechitah. It must, therefore, be written \"of the beast.\" There is that of the beast which confers tumah, and there is that of the beast which does not confer tumah — to exclude a treifah (that was slaughtered) by shechitah.",
                "2) A different argument: An unclean animal may not be eaten, and a treifah may not be eaten. Just as shechitah does not cleanse an unclean animal (from carcass tumah), so, shechitah should not cleanse a treifah (from carcass tumah).",
                "3) No, this may be true of an unclean animal, which never was fit (for eating). Would you say the same for a treifah, which was (before it became a treifah) fit for eating? (Why, then, do we need a verse to tell us that a treifah that was slaughtered by shechitah does not contract carcass tumah)? — Take what you have brought (i.e., Granted.) But how would we know the same for a beast which was treifah from the womb, (which never was fit for eating? And it is for this animal that we need the verse). — No, this may be true of an unclean beast, in whose kind (\"unclean animal\") shechitah does not obtain. Would you say the same for a treifah, in whose kind (\"clean animal\") shechitah does obtain? Why, then, do we need a verse even for a beast which was treifah from the womb?) — Your argument is refuted by a beast born in the eighth month, in whose kind shechitah does obtain (an eight-month fetus is permitted for eating by the shechitah of its mother), and yet shechitah does not cleanse it (itself for eating), so do not wonder about a treifah, which, even if shechitah obtained in its kind (\"clean animal\"), its shechitah would not cleanse it (from carrion tumah.) It must, therefore, be written \"of the beast.\" There is that of the beast which confers tumah, and there is that of the beast which does not confer tumah — to exclude (from carrion tumah) a treifah (that was slaughtered) by shechitah. \"which it (the beast)\": \"It\" confers (carrion) tumah by being carried, but a sheretz does not confer tumah by being carried. For (without a verse) we would say: Does it not follow a fortiori (that a sheretz does confer tumah by being carried), viz.: If a beast, whose blood was not equated with its flesh, (the tumah amount for its flesh being an olive-size, and for its blood, being a revi'ith) (If a beast) confers tumah by being carried, then a sheretz, whose blood was equated with its flesh, (the amount for both being a lentil), how much more so should it confer tumah by being carried! It must, therefore, be written \"it.\" It (a beast) confers tumah by being carried, but a sheretz does not confer tumah by being carried.",
                "4) (Vayikra 11:39) (\"And if there die of the beast which is yours to eat, he that touches its carcass shall be tamei until the evening.\") \"yours\": to include an unclean beast as conferring (carrion) tumah by being carried. (Now why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If a clean beast, whose shechitah cleanses it, confers (carrion) tumah by being carried, how much more so should an unclean beast, whose shechitah does not cleanse it, confer (carrion) tumah by being carried! — This is refuted by sheretz, whose shechitah does not cleanse it and yet it does not confer (carrion) tumah by being carried. You, likewise, should not wonder if an unclean beast, even though its shechitah does not cleanse it, did not confer tumah upon being carried. It must, therefore, be written \"yours,\" to include an unclean beast as conferring tumah by being carried.",
                "5) \"to eat\": to include (in carrion uncleanliness) an eighth-month birth, that its shechitah not cleanse it (from carrion uncleanliness, it being regarded as a dead animal that has been slaughtered.) R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah and R. Elazar b. R. Shimon say: An eighth-month birth — its shechitah cleanses it (from carrion uncleanliness, it being regarded as a treifah that has been slaughtered by shechitah). \"its carcass\": not its bones or its sinews or its horns or its hooves. I might think (that these do not contract carrion tumah) even when they are connected (to the flesh). It is, therefore, written \"shall be tamei\" (to include the above in carrion tumah). \"its carcass\": and not an intact marrow-bone. I might think (that it does not contract carrion tumah) even if it were pierced; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"shall be tamei.\"",
                "6) \"its carcass\": and not the (flesh) scatterings (of the knife). I might think even if they were gathered together. It is, therefore, written \"shall be tamei.\" These are the words of R. Yehudah. \"its carcass\": and not its hide (i.e., If one touches the flayed hide, he does not become tamei). If one flays (a hide) to make a spread (of it), (the amount of hide flayed for it to be considered a yad (\"a handle\" to the carcass and to convey tumah is) until it serves for grasping purposes (but not beyond that). And, (if he flays it) to make a flask, (the amount is) until he flays the entire breast. I might think that I exclude less than that amount (from the designation of \"yad\"); it is, therefore, written \"shall be tamei.\" \"its carcass\": and not its hide which lacks an olive-size of flesh. I might think that I exclude (from tumah) one who touches hide behind which is an olive-size of flesh. It is, therefore, written \"shall be tamei. \"its carcass\": not (even if he touches) two half-olive sizes on the hide, (this not being considered touching the carcass). I might think that (in this instance) he would not become tamei by carrying it; it is, therefore, written: \"And the carrier (shall become tamei\"). These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says \"he that touches … and he that carries\" — What is subject to touching (tumah) is subject to carrying (tumah), and what is not subject to touching is not subject to carrying. And R. Akiva concedes that if he carries two half-olive sizes (of flesh) stuck on a stick he is tamei. Why does R. Akiva rule it clean (in the case of hide)? Because the hide nullifies (the connection of the separate flesh pieces).",
                "7) I might think that the carrion of a beast would confer tumah upon one's clothes (if stuffed) into his esophagus (without his having touches or carried it, it being written (Vayikra 11:40) \"And he who eats it shall wash his clothes\"); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:8) \"Carcass or treifah he shall not eat to become tamei through it\" — (We are speaking of that [a bird]) which confers tumah only through eating (and not through touching or carrying), excluding a beast, which confers tumah before it is eaten (by touching or carrying). I might think that bird carcass confers tumah according to Scripture, and beast carcass, a fortiori; it is, therefore, written \"through it\" — Through \"it\" (bird carcass) confers tumah in the esophagus, and not beast carcass. If so, why is it written (in reference to beast carcass, Vayikra 11:40) \"And he who eats? To assign a (minimum) amount for (tumah of) touching and carrying — Just as for \"eating,\" an olive-size, so, for \"touching,\" an olive-size.",
                "8) See Section 4:9"
            ],
            "Chapter 12": [
                "1) (Vayikra 11:41) (\"And every creeping thing (sheretz) that creeps upon the earth is detestable; it shall not be eaten.\") \"every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth\": to exclude the insects in peas and the mites in lentils and the worms in dates and figs. \"it shall not be eaten\": to include (in liability) the feeder (of a minor) as well as the eater.",
                "2) (Vayikra 11:42) \"that go upon the belly\": This is the snake. \"all that go upon the belly\": to include snails and the like. \"that go upon four\": This is the scorpion. \"all that go upon four\": to include the beetle and the like. \"the many-footed\": This is the centipede. \"until all that are many-footed\" to include their like. \"of all creeping things that creep\": to include the worms in the roots of olives (i.e., while they are attached) and in the roots of figs. \"You shall not eat them\": I might think they could be fed to minors; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 11:41): \"it shall not be eaten.\"",
                "3) (Vayikra 11:43): \"Do not make your souls detestable by (eating) every creeping thing that creeps\" (Vayikra 11:41): \"upon the earth\": to include (for liability) sheratzim that separated (from the host to the earth) and returned (to the host). (Vayikra 11:43): \"and you shall not be tamei by (eating) them\": This tells me only of stringent tumah (i.e., that he does not confer tumah upon men and vessels. Whence is it derived that he does sustain the lesser tumah of himself becoming tamei? From (Vayikra 11:43): \"and you will be rendered tamei through them.\" I might think that their blood and their fats are like them (to render the eater tamei); it is, therefore, written \"through them,\" and not through their blood and their fats. \"And you shall not become tamei with them, and you will be rendered tamei through them\" — If you make yourselves tamei with them, your end will be to have been rendered tamei through them. (Vayikra 11:44) \"For I am the L–rd your G d. And you shall make yourselves holy and you shall be holy, for I am holy.\" Just as I am holy, so are you holy. Just as I am divorced (from the material), so, you, divorce yourselves (from materialism).",
                "4) \"and you shall not make yourselves tamei with every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth\": even if it does not reproduce. (Vayikra 11:45): \"For I am the L–rd, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt\": It is for this reason that I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, on condition that you accept upon yourselves the yoke of mitzvoth. For all who accept the yoke of mitzvoth acknowledge the exodus from Egypt, and all who do not accept the yoke of mitzvoth deny the exodus from Egypt. \"to be a G d to you\" — perforce! \"And you shall be holy, for I am holy.\": Just as I am holy, so you are holy. Just as I am divorced (from the material), so, you, divorce yourselves (from materialism).",
                "5) (Vayikra 11:46): \"This is the law of the beast and the bird\": In which law is the beast similar to the bird, and birds, to the beast? A beast confers tumah by being touched or being carried, and a bird does not confer tumah by being touched or being carried, (but only by being eaten)! A bird confers tumah upon one's clothing (if another stuffs it) into his esophagus; and not, a beast! In which law, then, is the beast similar to the bird, and the bird, to the beast? We are hereby being taught that just as a beast (is slaughtered) by shechitah, so birds (are slaughtered) by shechitah. — If so, (why not say, then, that) just as a beast required two (shechitah) signs (to be severed), so, a bird, requires two, or the greater part of two? It is, therefore, written \"This\" (i.e., only in this respect (shechitah in general) that they are similar, but not in the other). R. Elazar says: In which law is a beast similar to a bird, and a bird to a beast? To teach us that both (are rendered fit) through the throat. — If so, (why not say, then, that) just as a bird (is \"pinched\") opposite its nape (viz. Vayikra 5:8), so a beast, opposite its nape; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 5:8) \"its head\" — the head of a bird opposite its nape, and not the head of a beast.",
                "6) \"… and of every living creature that swarms in the water\": (as requiring \"distinguishing\" [viz. Vayikra 5:47]). \"and of every creature that creeps on the earth\": including grasshoppers. And what is the nature of this \"distinguishing\" (\"havdalah\")? It is not enough to learn about them, but one must have perfect \"recognition\" of which (of them) are unclean and which are clean.",
                "7) (Vayikra 11:47): \"to distinguish between the unclean and the clean\": It should say \"between cow and ass.\" And are they (their differences) not already explained (in the Torah)? What, then, is the intent of \"between the unclean and the clean\"? Between what is unclean to you (through perfect recognition) and clean to you: between shechitah of the greater part of the windpipe (after shechitah of the gullet, in which case it is kasher), and shechitah of half of it (after shechitah of the gullet, in which case it is neveilah). And what constitutes that difference? A full hairsbreadth.",
                "8) \"between the animal which may be eaten and the animal which may not be eaten\": It should say \"between the deer and the arod (a wild ass).\" And are they not already explained? If so, what is the intent of the above? Between a treifah (an animal with a defect), which is kasher (for eating) and a treifah that is unfit. Others say: \"between the animal that may not be eaten\": This is an exhortation (against violation of a negative commandment) vis-à-vis (eating) an (unclean) animal."
            ]
        },
        "Tazria Parashat Yoledet": {
            "Section 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 12:2) (\"Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman give forth seed and bear a male, she shall be unclean seven days; as the days of her menstrual flow shall she be unclean.\") This applies to \"the children of Israel\" and not to gentiles (even if she converted within the days of uncleanliness). \"the children of Israel\": This tells me only of the children of Israel. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) proselytes and maidservants, whether freed or not freed? From (the generic) \"a woman.\" Variantly: Because it is written (Vayikra 15:31): \"And you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanliness, that they not die in their uncleanliness by defiling My sanctuary which is in their midst,\" I might think, whether from its midst or from its back; it is, therefore, written in respect to a yoledeth (a woman after childbirth) (Vayikra 12:4): \"And into the sanctuary she shall not come.\"",
                "2) I might think that a yoledeth, (whose tumah is) of lesser stringency, confers tumah (only) from its (the sanctuary's) midst, and all others who are tamei, both from its midst and from its back. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 15:31) \"the children of Israel.\" The children of Israel are being compared (in context) to a yoledeth. Just as a yoledeth confers tumah only from its midst, so, all (the children of Israel) confer tumah only from its midst.",
                "3) I might think that this (exhortation against defilement of the sanctuary) applies only to grave tumah, (which comes from one's body) as (in the instance of) a yoledeth. Whence do I derive the same for lesser tumah, (which does not come directly from one's body, such as that of touching a dead body, cohabiting with a niddah, and all that confers tumah upon a man? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 15:31) \"by defiling My sanctuary which is in their midst,\" to include all.",
                "4) (\"Speak to the children of Israel …) if she give forth seed and bear\" — to exclude (from the dictum that follows) a woman who had given birth before the \"speaking.\" I might then think that I exclude one who had conceived before the speaking and given birth after the speaking; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 12:5): \"and if she bear a female\" — the criterion is \"bearing\" (and not \"conceiving\"). (Vayikra 12:2): \"… if she give forth seed and bear\": (She assumes birth-uncleanliness) only if the child comes forth only from the place whence it was conceived\" — to exclude a Caesarian birth. R. Shimon says: A Caesarian birth is considered \"born\" (in respect to tumah) and entails the bringing of an offering. It is just exempt from the five sela'im of the redemption of the first-born, (it not being \"the opening of the womb\").",
                "5) (\"and she bear) a male\": Why state this? (i.e., it is obvious from the context that it is a male.) — Because it is written \"and she shall be unclean seven days … (Vayikra 12:3) and on the eighth day he shall circumcise,\" I understand that if he is born alive, he confers birth-uncleanliness upon his mother. Whence do I derive the same for one who is born dead? (For this we need \"a male,\" connoting dead or alive.) — R. Yehudah said: But I can derive this a fortiori, viz.: If one who is born live, who does not confer upon his mother and upon what comes with his mother into a tent seven days (of dead-body) uncleanliness, does confer upon his mother childbirth uncleanliness — then one who is born dead, who does confer upon his mother and upon what comes with his mother into a tent seven days (of dead-body) uncleanliness, how much more so should he confer upon his mother childbirth uncleanliness! (Why, then, is \"a male\" needed?) — They responded: Any a fortiori argument that is expounded — in the beginning, for stringency, and, in the end, for leniency — is no argument — If a living child cleanses his mother (from dead-body uncleanliness), should a dead child do so! It must, therefore, be written \"a male,\" to include a dead child (as conferring childbirth uncleanliness).",
                "6) This tells me only of a nine-month child (i.e., a full-term child). Whence do I derive the same for an eight-month, a seven-month, a six-month, a five-month child? From \"and she bear a male\" — whatever she bears. If \"she bears,\" I would think (only a child) that is born. Whence would I derive for inclusion a miscarriage of a sandal (a flat abortion), or a placenta, or an articulated sac, or a (limb-) articulated discharge? From \"if she give forth seed and bear\" — any seed that she bears.",
                "7) I might then think that if she miscarries what has the appearance of a beast, an animal, or a bird, not having the appearance of a human being, or what has the appearance of a fish, or of hoppers or of creeping things, (I might think) that she is unclean; it is, therefore, written \"a male\" — what has a human form — to exclude what does not have a human form.",
                "8) I might think that if she miscarries an unarticulated head or an unarticulated body or two backs or two spines, since they have a human form, she becomes unclean; it is, therefore, written \"she shall be unclean seven days … and on the eighth day he shall circumcise.\" Just as this betokens what is fit for the creation of a soul, (so there is included all of this kind) — to exclude the above, which are not fit for the creation of a soul. \"and she shall be unclean\": she and not the child. For (without this stipulation), it would follow otherwise, viz.: If, because of the child, which (only) contributed to her tumah, she becomes tamei, then the child itself which effected the tumah, how much more so should it be tamei! — No, this is refuted by the sent-away he-goat (of Yom Kippur), which causes tumah (viz. Vayikra 16:26), but it itself is clean. — No, this may be so with the sent-away he-goat, which is not subject to tumah in and of itself (in its lifetime). Would you say the same of the child, which is subject to tumah in and of itself? Since it is subject to tumah, it should be tamei (in birth)! It must, therefore, be written \"she shall be unclean,\" and not the child.",
                "9) \"and she bear … and she shall be unclean seven days\": (In the event of twins) she counts seven days (both for uncleanliness and cleanliness) from the (birth of the) last. (Why is the verse needed?) Does this not follow (of itself)? viz.: She becomes tamei through a dead body and she becomes tamei through a child. Just as in the first instance she counts seven only for the last (event), so, for the second instance, she counts only for the last birth.",
                "10) Or, go in this direction: She becomes tamei through blood (i.e., niddah) and she becomes tamei through a child. Just as in the first instance, she counts seven only from the first sighting, so, in the second instance, she should count seven only from the first child.",
                "11) Let us see what is most similar (to her situation). We derive tumah which comes from a different source (a child) from tumah which comes from a different source (a dead body), and this is not to be refuted by blood (niddah), which comes from her own body. Or, go in this direction: We derive tumah which comes from her (her child) from tumah which comes from her (niddah), and this is not to be refuted by dead-body tumah, which does not come from her. It must, therefore, be written \"and she bear … and she shall be unclean seven days\" — she counts seven from the last birth.",
                "12) \"seven days\": I might think either consecutive or scattered; it is, therefore, written \"as the days of her menstrual flow.\" Just as in the instance of niddah (the days are consecutive), so, in the instance of childbirth.",
                "13) \"as the days of her menstrual flow\": The days of her childbirth (tumah) are compared to the days of her niddah (tumah). Just as the days of her niddah (tumah) are not subject to zivah (genital discharge tumah), and the counting of seven (clean days of zivah) does not occur within them, so, the days of her childbirth (tumah) are not subject to zivah (tumah), and the counting of seven (clean days of zivah) does not occur within them.",
                "14) (\"as the days of her menstrual) flow shall she be unclean\": including (in tumah) him who cohabits with her (during that period). (\"days…) of her flow shall she be unclean: including all of the nights (as in her niddah state). \"… her flow shall she be unclean\": including (her having three consecutive days of sightings) in her zivah state (out of eleven), and then giving birth, her not being clean until seven clean days (over and above the seven uncleanliness days for birth)."
            ],
            "Chapter 1": [
                "1) (\"And on the eighth day he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin.\") I might think either in the daytime or at night; it is, therefore, written \"the day\" — the day and not the night. This tells me (only) that one circumcised on the eighth day must be circumcised in the daytime. Whence do I derive the same for one who is circumcised on the ninth day or the tenth day or the eleventh day or on any other day? From \"and on the day.\"",
                "2) A certain disciple said before R. Akiva: (\"and on the day\") must be stated (for a different reason, and cannot be used for the above derivation). For if it were written \"and she shall be tamei seven days and on the eighth he shall circumcise,\" I might think (that there is a combination here of) seven (for tumah) and eight (for circumcision), so that circumcision takes place on the fifteenth day. It must, therefore, be written \"and on the day\" (i.e., on the day after the seventh day). R. Akiva responded: \"You have dived into mighty waters and come up with a shard!\" Is it not already written (Bereshith 17:12): \"And at eight days old there shall be circumcised unto you every male throughout your generations!\"",
                "3) \"and on the day\": We are hereby taught that all of the day is valid for circumcision, but \"the zealous are quick to do mitzvoth, as it is written (Bereshith 22:3): \"And Abraham rose early in the morning\" (for the binding of Isaac) \"and he (himself) saddled his ass.\" \"on the eighth day he shall circumcise,\" even on the Sabbath. And how am I to fulfill (Shemoth 31:14): \"Those who desecrate it shall die\"? With all of the other labors, other than that of circumcision. — But perhaps I am to fulfill \"Those who desecrate it shall die\" even with circumcision. And how am I to fulfill \"on the eighth day he shall circumcise\"? Except on the Sabbath. It is, therefore, written (to negate this) \"and on the day,\" (to connote) even on the Sabbath.",
                "4) \"he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin\": though there be a leprous lesion upon it. How, then, am I to fulfill\" (Devarim 24:8): \"Be heedful of the plague-spot of leprosy\"? Except in the instance of circumcision. — But perhaps I am to fulfill \"Be heedful of the plague-spot of leprosy\" even with circumcision. And how am I to fulfill \"he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin\"? When there is no leprous lesion. It is, therefore, written (to negate this) \"the flesh,\" even if there is a leprous lesion upon it.",
                "5) \"his foreskin\": Only when it is clearly (a mitzvah to circumcise) does circumcision countermand the Sabbath, and not when (its being a mitzvah) is in doubt. \"his foreskin\": Only when it is clearly (a mitzvah to circumcise) does circumcision countermand the Sabbath, and not when the child is a hermaphrodite. R. Yehudah says: A hermaphrodite countermands the Sabbath, and not circumcising (a hermaphrodite) is subject to kareth. \"his foreskin\": Only when it is clearly (a mitzvah to circumcise) does circumcision countermand the Sabbath, and not when the child was born at twilight (of the Sabbath, it being possible that the birth was on Friday.) \"his foreskin\": Only when it is clearly (a mitzvah to circumcise) does circumcision countermand the Sabbath, and not when the child is born circumcised. For Beth Shammai say: It is necessary to cause the blood of the covenant to drip from him, and Beth Hillel say: It is not necessary.",
                "6) R. Shimon b. Elazar says: Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not differ on the necessity of causing the blood of the covenant to drip from one who is born circumcised, it being possible that his foreskin is \"sunken.\" Where do they differ? In the instance of one who was proselytized circumcised. Beth Shammai say: It is necessary to cause the blood of the covenant to drip from him, and Beth Hillel say: It is not necessary.",
                "7) \"And thirty days (and three days shall she abide in the blood of cleanliness\"): I might think, either consecutive or scattered; it is, therefore, written \"thirty day\" (lit.) — Just as one day is consecutive, so are thirty. I might then think that the thirty are consecutive, but the three may be either consecutive or scattered; it is, therefore, written \"and thirty days and three days\" — Just as the thirty are consecutive, so the three are consecutive. Why need \"thirty-three days\" be written? (i.e., Since we find that the cleanliness days for a female are doubled, those for a female being sixty-six (viz. Devarim 12:5), we understand that those for a male must be thirty-three.) I might reason: If for a female, for which the days of uncleanliness are many (fourteen), the days of cleanliness are many (sixty-six), than for a male, for which the days of uncleanliness are few (seven), how much more so should the days of cleanliness be many! It is, therefore, written \"thirty-three days.\" \"she shall abide\": to include a woman who experienced labor pains (and bleeding) in the midst of the eleven days (separating her niddah times) as being clean of zivah uncleanliness, (the assumption being that the bleeding was caused by the contractions and not by the zivah). I might think that she would likewise be clean if she experienced this in the midst of her niddah time; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 12:2) \"(any blood that she sees) in (the time of) her niddah flow, she shall be unclean.\" (\"And thirty-three days she shall abide in) the blood of cleanliness\": Even if she sees blood (in that period) she is clean.",
                "8) (Vayikra 12:4) \"All that is holy she shall not touch\": I might think even (second-) tithe, (which is called \"holy\" [viz. Vayikra 27:30]); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 12:4)\" and into the sanctuary she shall not come.\" Just as (entering the sanctuary in a state of tumah) is liable to \"taking of the soul\" (kareth), so (eating) \"holy\" (terumah, in a state of tumah) is liable to \"taking of the soul\" (death at the hands of Heaven, viz. Vayikra 22:9), to exclude the tithe. — But perhaps: Just as one who enters the sanctuary in a state of tumah is liable to kareth, so one who eats \"holy\" in a state of tumah is liable to kareth, to exclude terumah, (which is liable to death at the hands of Heaven.) It is, therefore, written \"All that is holy,\" to include terumah. — But perhaps: Just as (eating) \"holy\" involves touching, so (entering) the sanctuary must involve touching (it). Whence is it derived (that he is liable for entering it even) if he does not touch it, (as when he enters in a box)? From \"and into the sanctuary she shall not come\" (— in any event). \"until the fulfillment of the days of her purification\": to include a woman who bears a female (in the prohibitions against entering the sanctuary and eating consecrated food)."
            ],
            "Chapter 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 12:5) \"And if a female she shall bear\": This tells me only of (a child that is clearly) a female. Whence do I derive the same for one whose sex is in doubt and for a hermaphrodite? From \"she shall bear.\" The criterion (for what follows) is the bearing (And since the sex here is in doubt, we assign her the days of cleanliness for a male, and the days of uncleanliness for a female.) \"then she shall be unclean shvuayim\": two weeks, fourteen days.",
                "2) R. Yehudah b. Roetz was asked by his disciples: We hear \"shivim\" (\"seventy,\" for we follow the written form [without a vav after the beth]). Is it possible that she is unclean for seventy days? He answered: \"Tumah\" and \"taharah\" (cleanliness) are mentioned both in respect to a male and in respect to a female. Just as the days of her taharah (sixty-six) are double those for a male, so the days of her tumah (fourteen) are double those for a male. After they left, he went after them and said to them: What I told you was not really necessary, for we follow the spoken form (and not the written), but this is the reasoning behind it: \"Tumah\" and \"taharah\" are mentioned both in respect to a male and in respect to a female. Just as the days of her taharah are double those for a male, so the days of her tumah are double those for a male. — But perhaps go in this direction: A male, whose days of taharah are few (thirty-three), its days of tumah are few (seven). A female, whose days of taharah are many (sixty-six), how much more so should its days of tumah be few! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written: \"then she shall be unclean shvuayim\" (the spoken form), two weeks, fourteen days.",
                "3) (Vayikra 12:5) \"and sixty days, etc.\": I might think, either consecutive or scattered; it is, therefore, written \"sixty day\" (lit.) — Just as one day is consecutive, so are sixty. I might think that the sixty are consecutive, but the six may be either consecutive or scattered; it is, therefore, written \"and sixty days and six days.\" — Just as the sixty are consecutive, so the six are consecutive. Why need \"sixty-six days\" be written? (I would know that it is double the thirty-three of a male.) (For I would reason:) If for a male, for which the days of uncleanliness are few (seven), the days of cleanliness are few (thirty-three), then for a female, for which the days of uncleanliness are many (fourteen), how much more so should the days of cleanliness be few. It is, therefore, written \"and sixty-six days she shall abide.\" ",
                "4) \"she shall abide in the blood of cleanliness\": to include one who travails (and bleeds) in the midst of the eighty (days) for a female, (where a child remains in the womb two and a half months after the birth of another, one being fully formed in the middle of the seventh month and the other at the end of the ninth) — All the blood that she sees (during that two and a half month period) is clean, until the child is born, (at which time she assumes birth uncleanliness). R. Eliezer rules that it is unclean. They said to R. Eliezer: If in a place where we are stringent, (ruling tamei [zivah tumah]), with a relaxed blood flow — before the birth — we are lenient, (ruling tahor) with a relaxed blood flow — after the birth (in the days of cleanliness) — then, in a place where we are lenient, with a constricted blood flow — before the birth — (if she were in her zivah period and she bled because of the child) — how much more so should we be lenient with a constricted blood flow after the birth! He responded: \"It is sufficient that what is derived a fortiori (constricted bleeding within the \"fulfillment\" [melos] period) be like that which it is derived from\" (constricted bleeding before the birth). In what respect were they lenient with her? In respect to the tumah of zivah; but she remains tamei with the tumah of niddah. They responded: We will answer you with different terminology, (which is not open to your objection), viz.: If in a place, where we are stringent with a relaxed blood flow — before the birth — we are more lenient with a constricted blood flow than with a relaxed one, then, in a place where we are lenient with a relaxed blood flow — after the birth — how much more so should we be lenient with a constricted one! He responded: Even if you answer me the whole day, \"It is sufficient that what is derived a fortiori be like that which it is derived from.\" Just as in the instance of the first constriction, she sustains the tumah of niddah, so, in the instance of the second constriction, she sustains the tumah of niddah. \"in the blood of cleanliness\": Even if she sees (blood), she is clean."
            ],
            "Chapter 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 12:6) (\"And when the days of her purification are fulfilled (melos), for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb in its first year for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering, to the door of the tent of meeting, to the Cohein.\") \"when they are fulfilled\": She does not bring it in the midst of melos; if she does, she has not fulfilled her obligation. I might think that she may not bring it in the midst of melos (for this birth, even) for (the unfulfilled obligations for) previous births; it is, therefore, written \"she shall bring.\" \"for a son\": she is liable for each son. \"for a daughter\": she is liable for each daughter. \"or for a daughter\": to include a woman who miscarried on the eve of the eighty-first day (of melos for a girl) as being liable for an offering, in accordance with the view of Beth Hillel. For Beth Shammai exempt her from an offering (for the miscarriage, even though it took place after melos [the end of the eightieth day]. For since an offering cannot be offered at night, it is considered as if it took place in the midst of melos). Beth Hillel queried Beth Shammai: How is the night preceding the eighty-first day different from the eighty-first day itself? (Furthermore,) if the former is equivalent to the latter for purposes of tumah (i.e., niddah), why should it not be so for purposes of an offering? Beth Shammai responded: No, if this is true of the eighty-first day, it is because she arrived at a time that she could bring an offering (for her first birth). Would you say the same for the night preceding the eighty-first day, when she has not arrived at a time that she can bring an offering? Beth Hillel: But this is refuted by the instance of a woman's miscarrying on the eighty-first day that falls on a Sabbath, in which instance she is liable for an offering even though that day (Sabbath) is not fit for an offering! Beth Shammai: No, for in that instance, even though it is not fit for an individual offering, it is fit for a communal offering, as opposed to the instance of a woman's miscarrying on the night preceding the eighty-first day, the night being fit neither for an individual offering nor for a communal offering.",
                "2) And blood (i.e., your argument from tumah) is no refutation, for if a woman miscarries in the midst of melos, her blood is tamei and yet she is exempt from an offering (so that there is no necessary correction between the two). Beth Hillel said to them: \"or for a daughter\": to include a woman who miscarried on the eve of the eighty-first day (of melos for a girl) as being liable for an offering.",
                "3) \"she shall bring a lamb in its first year for a burnt-offering\": its first year, and not a calendar year. \"and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering\": either one, (but not a beast at all). \"for a sin-offering\": and not a beast for a sin-offering. For does it not follow (that he should be able to bring a beast as a sin-offering), viz.: If in a place (e.g., a rich leper, a clean Nazirite or a high-priest on Yom Kippur) where a bird sin-offering with a beast burnt-offering are not kasher, a beast sin-offering with a beast burnt-offering are kasher, here, where a bird sin-offering with a beast burnt-offering are kasher, how much more so should a beast sin-offering with a beast burnt-offering be kasher; it is, therefore, written \"and a pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering\" — either one, (but not a beast at all). \"to the door of the tent of meeting to the Cohein\": We are hereby taught she tends to them and brings them to the door of the tent of meeting to the Cohein.",
                "4) (Vayikra 12:7) (\"And he shall offer it before the L–rd and make atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the source of her blood. This is the law for her who bears, whether a male or a female.\") \"And he shall offer it\": What is the intent of this? I might think that since two are required both are indispensable (for her purification); it is, therefore, written \"And he shall offer it\" — one is indispensable; the other, not. Still, I would not know which. \"And he shall make atonement\" tells me that just as we find in all instances that atonement is effected through the sin-offering; here, too, atonement is effected through the sin-offering.",
                "5) \"and she shall be cleansed\": to eat of the sacrifices. \"from the source\": We are hereby taught that all the blood that she sees (which makes her tamei) comes only from the source (i.e., the womb). \"her blood(s)\": Numerous bloods are tamei in her: red, black, bright colored crocus, the color of earth-water, and the color of wine diluted with water. Beth Shammai says: Also the color of fenugrec water and of the water of roast meat. Beth Hillel rules these tahor. \"the law for her who bears\": We are hereby taught that she brings one offering for numerous deliveries (within the counting period of the first). How so? If a woman gave birth and then miscarried within the eighty days for a girl, and she again miscarried within the eighty days for a girl, and, likewise, if one miscarried twins (at different intervals), she brings (only) one offering, (for the second). R. Yehudah says: she brings for the first, but not for the second; for the third, but not for the fourth. I might think even after the melos; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"This\" (is the law for her who bears\").",
                "6) A woman who has upon her a safek (a doubt) of five births (as when she miscarried and it is not known what) or a safek of five zivoth (as when she saw three days but does not know whether in her niddah days or in her zivah days), she brings one offering and eats of the sacrifices, and the others are not binding upon her). (If she has upon her) five definite births or five definite zivoth, she brings one offering and eats of the sacrifices, and the others are binding upon her. It once happened that bird-couples rose in Jerusalem to (the price of) a golden dinar, at which R. Shimon b. Gamliel said: (\"I swear by) this Temple that they will be (sold) for silver dinars,\" whereupon he entered beth-din and taught: A woman who has upon her five definite births or five definite zivoth brings one offering and eats of the sacrifices, and the others are binding upon her — whereupon the price fell on that day to (two) bird couples for two revi'ith (of a silver dinar for one)."
            ],
            "Chapter 4": [
                "1) I might think that also for birth and for zivah (uncleanliness) she brings one offering; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"This (is the law for the woman who bears\") (to exclude zivah from that offering). \"whether a male or a female\": to include a miscarriage of a sandal (a flat abortion), or a placenta, or an articulated sac. (Vayikra 12:8): \"And if she has not means enough for a lamb\": We do not tell her to borrow and not to ply her trade. If she has enough for a lamb but not for (its accompanying) needs, whence is it derived that she brings a pauper's offering? From \"enough for a lamb,\" (connoting all that is necessary for a lamb).",
                "2) \"then she shall take two turtle-doves or two young pigeons\": She brings two and not three (i.e., and not an additional one for the lamb that she brings if she is rich). (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow? viz.: She brings from what she can afford, and a leper brings from what he can afford. Just as a (rich) leper brings one for one (a he-lamb for a burnt-offering and a ewe-lamb for a sin-offering, and, if he cannot afford that, two turtle-doves; one for a sin-offering, the other for a burnt-offering), she, too, brings one for one. — But, perhaps go in this direction: She brings from what she can afford, and tamei mikdash (one who eats consecrated food or enters the sanctuary) brings from what he can afford. Just as tamei mikdash brings two for one, (a rich man, a ewe-lamb for a sin-offering, and a poor man two turtle doves, one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering, she, too, brings two for one. Let us see to what she is most similar. We derive one lacking atonement (a woman after childbirth) from one lacking atonement (a leper), and this is not to be refuted by tamei mikdash, who is not lacking atonement (i.e., even though he must bring an offering, he may still eat consecrated food before then) — But, perhaps go in this direction: We derive one (a woman after childbirth) whose \"poor man\" does not bring a beast (for a guilt-offering) from one (tamei mikdash) whose \"poor man\" does not bring a beast, and this is not to be refuted by a leper, whose \"poor man\" does bring a beast. It is, therefore, written \"then she shall take two turtle-doves or two young pigeons.\" She brings two and not three.",
                "3) \"one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering\": Wherever a sin-offering is being replaced (by a bird, as in the case of tamei mikdash), \"sin-offering\" precedes \"burnt-offering\" (viz. Vayikra 5:7), and here, where a burnt-offering is being replaced, \"burnt-offering\" precedes \"sin-offering.\" Wherever it (the bird-offering) comes for a sin, (as in tamei mikdash), \"sin-offering\" precedes \"burnt-offering.\" Here, where it does not come for a sin, \"burnt-offering\" precedes \"sin-offering.\" Wherever two (birds) come in place of a sin-offering, (as in tamei mikdash), \"sin-offering\" precedes \"burnt-offering.\" Here, where two do not come in place of a sin-offering, \"burnt-offering\" precedes \"sin-offering.\" Variantly: What is the intent of \"one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering\" (when in the other instances \"sin-offering\" precedes \"burnt-offering\")? Because in the instances where \"sin-offering\" precedes \"burnt-offering,\" if he brings the sin-offering first, he must bring the burnt-offering of the same kind (pigeon or turtle-dove) as the sin-offering — whence is it derived that if (in our instance) she brought the burnt-offering first, she must bring the sin-offering of the same kind as the burnt-offering? From \"one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering.\" Variantly: If she brought a turtle-dove for her sin-offering and a pigeon for her burnt-offering, she \"doubles\" and brings a turtle-dove for her burnt-offering. If she brought a turtle-dove for her burnt-offering and a pigeon for her sin-offering, she \"doubles\" and brings a pigeon for her burnt-offering, (the sin-offering serving as the criterion, for it is it which effects atonement). Ben Azzai says: We follow the first (as per the first variant). \"one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering and the Cohein shall make atonement for her\": We are hereby taught (by the proximity of \"sin-offering\" to the next word \"vechiper\" [atonement]) that it is the sin-offering which effects atonement. \"and she shall be clean\": to eat of the sacrifices."
            ]
        },
        "Tazria Parashat Nega'im": {
            "Section 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:1) (\"And the L–rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying: (Vayikra 13:2) A man, if there shall be in the skin of his flesh se'eth or sapachath or bahereth, and it become in the skin of his flesh a plague-spot of leprosy, then he shall be brought to Aaron the Cohein or to one of his sons, the Cohanim.\") \"if there shall be in the skin of his flesh\": What is the intent of this (\"shall be\" rather than \"is\")? Because it is written (Vayikra 13:38) \"And a man or a woman, if there be in the skin of their flesh white beharoth … he is clean,\" this tells me only of beharoth which did not arrive at the status of maroth (\"appearances\" [of plague-spots]) viz.: plague-spots (negaim) which appeared in a non-Jew before he became a proselyte (even though it remained the same after his conversion; (a plague-spot) in a fetus before it was born (which could not be inspected by the Cohein in utero, and which remained the same after birth); in a crease (in the flesh) which was (later) revealed (when the flesh became taut); in the head and the beard (which appeared when he became bald); in a \"rebellious\" boil or burn or inflammation — (All of these are clean even though they are now \"maroth,\" because when they originated they were not susceptible of inspection by the Cohein. What is their status) if their appearance changes, either lessening or deepening in intensity? R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: It is clean, (for though it changed in appearance, it still originated from the first, non-inspectable plague-spot). R. Elazar b. Chasma says: If of lesser intensity, it is clean (being a \"waning\" of the original plague-spot); if of deeper intensity, it is to be inspected anew, (being considered a new plague-spot). R. Akiva says: Whether of lesser or deeper intensity it is to be inspected anew. (And) it is in this connection that it is written \"A man, if there shall be\" (connoting a change [i.e., deeper or lesser intensity] from a pre-existing condition).",
                "2) \"if there shall be\": from this pronouncement on, (and not what may have existed before it, (their being in this respect like a proselyte before conversion [see above]). — (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow? viz.: Zavim (those with a genital discharge) are tamei, and (those with) negaim are tamei. Just as (tumah) does not obtain with zavim before the pronouncement, so, it does not obtain with negaim before the pronouncement.",
                "3) (And it also follows) a fortiori, viz.: If tumah does not obtain before the pronouncement, with zavim, whose tumah and taharah are determined by all men (and not only Cohanim), it certainly does not obtain before the pronouncement with negaim, whose tumah and taharah is determined only by a Cohein! — No, this (that tumah does not obtain before the pronouncement) may be so with zavim, who do not become tamei by accident (i.e., through some external cause, like eating, drinking, jumping and the like), as opposed to (those with) negaim, who do become tamei by accident (i.e., if the nega originates through a burn or the like). (We would think that) since this is so, they (negaim) would be tamei before the pronouncement. It is, therefore, written \"if there shall be,\" from the pronouncement on.",
                "4) (Vayikra 13:2) (\"A man, if there be in the skin of his flesh se'eth or sapachath or bahereth, and it shall be in the skin of his flesh a plague-spot of leprosy, then he shall be brought to Aaron the Cohein or to one of his sons, the Cohanim.\") \"in the skin of his flesh\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 13:3) \"and hair in the plague-spot had turned white,\" I would think that this denotes only a site where white hair can grow. Whence would I derive (for inclusion) even a site where white hair cannot grow (like the palm of the hand)? From (the redundant) \"in the skin of his flesh.\" \"se'eth\": This is (the distinct plague-spot known as) \"se'eth.\" \"bahereth\": This is (the distinct plague-spot known as) \"bahereth.\" \"sapachath\": This is an adjunct to (i.e., a lesser form of) se'eth, and its appearance is of lesser depth than that of bahereth. What is signified by \"se'eth\"? A \"rising,\" as the appearance of a shadow, which seems higher than that of the sun. What is signified by (Vayikra 13:3) \"deeper\"? As the appearance of the sun, which seems deeper than that of the shadow. What is signified by \"sapachath\"? \"adjunct,\" as it is written (I Samuel 2:36) \"Join me ('sefacheini'), I pray you, to one of the priests' offices.\" \"and it shall be\": (We are hereby taught [by its being written \"and it shall be\" rather than \"and they (se'eth, sapachath, and bahereth) shall be\"]) that they combine with each other for purposes of negation (of leprosy), confirmation, and quarantine. \"in the skin of his flesh\": in (i.e., relative to) the skin of the flesh of the observed. In this connection it was stated: A very bright spot seems dull in a (light-complected) German, and a dull spot in an Ethiopian seems bright.",
                "5) R. Yishmael says: The children of Israel (\"may I be an atonement for them\") are like the eshkeroa (the box-tree), neither black nor white but intermediate. R. Akiva says: The painters have dyes by which they paint figures that are black, white, or intermediate. (In the inspection of a plague-spot) the intermediate dye is brought and placed around the outside (of the plague-spot) and gives the appearance of \"intermediate.\" R. Yehudah says: One verse (I Samuel 2:2) states \"in the skin of his flesh\" and another (I Samuel 2:3) \"in the skin of the flesh.\" We are hereby taught that plague-spots are inspected with leniency and not with stringency. The German is inspected relative to his flesh, for leniency — thus, in the skin of his flesh,\" and the Ethiopian, through the intermediate (dye), for leniency — thus, \"in the skin of the flesh.\" And the sages say: Both (are inspected) through the intermediate (dye).",
                "6) \"and it shall be … a plague-spot (lenega)\": We are hereby taught (that in order for it to qualify as a plague-spot) it must give him pain, (this being the connotation of \"nega\"). And whence do we derive that others, too, when they witness his pain, must, likewise, \"feel\" his pain? From \"lenega.\" The (redundant) \"leprosy\" indicates that it must be (at least) the size of a garis (a bean). (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow? viz.: \"timei\" is written here (I Samuel 2:3), and \"timei\" is written in respect to michyah (I Samuel 2:25). Just as there, the size of a garis; here, too, the size of a garis.",
                "7) — No, this may be so of michyah, whose middle must be the size of a lentil, as opposed to \"white hair\" (I Samuel 2:3), the site of which need not be of any prescribed size; it is, therefore, written \"the size of a garis.\"",
                "8) \"then he shall be brought to Aaron\": This tells me only of Aaron himself. Whence do I derive (the suitability of) another Cohein? From \"the Cohein.\" Whence do I derive (the suitability [for inspection] of) blemished (Cohanim)? From \"his sons\" (even though they may not perform the sacrificial service). I might then think that even chalalim (those unfit for the priesthood) are included? It is, therefore, written \"the Cohanim,\" excluding chalalim. And whence do I derive (the validity of) any Jew (in the absence of a Cohein? From \"or to one (of his sons\").",
                "9) If in the end all Jews are included (for inspection), why is it written \"of his sons, the Cohanim\"? To teach that the pronouncement of \"tumah\" and \"taharah\" must be made by a Cohein. How is this effected? An Israelite sage inspects the plague-spots and says to the Cohein, even if he himself is unversed (in their inspection): Say \"tamei,\" and he says \"tamei\"; say \"tahor,\" and he says \"tahor.\" Variantly: What is the intent of \"or to one of his sons, the Cohanim\"? Because it is written (Devarim 21:5): \"And by their word (that of the Cohanim) shall every contention and every plague-spot be (ruled upon)\" — Contentions are hereby compared to plague-spots. Just as plague-spots are adjudicated in the daytime, so, contentions are to be adjudicated in the daytime.",
                "10) Just as contentions (are to be adjudicated) not by kin, plague-spots, too, not by kin. — But perhaps just as contentions by three (judges), plague-spots, too, by three! And, what is more, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If money matters (are adjudicated) by three, how much more so must (matters affecting) his \"body\" be (adjudicated) by three! It must, therefore, be written \"or to one of his sons, the Cohanim\" — only one inspects the plague-spots."
            ],
            "Chapter 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:3) (\"And the Cohein shall see the plague-spot in the skin of the flesh. If hair in the plague-spot has turned white, and the appearance of the plague-spot is deeper than the skin of his flesh, then it is a plague-spot of leprosy; and the Cohein shall see it and he shall declare him unclean.\") \"and the Cohein shall see the plague-spot\": His eyes should be intently upon it when he inspects it. \"in the skin of the flesh\": intermediate (i.e., even if he is an Ethiopian, he is seen as \"intermediate\" [viz. Chapter 1:5]). \"in the skin of the flesh\": He should inspect all the flesh with it as one (to see if it has spread). R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: The nega must be outside the skin of the flesh, right next to it, so that it lends itself to spreading. For if it were right next to the head, the beard, or a \"rebellious\" boil or burn or inflammation (viz. Chapter 1:1), it would not be tamei. ",
                "2) \"If hair in the plague-spot\": at least two hairs. \"in the plague-spot\": to include (as tamei) a hair rooted in the nega and lying outside of it; to exclude a hair rooted outside the nega and lying in it. \"has turned white\": and not (if it was white) before (the appearance of the plague-spot). From here they ruled: If the bahereth preceded the white hair, he is tamei; if the white hair preceded the bahereth, he is tahor; if there is a doubt (as to which preceded which), he is tamei. R. Yehoshua says: It is \"dim\" (and he is to be quarantined).",
                "3) \"If the hair in the plague-spot has turned white\": From here they ruled: (If there were) two hairs, their roots (\"in the plague-spot\") black and their tops white, he is tahor; their roots white and their tops black, he is tamei. How large must the white be (to render him tamei)? R. Meir says: Any size. The sages say: The standard size (i.e., large enough for the scissors to cut). R. Meir says: Men should not think that they are judged by the whole hair, but if the root of the hair (\"in the plague-spot\") is white, he is tamei; and if it is not white, he is tahor.",
                "4) \"has turned white\": and not red, and not green, and not black. I would exclude all of these, but not yellow. And I would derive it a fortiori, viz.: If white hair, which is not a sign of tumah in a netek (a scall, viz. 13:30), is a sign of tumah in a nega, then yellow hair, which is a sign of tumah in a netek (viz. 32), how much more so should it be a sign of tumah in a nega! It is, therefore, written: \"white hair,\" and not yellow.",
                "5) \"and the appearance … is deeper\": but in actuality it is not deeper. \"the appearance of the plague-spot is deep\": but not the appearance of the white hair. \"the appearance of the plague-spot\": to include a fourth appearance (viz. Chapter 1:4). \"it is a plague-spot of leprosy\": There is no fifth appearance.",
                "6) \"a plague-spot of leprosy and he shall see it\": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 15:11) \"And the Cohein shall declare him tamei; he shall not quarantine him\" we learn that a confirmed leper is not to be quarantined.",
                "7) Whence is it derived that a quarantined leper is not to be confirmed, that a quarantined leper is not to be quarantined (i.e., his quarantine is not to be applied to a second plague-spot), and that a confirmed leper is not to be confirmed (i.e., his confirmation is not to be applied to a second plague-spot)? From \"he shall not quarantine him for he is tamei\" — Everyone who has been called tamei is not to be attended (for new eruptions within that period).",
                "8) I might think that (if both negaim originated together, the second arising before he had been quarantined for the first, etc.) he could not say: You are quarantined for this one and confirmed for this one, confirmed for this one and quarantined for this one, quarantined for this one and quarantined for this one, confirmed for this one and for this one — it is, therefore, written \"a nega … and he shall inspect it\"; \"tzara'ath and he shall inspect it\" (connoting that he inspects both at the same time [as in the above]). \"and he shall see it\": all as one. If it were at the tip of his nose, slanting in both directions, (so that he could not inspect the whole nega at the sighting), at the tip of his finger, slanting in both directions, he is not tamei.",
                "9) From here they ruled: There are twenty-four limb tips in a man which (because they cannot be observed in one sighting) do not become tamei by reason of michyah (viz. Vayikra 13:10): the finger tips of hands and feet, the ear tips, the nose tip, the membrum tip, and the breast tips in a woman. R. Yehudah says: also those of a man. R. Elazar says: Yevuloth, dildulim, and masmeroth (types of warts) are not tamei by reason of michyah (because they cannot be observed in one sighting).",
                "10) \"and he shall declare him unclean\": \"him,\" and not one who tears the tumah signs out of his plague-spot before he comes to the Cohein. R. Akiva said: I asked R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua going to Nadvad: (If he did so) in the midst of his quarantine what is the halachah? They answered: We have not heard it. But we did hear that (if he did so) before coming to the Cohein he is tahor; after his confirmation, he is tamei. I began to bring them proofs why it is that before he came to the Cohein he is tamei. It is not because the Cohein did not see the tumah signs, (for even if he did see them but did not pronounce him tamei, he is tahor). Even (if he did so) in the midst of his quarantine, he is tahor until the Cohein pronounces him tamei. Variantly: They said to me: You have said well. When does he (one who tore out his tumah signs after his confirmation) become tahor? R. Elazar says: when he develops another plague-spot and is cleared of it, (this indicating that the first nega, too, would have healed, as this one did.) The sages say: when it (the second nega) sprouts (and covers) all (the skin or the first nega; see 13:12), or when his plague-spot diminished in size to less than a garis (before he cut the tumah signs, in which instance he does not become tamei in the first place.) "
            ],
            "Section 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:4) (\"And if it is a white bahereth in the skin of his flesh, and its appearance is not deeper than the skin, and its hair has not turned white, then the Cohein shall quarantine the plague-spot for seven days.\") This tells me only of a white bahereth. Whence do we derive for inclusion a (white) se'eth? From (Vayikra 13:10) \"a white se'eth.\" Whence are other (white) appearances derived? From \"And if a bahereth.\"",
                "2) I might think that just as it (bahereth) is third in order of the verse (Vayikra 13:2), it is third in order of appearance (i.e., of brightness); it is, therefore, written \"white.\" It is white and there is no (white) above it in brightness. And what is its whiteness like? Like (the whiteness of) snow, as it is written (Bamidbar 12:10) \"And, behold, Miriam was as leprous as snow.\"",
                "3) I might think that every appearance of snow is tamei and that all other appearances are tahor. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:39) \"It is a bohak (brightness) … it is clean\": It is clean, but everything above it (in brightness) is tamei.",
                "4) From here they ruled: The appearances of negaim are two, which are four: Bahereth is bright as snow. Second to it (in brightness) is the plaster of the Temple (walls). Se'eth is (bright) as the membrane of an egg. Second to it is (the brightness of) white wool. These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: Se'eth is (bright) as wool. Second to it is the membrane of an egg.",
                "5) The variation of snow (in a nega) is like wine mixed with snow. The variation of plaster is like blood mixed with milk. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: \"adamdam\" (reddish) in both (viz. Vayikra 13:24) is like wine mixed with water; but that of snow is more intense, and that of plaster, duller.",
                "6) R. Chanina, the adjutant high-priest, says: The appearances of plague-spots are sixteen. R. Dossa b. Hyrcanus says: They are thirty-six. Akavya b. Mehalalel says: They are seventy-two. R. Yossi said: R. Yehoshua b. R. Akiva asked R. Akiva: Why did they say \"The appearances of negaim are two, which are four\"? R. Akiva: If not, what should they say? R. Yehoshua: They should say: From the membrane of an egg and above it (in brightness) is tamei. R. Akiva: To teach us that they combine with each other (to form the prescribed size for tumah). R. Yehoshua: Then let them say: Everything from the membrane of an egg and above (in brightness), and they combine with each other. R. Akiva: To teach us that if one is not expert in them and in their names he should not inspect negaim.",
                "7) \"and its hair has not turned white\": its hair and not the hair of its michyah (a kind of scar, viz. 13:24). How so? If the bahereth were the size of a garis, and in it a michyah the size of a lentil, and a white hair in the midst of the michyah — if the michyah leaves, it is tamei by reason of white hair; if the white hair leaves, it is tamei by reason of michyah. R. Shimon rules it tahor because it is not the bahereth that turned the hair white, (but the michyah). They said to him: Is it not written (3) \"if hair in the plague-spot has turned white\"? It is a plague-spot, in any event.",
                "8) \"and its hair has not turned white\": and not the hair of part of it. How so? A bahereth and its michyah is a garis, and there is white hair in the midst of the bahereth — if the michyah leaves, it is tamei by reason of white hair; if the white hair leaves, it is tamei by reason of michyah. R. Shimon rules it tahor because it is not a bahereth the size of a garis that turned it white, (its michyah having rendered it less than a garis). And all agree that if there is in the site of the white hair the size of a garis (aside from the michyah), it is tamei.",
                "9) \"and its hair has not turned white, then he shall quarantine\" — the black hair does not detract (from the required tumah size of the bahereth, for which reason he must be quarantined). The disciples asked R. Yossi: If there were a bahereth with black hair in it, do we suspect that it detracts from its (required tumah) size of a garis? He answered: If there were a bahereth with white hair in it do we suspect that it detracts from its size of a garis! (Why, then, should we suspect so for black hair?) The disciples: If they said so for white hair, which is a sign of tumah, should we say so for black hair which is not a sign of tumah? R. Yossi: In an instance of ten white hairs, where only two are signs of tumah, do we suspect that the remaining ones detract from the bahereth's (required tumah) size of a garis? The disciples: No, but that may be so with white hair, which is of the kind that becomes tamei. Would you say the same for black hair, which is not of the kind that becomes tamei? R. Yossi: Even black hair turns into the kind which becomes tamei, and, (if this does not suffice for you), it is written \"and its hair has not turned white, then he shall quarantine\" — the black hair does not detract (from the required tumah size of a garis). \"then the Cohein shall quarantine the plague-spot for seven days\" — to begin with."
            ],
            "Chapter 2*": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:5) (\"And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day. And if the plague-spot appears as it did before, if it did not spread in the skin, then the Cohein shall quarantine him for a second seven days.\") \"on the seventh day\": I might think either in the daytime or at night. It is, therefore, written \"on the day,\" and not at night.",
                "2) I might think that all of the inspections of the day are kasher. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:12): \"to all the sight of the eyes of the Cohein.\" Just as with the Cohein — except when the light of his eyes has dimmed, so with the day — except when the light of the day has dimmed.",
                "3) From here they ruled: Plague-spots are not inspected in the early morning or at twilight or inside the house or on a cloudy day, for then what is dull appears bright; and not at mid-day, for then what is bright appears dull. When are they inspected? On the third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth hours. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: On the fourth, fifth, eighth, and ninth hours. R. Yossi says: On the fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth hours, but I accept the words of the great one (R. Yehudah).",
                "4) \"and if the plague-spot appears as it did before\": For if the nega was bright and it dimmed, (it is as if it was never bright); if it was dim and it brightened, it is as if it never dimmed (and he must be quarantined again, for it is regarded as appearing as it did before [unless it changes to the extent that it leaves the category of \"the four appearances,\" viz. Section 2:4]). \"and the plague-spot has not spread\": For if it contracted and it spread, (it is as if it never contracted); and if it spread and contracted, it is as if it never spread. \"then the Cohein shall quarantine for a second seven days\": We are hereby taught that the seventh day is part of the count, both for what precedes (i.e., it is the last of the first seven) and for what follows (i.e., it is the first of the second seven). (Vayikra 13:6) (\"And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day again. If the plague-spot is dim, and the plague-spot has not spread on the skin, then the Cohein shall declare him clean; it is a mispachath (a kind of clean plague-spot). And he shall wash his clothes and he is clean.\") \"And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day again\": The Cohein who sees him the first time sees him the second time; and if he died, a different Cohein sees him.",
                "5) \"If the plague-spot is dim\": I might think below (the brightness of) the four appearances; it is, therefore, written \"the plague-spot,\" i.e., it is still a plague-spot. If \"the plague-spot\" (alone were written), I might think, as its (original) appearance. It is, therefore, written \"and, behold, it is dim.\" How so? It is dimmer than its original appearance, but not below (all of) the four appearances (and even so he is declared tahor).",
                "6) \"and it is dim\": If it were bright (in the beginning), and it became dim (i.e., the dimmest of the four plague-spots), it is as if it were never bright (and he is declared tahor). \"the plague-spot\": If it were dim (in the beginning), and it became bright (even as snow), it is as if it were never dim (and it [along with the above], is regarded as \"appearing as it did before\" [viz. Vayikra 13:5], and he is tahor).",
                "7) \"has not spread\": If it had diminished (to less than the size of a garis) and then spread (to its appearance of the previous sighting), it is as if it had never diminished (and is regarded as \"appearing as it did before,\" and he is tahor). \"the plague-spot\": If it had spread and then diminished (to its appearance at the previous sighting), it is as if it had never diminished (and is regarded as \"appearing as it did before,\" and he is tahor).",
                "8) If they (i.e., the essential words) have been stated in relation to the first week (Vayikra 13:5), why need they be restated in relation to the second week (Vayikra 13:6)? (i.e., let it simply be written \"And the Cohein shall see it on the seventh day again and he shall declare him clean\"?) — Because if a plague-spot in a garment remains unchanged the first week, it (the garment) is quarantined; and if it remains unchanged the second week, it is burned (see Vayikra 13:50-52). But if a plague-spot in a man remains unchanged the first week, he is quarantined; and if it remains unchanged the second week, he is declared tahor. (And if this were not clearly spelled out in 13:6, we would say that as a garment in those circumstances is burned at the end of the second week, so a man in those circumstances is to be declared tamei at the end of the second week. [And we would understand \"And the Cohein shall declare him clean\" as applying to an instance in which he was healed of the plague-spot]). It must, therefore, be spelled out in both the first week and the second week.",
                "9) \"Then the Cohein shall declare him clean; it is a mispachath,\": even though its appearance did not change (i.e., even if it did not leave the category of the four appearances, but only changed from its appearance to a different one.) I might think (that it is a mispachath) even if it (part of the garis) left (after he was declared tahor) and returned. It is, therefore, written \"it is a mispachath\" (and not a returned garis). What should be done with it? R. Yehudah says: It is to be inspected as in the beginning, and the sages rule it to be tahor.",
                "10) \"and he shall wash his clothes\": so that he not (render things) tamei (by entering a house). \"and he is clean\": He does not require letting his hair grow long, and rending his garments, and shaving his hair, and birds. \"and he shall wash his clothes\": I might think that he is thereby \"dismissed.\" It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:7) \"and if it shall spread, etc.\" he is tamei.\"",
                "11) This tells me (that he is tamei) only (if it spreads in) its (original) appearance. Whence do I derive the same for (its spreading) not in its (original) appearance? From \"spread it shall spread\" (— in any event).",
                "12) Whence is it derived that if he were confirmed (as tamei) through a spreading, and the spreading left, and then it returned — and, similarly, (through) white hair and michyah (see Vayikra 13:24) — whether in the end of the first week, the end of the second week, or after his exemption (from tumah) — that he reverts to his original status (of tumah)? From \"and if spread it shall spread.\"",
                "13) I might think that the spreading imparts tumah in the beginning, (before the quarantine); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:7) \"after he has shown himself to the Cohein.\" I might think that if the Cohein sees it spreading (the first time he sees him), he should address himself to it (in the context of the laws of spreading); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:7) \"for his cleansing\" — He does not address himself to it (the spreading) until he sees him (for the purpose of bringing him) from a state of tumah to a state of taharah (i.e., the second time he sees him, as opposed to the first time, when he is not yet in a state of tumah). (Vayikra 13:7) \"then he shall show himself a second time to the Cohein.\": The Cohein who sees him the first time sees him the second time; and if he died (in the interim), a different Cohein sees him.",
                "14) (Vayikra 13:8) (\"And the Cohein shall see: If the mispachath has spread in the skin, then the Cohein shall declare him unclean. It (the mispachath) is leprosy.\") This comes to teach us about the spreading that it is tamei only with four appearances, those with which the um (the original spot) becomes tamei.",
                "15) And does this not follow, viz.: The um becomes tamei and the spreading becomes tamei. Just as the um becomes tamei only with four appearances, so the spreading becomes tamei only with four appearances.",
                "16) — But why not go in this direction? viz.: White hair is a sign of tumah, and spreading is a sign of tumah. Just as white hair is tamei with all appearances of white, (even those below the brightness of the four appearances), so spreading is tamei with all appearances of white!",
                "17) Let us see what it (spreading) most closely resembles. We derive a thing (spreading) which causes tumah in all plague-spots (those of house, garments, and men) from a thing (the um) which obtains in all plague-spots, and this is not to be refuted by white hair, which des not obtain in all plague-spots (but only in the skin of the flesh). — But why not go in this direction? viz.: We derive a thing (spreading) which is a sign of tumah, from a thing (white hair) which is a sign of tumah, and this is not to be refuted by the um, which (in itself is not a sign of tumah). It is, therefore, written \"Then the Cohein shall declare him unclean; it is leprosy\" — it becomes tamei only with the four appearances (of leprosy). \"It (becomes tamei\") — to exclude a spreading of bohak (\"glistening white,\" not directly related to the leprosy)."
            ],
            "Section 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:9) (\"A plague-spot of leprosy, if it be in a man, then he shall be brought to the Cohein. (Vayikra 13:10) And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, a white se'eth in the skin, and it has turned the hair white, and the healthiness (michyah) of living flesh within the se'eth\"): \"a plague-spot of leprosy\": What is the intent of this? From \"and, behold, a white se'eth\" we learn that a se'eth becomes tamei with a michyah. Whence do we derive the same for the other appearances? (From \"a plague-spot of leprosy.\") — But does this not follow (even without the verse)? viz.: If we find all of the other appearances to be similar to se'eth vis-à-vis becoming tamei through white hair, let them be similar to se'eth vis-à-vis becoming tamei through michyah. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If all of the appearances are similar to se'eth to become tamei through white hair, which does not confer tumah in karachath (back of the head) and gabachath (front of the head, viz. Vayikra 13:42-43), how much more so should they be similar to se'eth to become tamei through michyah, which does confer tumah in karachath and gabachath! — No, if all of the other appearances are similar to se'eth to become tamei through white hair, it is because white hair confers tumah in shechin (boils) and michvah (burns). Should they then be similar to se'eth to become tamei through michyah, which does not confer tumah in shechin and michvah! It must, therefore, be written \"a plague-spot of leprosy\" (to tell us that they do become tamei through michyah. And just as a se'eth is an um (a generator of leprosy), so is a bahereth an um. And whence do we derive the same for the other appearances? From the same a fortiori argument (as above) and from the same answer, viz. (It is derived) from \"a plague-spot of leprosy.\"",
                "2) \"if it be\": from the pronouncement on (see Section 1:2). \"in a man\": to include the plague-spot appearing in all of the man — that the michyah makes him tamei (i.e., even though if all of the man turned white he is tahor (viz. Vayikra 13:13), still, if there is a michyah in the plague-spot, he is tamei because of the michyah.) Now (why is a verse needed to tell me this?) does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If a michyah causes tumah in a small bahereth (the size of a garis), how much more so does it cause tumah in a large bahereth (which covers his entire body! — No, this may be true of a small bahereth, which is a sign of tumah. Would you then say the same for a large bahereth, which is not a sign of tumah! Since it is not a sign of tumah, (we would say that) a michyah should not cause tumah in it. It must, therefore, be written \"in a man,\" to include a plague-spot appearing in all of the man — that the michyah makes him tamei.",
                "3) If they called the Cohein to see one plague-spot, and there erupted in it another plague-spot (before he quarantined or confirmed the first), whence is it derived that he examines it? From \"and the Cohein shall see, and, behold (connoting something novel) a se'eth.\" \"and it has turned the hair white\": (only if) it has turned the hair white), and not a neighboring spot. How so? If one had a bahereth the size of a garis with white hair in it, and the bahereth disappeared and left the white hair in its place, and the bahereth returned —",
                "4) this is \"deposited hair,\" which Akavya b. Mehalalel rules tamei and the sages, tahor. R. Akiva said: I concede that in this instance he is tahor. What is \"deposited hair\" (which confers tumah, as per Akavya)? If one had a bahereth with two hairs in it, and a half-garis disappeared and left white hair in the place of the bahereth, and then it returned. They said to him: Just as they (the sages) nullified the words of Akavya, so, your words do not stand.",
                "5) \"and it has turned (the hair white\"): All of it (the plague-spot) has turned (the hair white), and not part of it. How so? A bahereth of half a garis and in it two (white) hairs (generated by this bahereth.) (Even if) another half-garis bahereth erupted, and in it another (white) hair, the plague-spot is to be quarantined (and not confirmed, the hairs not combining (for confirmation). For the first hairs are considered non-existent, only part of a plague-spot having generated them).",
                "6) \"and it has turned (the hair white\"): (The connotation is that) all of it has turned all of it (white), and not that all of it has turned part of it (white). How so? A bahereth of half a garis, and in it (was generated) one (white) hair. If another half-garis bahereth erupted, and in it (was generated) another white hair, it is to be quarantined. A bahereth of half a garis, and nothing in it, and there erupted another half-garis bahereth, and two hairs (were generated), it is to be confirmed, for the (whole) bahereth turned all of it (white).",
                "7) \"and the michyah of living flesh (within the se'eth\"): I might think that any amount (of living flesh sufficed); it is, therefore, written: \"white hair and michyah\": Just as \"white hair\" connotes space for (at least) two hairs, so, michyah connotes that space.",
                "8) I might think that it were not (tamei) unless both white hair and michyah obtained; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:11) \"It (the michyah) is old leprosy.\" It (the michyah itself) is tamei, and it requires no further adjunct.",
                "9) If so, why are (both) \"white hair and michyah\" written (and not \"or michyah\")? To teach that the michyah is not tamei unless it has space for both.",
                "10) I might then think that (the meaning was space for) white hair on one side and for michyah on the other side (i.e., space for four hairs); it is, therefore, written \"within the se'eth\" — surrounded by the se'eth.",
                "11) How so? Space for two hairs on its (the michyah's) right and two hairs on its left, and thus above and below — squared; in all, (space for) thirty-six hairs — the body of the bahereth (with the michyah in its midst) thus being found to be (the size of) a Cilician garis squared. \"living flesh\": and not a boil; \"living flesh\": and not white scurf. \"within the se'eth\": and not within a boil; \"within the se'eth: and not within white scurf."
            ],
            "Chapter 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:11) (\"It is old leprosy in the skin of his flesh. And the Cohein shall declare him tamei; he shall not quarantine him, for he is tamei.\") \"leprosy\": This is a prototype (binyan av) for all leprosy as requiring a garis (the size of a Cilician bean, for tumah). \"old\": We are hereby taught that the michyah confers tumah if it preceded ([hence \"old\"] the se'eth). For (without the verse) would it not follow (that it should not do so, viz.): White hair is a sign of tumah, and a michyah is a sign of tumah. Just as white hair confers tumah only if it did not precede the se'eth, so michyah should confer tumah only if it did not precede the se'eth. It is, therefore, written \"old,\" to teach us that it confers tumah if it preceded the se'eth.",
                "2) \"It (is leprosy\"): This teaches us that it (also) confers tumah if it did not precede the se'eth. Now (even without the verse) would it not follow a fortiori that it does so, viz.): If white hair, which does not confer tumah if it precedes the se'eth (does confer tumah if it follows the se'eth), then michyah, which does confer tumah if it precedes the se'eth, how much more so should it confer tumah if it follows the se'eth! … It must, therefore, be written \"It,\" to teach us that it confers tumah if it follows the se'eth.",
                "3) See Chapter 2:6",
                "4) But perhaps the meaning of (Vayikra 13:11) \"he shall not quarantine him for he is tamei\" is that a Cohein who is tamei shall not quarantine him, but a confirmed leper is quarantined (for a new eruption)! It is, therefore, written \"for he is tamei.\" We are speaking of the inspected and not of the inspector.",
                "5) (Vayikra 13:12) (\"And if the leprosy blossom in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of the plague-spot, from his head until his feet, to all the sight of the eyes of the Cohein\") \"blossom\": This tells me only of its blossoming in all of him at once. Whence do I derive the same for its blossoming little by little? From (lit.) \"if there blossom, blossom\" (— in any manner.)",
                "6) This tells me only (of blossoming similar to that in flowers), from bottom to top. Whence do I derive the same for (blossoming) from top to bottom? From \"if there blossom, blossom\" (— in any manner.)",
                "7) This tells me only (of a blossoming) from an unclean plague-spot to a clean one. Whence do I derive the same for (the blossoming of) a clean one to an unclean one? From \"blossom\" (— in any manner.) \"and if it blossom\": R. Nechemiah says: If in the beginning it blossomed from an unclean spot to a clean one, it is clean; from a clean one to an unclean one, it is unclean."
            ],
            "Chapter 4": [
                "1) \"And if the leprosy blossom\": What is the intent of this? (i.e., Why not merely state \"if it blossomed\"?) I might think that the blossoming is tahor only from a se'eth (the appearance under discussion). Whence do I derive the same for the other appearances? From \"the leprosy.\" \"and the leprosy cover\": not the bohak (white scurf). For I would say that since it is a sign of cleanliness at the end (see Chapter 6:2), it is also a sign of cleanliness in the beginning; it is, therefore, written \"and the leprosy cover,\" and not the bohak.",
                "2) \"all the skin of the plague-spot\": skin which is susceptible of a plague-spot — to exclude a \"rebellious\" boil or a \"rebellious\" burn. — But perhaps the intent (of \"all the skin of the plague-spot\") is (the amount of) skin that is susceptible of (the minimal size of) a plague-spot — a garis — that that (if it is not covered) can impede \"all of the skin\"); but that which is not susceptible of a plague-spot the size of a garis does not impede it. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"all of it has turned white.\" If \"all of it has turned white,\" I might think (even) the midst of his head (must be covered to qualify as \"all of his skin\"); it is, therefore, written \"from his head\" — to exclude the midst of his head; \"until his feet\" — to exclude the midst (i.e., the soles) of his feet.",
                "3) \"to all of the sight of the eyes of the Cohein\": to include the inside (of the buttocks) — whence they ruled: A man is inspected as if he were hoeing (and bending) and as if he were picking olives (and lifting his arms). As if he were hoeing — for (examination of) the buttocks. As if he were picking olives — for (examination of) the arm-pits. A woman (is inspected) as if she were kneading flour (and bending) and as if she were nursing her babe. As if she were kneading flour for (examination of) the buttocks. As if she were nursing — (for examination of) the lower breast. As if she were weaving while standing — for (examination of) the right arm-pit. R. Yehudah says: And as if she were spinning flax for (examination of) the left (arm-pit). And just as this is the criterion for examination of the plague-spot, so is it the criterion for (the area) to be shaved in his (the leper's) cleansing.",
                "4) Variantly: \"to all of the sight of the eyes of the Cohein\": to exclude (from examination) a Cohein whose sight has darkened — whence they ruled: A Cohein who was blind in one eye or whose sight has dimmed is not to inspect plague-spots.",
                "5) (Vayikra 13:13) (\"And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, the leprosy has covered all of his flesh, then he shall declare the plague-spot clean; all of it has turned white — it is clean.\") \"And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, the leprosy has covered\": What is the intent of this? I might think that the blossoming (in all of his flesh) renders him clean only in a se'eth. Whence is the same derived for the other (three) appearances? From \"and the leprosy has covered.\" \"all of his flesh\": to include in between the fingers of his hands and his feet. Variantly: What is the intent of \"all of his flesh\"? Whence do you derive that if it blossomed in all of him but not in a half-lentil size near the head, the beard, the boil, the burn and the blister, and then it returned to the head and the beard, and they became bald — the boil and the burn and the blister, and they became scarred — I might think that he would be tahor. It is, therefore, written \"all of his flesh\" — it must blossom in all of him (for him to be tahor).",
                "6) \"then he shall declare the plague-spot clean … it is clean\": What is the intent of this? I might think that blossoming renders clean only after confirmation of michyah in the beginning (i.e., at the first inspection, as per the verse). Whence do I derive the same for confirmation of michyah at the end of the first week (of quarantine), at the end of the second week; after confirmation of white hair in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after exemption (at the end of the second week by reason of its remaining the same in appearance); after confirmation of spreading at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after exemption; and blossoming (in all of him) after quarantine? (Whence do you derive that blossoming renders all of these clean?) From \"then he shall declare the plague-spot clean … it is clean.\" — to include all (of the above instances).",
                "7) I might think that (an unclean plague-spot) which blossoms from a clean one is clean. It is, therefore, written \"It is clean, but (an unclean plague-spot) which blossoms from a clean one is not clean but unclean."
            ],
            "Chapter 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:14) (\"And on the day that there appears in it living flesh he shall be unclean.\") We are hereby taught about limb tips that are revealed (in the midst of the blossoming, the nega having departed from them) that they are tamei, (their having become like living flesh in a bahereth). I might think (that this obtains with) any amount (of revelation); it is, therefore, written here \"living flesh,\" and above (Vayikra 13:10, in respect to michyah) \"living flesh.\" Just as \"healthy flesh\" mentioned there must be (at least the size of a lentil), here, too, it must be a lentil. These are the words of R. Yossi. R. Meir says: Is he rendered tamei by reason of michyah? Did (we not learn [viz. Chapter 2:9]) that michyah does not confer tumah through limb tips? Rather, this is \"a decree of the King,\" and tumah is (conferred through) any amount. R. Yossi countered: Is he rendered tamei by reason of limb tips? Is he not tamei even if (the living flesh) returns to its middle? It is written here \"living flesh,\" and there, \"living flesh.\" Just as \"living flesh\" there is lentil-size, so \"living flesh\" here is lentil-size.",
                "2) \"And on the day\": We are hereby (by this redundancy) taught that he (a groom) is given two (types of days [the seven days of the marriage feast and those of a festival]) for (non-inspection of plague-spots): for (those of) his body, for (those of) his house, and for those of his garments. These are the words of R. Yehudah. Rebbi says (that a special verse is not required for this, for) it is written (Vayikra 14:36): \"And the Cohein shall command, (and they shall empty out the house before the Cohein comes in to see the plague-spot, so that there not be made unclean all that is in the house.\") If they wait for a mundane matter, shall they not wait for a matter of mitzvah! And how much (i.e., how many days) is his mitzvah? For a groom we allow the seven days of the marriage feast, for himself, his house, and his garments. And thus on a festival — we allow him all the days of the festival.",
                "3) (\"And on the day there appears in it living flesh he shall be unclean.\") What is the intent of \"it\"? Whence do you derive that if it blossomed in all of him, but not in the head, the beard, the boil, the burn, and the \"rebellious\" blister, and the head and the beard became bald, and the boil and the burn and the blister became scarred — I might think that he were tamei, all of the above now being regarded as \"impeding\" his complete whiteness), it is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"it,\" the blossoming. If there appears in it (living flesh), he is tamei; but if the head and the beard became bald, and the boil and the burn and the blister (became scarred), he is not tamei (but tahor).",
                "4) Living flesh that returns is tamei. White hair that returns is not tamei (i.e., If after a complete blossoming he was declared clean, and white hair appeared in him, he is not tamei, it being written \"living flesh,\" and not \"white hair.\") R. Yehoshua ruled that it is tamei, saying: White hair is a sign of tumah and michyah is a sign of tumah. Just as michyah that returns is tamei, so white hair that returns is tamei. R. Akiva countered: When is the power of white hair to confer tumah greater? When it has served to confirm (leprosy) or when it has not served to confirm? (Certainly,) when it has served to confirm. Now, if when it has served to confirm, it still does not impede the blossoming (to confer tumah), then, when it has not served to confirm (but has just appeared after the blossoming) how much more so does it not impede the blossoming! And, furthermore, it is written \"living flesh.\" Living flesh that returns confers tumah; white hair that returns does not confer tumah.",
                "5) Living flesh that returns confers tumah; bohak (white scurf) that returns (i.e., that appears after complete blossoming has rendered him tahor) does not confer tumah. Should it not follow (that it does confer tumah), viz.: Bohak impedes (blossoming) and michyah impedes. Just as returning michyah impedes, so should returning bohak impede. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written \"living flesh.\" Returning living flesh confers tumah; returning bohak does not confer tumah.",
                "6) (Vayikra 13:15) (\"And the Cohein shall see the living flesh and he shall declare him tamei. The living flesh is tamei; it is leprosy.\") What is the intent of this? I might think that limb tips that were revealed (by recession of the nega from them) rendered one tamei (by reason of impeding complete blossoming) only after the (complete) blossoming of a confirmed michyah in the beginning (i.e., before quarantine, as per the verse). Whence do I derive (that he is tamei) after blossoming of the same at the end of the first week (of quarantine), at the end of the second week, after exemption (at the end of the second week by reason of its remaining the same in appearance); after blossoming of confirmed white hair in he beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after exemption; after blossoming of confirmed spreading at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after exemption? (Whence do we derive that revelation of limb tips by recession of the nega renders all of these tamei? [Note: Chapter 4:6 discusses rendering one tahor]) From \"And the Cohein shall see the living flesh and he shall declare him tamei. The living flesh is tamei\" — to include all (of the above instances).",
                "7) I might think that if one came all white (and he were quarantined, and no further signs of tumah appeared in him) and his limb tips were revealed after exemption — (I might think) that he were tamei; it is, therefore, written \"it (is tamei\") (to exclude the above). I would then exclude him, but I would not exclude one who came all white, whose limb tips were revealed either in confirmation or in quarantine. It is, therefore, written \"it is tamei; it is leprosy,\" but he above is not tamei but tahor."
            ],
            "Chapter 6": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:16) (\"If the healthy flesh recede and it return to white, then he shall come to the Cohein.\") \"If the healthy flesh recede and it return to white\": This comes to teach us that if limb tips were revealed and were then again covered (by white), he is tahor. When is it derived that this is so even with a hundred repetitions of the same? From \"Or if it return\" rather than (simply) \"If it return.\"",
                "2) \"and it return to white\": (even to the appearance of bohak (white scurf). For I would say that since in the beginning it is a sign of tumah (i.e., it impedes \"complete blossoming,\" which would render him tahor), then in the end (with later repetitions or the same) it would remain the same, it is, therefore, written \"and it return to white\" (even) to the appearance of bohak.",
                "3) (Vayikra 13:17) (\"And the Cohein shall see it, and, behold, the plague-spot has turned to white, then the Cohein shall declare the plague-spot clean; he is clean.\" What is the intent of this? I might think that limb tips that were revealed (by recession of the nega from them) and returned to be covered (by white) would be tahor only after the (complete) blossoming of a confirmed michyah in the beginning. Whence do I derive (that he is tahor) for return of the same at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after exemption; after return of blossoming of confirmed white hair in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after exemption; after return of blossoming of confirmed spreading at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week; after exemption? (Whence do we derive that all of the above are tahor?) From \"And the Cohein shall see it, and, behold, the plague-spot has turned to white … He is clean\" — to include all (of the above).",
                "4) I might think that one who came all white in the beginning (to be inspected) is tahor; it is, therefore, written \"he is clean,\" but one who comes all white in the beginning is not tahor but tamei.",
                "5) (Vayikra 13:18) (\"And flesh, if there be in it, in its skin, a boil, and it be healed\") \"a boil\": (If only \"a boil\" were written), I would think that a \"rebellious\" (active one) were intended; it is, therefore, written \"and it be healed.\" If \"and it be healed,\" I would think that it must have formed a scab; it is, therefore, written \"boil.\" How is this to be reconciled? It has healed and not healed. (i.e., it has formed a peel but not a scab.) And thus is it stated below (Vayikra 13:23) \"it is the peel of the boil,\" forming a membrane similar to a garlic peel.",
                "6) This tells me only of a boil which arose of itself. Whence do I derive for inclusion as a boil the result of a blow from a stick, a stone, or peat, (or the result of bathing in) the hot springs of Tiberias, or of anything which is not caused by fire? From \"boil\" and again [Vayikra 13:19]) \"boil,\" implying extension of inclusion. This tells me only of a boil (which arose) after the pronouncement. Whence do I derive the same for (a boil which arose) before the pronouncement? (This tells me only of a boil which arose) in a proselyte after he converted. Whence do I derive the same for (a boil which arose in a proselyte) before he converted? Of (a boil which arose) in a minor after he was born. Whence do I derive the same for (a boil which arose) in a minor before he was born? From \"boil,\" \"boil,\" for extension of inclusion. This tells me only of a boil which has room to spread, (it being written afterwards [Vayikra 13:22] \"And if it spread in the skin\"). Whence to I derive the same for a boil which does not have room to spread? From \"if there be in it\" — even in all of it. This tells me only (of an instance of) part-boil, part-bahereth; part-bahereth, all boil. Whence do I derive the same for part-boil, all bahereth? From \"if there be in it\" — even in all of it. \"in its skin\" — even in all of it (i.e., all boil-all bahereth).",
                "7) They asked R. Eliezer: If there arose on one's palm (where hair cannot grow) a bahereth the size of a sela, and its place is the peel of the boil (i.e., the bahereth spread on all of the peel), what is the halachah? He said to them: It is to be quarantined. They: Why? It cannot grow white hair, it cannot spread, and it cannot become tamei through michyah! He: Perhaps it will recede and then spread. They: But what if its place were the size of a garis, (where there is not enough room for it to recede and spread)? He: That is what I have heard: It is to be quarantined. R. Yehudah b. Betheirah to R. Eliezer: Shall I give a reason for it? R. Eliezer: If to substantiate the words of the sages (that it is to be quarantined), yes; (if not, no.) R. Yehudah: Perhaps another boil will arise outside of it and it will spread into it. R. Eliezer: You are a sage; for you have substantiated the words of sages."
            ],
            "Section 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:19) (\"and there be in the place of the boil a white se'eth or a reddish-white bahereth, then it shall be shown to the Cohein. (Vayikra 13:20) And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, its appearance is lower than the skin, and its hair has turned white, then the Cohein shall declare him unclean. It is a plague-spot of leprosy; it has blossomed in the boil. (Vayikra 13:21) And if the Cohein see it, and, behold, there is no white hair in it, and it is not lower than the skin, and it is dim, then the Cohein shall quarantine him for seven days.\") \"and there be in the place of the boil a white se'eth\": The boil must precede the se'eth, and not the se'eth, the boil. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: It was called \"its place\" (that of the bahereth) before it (the boil) arrived there.",
                "2) How (is the verse to be understood)? There was (a se'eth) in the skin of the flesh before the arrival of the boil (in that place). R. Eliezer b. Yaakov ruled it (a se'eth that preceded the boil) tamei, and the sages ruled it tahor.",
                "3) \"a white se'eth\": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah plain (i.e., without intermixture of red). \"a reddish-white bahereth\": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah intermixed. I might think that the se'eth confers tumah only plain (white) and the bahereth confers tumah only intermixed. Whence do I derive that what applies to se'eth (plain) applies to bahereth, and what applies to bahereth (intermixed) applies to se'eth? From (Vayikra 13:20) It is a plague-spot of leprosy\" (connoting interchangeability).",
                "4) (Vayikra 13:20) \"its appearance is lower\": This tells me (that it is tamei) only if its appearance is lower. Whence do I derive for inclusion (an appearance that is) level (with the skin) or higher? From (Vayikra 13:21) \"and it is not lower than the skin,\" (which indicates that \"lower than the skin\" is not a categorical requirement for tumah). \"it has blossomed in the boil\": but not in the skin of the flesh (outside of the boil). I might think that (to become tamei) it does not spread in the skin of the flesh, but it does spread in the skin of the burn (near the boil); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:23) \"And if in its place the bahereth stands — (if) it has not spread.\" In its place (in the boil) it spreads, (to become tamei); it does not spread in the skin of the flesh or in the skin of the burn.",
                "5) (Vayikra 13:21) \"And if the Cohein see it\" — all in one sighting. \"and, behold, there is no white hair in it\" — not in it (the boil), but not in a strand projecting from it (i.e., if there were white hair in the strand, it is tahor). I might think (that the strand was not considered part of the boil) even if there were in it the breadth of two hairs; it is, therefore, written ([Vayikra 13:26] in respect to a burn) \"and, behold, there is not in the bahereth white hair\" (connoting that any significant projection [i.e., the breadth of two hairs] is considered part of the bahereth).",
                "6) (Vayikra 13:22) (\"And if it spreads, spreads, in the skin, the Cohein shall declare him tamei; it is plague.\") \"spreads, spreads, in the skin\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 13:27) \"And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day, if it spreads, spreads, in the skin,\" I might think that a spreading renders him unclean only on the seventh day. Whence do I derive the same for the eighth, ninth, and tenth day? From (the redundant) \"spread, spread.\"",
                "7) If he were confirmed through white hair, and the white hair disappeared and then returned; and, similarly, through a spreading: at first inspection, at the end of a week, after exemption — where he was confirmed through the spreading and the spreading disappeared and then returned — and similarly, through white hair, at the end of the first or the second week, or after exemption — in respect to all of these instances, it is written (the redundant) \"and if it spreads, spreads.\"",
                "8) (Vayikra 13:22) \"the Cohein shall declare him tamei\": He declares tamei what is a certainty and not what is in doubt. How so? Two came to a Cohein (for inspection); one, with a bahereth the size of a garis; the other, (with a bahereth) the size of a sela. At the end of the week, the size in both is a sela, and we do not know in which one it spread. Whether (two plague-spots) in one man or one (plague-spot) in (each of) two men, he is tahor. R. Akiva said: In one man, he is tamei, (it being certain that at least one of the spots spread.) They countered: But is it not written \"The Cohein shall declare him tamei\"? — He declares tamei what is a certainty and not what is in doubt!",
                "9) (Vayikra 13:23) (\"And if the bahereth remains in its place — if it has not spread — then it is the peel of the boil, and the Cohein shall declare him tahor.\") (lit.) \"And if under it the bahereth stands — if it has not spread.\" It spreads (for purposes of conferring tumah) to the place under it (i.e., the boil). It does not spread (for such purposes) to the skin of the flesh (around it) or to the skin of a burn (alongside it). \"the peel\": Its place must be compact and distinct. \"the Cohein shall declare him tahor\": He declares tahor what is a certainty and not what is in doubt. How so? Two came to a Cohein (for inspection); one, with a bahereth the size of a garis; the other, (with a bahereth) the size of a sela. At the end of the week, the size in both is a sela and more. Both are tamei. Even if they recede to a sela in both, they are both tamei — until they recede to the size of a garis. In this connection it is written \"and the Cohein shall declare him tahor.\" He declares tahor what is a certainty and not what is in doubt."
            ],
            "Chapter 7": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:18) \"And flesh, if there be in it, in its skin, a boil\" — (Vayikra 13:24) \"Or flesh, if there be in its skin a burn by fire\": This (i.e., the fact that boil and burn are discussed independently and not jointly) teaches us that boil and burn do not combine with each other.",
                "2) Not only if he suffered (one of) them and he does not know which, (in which instance the Cohein cannot declare him tamei, their not being interchangeable), but even a (known) half- garis of boil and half-garis of burn cannot combine with each other.",
                "3) (Vayikra 13:24) \"a burn by fire\": I might think that only a \"rebellious\" (i.e., unhealed) burn were intended. It is, therefore, written \"and the healthy flesh of the burn.\" (If the latter alone were written,) I might think that it must form a scab; it is, therefore, written \"a burn by fire.\" How is this to be reconciled? It healed and did not heal (i.e., it formed a peel and not a scab) And thus is it written below (Vayikra 13:28) \"it is the peel of the burn\" — until it forms a membrane, like a garlic peel.",
                "4) (\"a burn by fire\") This tells me only of his being burned by fire. Whence do I derive the same for (his being burned by) a coal, ashes, boiling lime, boiling gypsum, and anything else that comes from a flame? From \"burn\" (\"a burn by fire\") - \"burn (\"flesh of the burn\") for (extension of) inclusion. This tells me only of a burn (which was sustained) after the pronouncement. Whence do I derive the same for (a burn which was sustained) before the pronouncement? (This tells me only of) a burn which was sustained by) a proselyte after the pronouncement. Whence do I derive the same for (a burn which was sustained by) a proselyte before the pronouncement? (This tells me only of a burn sustained by) a minor after he was born. Whence do I derive the same for (a burn sustained by a minor) before he was born? From \"burn\" - \"burn,\" for (extension of) inclusion. This tells me only of a burn which has room to spread. Whence do I derive the same for a burn which does not have room to spread? From \"if there be in its skin\" — even in all of it. This tells me only of part-burn, part-bahereth; part-burn, all bahereth; part-bahereth, all burn. Whence do I derive the same for all burn, all bahereth? From \"in its skin\" - \"in its skin,\" for (extension of) inclusion.",
                "5) (Vayikra 13:24) \"a reddish-white bahereth\": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah intermixed. And whence is it derived that it confers tumah plain (white)? From (Vayikra 13:24) \"white.\" Whence is it derived that the other appearances are included? From \"or white.\"",
                "6) (Vayikra 13:26) \"And if the Cohein see it,\" (all in one sighting). \"and there is not in the bahereth white hair\": As they have said: This includes (as being considered part of the burn) a strand, the breadth of two hairs, that projects from it.",
                "7) \"and it is not lower than the skin and it is dim\": As they have said: This includes (an appearance that is) level (with the skin) or higher.",
                "8) (Vayikra 13:27) \"And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day. If it has spread, spread, in the skin, etc.\" I might think that a spreading confers tumah only at the end of a week. Whence do I derive (that it does so) even after exemption? From (the redundant) \"spread, spread.\"",
                "9) If he were confirmed through white hair, and the white hair disappeared and then returned; and, similarly, through a spreading: at first inspection, at the end of a week, after exemption — where he was confirmed through a spreading and the spreading disappeared and then returned — and, similarly, through white hair, at the end of a week and after exemption — in respect to all of these instances, it is written (the redundant) \"if it has spread, spread.\" Why is \"leprosy\" written three times (in respect to \"a burn,\" (once here and twice in 13:25)? \"leprosy\" — It requires the size of a garis (a Cilician bean); \"leprosy\" — to render what is stated in respect to a se'eth applicable to a bahereth, and what is stated in respect to a bahereth applicable to a se'eth; \"leprosy\" — to render what is stated in respect to a boil applicable to a burn, and what is stated in respect to a burn applicable to a boil. Why is \"it\" written three times (once here and twice in 13:25)? \"it\" — it (a burn, unlike a skin plague-spot) is not rendered tamei by the eruption of a michyah, at first inspection, at the end of a week (of quarantine), and after exemption. \"it\" — to exclude the spreading of bohak (white scurf) at the end of a week or after exemption. \"it\" — it has no fifth shade (aside from the four indicated). (And a fourth possible derivation:) \"it\" — boil and burn do not combine with each other."
            ],
            "Section 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:29) (\"And a man or a woman — if there be in it a plague-spot, in the head or in the beard (Vayikra 13:30) then the Cohein shall see the plague-spot; and if its appearance is deeper than the skin and there is in it thin yellow hair, then the Cohein shall declare him tamei. It is a nethek (a scall); it is leprosy of the head or the beard.\") \"And a man\": to include a nethek within a nethek (as being tamei). \"a man or a woman\": This tells me only of a (distinct) man or woman. Whence do I derive for inclusion a tumtum (one whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite? From \"or.\" \"if there be in it a plague-spot in the head or in the beard\": This teaches us that the head and the beard do not combine with each other (vis-à-vis the minimum size for tumah).",
                "2) I might think that though they do not combine with each other, they can spread from one to the other (vis-à-vis \"spreading\" uncleanliness); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:30) \"leprosy of the head or the beard\" — Just as they do not combine with each other, so they do not spread from one to the other.",
                "3) This tells me (of his being tamei) when he has (a plague-spot) in (both) his head and his beard. Whence do I derive (that he is also tamei) when he has (a plague-spot) in his head, but not in his beard or in his beard and not in his head? From \"And a man or a woman — if there be in it a plague-spot, in the head or in the beard.\"",
                "4) \"its appearance is deeper than the skin\": This tells me (that he is tamei) only if its appearance is deeper. Whence do I derive for inclusion (in tumah an appearance which is) level or elevated? From (Vayikra 13:31): \"and its appearance is not deeper than the skin.\" Why, then, is it written \"and its appearance is deeper? I might think that if a man made a nethek it is tamei; it is, therefore, written \"and its appearance is deeper\" — Just as \"its appearance is deeper\" indicates by the hands of Heaven, here, too, (in connection with the \"making\" of the nethek), \"by the hands of Heaven\" is indicated.",
                "5) \"and there is in it thin yellow hair\": to include (for tumah) what is (rooted) in it and lies outside of it; to exclude what is (rooted) outside of it and lies within it. \"and … hair\": the minimum of \"hair,\" two hairs. \"yellow\": not green, not red, and not black. I would exclude all but not white. And it would follow, viz.: If yellow hair, which is not a sign of tumah in a nega, is a sign of tumah in a nethek, then white hair, which is a sign of tumah in a nega, how much more so should it be a sign of tumah in a nethek! It is, therefore, written \"yellow\" — yellow and not white. And what (shade) is it similar to? To that of gold.",
                "6) \"thin\": shriveled and short. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yochanan b. Nuri said: What do people say? \"This stick is thin\"? \"This reed is thin\"? \"thin, shriveled, and short\"? — or \"thin, shriveled, and long\"? R. Akiva countered: Rather than learn from a reed, let us learn from a hair. (People say) \"That man's hair is thin,\" \"thin, shriveled, and short\" — not \"thin, shriveled, and long.\"",
                "7) I might think that (the nethek) is in addition to the four \"appearances\" of the skin of the flesh; it is, therefore, written \"Then the Cohein shall declare him tamei; it is a nethek\" (a bald spot. That is the only criterion, and not the four appearances.)",
                "8) I might think that it (a nethek) need not be in addition to the four appearances of the skin of the flesh, but that it does confer tumah in the place of the bahereth (i.e., in the rest of the body, and not only in the head and the beard.) It is, therefore, written \"it is leprosy of the head or the beard.\" It confers tumah in the head or the beard, but not in the place of the bahereth.",
                "9) I might think it does not confer tumah in the place of the bahereth, but that a bahereth does confer tumah in head or beard. It is, therefore, written \"It is a nethek\" — the only tumah of head or beard is that of nethek (and not that of bahereth). "
            ],
            "Chapter 8": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:31) (\"And if the Cohein sees the nega of the nethek, and, behold, its appearance is not deeper than the skin, and there is no black hair in it, then the Cohein shall quarantine the nega of the nethek for seven days.\") \"And if the Cohein sees the nega of the nethek\": R. Shimon says: What is the intent of this? Nethek is being likened to nega. Just as a nega confers tumah only if it precedes the white hair, so a nethek confers tumah only if it precedes the yellow hair.",
                "2) (Now why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If white hair, which other hair does not \"rescue\" (from conferring tumah [i.e., black hair in that site does not prevent the white hair from conferring tumah]) — (If white hair) confers tumah only if the nega precedes it, how much more so should thin yellow hair, which other hair does rescue (from conferring tumah [i.e., black hair in that site does prevent the yellow hair from conferring tumah) — (How much more so should yellow hair) confer tumah only if the nega precedes it! — No, (the verse is needed, for) this may be the case with white hair which is powerless in its place to confer tumah within (a nega of) any appearance, (but only in a nega of one of the four \"appearances\"), as opposed to thin yellow hair, which has the power in its place to confer tumah within (a nethek of) any appearance. And since this is the case, I would say that it confers tumah whether or not the nethek precedes it. It must, therefore, be written \"the nega of the nethek.\" Nethek is being likened to nega. Just as a nega confers tumah only if it precedes the white hair, so a nethek confers tumah only if it precedes the yellow hair.",
                "3) R. Yehudah says: Wherever the stipulation of precedence (of nega to hair) must be made, it is made (explicitly, in the verse itself), but nethek, about which it is written (Vayikra 13:32) \"and there is no yellow hair in it\" (without any explicit stipulation of precedence), (nethek) confers tumah whether or not it precedes (the yellow hair).",
                "4) Why, then, is it written the nega of the nethek? Nethek is being likened to nega. Just as nega does not (confer tumah) with less than a garis, so nethek does not (confer tumah) with less than a garis. And by the repetition of \"the nega of the nethek\" (Vayikra 13:32), nega is being likened to nethek. Just as there is no \"spreading\" into a nethek, so there is no \"spreading\" into a nega. (If there were a michyah in the midst of a bahereth and the bahereth spread into it, it is not called a \"spreading\" [for purposes of tumah]).",
                "5) (\"and there is no black hair in it\") \"hair\": the minimum of \"hair,\" two hairs. \"black\": This tells me only of black. Whence do I derive for inclusion green and red? From \"and … hair.\" If so, why is it written \"black\"? Black \"rescues\" (from tumah if it appears before the nethek) and yellow does not \"rescue\" (from tumah if it appears before the nethek.)",
                "6) For which \"yellow hair\" (do I need the verse to tell me that it does not \"rescue\"), according to the words of R. Yehudah, who holds (even without that verse) that (even) if yellow hair precedes the nethek it is tamei? (I need the verse for the following instance:) If there were two hairs, one yellow and one black, or one yellow and one white, I would think that since they do not combine for tumah, they do combine for taharah (i.e., to render the nethek tahor); it must, therefore, be written \"and there is no black hair in it\" — black ([two black hairs] in the above instance) rescues (from tumah); yellow does not rescue. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: Yellow hair which precedes the nethek neither confirms (tumah) nor rescues from it. R. Shimon says: Whatever is not a sign of tumah in a nethek is a sign of taharah in a nethek.",
                "7) \"there is not in it (the nethek) a black hair\": \"in it\" — so that it (the black hair) is surrounded by it (the nethek. Only then is he tahor.) From here they ruled (Negaim 10:6): If there were two nethakim alongside each other, a column of hair separating them — If it (the column) were breached (with baldness) in one place, he is tamei, (for it must be that one of the nethakim has spread.) But if it were breached in two places (with two black hairs left in the middle), he is tahor, (for the two breaches are regarded as part of one nethek with two black hairs within it, which \"rescue\" him from tumah.) How large must each breach be, (for the two nethakim to be regarded as one, with black hair in the middle, and thus rescue him from tumah)? The size of two hairs. If it were breached (only) in one place, the size of a garis, he is tamei, (the black hair not being regarded as surrounded by the nega).",
                "8) (If there were) two nethakim, one in the middle of the other, and a column (i.e., a circle) of (black) hair separating them (so that the outer circle is tahor and the inner one tamei) — If it (the column) were breached in one place, it (the inner nethek) is tamei (and the outer one tahor). (If it were breached) in two places, it (the inner [and, it goes without saying, the outer]) is tahor, (the two breaches causing the whole to be regarded as one nethek with the surrounded black hairs in its midst). How large must each breach be? The size of two hairs. If it were breached in one side the size of a garis it is tahor because it contains black hair within it.",
                "9) \"and there is no black hair in it, then he shall quarantine the nethek,\" but if there was (black hair) in it, he is exempt. — But perhaps the meaning is that in the absence of black hair he is to be quarantined, and in its presence, he is tamei! — This cannot be,) for (Vayikra 13:37) \"And in his eyes the nethek has remained as it was, and black hair has sprouted in it … he is tahor\" indicates that black hair is a sign of taharah in a nethek. How, then, am I to understand \"and there is no black hair in it, etc.\"? (As meaning that) if there was (black hair), he is exempt. \"then the Cohein shall quarantine the nega of the nethek for seven days.\": This is the first quarantine."
            ],
            "Chapter 9": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:32) (\"And the Cohein shall see the plague-spot on the seventh day, and, behold, if the nethek has not spread, and there was no yellow hair in it, and the appearance of the nethek is not deeper than the skin\") \"on the seventh\": I might think either by day or at night (before the seventh day); it is, therefore, written \"on the day,\" and not at night.",
                "2) For I might think that the skin of the flesh, which confers tumah through four \"appearances,\" requires daylight, but nethakim, which do not confer tumah through four appearances, do not require daylight; it must, therefore, be written (also in respect to nethakim) \"in the daytime,\" and not at night.",
                "3) \"and, behold, if the nethek has not spread, and there was no yellow hair in it\": R. Yehudah says: It does not say \"it (the nethek) did not turn the hair yellow in it,\" but \"and there was no yellow hair in it,\" which implies that if there was yellow hair there (even) before the (advent of the) nethek, it is tamei. R. Yochanan b. Nuri says: It does not say: \"There was no thin yellow hair in it,\" but \"there was no yellow hair in it\" — even a long one. \"and the appearance of the nethek is not deeper than the skin\": (its appearance is the determining factor) and not its (actual) substance.",
                "4) (Vayikra 13:33) (\"Then he shall be shaved, but the nethek he shall not shave. And the Cohein shall quarantine the nethek a second seven days.\") \"Then he shall be shaved\": by any man (and not necessarily a Cohein). Because we find the last shaving (on the day of his cleansing [Vayikra 14:9] to be by a Cohein, I might think that this, too, must be by a Cohein; it is, therefore, written \"Then he shall be shaved\" — by any man.",
                "5) \"Then he shall be shaved\": by any man. Because we find the last shaving to be by a razor. I might think that this, too, must be by a razor; it is, therefore, written \"Then he shall be shaved\" — by any instrument.",
                "6) \"Then he shall be shaved\": even if he is a Nazirite. Because it is written (of a Nazirite, Bamidbar 6:5) \"a razor shall not pass over his head,\" I might think even if he was afflicted (with leprosy); it is, therefore, written \"Then he shall be shaved\" — even if he was afflicted.",
                "7) I might think that just as the shaving of the nega overrides the (prohibition against) shaving the Nazirite when it (the nega) is a certainty, so (the mitzvah of) shaving the Nazirite (at the completion of the days of his Naziritism) overrides the prohibition against shaving the nethek when it (the completion of the Nazirite period) is a certainty; it is, therefore, written (of this contingency) \"but the nethek he shall not shave.\" Now what (hair) is there in the nethek that it need be written \"but the nethek he shall not shave\"? The meaning must be, then: \"Around the nethek he shall not shave.\" How so? He shaves outside of it and leaves (a border of hair) two hairs (thick) around it, so that it will be discernible if the nethek spreads. (And it is this hair border that the verse is referring to.) And whence is it derived that one who tears signs of tumah (yellow hairs) from the midst of his nega transgresses a negative commandment? From \"but the nethek (i.e., anything in it) he shall not shave\" (i.e., depilate).",
                "8) \"and he shall wash his clothes\": not to confer tumah on (his) couch or seat or (on the objects in a house) by entering (it). \"and he is clean\": He does not require letting his hair grow long, and rending his garments, and shaving his hair, and birds. \"and he shall wash his clothes and he shall be clean\": I might think that he is thereby \"dismissed.\" It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 6:35) \"And if the nethek shall spread … he is tamei.\"",
                "9) \"And if the nethek shall spread … after his cleansing\": This tells me of (his status) after his exemption. Whence do I derive that the same applies also at the end of the first week and at the end of the second week? From (the redundant) \"spread, spread.\"",
                "10) Whence is it derived that if he were confirmed (as tamei) through yellow hair, and it left and then returned — and similarly, (through) a spreading in the beginning (before the quarantine), at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after the exemption — (Whence is it derived) that he reverts to his original status? From \"And if the nethek shall spread.\" Whence is it derived that if he were confirmed through a spreading, and it left and then returned — and similarly, (through) yellow hair, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, and after the exemption — (Whence is it derived) that he reverts to his original status? From \"And if spread it shall spread.\"",
                "11) And whence is it derived that yellow hair which returns after the exemption is tamei? From (Bamidbar 6:36) \"the Cohein shall not seek out (the status of) the yellow hair; (he is tamei.\")",
                "12) And whence is it derived that yellow hair confers tumah without a spreading and a spreading confers tumah without yellow hair? From (Bamidbar 6:36) \"the Cohein shall not seek out the yellow hair; he is tamei.\"",
                "13) And whence is it derived that in instances of nethakim a quarantined leper is not to be quarantined (i.e., his quarantine is not to be applied to a second nethek), and that a confirmed leper is not to be confirmed (i.e., his confirmation is not to be applied to a second nethek), and that a confirmed leper is not to be quarantined, and that a quarantined leper is not to be confirmed? From \"the Cohein shall not 'seek out' (by recourse to the above) the yellow hair — he is (already) tamei.\"",
                "14) (Vayikra 13:37) (\"And if in his eyes the nethek has remained as it was, and black hair has sprouted in it, then the nethek has been healed; he is clean. And the Cohein shall declare him clean.\") \"And if in his eyes\": This tells me only of his (the Cohein's) own eyes. Whence do I derive for inclusion the eyes of his son or the eyes of his disciple? From \"And if in his eyes\" (and not necessarily the Cohein's eyes) the nethek has remained the same. \"hair\": the minimum of hair — two. \"black\": This tells me only of black hair. Whence do I derive the same for green or red hair? From \"and hair.\" \"sprouted in it\": though it not be surrounded within it. This tells me only of (hair) remaining in the beginning (viz. Vayikra 13:31) and sprouting in the end. Whence do I derive the same for sprouting in the beginning and remaining in the end? From the identity (gezeirah shavah) \"and hair\" (Vayikra 13:31) - \"and hair\" (Vayikra 13:37).",
                "15) \"the nethek has been healed\": If one had a nethek with yellow hair in it, he is tamei. If black hair arose in it, he is tahor. Even if the black hair leaves it, he remains tahor. R. Shimon says: Any yellow hair which was rendered tahor for one moment never becomes tamei again. R. Shimon b. Yehudah says in the name of R. Shimon: Any nethek which was rendered tahor for one moment never becomes tamei again.",
                "17) \"he is clean\": Hillel says: This (R. Shimon's axiom above) does not hold with a nethek which arose within a nethek (after the latter had been declared tahor), it being written \"he (is clean\") — Only healing effects taharah. \"he is clean\": I might think he can get up and leave; it is, therefore, written \"And the Cohein shall declare him clean.\" If that (alone were written), I might think that if a Cohein (erroneously) declared one who is tamei to be tahor, he is clean. It is, therefore, written \"clean. And the Cohein shall declare him clean.\" (i.e., the declaration is valid only if he is really clean.) And it is in order to be enlightened on this, that Hillel went up from Bavel (to Eretz Yisrael), to consult Shemayah and Avtalyon. "
            ],
            "Chapter 10": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:39) (\"Then the Cohein shall see, and, behold, if in the skin of their flesh there are dim white bright spots, it is bohak (white scurf) that has blossomed in the skin; it is clean.\") \"it is bohak … it is clean\": This teaches us that bohak is clean (and does not require quarantine). I might think that it does not confer tumah through its source, but it does confer tumah by spreading; it is, therefore, written \"that has blossomed (i.e., spread) in the skin; it is clean.\" I might think that it renders clean a bahereth that issued from it; it is, therefore, written \"it\" (bohak, is clean, but not a bahereth that issues from it). I might think that it does not render clean a bahereth that issues from it, but it does render clean a bahereth that is adjacent to it; it is, therefore, written \"it is clean\" but a bahereth or a spreading that either issues from it or is adjacent to it is not clean.",
                "2) Whence is it derived that if he had a nethek the size of a garis and it came to cover his entire head, he is clean? From (Vayikra 13:40) \"And a man, if the hair of his head falls out … he is clean.\" I might think that the beard (if it does not bald) prevents (the head from being tahor if it balds) and that this follows a fortiori, viz.: If the skin of the face and the skin of the (rest of) the flesh, which are separated by something else (the beard) prevent each other (from becoming tahor [if one of them does not turn white, so that it can be considered \"all white\"]), then the (skin of the head and the beard, which are not separated by anything — how much more so should they prevent each other (from becoming tahor if one of them balds but not the other)! It is, therefore, written \"his head\" — (Even if) his head (alone balds), and not his beard, \"he is clean.\"",
                "3) — Or perhaps only if his head balds (without his beard balding) is he tahor, but if his beard balds, he is not tahor! It is, therefore, written \"And a man,\" (the superfluous \"and\") including the beard.",
                "4) — But perhaps the thrust of \"man\" is to exclude a woman and a minor (and not to include a beard). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:44) \"he is a leper,\" (\"he\" in that context being superfluous,) to include women and minors). Why, then, is it written \"and a man\"? To include the beard. If so, why is it written \"his head\" (and not also \"his beard\")? His head is clean, (and non-balding of his beard is no deterrent to this.) These are the words of R. Yehudah.",
                "5) R. Shimon says: The (non-baldness of) the beard does prevent the (baldness of the) head (from being tahor), and this follows a fortiori, viz.: If skin of the face and skin of the flesh, which are separated by something else (the beard) prevent each other, (see above), how much more so should head and beard, which are not separated by anything prevent each other! Variantly: Just as we find that anything which is susceptible of the nega of leprosy (and does not sustain that nega) prevents (the attribution to the leper of) \"the blossoming of the bahereth (in the whole\") — so, all that is susceptible of tumah through the nega of nethek (e.g., the beard in our instance — if it does not sustain the nethek) prevents (the attribution to the leper of) \"the blossoming of the nethek\" ( — in our instance, in the head).",
                "6) (Vayikra 13:42) (\"And if there be on the karachath [the slope of the head towards the nape] or on the gabachath [the slope of the head towards the face] a reddish-white plague-spot, it is blossoming leprosy on his karachath or on his gabachath.\") I might think that even if one's head balded because of illness he would be tamei (through a reddish-white plague-spot); it is, therefore, written \"karachath\" and \"gabachath.\" Just as \"karachath\" does not grow hair, so \"gabachath\" does not grow hair (to exclude the above, where he will grow hair upon recovery). Why, then, not say: Just as karachath is at the hands of Heaven, so gabachath is at the hands of Heaven? Whence, then, do I derive (as being tamei) one who ate or anointed himself with neshem (an \"irreversible\" depilatory)? To that end it is written \"baldness,\" \"baldness\" (twice) for inclusion (of the above).",
                "7) (Vayikra 13:41) (\"And if from the front of his face, his hair fall out, he is gibeach [bald]; he is clean.\") This tells me only of the front of his face. Whence do I derive the temples on either side for inclusion? From \"And if from the front of his face.\" What is \"karachath\" and what is \"gabachath\"? From the forehead sloping backwards is \"karachath.\" From the forehead sloping forwards is \"gabachath.\"",
                "8) \"And if there be … on his karachath or on his gabachath\": We are hereby taught that karachath and gabachath do not combine with each other (to form the minimum garis). I might then think that they do not combine with each other, but they do spread from one to the other (to constitute \"a spreading\"); it is, therefore, written (again) \"on his karachath or on his gabachath\" — Just as they do not combine with each other, they do not spread from one to the other."
            ],
            "Chapter 11": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:42) (\"And if there be on the karachath or on the gabachath a reddish-white plague-spot, it is blossoming leprosy on his karachath or on his gabachath.\") \"a reddish-white plague-spot\": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah intermixed. \"leprosy\": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah through (the eruption of) a michyah (viz. Section 4, Chapter 7:9), (michyah also being called \"leprosy\" [viz. Vayikra 13:11]). For (had \"leprosy\" not been written in this connection,) it would follow a fortiori (that it does not confer tumah through a michyah), viz.: If boil or burn, which do confer tumah through white hair, do not confer tumah through michyah, then karachath or gabachath, which do not confer tumah through white hair, how much more so should they not confer tumah through michyah! It is, therefore, written \"leprosy,\" teaching us that it does confer tumah through michyah.",
                "2) \"blossoming\": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah by spreading. \"it\": It does not confer tumah through white hair. For (had \"it\" not been written for this exclusion,) it would follow a fortiori (that it does confer tumah through white hair), viz.: If boil or burn, which do not confer tumah through michyah, do confer tumah through white hair, then karachath or gabachath, which do confer tumah through michyah, how much more so should they confer tumah through white hair! It is, therefore, written \"it,\" to teach us that it does not confer tumah through white hair.",
                "3) (Vayikra 13:43) \"And the Cohein shall see him, and, behold, a rising of the plague-spot, reddish-white, (is in his karachath or in his gabachath\"): We are hereby taught that a rising confers tumah intermixed. And whence (is the same) to be derived for the other appearances? From (Vayikra 13:42) \"a reddish-white plague-spot in his karachath or in his gabachath … as in the appearance of the leprosy of the skin of the flesh.\" Just as this [karachath] confers tumah intermixed, so the leprosy of the skin of the flesh confers tumah intermixed, and just as the skin of the flesh confers tumah plain, non-intermixed, this, too, confers tumah plain, non-intermixed. \"the skin of the flesh\": (which requires a quarantine of) two weeks.",
                "4) (Why is this Scriptural analogy [hekesh] needed?) Does it not follow by induction (mah matzinu)?, viz.: Tumah is conferred here (in the instance of karachath), and tumah is conferred in (the instance of) the skin of the flesh. Just as the skin of the flesh, two weeks, here, too, two weeks.",
                "5) Or, perhaps go in this direction: Tumah is conferred here, and tumah is conferred in (the instance of) boil or burn. Just as boil or burn, one week, here, too, one week.",
                "6) Let us see what it [karachath] most resembles. We derive something which confers tumah through michyah [i.e., karachath], from something which confers tumah through michyah [i.e., skin of the flesh], and this is not to be refuted by boil or burn, which do not confer tumah through michyah. — But, perhaps go in this direction: We derive something [karachath] which confers tumah through two signs (michyah and spreading) from something [boil or burn] which confers tumah through two signs (spreading and white hair), and this is not to be refuted by skin of the flesh, which confers tumah through three signs (white hair, michyah, and spreading). It must, therefore, be written \"as the appearance of the leprosy of the skin of the flesh\" — two weeks. \"leprosy\": (the size of) a garis (see Section 4, Chapter 7:9). Now does this not follow by induction. (Why make special mention of \"leprosy\" to this end?) Tumah is conferred here [karachath] and tumah is conferred through boil or burn. Just as boil or burn, the size of a garis, here, too, the size of a garis!",
                "7) No, this may be true of boil or burn, which confer tumah through white hair, and the size of the white hair requires no space, so that a garis suffices for the size of the boil or burn, as opposed to karachath and gabachath, which confer tumah through a michyah, which requires the size of a lentil, (so that they should be of greater size than a garis relative to the michyah in order to confer tumah). This is refuted by skin of the flesh, which confers tumah through a michyah and confers tumah (even) by the size of a garis.",
                "8) No, this may be true of skin of the flesh, which confers tumah through three signs, as opposed to karachath and gabachath, which confer tumah through only two signs, so, the Torah, having been relatively lenient with them, perhaps they must be greater than a garis to confer tumah. It must, therefore, be written (re karachath and gabachath) \"Leprosy,\" (to teach that they confer tumah even if they are only) the size of a garis."
            ],
            "Chapter 12": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:44) (\"He is a leprous man; he is unclean. The Cohein shall declare him unclean, unclean; in his head is his plague.\") \"man\": This tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive a woman and a minor for inclusion? From \"leprous\": both man, woman, and minor. If so, why is it written \"man\"? In respect to what is stated below (Vayikra 13:45). A man lets his hair grow long and rends his garments, and not a woman.",
                "2) \"The Cohein shall declare him unclean\": We are hereby taught that his uncleanliness must be declared by a Cohein (If not, he is not tamei.) This tells me only of this (afflicted one) alone. Whence do I derive (for inclusion of \"declaration\") the other afflicted ones? From (the redundant) \"The Cohein shall declare him unclean, unclean.\"",
                "3) Or: Just as this one (karachath or gabachath) is distinct in that his plague-spot is in his head, so I include (for \"declaration\") nethakim (of the previous verses), where the plague-spot is in one's head. Whence do I derive (for inclusion of \"declaration\") the other afflicted ones? From (the redundant) \"He is unclean; the Cohein shall declare him unclean, unclean.\"",
                "4) I might think that the tumah of the others who are tamei (e.g., those who are tamei with dead-body uncleanliness or with sheretz uncleanliness) would obtain only with the declaration of the Cohein; it is, therefore, written \"He (is tamei\") (to exclude the others. I would then exclude the others who are tamei, whose tumah does not stem from their bodies, but I would not exclude zav or zavah (those with a genital emission), whose tumah stems from their bodies. It is, therefore, written (the double redundancy) \"He (is tamei\"); the Cohein shall declare him (unclean, unclean.\") The tumah of this one is by (the declaration of) the Cohein, and not the tumah of the others who are tamei.",
                "5) (Vayikra 13:45) (\"And the leper in which the plague-spot is found, his clothes shall be rent and his hair shall grow long, and his upper lip shall be covered, and 'Unclean! Unclean!' he shall cry.\") \"And the leper\": Even if he is the high-priest. Because it is written (of the high-priest, Vayikra 21:10) \"His hair he shall not grow long and his clothes he shall not rend,\" I might think (that this holds) even if he is afflicted (with leprosy), and how will I satisfy \"His clothes shall be rent and his hair shall grow long? With others, aside from the high-priest; it is, therefore, written (the redundant) \"in which the plague-spot is found\" — even if he be the high-priest.",
                "6) \"his clothes shall be frumim\"; they shall be rent. \"and his hair shall be farua\": he shall let it grow long. These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Akiva says: \"shall be\" is stated in respect to head, and \"shall be\" is stated in respect to garments. Just as the latter are outside his body, so the former (i.e., hair) is outside his body.",
                "7) \"and his upper lip ya'ateh\": He covers his head like a mourner. \"and 'Unclean! Unclean!' he shall cry\": so that they separate from him. This tells me of this (particular state) alone. Whence do I derive that other afflicted ones (i.e., lepers) are also included? From (the redundant) \"'Unclean! Unclean!' he shall cry.\"",
                "8) But perhaps (I should say:) Just as this one (karachath or gabachath) is distinct in that his plague-spot is in his head, so I include (in \"'Unclean! Unclean!' etc.\") nethakim, where the plague-spot is in his head. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the other afflicted ones? From (the redundant) \"'Unclean! Unclean!' he shall cry.\"",
                "9) And whence do I derive for inclusion (in \"Unclean!\") others (and not only lepers) who are tamei? From (Vayikra 21:44) \"He shall declare him unclean\" and (Vayikra 21:45) \"and 'Unclean,' etc.\" I would then include only the gravely tamei (such as zavim and zavoth, where the tumah issues from their bodies. Whence would I derive (the same for) the lesser temai'im, such as those who are tamei through a dead body or through cohabitation with a niddah, and all the others? From \"He is tamei; he shall declare him unclean,\" and \"and 'Unclean,' etc.\"",
                "10) (Vayikra 13:46) (\"All the days that the plague-spot is in him he shall be unclean. He is unclean. Solitary shall he sit. Outside the camp is his dwelling.\") \"the days that the plague-spot is in him he shall be unclean\": Not the days that he had a bahereth (see Vayikra 13 verse 13:2) and it was cut off. I might think (that he is not penalized) even if he cut it off deliberately; it is, therefore, written (in this regard) \"all the days.\" When is he cleansed (of this bahereth)? R. Eliezer says: When a different plague-spot erupts in him and he is cleansed of it. The sages say until it (the plague) blossoms in all of him.",
                "11) R. Elazar said: R. Eliezer and the sages do not differ that if he cut it off and he cut off healthy flesh with it, (desiring to root it out entirely), that there is never any cleansing for him, and that if he cut it off and left over something of it that he is cleansed if it blossoms in all of him. Where do they differ? If he cut it off completely (without cutting off any healthy flesh with it.) R. Eliezer says: (He is cleansed of the bahereth) when a different plague-spot erupts in him and he is cleansed of it, and the sages say: when it blossoms in all of him.",
                "12) \"solitary shall he sit\": This tells me only of this one alone. Whence do I derive the same for other afflicted ones? From (the redundant) \"He is tamei; solitary shall he sit.\"",
                "13) But perhaps (I should say:) Just as this one (karachath or gabachath) is distinct in that his plague-spot is in his head, so I include (in sitting solitary) nethakim, where the plague-spot is in his head. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the other afflicted ones? From \"he shall be unclean. He is unclean; solitary shall he sit.\" I might think that two temai'im [zav and one who is tamei by a dead body] (who are classed with him [viz. Bamidbar 5:2]) may sit with him. It is, therefore, written \"solitary shall he sit\" — the two (other) temai'im may not sit with him.",
                "14) \"outside the camp\": outside the three camps (the camp of the Shechinah, the camp of the Levites, and the camp of Israel). \"his dwelling\": his dwelling (i.e., where he sits or stands [and not where he merely passes through]) is tamei. From here they ruled: If the tamei stood under the tree and the tahor passed by there, he is tamei. If the tahor stood under the tree and the tamei passed by there he is tahor, and if he stood there he is tamei. And thus with a (leprosy-) afflicted stone. (If its carrier passed under the tree, one standing under it is) tahor. And if he placed it down, he is tamei. R. Yossi Haglili says: \"Outside the camp is his dwelling. (Bamidbar 5:47) And the garment\": We are hereby taught about (leprosy-) afflicted garments that they require \"sending\" outside the three camps."
            ],
            "Chapter 13": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:47) (\"And the garment, if there be in it a plague-spot of leprosy, in a garment of wool or in a garment of flax,\") \"And the garment\": I might think (that this includes) remnants and cardings and coarse silk and cotton and camel wool and rabbit wool and goat down; it is, therefore, written \"in a garment of wool or in a garment of flax.",
                "2) This tells me of garments completely of wool or completely of flax. Whence do we derive for inclusion intermixtures? From \"And the garment.\" This tells me only of one of the varieties that is partially intermixed. Whence do I derive for inclusion one of the varieties that is totally intermixed or intermixtures that are totally or partially interwoven? From \"And the garment.\" This tells me only of a garment (the size of) three by three (fingers). Whence do I derive a garment lacking three by three? From \"And the garment.\" This tells me only (of a plague-spot) which has room to spread (see Vayikra 13:51). Whence do I derive (a plague-spot) which does not have room to spread? From \"And the garment.\" These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Yishmael said to him: \"You tell me to write! Wait until I can assimilate (all that you have said)!\" R. Eliezer retorted: \"Yishmael, you are a mountain-palm!\" (much too rash).",
                "3) I might think that they are subject to tumah whether dyed or not dyed; it is, therefore, written: \"in a garment of wool or in a garment of flax\" — Just as flax is in its original state (i.e., it is not the practice to dye flax, so, (for plague-spot uncleanliness we require) wool in its original state.",
                "4) (Vayikra 13:48) (\"Or in the warp or in the woof of flax and of wool; or in skin, or in any worked skin.\") I would exclude what is dyed by the hands of man, but I would not exclude what is dyed by the hands of Heaven; it is, therefore, written \"of flax and of wool.\" Just as flax is white, so wool must be white (to be subject to plague-spot uncleanliness.)",
                "5) \"or in the warp or in the woof\": I might think that the warp and woof of nafah and kevarah (types of sieves made from animal hair) were subject to (leprosy) tumah, (other varieties being excluded only if they do not qualify as \"garment\"); it is, therefore, written \"in a garment of wool or in a garment of flax\" (i.e., it is only a garment which acquires such tumah). I would then exclude (from such tumah) warp and woof of nafah and kevarah, but not that of (human) hair. And this would (also) follow a fortiori, viz. If wool, which in no instance is subject to burning because of tumah, (still) its warp and woof are subject to such tumah,",
                "6) then (human) hair, which is subject to burning (in the instance of the Nazirite), how much more so should its warp and woof be subject to such tumah! It is, therefore, written \"of wool or of flax,\" but not of hair.",
                "7) I might think that they are subject to tumah immediately (i.e., even before they are fully processed); it is, therefore, written \"garment.\" Just as \"garment\" connotes complete processing, so all (i.e., warp and woof) must be completely processed. What is their complete processing? The warp, when it is boiled; the woof, at once; and the bundles of flax, when they are whitened. These are the words of R. Yehudah. I might think that any size is subject to tumah. It is, therefore, written \"garments.\" Just as (something is not called a) \"garment\" until there is a weaving of warp and woof the size of three fingers by three fingers, so, all (pieces of cloth) — even if there were enough thread in the coil to make the entire warp and the entire woof. (If the coil consisted of) separate (threads), it is not subject to leprosy tumah. R. Yehudah says: If there were even one separation (in the entire coil) and he tied it, it is not subject to leprosy tumah.",
                "8) \"or in skin\": I might think (without a verse saying otherwise) that the skin of sea-creatures, too, should be subject to (leprosy) tumah. — But it follows inductively (that I would not think so), viz.: There is sheretz tumah and there is leprosy tumah. Just as the skin of sea-creatures is not subject to sheretz tumah, so the skin of sea-creatures is not subject to leprosy tumah. ",
                "9) And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori (that it is not subject to leprosy tumah), viz.: If with sheratzim, the colored among which are subject to tumah, the skins of sea-creatures are not subject to tumah, then with leprosy, where dyed garments are not subject to tumah, how much more so should the skin of sea-creatures not be subject to tumah! — No, this may be so with sheratzim, where there is no tumah of warp and woof, as opposed to leprosy, where there is tumah of warp and woof. And since this is so, (without a verse stating otherwise), would you say that the skin of sea-creatures is not subject (to leprosy tumah)? It must, therefore, be written (to counter-indicate this) \"in a garment (… or in skin\"). Just as a \"garment\" (in this context) \"grows\" on the land, so \"skin\" (must be skin) that \"grows\" on the land (to exclude the skin of sea-creatures). I might think that I also exclude (from leprosy tumah the skin of a sea-creature) to which has been attached something which does grow on land. It is, therefore, written (to counter-indicate this) \"or in skin,\" to include the latter, even if what is attached is a leading string, so long as it is attached in the generic manner of tumah attachments.",
                "10) I might think that also included (as subject to leprosy tumah) is untanned hide and unsalted hide; it is, therefore, written \"worked (processed) skin,\" to exclude untanned hide and unsalted hide.",
                "11) I would then exclude the latter, but I would not exclude hides (intended for) sandal thongs, which have been processed. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:49) \"implement (of skin\"),\" to exclude hides (intended for) sandal thongs, which are not implements.",
                "12) But then I might think to exclude tent skins, which are not \"implements\"; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:51) \"whatever work the skin is made for,\" to include tent skins."
            ],
            "Chapter 14": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:49) (\"And it shall be, if the plague-spot is deep green or deep red in the garment or in the skin, or in the warp or in the woof, or in any article of skin, it is a plague-spot of leprosy, and it shall be shown to the Cohein.\") Or perhaps just as (skin is likened to wool and) wool is from a small beast (a sheep), which is eaten, then skin, too, (to be subject to leprosy tumah) must be from a small beast, which is eaten. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) a small beast which is not eaten, a large beast which is eaten, a large beast which is not eaten … until I include the skins of sheratzim? From the repetition of \"in the skin\" (Vayikra 13:48 and Vayikra 13:49). I might think that both dyed and undyed skins are subject to tumah. It is, therefore, written (twice, Vayikra 13:48 and Vayikra 13:49) \"garment.\" Just as \"garment\" connotes all white, so skins (to be subject to tumah) must be all white. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says \"or (in the skin\") includes the dyed. R. Shimon says: One verse says \"in the garment,\" (connoting white); another says \"in the skin\" (connoting also colored). How are these to be reconciled? Colored by Heaven are subject to tumah; colored by man are not subject to tumah.",
                "2) \"if the plague-spot is yerakrak\": I might think any shade of yarok (green); it is, therefore, written \"yerakrak,\" the greenest of the green (i.e., deep green). \"adamdam\": I might think any shade of adom (red); it is, therefore, written \"adamdam,\" the reddest of the red. \"yerakrak or adamdam\": We are hereby taught that they are not subject to tumah intermixed. I might think that just as they are not subject to tumah intermixed, they do not combine with each other (for the minimum size for tumah, a garis); it is, therefore, written \"And it shall be\" (connoting that they do combine).",
                "3) \"in the garment\": and not in the nap. (If the plague-spot appears in the nap, it is tamei, but the garment is not.) \"in the garment or in the skin, or in the warp or in the woof, or in any article of skin, (it is a plague-spot of leprosy\"): What is the intent of this? I might think that \"garment\" indicates one that is appropriate for both a rich man and a pauper. Whence do I derive (as subject to tumah) one that is appropriate for a rich man but not for a pauper; for a pauper but not for a rich man, neither for a rich man nor for a pauper? From (the categorical) \"it is a plague-spot of leprosy.\" \"and it shall be shown to the Cohein\": to include all (of the above instances).",
                "4) \"it is a plague-spot of leprosy\": (making it subject to tumah if it is) the size of a garis. (Why is a special verse needed for this? There is (leprosy) tumah here, and there is (leprosy) tumah in skin of the flesh. Just as there, the (minimum) size is a garis, here, too, it is a garis.",
                "5) But perhaps go in this direction: There is tumah here and there is tumah in houses. Just as there, the (minimum) size is two garisim, here, too, it is two garisim.",
                "6) Let us see what it most resembles. We derive something that incurs tumah in two weeks from something which incurs tumah in two weeks, and this is not to be refuted by houses, which incur tumah in three weeks. But perhaps go in this direction: We derive something which incurs tumah with deep green and deep red from something which incurs tumah with deep green and deep red, and this is not to be refuted by skin of the flesh, which does not incur tumah with deep green and deep red; it is, therefore, written \"it is a plague-spot of leprosy.\"",
                "7) (Vayikra 13:50) \"And the Cohein shall see the plague-spot, and he shall quarantine the plague-spot for seven days.\": This is the first quarantine.",
                "8) (Vayikra 13:51) (\"And he shall see the plague-spot on the seventh day. If the plague-spot has spread in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in the skin, (whatever work the skin is made for), the plague-spot is \"blight-leprosy; it is unclean.\") \"on the seventh\": I might think, seven days, either by day or by night. It is, therefore, written \"on the day,\" and not at night.",
                "9) \"if the plague-spot has spread\": This refers to a spreading adjacent (to the plague-spot), any amount (of spreading in this instance conferring tumah). And whence do we include (as conferring tumah a spreading which is) distant (from the plague-spot)? From \"in the garment\" (i.e., anywhere in the garment.)( I might think that any amount (of such a distant spreading would confer tumah.) It is, therefore, (to negate this) written here \"plague-spot,\" and elsewhere (in respect to flesh leprosy) \"plague-spot.\" Just as the plague-spot there must be (a minimum of) a garis, so, the plague-spot here must be (a minimum of) a garis.",
                "10) In sum: An adjacent spreading (confers tumah) in any amount; a distant spreading, with (the size of) a garis; a recurring spreading (i.e., a reappearance after the plague-spot has been cut out of the garment), with a garis.",
                "11) \"blight leprosy\": Invest it with a blight and derive no benefit from it. This tells me only of a confirmed plague-spot. Whence do I derive the same for a quarantined plague-spot? From (the redundant) \"blight-leprosy.\" If so, then just as with a confirmed garment, if he (cut it into pieces smaller than the minimum size for tumah and) made sponges of them, they remain tamei, and no benefit may be derived from them, so (the same rule should apply to) a quarantined garment. It is, therefore, written \"the plague-spot is blight-leprosy; it is unclean,\" and not a confirmed garment (in the above instance)."
            ],
            "Chapter 15": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:52) (\"And he shall burn the garment, or the warp, or the woof, of wool or of flax, on any article of skin in which the plague-spot will be; for it is blight-leprosy — it shall be burned in fire.\") \"And he shall burn, etc.\": I might think that he should bring shearings of wool and stalks of flax and burn them along with it; it is, therefore, written \"it shall be burned in fire\" — nothing else need be burned along with it.",
                "2) If so, why is it written \"of wool or of flax\"? To exclude (from the requirement of burning) appendages (to the garment, which are not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness.)",
                "3) I would then exclude appendages of silk and of gold, whose kind (silk and gold) are not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness, but I would not exclude (wool) of purple and crimson, whose kind, (wool) is subject to plague-spot uncleanliness. It is, therefore, written \"in which the plague-spot will be found,\" i.e., which is subject to plague-spot (uncleanliness — to exclude dyed wool [\"purple and crimson\" above], which is not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness).",
                "4) (Vayikra 13:53) \"And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has not spread in the garment, or in the warp or in the woof, or in any article of skin\": This refers to the stationariness (omed) of the plague-spot, (and not to the non-appearance of a different plague-spot). (Vayikra 13:54) (\"Then the Cohein shall command, and they shall wash what contains the plague-spot, and he shall quarantine it a second seven days.\") \"Then the Cohein shall command and they shall wash\": the command, by the Cohein; the washing, by any man.",
                "5) \"and they shall wash … the plague-spot\": I might think the plague-spot alone; it is, therefore, written \"what contains the plague-spot.\" How so? Some of the adjoining material is washed with it.",
                "6) \"and he shall quarantine it a second seven days\": We are hereby taught that the seventh day is included in the count — both before it and after it (i.e., the last of the first seven, and the first of the second seven.)",
                "7) (Vayikra 13:55) (\"And the Cohein shall see, after the plague-spot has been washed, and, behold, the plague-spot has not changed its appearance, and the plague-spot has not spread, it is unclean. In fire shall you burn it; it is p'cheteth in its karachath or in its gabachath.\") \"after the plague-spot has been washed, and, behold, the plague-spot has not changed its appearance and the plague-spot has not spread, it is unclean.\": If it has not changed and not spread, it is tamei; but if it changed and did not spread, it should be examined as in the beginning. These are the words of R. Yehudah. And the sages say: It is tamei by reason of omed (viz. Vayikra 13:4 above). How, then, am I to understand \"and, behold, it has not changed\"? From any appearance that renders it subject to tumah (even if it changed from green to red).",
                "8) \"pcheteth\": all of it appearing to be indented. — But perhaps only second-degree (dimness) is intended! — \"It\" (\"It is pcheteth\") indicates that it is as it was before. How, then, am I to understand \"pcheteth\"? As connoting (all of) it appearing to be indented.",
                "9) \"in its karachath\": This refers to frayed (garments); \"or in its gabachath\": This refers to new (garments) — whence they ruled: sagus (a very thick cloak) on which a plague-spot appears — R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: Until it appears in its weaving and its tufts.",
                "10) (Vayikra 13:56) \"And if the Cohein saw, and, behold, the plague-spot became dim after it was washed\": second-degree dimness (e.g., deep green to green), or third-degree dimness (e.g., deep green to neutral)? It is, therefore, written \"and, behold, the plague-spot became dim\" (i.e., even though it is dim, it is still called \"plague-spot.\" — If \"plague-spot,\" I might think that it retained its original appearance (but just changed color [e.g., from deep green to deep red]); it is, therefore, written \"and, behold, it became dim.\" How so? (It changed from) first degree to second degree, and not to third degree. "
            ],
            "Chapter 16": [
                "1) (Vayikra 13:56) (\"And if the Cohein saw, and, behold, the plague-spot became dim after it was washed, then he shall tear it from the garment, or from the skin, or from the warp, or from the woof, (Vayikra 13:57). And if it be seen again in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any article of skin, it is porachath. In fire shall you burn it, what contains the plague-spot.\") \"then he shall tear\": I might think that he tears it just a little to fulfill the mitzvah of tearing; it is, therefore, written \"it.\" If \"it,\" I might think that he might slash it and leave it in its place; it is, therefore, written \"from the garment\" — he must remove it from the garment.",
                "2) If \"from the garment,\" I might think that he could tear it out and throw the torn pieces on the dung heap; it is, therefore, written (the redundant) \"In fire shall you burn it, what contains the plague-spot,\" to teach us that the torn pieces require burning.",
                "3) We learned about what dimmed at the end of the second week to a second-degree appearance (see Chapter 15:10) that he tears it out. And whence is it derived that what dims at the end of the first week to a second-degree appearance and not to a third degree that he washes it (and quarantines it again as it if had remained in its original appearance? It is written here \"plague-spot\" (\"and, behold, the plague-spot became dim\") and there (Vayikra 13 verse 54), \"plague-spot\" (\"Then the Cohein shall command and they shall wash what contains the plague-spot\"). Just as with \"plague-spot\" here — it dimmed to the second degree and not to the third degree, so with \"plague-spot\" there — it dimmed to the second degree but not to the third degree.",
                "4) (Vayikra 13:57) (\"And if it be seen again in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any article of skin, it is porachath (something whose \"blossoming\" recurs). In fire shall you burn it (the entire garment), what contains the plague-spot\"). Whence is it derived that he places a patch upon it (the site of the torn out plague-spot)? From \"and if it be seen again,\" and \"again\" can apply only to the site,\" whereby we learn that he places a patch upon it.",
                "5) R. Nechemiah says: A patch is not required, (\"again\" referring to the garment from which the plague-spot was torn out). If (after the patch was placed on the site) the plague-spot returned to the garment (at a different site), the patch is \"rescued\" (i.e., it need not be burned, not being part of the original garment). If it returned upon the patch, the (entire) garment is burned (along with the patch). If one patched aught of a quarantined (garment) on a clean (garment), and the plague-spot reappeared on the (clean) garment, the patch is burned. If it reappeared on the patch, the first garment is burned. And (a separate ruling:) The patch can be used for the second garment with (identifying signs [so that it not be confused with other patches]).",
                "6) This (\"And if it be seen again\") implies in its original place. Whence is it derived (that it requires burning if it reappears) anywhere on the garment? From \"in the garment.\" I might think (this applies if it reappeared) in any size. It is, therefore, written \"again.\" Just as the first, the size of a garis, so the second, the size of a garis.",
                "7) (\"and if it be seen again\":) This tells me only (if it is seen again) in its original appearance. Whence do I derive (that it is tamei) even not in its original appearance (but in any appearance of tumah, e.g., from deep green to deep red)? From \"a blossoming\" — whether or not in its original appearance.",
                "8) — But perhaps the thrust of \"a blossoming\" is that it is not tamei unless it returns and spreads even more (than its original appearance). — (This is not so, for) \"it (is a blossoming\") connotes its remaining as it was. How, then, is \"a blossoming\" to be construed? As \"whether or not in its original appearance.\"",
                "9) Of a linen curtain that had stripes running through it, dyed and white, they asked R. Eliezer: It has only one white stripe (the size of a garis, which has nowhere to spread, the other stripes being dyed and thus not being subject to plague-spot tumah. [the question: Does this require quarantine if there is no point in quarantining it to see whether or not it will spread?]) He answered: (It must be quarantined, but) I have not heard (why). R. Yehudah b. Betheirah said to him: Shall I study it? R. Eliezer: If to substantiate the words of the sages (that it must be quarantined), yes, (but not to contravene them). R. Yehudah (after study): Perhaps it will remain (without dimming) for two weeks, and a plague-spot that remains (undimmed) in garments for two weeks (even without spreading) is tamei. R. Eliezer: You are a great sage, for you have substantiated the words of the sages. A spreading, if it adjoins (the original plague-spot is tamei) with any amount; if distant, it requires the size of a garis.",
                "10) (Vayikra 13:58) (\"And the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or any article of skin that you shall wash, and the plague-spot depart from them, then it shall be cleansed (i.e., immersed) a second time and it shall be clean.\") \"And the garment … that you shall wash\": I might think (if not for \"and the plague-spot depart\") that it is sufficient to perform the mitzvah of washing (and that it need not be rubbed thoroughly); it is, therefore, written \"and the plague-spot depart\" (i.e., to the end that it depart or that it dim to the third degree [and if he sees that it does not depart, it is quarantined for a second seven days]). If only \"and it depart\" were written, I might think from this side to the other side; it is, therefore, written \"from them\" — until it is entirely uprooted from them.",
                "11) \"then it shall be cleansed a second time and it shall be clean\": the second (i.e., this cleansing), to cleanse it from tumah (i.e., ritual immersion); the first, (in verse 54), to quarantine the plague-spot (if it does not depart).",
                "12) (Vayikra 13:59) (\"This is the law of the plague-spot of leprosy, in a garment of wool or linen, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any article of skin, to declare it clean or to declare it unclean.\") \"This is the plague-spot of leprosy, etc.\": (Vayikra 14:54) (\"This is the law for all plague-spots or leprosy and for a nethek (Vayikra 14:55) and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house.\") They (plague-spot garments) are being likened to a house, viz., Just as a house is rendered unclean by the entry (of an unclean person), so it is rendered unclean by the entry of all (plague-spot garments). — But perhaps just as a house requires birds (for its cleansing, [viz. Vayikra 14:49]), so all (plague-spot garments) should require birds (for their cleansing)! It is, therefore, written \"This\" (i.e., only in this respect [that of \"entry\"] are they similar, and not in the other.) Rebbi says: It is written \"This is the law for all plague-spots of leprosy and for a nethek and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house.\" Just as a house renders unclean by entry, so all are rendered unclean by entry. This tells me only of a garment. Whence do I derive all of them (i.e., warp and woof, etc.) for inclusion? From \"This is the law of the plague-spot of leprosy … in the warp or in the woof, etc.\" Just as a garment renders unclean by entry, so all (i.e., warp and woof, etc.) render unclean by entry. — But perhaps just as a garment is rendered unclean by all that are tamei (e.g., sheratzim, semen, etc.), so all (warp and woof etc.) are rendered unclean by all that are tamei! It is, therefore, written \"This\" (and not the others).",
                "13) \"to render it clean and to render it unclean\": Just as it (the law of plague-spots) is a mitzvah in Eretz Yisrael, so it is a mitzvah outside Eretz Yisrael. \"to declare it clean or to declare it unclean\": Just as it is a mitzvah to declare it clean, so it is a mitzvah to declare it unclean. \"to declare it clean or to declare it unclean\": The Cohein who declares it clean declares it unclean, and if he dies, a different Cohein inspects it."
            ]
        },
        "Metzora": {
            "Section 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 14:2) (\"This shall be the law of the leper on the day of his cleansing; he shall be brought to the Cohein.\") \"the law of the leper\": for the \"eternal house\" (i.e., the Temple). \"This\" (i.e., the bringing of the offerings) does not obtain in a bamah \"shall be\": in the present time (i.e., even after the destruction of the Temple). \"the law of the leper\": There is one law for all the lepers in that they bring this offering. — Now where have they been excluded (from \"oneness,\" that they need be included in it vis-à-vis the offering)? — Because we find Scripture to have differentiated between their (types of) tumah and their weeks (of quarantine, some requiring one week and others, two), we might think to differentiate in their offering too; it is, therefore, written \"the law of the leper\" — there is one law for all of the lepers; that they bring this offering.",
                "3) \"on the day of his cleansing\": We are hereby taught that (the declaration of) his tumah and his cleansing obtain (only) in the daytime. This tells me only of his tumah and his cleansing. Whence do I derive the same for the slaughtering of the birds, the sprinkling of the birds' blood and his shaving? From \"the law of the leper on the day.\" I might think that also the taking of the birds and the sending of the bird and the washing of his garments and his bathing must also be in the daytime; it is, therefore, written \"This (and not the others) is the law of the leper.\" \"he shall be brought to the Cohein\": We are hereby taught that his tumah and taharah are (mediated) through a Cohein. This tells me only of his tumah and his taharah. Whence do I derive the same for the slaughtering of the birds, the sprinkling of the birds' blood, and his shaving? From \"the law of the leper\" — through a Cohein. I might think that the same applies to the taking of the birds, the sending of the bird, the washing of his garments, and his bathing; it is, therefore, written \"This\" (and not the others). \"on the day of his cleansing he shall be brought to the Cohein\": he shall not delay (from his being healed of the plague-spot to his being cleansed).",
                "4) When Munbaz reasoned before R. Akiva: If one whom I freed (immediately, [i.e., an unconfirmed leper, who returned from his week of quarantine)] — (If one whom I freed immediately from a state of tumah) upon his standing (i.e., upon his return to the encampment), I had held (in a state of tumah) in his going (into quarantine) for seven days, then one whom I held (in his state of tumah for seven days, [namely, a healed confirmed leper]) in his standing, (i.e., upon his return to the encampment after his first shaving [viz. Vayikra 14:8]), does it not follow that I should have held him for seven days (in a state of tumah) in his going (i.e., in the interval between his being healed from the plague-spot and his return to the encampment!) R. Akiva said to him: I can add to your words, viz.: Where would Scripture be more stringent? In the days of confirmation (of absolute leprosy), or in the days of counting (i.e., the seven days between the first shaving and the second)? The days of confirmation are more stringent than the days of counting. For in the days of counting he does not confer tumah through couch (mishkav) or seat (moshav), and he does not confer tumah (to a house) through entry, whereas in the days of confirmation, he does. And if for the days of counting, which are less stringent, you have accorded seven, then for the days of confirmation, should not seven be accorded! Munbaz: Master, indeed, you have substantiated my words! R. Akiva: And when you accord seven for the days of confirmation, they, likewise, become days of counting, so that both combined become fourteen. And if to the less stringent days of counting you have accorded fourteen, then how much more so should fourteen be accorded to the more stringent days of confirmation, so that the process should continue interminably. And it is precisely to countermand such reasoning that Scripture must state \"On the day of his cleansing he shall be brought to the Cohein (for the cleansing procedure)\" — he shall not delay (from his being healed of the plague-spot to his being cleansed).",
                "5) (Vayikra 14:3) (\"And the Cohein shall go outside the camp, and the Cohein shall see, and, behold, if the plague-spot of leprosy is healed from the leper,\") \"And the Cohein shall go out … and the Cohein shall see\": What is the intent of this (i.e., Why not simply \"and he shall see?) — Because it is written \"And the Cohein shall go out, I might think that only a Cohein who was in the encampment (could go outside to cleanse the leper), but if he were at sea or in rivers or in deserts, whence would I know (that he is also qualified to do so)? From and the Cohein (i.e., a different Cohein) shall (i.e., may) see.\" If so, why is it written \"And the Cohein shall go out\"? (To teach us that only) a Cohein who may enter the encampment (i.e., a Cohein who is not a leper himself) may cleanse a leper, but a leper may not cleanse a leper.",
                "6) \"and, behold, it is healed\": if the plague-spot (itself) is healed (even if the white hair still remains). \"plague-spot\": (even) if the white hair has gone (and the plague-spot remains). \"leprosy\": (even) if the michyah has gone. This tells me only of all of them (i.e., all of the white hair, all of the michyah). Whence do I derive (that he is healed) even if part of the white hair (has gone), even part of the michyah? From \"from (the leper\"), (\"from\" connoting \"part of\"). \"the leper\": to include one in whose entire body it has blossomed, as requiring birds.",
                "7) But does this not follow a fortiori? (Why, then, is a verse required?) viz. If one who was healed, with no signs of tumah remaining with him — (If he) requires birds, then one who was healed, with signs of tumah (complete blossoming) remaining with him — how much more so should he require birds! — (No,) this is refuted by one who was quarantined for two weeks, who was healed, the signs of tumah (i.e., the original plague-spot for which he was quarantined) remaining with him (but merely not spreading), and his not requiring birds.",
                "8) Do not wonder, then, about one in whom it blossomed entirely, that even if he were healed and signs of tumah remained with him, he did not require birds. It must, therefore, be written \"the leper,\" to include one in whom it has blossomed entirely as requiring birds.",
                "9) (Vayikra 14:4) (\"And the Cohein shall command, and he shall take for the one to be cleansed two clean, living birds, and cedar-wood, and scarlet and hyssop.\") \"And the Cohein shall command, and he shall take\": the commanding by a Cohein; the taking, by anyone.",
                "10) \"and he shall take for the one to be cleansed\": in the name of \"one to be cleansed,\" whether man or woman or child. From here it was derived: If he took it for a man, it may be used for woman; if for a woman, it may be used for a man; if for a house (afflicted with a plague-spot), it may be used for a leper; if for a leper, it may be used for a house.",
                "11) \"and he shall take two birds\": The minimum of \"birds\" is two. If so, why state \"two\"? That they both be alike. Whence is it derived that even if they are not both alike, they are still valid? From \"bird\" (Vayikra 14:5) - \"bird\" (Vayikra 14:6), implying extension of inclusion.",
                "12) \"living': and not slaughtered. \"clean\": and not treifoth (birds with organic defects). \"and cedar-wood\": If \"wood,\" I would think any wood; it is, therefore, written \"cedar.\" If \"cedar,\" I would think a (cedar) leaf; it is, therefore, written \"and wood.\" What is intended? A piece of wood cut from a cedar tree. R. Chananiah b. Gamliel says (the meaning is) with a leaf on top.",
                "13) R. Yehudah said: It was my Sabbath (to expound), and I went after R. Tarfon (his master) to his house (to take leave to do so). He said to me: My son, give me my sandal, and I gave it to him. He stretched his hand out to the window and gave me a stick from it, saying: Yehudah, with this I cleansed three lepers — at which I learned seven halachoth: that it must be b'roth (a type of cedar), that it must have a leaf on top, that its length must be an ell, that its thickness must be about a quarter of the leg of a bedstead, cut into two and then into four, that it can be used for sprinkling, once, twice, and three times, that the cleansing can be before the Temple and not before the Temple, and that it can be done in the border towns (and not necessarily in Jerusalem).",
                "14) \"and scarlet (tola'ath)\": I might think that pikas (a scarlet wood derivative) were permissible; it is, therefore, written \"tola'ath\" (lit., [scarlet] of a worm). If tola'ath, I might think any color (that came from a worm) were permissible; it is, therefore, written \"ushni tola'ath\" (and \"distinctive\" tola'ath). How so? It must be deep red. Yochanan b. Dehavai says: Residue, (this connoted by \"shni\") of tola'ath is also permitted.",
                "15) And whence is it derived that if he used it for testing purposes (to see if the color would take), it is unfit (for cleansing the leper)? From (the understood connotation of) \"and shni tola'ath.\"",
                "16) \"and hyssop\": and not Greek hyssop, and not blue hyssop, and not Roman hyssop, and not desert hyssop, and not any \"hyssop\" qualified by an epithet."
            ],
            "Chapter 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 14:5) (\"And the Cohein shall command, and he shall slaughter the one bird into an earthen vessel over living water.\") \"And the Cohein shall command\": The commanding is by the Cohein; the slaughtering, by any man. These are the words of R. Yehudah b. R. Yossi. Rebbi says: The slaughtering, too, is by a Cohein.",
                "2) \"and he shall slaughter the one bird\": the more distinctive of the two. \"the one\": so that one if of them dies or becomes a treifah, he takes a mate for the second one.",
                "3) \"the one into an earthen vessel\": and not two of them (i.e., two different birds of two different lepers) into an earthen vessel. For (without the verse) it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If in an instance (that of a sin-offering) where (slaughtering) from name to name (i.e., slaughtering one man's sin-offering in the name of another) is not kasher, yet the mingling (of their bloods) is kasher, then here, where from name to name is kasher (see Section 1:10) how much more so should their mingling be kasher! It must, therefore, be written \"the one into an earthen vessel,\" and not two into an earthen vessel.",
                "4) \"vessel\": I might think any vessel; it is, therefore, written \"earthenware.\" If \"earthenware,\" I might think (even) a fragment (of earthenware). It is, therefore, written \"vessel.\" How so? (He takes) a (broad, flat) bowl of earthenware. \"living water\": and not salted water, and not lukewarm water, and not failing water (i.e., water whose source dries up), and not dripping water. R. Eliezer says: Just as (living) water has had no work done in it, so a vessel (is required) that has had no work done in it. R. Shimon says: Just as (living) water is the most distinctive of its kind, so the bird must be the most distinctive of its kind, a partridge.",
                "5) How does he do (the cleansing)? He takes the cedar, the myrtle and the tongue of wool and binds them in the end of the tongue, and circles them with the wing tips and the tail tip of the second (living) bird, and he dips (them into the blood of the slaughtered bird), and he sprinkles (upon the leper). \"in the blood\": I might think in the blood, exclusively; it is, therefore, written \"living water.\" If \"water,\" I might think \"living water,\" exclusively; it is, therefore, written \"blood.\" How is this effected? With living water in which the blood of the bird is discernible, which the sages estimated to be a quarter (of a log).",
                "6) (Vayikra 14:6) (\"The living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar-wood, and the scarlet wool, and the hyssop, and he shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the slaughtered bird over the living water.\") And whence is it derived that if the blood has been spilled, the bird for \"sending\" is to be allowed to die (and two new birds brought), or that if the bird for \"sending\" died, the blood is to be spilled out (and two new birds brought)? From \"the living bird … and he shall dip them in the blood of the slaughtered bird\" (whence it is derived that the two birds are mutually indispensable). \"he shall take it\": We are hereby taught that he separates it by itself. \"and the cedar-wood and the scarlet-wool, and the hyssop\": (they, too, [bound] by themselves). \"and he shall dip\": What is the intent of this? (i.e., why add \"them and the living bird\" instead of simply stating \"and he shall dip in the blood of the slaughtered bird,\" and I would know that it refers to all of the aforementioned?) For I might think that since it (the living bird) was not together with them for binding, it should not be together with them for dipping; it must, therefore, be written \"and he shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the slaughtered bird.\" The (living) bird was \"returned\" for dipping.",
                "7) \"the slaughtered bird\" (hashchutah\"): slaughtered through shechitah, and not through melikah (\"pinching\"). (What is the intent of this [of the apparently superfluous word \"shechutah\"])? I might think (without \"hashchutah\") that it follows that since the leper's amendment within (the sanctuary [viz. Vayikra 14:22]) is through birds, and his amendment outside (the sanctuary, i.e., our instance) is through birds — Just as his amendment within is through melikah, so his amendment outside is through melikah; it must, therefore be written \"hashchutah,\" and not hamelukah.\" \"the (blood of) the slaughtered bird over the living water (in the vessel)\": not \"the earthen vessel over the living water.\""
            ],
            "Section 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 14:7) (\"And he shall sprinkle upon the one to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and he shall cleanse him, and he shall send the living bird over the face of the field.\") \"And he shall sprinkle\": on the upper surface of the leper's hand, and others say on his forehead. \"And he shall sprinkle upon the one to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times\": The one to be cleansed from the leprosy requires seven sprinklings; one (who is to be cleansed from) dead body uncleanliness does not require seven sprinklings.",
                "2) (The verse is needed for the above, for without it we would say) Does it not follow a fortiori that he does require seven sprinklings, viz.: If a leper, who does not require sprinkling on the third and seventh day (viz. Bamidbar 19:12) requires seven sprinklings, then one who is tamei through a dead body, who does require sprinkling on the third and seventh day — how much more so does he require seven sprinklings! It must, therefore, be written \"And he shall sprinkle upon the one to be cleansed from the leprosy.\" The one to be cleansed from the leprosy requires seven sprinklings; one (who is to be cleansed from) dead body uncleanliness does not require seven sprinklings.",
                "3) But let it follow a fortiori that a leper requires sprinkling on the third and seventh day, viz.: If one who is tamei through a dead body, who does not require seven sprinklings, requires sprinkling on the third and seventh day, then a leper, who does require seven sprinklings, how much more so should he require sprinkling on the third and seventh day! It is, therefore, written \"seven times and he shall cleanse him.\" He requires (for cleansing) seven sprinklings; he does not require sprinkling on the third and seventh day.",
                "4) \"and he shall cleanse him\": through those things that are done upon his body, (viz. sprinkling, shaving, and bathing). I might think that his cleansing is thus consummated; it is, therefore, written \"and he shall send,\" \"and he shall shave,\" \"and he shall wash,\" \"and he shall bathe.\" I might think that they are all indispensable to his cleanliness; it is, therefore, written (here, after sprinkling): \"and he shall cleanse him, and (after sending, washing, shaving, and bathing) (Bamidbar 19:8): \"and he shall be clean.\" Just as the first cleansing relates to what is performed upon his body (i.e., the sprinkling), so the second relates to what is performed upon his body (i.e., the shaving and the bathing, and not the sending of the bird and the washing of his clothes.)",
                "5) \"and he shall send the living bird (over the face of the field.\") He should not stand in Yaffo and send it to the sea. He should not stand in Gabbath and send it to the desert. He should not stand outside the city and send it towards the city. \"over the face of the field\": If he sent it and it returned to his hand, he may eat it.",
                "6) (Vayikra 14:8) (\"And the one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and he shall shave all of his hair, and he shall bathe in water, and he shall be clean; and then he shall come into the camp. And he shall sit outside his tent for seven days.\") \"And the one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes\": R. Shimon said: What does this come to teach us? If to confer tumah upon garments by contact, does this not follow a fortiori? viz.: If in the days of his counting (seven days, after having brought the birds), when he does not confer tumah by entry (into a house), he does confer tumah upon garments by contact (viz. Vayikra 14:9 \"And he shall wash his clothes\"), then in the days of his confirmation (of absolute leprosy, i.e., our instance), when he does confer tumah by entry, how much more so should he confer tumah upon garments by contact! If so, why is it written \"And the one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes\"? (He must wash them) from mishkav (couch) and moshav (seat) tumah, (their having become tamei by being under him, even though he did not touch them.) For there are two types of garment washing: one, for mishkav and moshav tumah (our instance); the other, for conferring tumah upon garments by contact (that in verse 14:9).",
                "7) \"and he shall shave all of his hair\": I might think even his (normally) covered hair. And this would follow (by the following line of reasoning:) Shaving is mentioned in respect to his days of counting (Vayikra 14 verse 9), and shaving is mentioned in respect to his days of confirmation (Vayikra 14 verse 8). Just as the former excludes covered hair, so the latter excludes covered hair.",
                "8) — Now if we are lenient in respect to the days of his counting, when he does not confer tumah by mishkav or moshav or by entry, should we be lenient in respect to the days of his confirmation, when he does confer tumah by mishkav and moshav and by entry! Since he confers tumah by these, he should also be required to shave what is (normally) covered! It is, therefore, written \"all of his hair\" (Vayikra 14 verse 8) - \"all of his hair\" (Vayikra 14 verse 9) for an identity (gezeirah shavah). Just as \"all of his hair\" in respect to the days of his counting excludes covered hair, so \"all of his hair\" in respect to the days of his confirmation excludes covered hair.",
                "9) \"and he shall bathe in water\": even in the water of a mikveh. Now should it not follow (otherwise), viz.: If a zav (one with a genital discharge), who does not require (for his cleansing) the sprinkling of living (running) water, requires bathing in living water (viz. Vayikra 15:13), then a leper, who requires the sprinkling of living water, how much more so should he require bathing in living water! It is, therefore, written \"and he shall bathe in water\" — even in the water of a mikveh.",
                "10) \"and he shall bathe in water, and he shall be clean; and then he shall come into the camp\": The bathing of his body is indispensable for his coming into the camp, and the washing of his garments is not indispensable for his coming into the camp.",
                "11) \"And he shall sit outside his tent\": as one who is under the ban. And he is forbidden to engage in marital relations, it being written \"his tent,\" which is none other than his wife, as it is written (Devarim 5:27) \"Return to your tents\" (i.e., to your wives). \"for seven days\". And (this abstention from marital relations does) not (obtain) during the days of his confirmation (as a leper). These are the words of Rebbi. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: How much more so does it obtain for the days of his confirmation! R. Chiyya said: I asked before Rebbi: Did we not learn, master, that Yotham was conceived by Uzziyahu only during the days of his confirmation? He answered: I, too, said that."
            ],
            "Chapter 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 14:9) (\"And it shall be on the seventh day that he shall shave all of his hair. His head, his beard, and the brows of his eyes — all of his hair shall he shave. And he shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and he shall be clean.\") \"the seventh\": I might think either in the daytime or at night; it is, therefore, written \"in the day,\" and not at night.",
                "2) \"he shall shave all of his hair\": I might think even his (normally) covered hair; it is, therefore, written \"the brows of his eyes.\" Just as the brows of his eyes are seen, excluding covered hair, so, \"all of his hair\" connotes what is seen, excluding covered hair.",
                "3) (But why not say:) Just as his brows are a place of gathered hair that is seen, so I include (for shaving) only a place of gathered hair that is seen. Whence do I derive for inclusion a gathering of hair that is not seen? From \"all of his hair shall he shave.\"",
                "4) \"his head\": Why is this written? (i.e., Why is the above generalization not sufficient to include it?) Because it is written (of a Nazirite, Bamidbar 6:5) \"a blade shall not pass over his head, I might think (that this includes) even a leprous (Nazirite); it is, therefore, written \"his head.\" \"his beard\": Why is this written? Because it is written (of Cohanim, Vayikra 21:5): \"the corner of their beard they shall not shave off,\" I might think (that this includes) even a leprous (Cohein); it is, therefore, written \"his beard.\" Why mention both \"his head\" and \"his beard\"? (i.e., Why can one not be derived from the other?) — Because there obtain (strictures) with head which do not obtain with beard, and with beard, which do not obtain with head — The head (of a Nazirite) is forbidden both with scissors and with blade, and the (destruction of the) beard does not obtain with scissors; the head is permitted with all men (who are not Nazirites), and the (destruction of the beard is forbidden with all men — Because there obtain with head (strictures) which do not obtain with beard, and with beard (strictures) which do not obtain with head, there must be written (to include for the shaving of the leper) both \"his head\" and \"his beard.\"",
                "5) R. Yossi Haglili says: It is written \"the brows of his eyes,\" and not his eyelids. \"all of his hair shall he shave.\": What is the intent of this? (It is already written in the beginning of the verse.) To stipulate responsibility for shaving. So that if he did not shave on the seventh day, he must do so on the eighth, or the ninth, or the tenth.",
                "6) Three shave, and their shaving is a mitzvah: the Nazirite, the leper, and the Levites (viz. Bamidbar 8:7). And all of them, if they shaved without a blade, or if they left two hairs, they have done nothing.",
                "7) (Vayikra 14:10) (\"And on the eighth day he shall take two he-lambs without blemish, and one ewe-lamb of its first year, without blemish, and three tenth parts of (an ephah of) fine flour for a meal-offering mixed with oil, and one log of oil.\") On the seventh day he shaves and on the eighth day he brings (his offerings). And if he shaved on the eighth day, he brings his offerings on the ninth day. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Tarfon queried him: Why is this different from the instance of a Nazirite (who became tamei, about whom you said that if he shaves on the eighth day, he brings his offerings on the same day)? He answered: The cleansing of the Nazirite is dependent on (the passage of) days (and not on shaving), and the cleansing of the leper is dependent on his shaving, and he cannot bring his offerings until the sun has set (on the day of his shaving).",
                "8) \"he shall take two he-lambs\": The minimum of \"he-lambs\" is two. Why, then, is \"two\" written? That they both be alike. Whence is it derived that even if they are not alike they are kasher? From (the repetition) \"he-lamb\" - \"he-lamb.\"",
                "9) \"and one ewe-lamb of its first year\": It must be distinctive. \"of its first year\": not a one-year-old lamb. \"and three tenth parts of (an ephah of) fine flour for a meal-offering mixed with oil\": for the beasts (for the libations of the three lambs). I might think that (the fine flour is intended as a separate) meal-offering (for a leper), but (Vayikra 14:20) \"And the Cohein shall offer upon the altar the burnt-offering and the meal-offering, (likening the meal-offering to the burnt-offering as being completely burnt) indicates that the meal-offering (in question) is that for the beasts.",
                "10) But this still requires (learning i.e., Perhaps \"and the meal-offering\" indicates the meal-offering of a leper [and is not intended to liken the meal-offering to the burnt-offering]). (This cannot be, for in the section on libations [Bamidbar 15:5]) it is written (that the meal-offering is to be brought) \"in addition to the burnt-offering\" — this is the burnt-offering of the leper; \"for the sacrifice\" — to include the sin-offering of the leper; \"or for the sacrifice\" — to include his guilt-offering."
            ],
            "Section 3": [
                "1) (Another proof for the above\") R. Yehudah b. Betheirah says: It is written (Vayikra 14:21): \"And if he is poor … (then he brings) a tenth-part of fine flour.\" Just as we find that a poor man brings one beast and one tenth-part, so a rich man, who brings three beasts, brings three tenth-parts. How, then, am I to satisfy \"and three tenth parts of (an ephah of) fine flour for a meal-offering mixed with oil\"? (That it is to be understood as) for the beasts.",
                "2) (Vayikra 14:10) \"and one log of oil\": (Why write \"one\" instead of \"a\"?) For (if it were written \"a,\" I would think that) just as we find that a poor man, who brings one tenth-part brings one log of oil, so, a rich man, who brings three tenth-parts, requires three logs of oil. It must, therefore, be written \"and one log of oil.\"",
                "3) (Vayikra 14:11) (\"And the Cohein who cleanses shall stand the man who is to be cleansed and those (things) before the L–rd at the door of the tent of meeting.\") \"And the Cohein who cleanses shall stand the man who is to be cleansed and those\" — whereby we learn that they all require standing. I might think that the standing of all (man, sin-offering, burnt-offering) is indispensable; it is, therefore, written \"the man\" (The (standing of) the man is indispensable, and not(that of) the sin-offering and not (that of) the burnt-offering.",
                "4) But perhaps \"man\" (is singled out) to exclude woman and child. (This is not so, for) it is written \"who is to be cleansed,\" whether man, woman, or child. Why, then, is \"the man\" singled out? To indicate not the sin-offering and not the burnt-offering.",
                "5) If so, (if sin-offering and burnt-offering are excluded), why is it written (Vayikra 14:12) \"it for a guilt-offering\"? (i.e., if sin-offering and burnt-offering have already been excluded, why exclude them again?) — For I might think that since the guilt-offering comes to cleanse, (for its blood is sprinkled on him), and the man comes to be cleansed, then just as the guilt-offering requires waving, so the man requires waving; it is, therefore, written \"as a guilt-offering … and he shall wave\" — the guilt-offering (\"it\") requires waving, but the man does not require waving.",
                "6) \"before the L–rd, before the tent of meeting\": He places them at the gate of Nikanor, their backs to the east, and their faces to the west.",
                "7) (Vayikra 14:11): \"And the Cohein shall take the one he-lamb, and he shall bring it near as a guilt-offering, and the log of oil, and he shall wave them as a waving before the L–rd.\": We are hereby taught that they (the guilt-offering and the log of oil) require waving as one. Whence is it derived that if he waved each individually it is valid? From \"it as a guilt-offering … and he shall wave.\" I might think that he should (first) wave (both) and then wave (each individually); it is, therefore, written \"a waving\" — a \"waving,\" and not \"wavings.\" \"before the L–rd\": in the east, (the Shechinah being in the west).",
                "8) (Vayikra 14:13) (\"And he shall slaughter the lamb in the place where he slaughtered the sin-offering and the burnt-offering, in the holy place. For as the sin-offering is the guilt-offering, for the Cohein. It is holy of holies.\") What is the intent of \"And he shall slaughter … burnt-offering\"? (i.e., We already know that the place of the guilt-offering is in the north.) — Because it was excluded for standing (viz. Vayikra 14 verse 12), I might think that the slaughtering is in the place of its standing; it is, therefore, written \"in the place where he slaughters the sin-offering and the burnt-offering.\"",
                "9) I might then think (that he must slaughter the guilt-offering) on the same (slaughtering) ring (on which he slaughtered) the sin-offering and the burnt-offering; it is, therefore, written \"in the holy place,\" to validate the entire (north) side (of the altar).",
                "10) This (i.e., the above verse) tells me only that the guilt-offering must be (slaughtered) \"in the holy place.\" Whence do I derive the same for the sin-offering and the burnt-offering? From \"the sin-offering and the burnt-offering in the holy place.\""
            ],
            "Chapter 3": [
                "1) \"For as the sin-offering is the guilt-offering, for the Cohein\": Just as the sin-offering comes from chullin (what is mundane [and not from second-tithe]), in the daytime, and (whose blood is sprinkled) with the right hand, so, the guilt-offering. Just as the sin-offering requires a vessel (for the collection of the blood), so, the guilt-offering. Just as (with) the sin-offering, the blood (sprinkled on) the altar permits it (to be eaten by the Cohein), so, (with) the guilt-offering, the altar blood permits it (to be eaten by the Cohanim). If so, let us say: Just as the blood of a sin-offering is applied above (the red line on the altar), so, the blood of this guilt-offering; it is, therefore, written (of guilt-offerings, Vayikra 7:2): \"It is holy of holies … and its blood shall he dash on the altar roundabout,\" to include all of the guilt-offerings, along with the guilt-offering of the leper, as requiring their blood to be applied below (the red line).",
                "2) (Vayikra 14:14) (\"And the Cohein shall take from the blood of the guilt-offering, and the Cohein shall place it on the tnuch of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot.\") I would not know which (placing) takes precedence, that of the altar or that of the thumb. From \"it is for the Cohein\" (Vayikra 14:13), we infer that what validates (the flesh) for the Cohein takes precedence. What do we find to validate (the flesh) for the Cohein? The altar — the altar takes precedence. \"it (is for the Cohein\"): to exclude one that he slaughtered not for its sake. \"holy of holies\": to include the log of oil of the leper (as reverting to the Cohein after the applications as the sin-offering and the guilt-offering). \"it (is holy of holies\"): to exclude (from validity oil) which is lacking the least amount (from the log).",
                "3) (Vayikra 14:14): \"And the Cohein shall take\": I might think in a vessel. It is, therefore, written \"And the Cohein shall take\" - \"and the Cohein shall place\" Just as the placing is by the Cohein himself (without a vessel), so the taking is by the Cohein himself.",
                "4) I might then think that (placing the blood) on the altar requires the hand (alone, without a vessel); it is, therefore, written \"For as the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering for the Cohein\" — Just as a sin-offering requires a vessel, so a guilt-offering requires a vessel. We find, then, that two Cohanim receive the blood: one, in a vessel; the other, in his hand. The first comes and sprinkles it on the altar; the second comes (and applies it) to the leper. And the leper, (who already had immersed on the seventh day) immerses (again on the eighth day) in the lepers' chamber (and) comes and stands in the gate of Nikanor. R. Yehudah says: He did not require immersion(on the eighth day) for he had already immersed (on the seventh day and was clean with the setting of the sun) in the evening.",
                "5) \"and he shall place it on the tnuch\": I might think that the very inside (\"toch\") were meant; it is, therefore, written \"nuch\" (the \"n\" within the word \"tnuch\" diminishing the \"insideness\" of \"toch\"). If so, I might think that the upper tip of the ear were intended; it is, therefore, written (in effect) \"toch nuch\" (\"the inside of the nuch\"). How is the effected? (He places it) on the middle partition (beneath the tip, i.e., the anti-helix).",
                "6) (Vayikra 14:15) (\"And the Cohein shall take from the log of oil, and he shall pour onto the Cohein's left palm.\") \"from the log of oil and he shall pour\": If the log (vessel) lacks the necessary amount, (some of it having spilled): If before he poured it (on the Cohein's left palm), he may refill it; if after, he must bring another (log, the service) having begun. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: If the log lacks before he places it (i.e., before he sprinkles [viz. Vayikra 14 verse 16]), he may refill it, (the service not considered as having begun until he sprinkles); if after, he must bring another (log, the service) having begun.",
                "7) \"and he shall pour onto the Cohein's left palm\": It is a mitzvah (for one Cohein) to pour into another Cohein's palm; but if he pours into his own palm, it is valid.\" (Vayikra 14:16) (\"And the Cohein shall dip his right finger from the oil on his left palm, and he shall sprinkle from the oil with his finger seven times before the L–rd.\") \"And he shall dip\": and not wipe (the palm).",
                "8) \"And he shall dip … and he shall sprinkle\": For every sprinkling a (separate) dipping. It is written here \"his finger,\" and elsewhere (Vayikra 4:6), \"his finger.\" Just as \"finger\" here indicates the most adroit (\"meyumeneth\") finger on his right hand, (this being the thrust of (\"finger hayemanith\"), so \"his finger\" there indicates the most adroit finger on his right hand (i.e., the index finger).",
                "9) \"and he shall sprinkle from the oil with his finger seven times before the L–rd\": We are hereby apprised that he dips and sprinkles seven times in the direction of the holy of holies.",
                "10) (Vayikra 14:17) \"And from the rest of the oil which is on his palm, the Cohein shall place … upon the blood of the guilt-offering\": (Is the meaning that the blood precede the oil, or that if blood is there, he shall place (the oil), and if blood is not there, he shall not place (the oil)? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:28) \"upon the place of the blood of the guilt-offering.\" It is not the blood which is the decisive factor, but the place.",
                "11) If he lacks a (right) thumb, a (right) big toe, or a (right) ear, he can never be cleansed. R. Eliezer says: He places it on its side. R. Shimon says: If he places it on the left, it is valid.",
                "12) (Vayikra 14:18) \"And what is left over of the oil which is on the palm of the Cohein, he shall place on the head of the one who is to be cleansed. And the Cohein shall atone for him before the L–rd.\": If he placed it (on his head), it atones. If he did not place it, it does not atone. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yochanan b. Nuri says: It (the blood) is the left-over of a mitzvah. Whether or not he placed it, it atones — but it is considered as if he had not atoned (in the choicest manner).",
                "13) (Vayikra 14:19) (\"And the Cohein shall offer up the sin-offering, and he shall atone for the one to be cleansed from his uncleanliness, and after he shall slaughter the burnt-offering.\") \"And the Cohein shall offer up the sin-offering.\": All of its attendant activities must be with express intention for a sin-offering. \"And the Cohein shall offer up the sin-offering and he shall atone.\": What is the intent of this? (i.e., The next verse concludes \"and the Cohein shall make atonement for him and he shall be clean.\") Because it is written (Vayikra 14:20) \"And the Cohein shall offer up the burnt-offering and the meal-offering upon the altar,\" I might think that they are all indispensable (for his eating consecrated food). It is, therefore, written \"And the Cohein shall offer up the sin-offering and he shall atone,\" whereby we are taught that his atonement is effected by the sin-offering. \"and he shall atone for the one to be cleansed from his uncleanliness.\": From his (leprosy) uncleanliness, and not from his (leprosy) uncleanliness and his zav (genital discharge) uncleanliness. \"and after he shall slaughter the burnt-offering.\": after this act (of sprinkling the blood of the sin-offering).",
                "14) (Vayikra 14:20) \"And the Cohein shall offer up the burnt-offering and the meal-offering upon the altar, and the Cohein shall make atonement for him, and he shall be clean.\" \"And the Cohein shall offer up the burnt-offering\": even if he had not slaughtered it expressly as such. \"And the Cohein shall offer up the burnt-offering\": even if he had slaughtered it before the sin-offering. \"And the Cohein shall offer up the burnt-offering\": We are hereby taught that the (burning of the) limbs of the burnt-offering precedes that of the devoted portions of the sin-offering. R. Shimon said: The sin-offering is like the defense attorney that comes to conciliate (the Judge). Once He has been conciliated, the gift (i.e., the burning of the limbs) follows."
            ],
            "Section 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 14:21) (\"And if he is poor, and his hand cannot attain, then he shall take one he-lamb as a guilt-offering to be waved to make atonement for him, and one tenth part of fine flour mixed with oil as a meal-offering, and a log of oil.\") \"And if he is poor\": By this I might think that if he became poorer than he was (when he incurred responsibility for the offering), such as one who possessed one hundred manah who was reduced to fifty manah (— I might think that such a one could be called \"poor\" and not liable for a rich man's offering). It is, therefore, written \"and his hand cannot attain.\" If \"and his hand cannot attain,\" (I might think that) if he had the means but could not readily find (the needed sheep — I might think that such a one could bring a poor man's offering). It is, therefore, written \"and he is poor\" — so that both verses are necessary, lacking which we would not know (the halachah).",
                "2) \"and if he is poor\": he and not its vowers. Because since in valuations, a poor man who takes upon himself a rich man's valuation, gives a poor man's valuation, I might think that even a poor man who said: \"The offering of this leper is upon me (to give\"), if the leper were rich, (I might think) he brings a poor man's offering; it is, therefore, written \"he\", and not its vowers.",
                "3) Rebbi says: I say that it is thus with vows too. And why is it that a poor man who takes upon himself a rich man's valuation gives a poor man's valuation? For the rich man (in that instance) has no obligation. But if a rich man said: \"My valuation is upon me (to give\"), and a poor man heard it and said: \"What that man said is upon me,\" he gives the valuation of a rich man. Here, too, since he is obliged to bring three beasts, and the other wished to exempt him, he brings the offering of a rich man. If he were rich and became poor, or poor and became rich, he gives the valuation of a rich man.",
                "4) \"then he shall take one he-lamb as a guilt-offering\": R. Akiva asked R. Nechemiah: What is the intent of \"one\"? He answered: This one (the leper) brings according to his means and one who atones for sanctuary uncleanliness brings according to his means. (I might think that) just as the latter brings two birds (a sin-offering and a burnt-offering) instead of one (ewe-lamb) as a sin-offering, so, this one (the leper) brings two (birds) instead of the (ewe-lamb) sin-offering, (one for a sin-offering; the other for a burnt-offering), and the beast burnt-offering, (for which the rich man brings a he-lamb for a burnt-offering) is binding (also upon the poor man to bring, so that he will have to bring two he-lambs, one for a guilt-offering and one for a burnt-offering.) It, therefore, must be written \"one he-lamb as a guilt-offering,\" (and not more.) R. Akiva said to him: From \"the place that you come\" (that he must bring two, I can deduce that he brings only one, viz.) This one (the leper) brings from his means, and the sanctuary defiler brings from his means. Just as the latter brings two for (the sin-offering, which is) his atonement (and he need bring nothing more), so this one (the leper), need bring only (these) two (birds) for his atonement, (and nothing more)! He answered: If not (as I say), how do you satisfy it (\"one he-lamb as a guilt-offering\")? He answered: This one (the leper) brings from his means and in valuations one also brings from his means (viz. [Vayikra 27:8]: \"According to the means of the vower shall the Cohein valuate him.\") (I might think that) just as there he brings whatever he can attain, so this one brings whatever he can attain, (so that if he can attain two birds and two sheep he should bring them); it is, therefore, written \"one\" (he-lamb. Even if he can attain two sheep, he brings only one he-lamb as a guilt-offering, and two birds, one as a burnt-offering; the other, as a sin-offering).",
                "5) \"to be waved to make atonement\": Now does waving make atonement? (Is it not blood that atones?) If so, what is the intent of \"to be waved to make atonement\"? To teach that if he renders waving the \"remnant\" of a mitzvah (i.e., if he does not wave), it is as if he does, and yet, does not, atone. \"and an issaron (a tenth of an ephah) of fine flour\": We are hereby taught that each issaron requires a log (of oil), according to the sages. R. Nechemiah and R. Eliezer b. Yaakov say: Even a meal-offering of sixty issaron requires only one log, it being written \"as a meal-offering and a log of oil.\"",
                "6) \"and a log\": What is the intent of this? (i.e., We have already learned [in respect to the rich man] that a log is brought.) I might reason that he should bring a third of a log, viz.: Just as the rich man, who brings three esronim (of fine flour) brings one log (of oil), so, the poor man, who brings one issaron, should bring a third of a log; it is, therefore, written \"and a log of oil.\"",
                "7) (Vayikra 14:22) (\"And two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, such as his means suffice for; and one shall be a sin-offering, and the other, a burnt-offering.\") \"And two turtle-doves or two young pigeons\": He brings two and not four.",
                "8) (Why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow (that he should bring only two, viz.: He (a leper) brings what he can afford, and a woman after childbirth brings what she can afford. Just as she brings one (bird) for one (beast), so he brings one for one.",
                "9) Or, go in this direction: He brings what he can afford and one who defiles the sanctuary brings what he can afford. Just as the latter brings two for one, (two turtle-doves, a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, for the ewe-lamb sin-offering that he brings if he is rich), he (the leper), too, should bring two for one.",
                "10) Let us see whom he (the leper) most resembles. We derive one lacking atonement (a leper) from one lacking atonement (a woman after childbirth), and this is not to be refuted by the defiler of the sanctuary, who does not lack atonement, (the offering not coming to cleanse him, but who when he is cleansed of his tumah may eat consecrated food, even if he has not brought the offering). Or, go in this direction: We derive an offering which obtains with man and woman alike (that of a leper) from an offering which obtains with man and woman alike (that of a defiler of the sanctuary), and this is not to be refuted by the offering of a woman after childbirth, which does not obtain with a man as it does with a woman. It is, therefore, written \"two turtle-doves or two young pigeons\" — he brings two and not four.",
                "11) (Why the three-fold) \"such as his means suffice for\" (Vayikra 14:22), \"from what his means suffice for\" (Vayikra 14:30), \"What his means suffice for\" (Vayikra 14:31)?",
                "12) \"such as his means suffice for\": What is the intent of this? I might think: When does he bring a poor man's offering? When he was poor from the beginning. Whence do I derive the same for one who was rich and became poor afterwards? From \"such as his means suffice for.\"",
                "13) What is the intent of \"from what his means suffice for\"? I might think: When do I say that he concludes with the poor man's offering? When he began with the poor man's offering; but if he brought his guilt-offering when rich and became poor thereafter, whence do I derive (that he may complete the offerings as a poor man)? From \"from what his means suffice for.\" What is the intent of \"What his means suffice for\"? I might think: When do I say that he completes as a rich man? When he began as a rich man; but if he brought his guilt-offering when poor and became rich thereafter, whence do I derive (that he completes as a rich man)? From \"What his means suffice for.\"",
                "14) I might think that even if he brought the sin-offering when poor and thereafter became rich, he completes as a rich man. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:31) \"one, a sin-offering; the other, a burnt-offering\" — Of the type of the sin-offering, bring the burnt-offering. (Vayikra 14:31) \"on the meal-offering\": (This implies that) the beast meal-offering precedes the bird sin-offering.",
                "15) (Vayikra 14:32) (\"This is the law for him with a plague-spot of leprosy whose means do not suffice in his cleansing\") I might think that a woman who brought a sin-offering when poor and thereafter became rich, completes as a poor woman; it is, therefore, written \"This\" (to exclude the above).",
                "16) \"the law for him with a plague-spot of leprosy\": We are hereby taught that if a poor man brought the offering of a rich man, it is valid. I might think that if a rich man, likewise, brought the offering of a poor man, it is valid; it is, therefore, written (to exclude this): \"This is the law, etc.\" \"for him with a plague-spot of leprosy, etc.\": We are hereby taught a man may bring a poor man's offering for his son, for his daughter and for his manservant and maidservant, and feed them from the sacrifices. I might think that he could also bring a poor man's offering for his wife; it is, therefore, written \"This.\" These are the words of R. Yehudah. For R. Yehudah says: A man brings a rich man's offering for his wife, and, similarly, all of her offerings for which she is liable. For thus does she write to him (in the receipt of her kethubah): \"And your previous obligations to me, etc.\" (viz. Bava Metzia 104a)"
            ],
            "Section 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 14:34) (\"When you come to the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put a plague-spot of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession,\") \"When you come\": I might think (that this applies) when they come to trans-Jordan; it is, therefore, written \"to the land\" — to the distinctive land (of Israel).",
                "2) \"which I give to you\": I might think (that this applies) when they come to Ammon and Moav; it is, therefore, written \"which I give to you,\" and not Ammon and Moav.",
                "3) \"for a possession\": (not) until they conquer it. Whence is it derived that if they conquered it, but did not yet divide it (among the tribes); if they divided it (among the families), but did not yet apportion it into patrimonies and each did not clearly recognize his own — I might think that they would be subject to plague-spot tumah; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:35) \"Then he whose house it is shall come\" — each must recognize what is his.",
                "4) \"and I put a plague-spot of leprosy\": This is a (glad) tiding to them, that plague-spots will come upon them. (When the Canaanites heard of the Israelites' approach, they hid treasures on the walls of their houses — until plague-spots were sent against their houses, and they were razed.) R. Shimon says: \"and I put a plague-spot of leprosy\" — to exclude plague-spots caused by (external) forces. \"in a house of the land of your possession\": to exclude a house built upon a boat or on a four-beamed raft, and to include one built on four pillars (fixed on the ground, in which instance the house is considered \"in the land.\"",
                "5) \"your possession\": A possession is subject to plague-spot tumah, but Jerusalem, (which was not divided among the tribes,) is not. R. Yehudah said: I heard that the Temple alone (is not subject to plague-spot tumah).",
                "6) A variant: \"your possession\": Your possession is subject to plague-spot tumah, but the possession of idolators is not. And just as their possession is subject to plague-spot tumah, so, their garments.",
                "7) (Vayikra 14:35) (\"Then he whose house it is shall come, and he shall tell the Cohein, saying: As a plague-spot there has appeared to me in the house.\") \"whose house it is\": He shall not send a messenger. I might think, even if he were old or sick; it is, therefore, written he shall come\" (connoting one who can come on his own power). \"and he shall tell the Cohein\": The Cohein shall make a close inquiry as to how the plague-spot came to his house. \"saying\": The Cohein shall tell him of recondite matters: \"My son, plague-spots come only because of slander, as it is written (Devarim 24:8) \"Be heedful of the plague-spot of leprosy to take great care and to do … (Devarim 24:9) \"Remember what the L–rd your G d did to Miriam …\" What does one have to do with the other? We are hereby taught that she was punished (with leprosy) only because of the other.",
                "8) Now does it not follow a fortiori: If this is what happened to Miriam who spoke thus of Moses out of his presence, then one who speaks demeaningly of his neighbor to his face, how much more so!\"",
                "9) R. Shimon b. Elazar says: Plague-spots come also because of pride. For thus do we find with Uzziyahu (king of Judah), viz. (II Chronicles 26:16) \"But when he grew strong, his heart grew proud to (the point of) corruption. And he rebelled against the L–rd his G d, and he came into the sanctuary of the L–rd to burn incense on the incense altar (II Chronicles 26:17) And there after him Azaryahu the Cohein and with him Cohanim of the L–rd, eighty strong (II Chronicles 26:18) And they stood over Uzziyahu the king, and they said to him: 'It is not for you, Uzziyahu, to burn incense to the L–rd, but for the Cohanim, the sons of Aaron who are consecrated for the burning of incense. Leave the sanctuary …' And Uzziyahu fumed, and in his hand …\" (and he was stricken with leprosy.)",
                "10) \"plague-spot\": What is the intent of \"As a plague-spot\"? Even if he is a Torah scholar and knows for a certainty that it is a plague-spot, he should not declare outright: \"A plague-spot has appeared to me in the house,\" but: \"As a plague-spot there has appeared to me in the house.\"",
                "11) \"there has appeared to me\": and not \"to my light,\" whence they ruled that the windows of a dark house are not opened for the inspection of its plague-spot. \"in the house\": to include a painted house. \"in the house\": to include the attic. \"in the house\": It becomes unclean from its inside, and not from its outside.",
                "12) (Vayikra 14:36) (\"And the Cohein shall command, and they shall empty out the house before the Cohein comes in to see the plague-spot, so that there not be made unclean all that is in the house; and then the Cohein shall come to see the house.\") \"And the Cohein shall command, and they shall empty out\": the commanding, by the Cohein; the emptying, by anyone. \"and they shall empty out the house\": even bundles of wood, even bundles of reeds, (which are not susceptible of tumah. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says (in agreement with R. Yehudah): He is \"busied\" with emptying (in the hope that the spot will disappear before the Cohein comes and declares it tamei). R. Meir said: Now what can become tamei? If you say his wooden vessels, his clothing, and his metal utensils, they can be immersed (in a mikveh) and cleansed. What was the Torah solicitous of? His earthenware vessels and his jars, (which cannot be cleansed by immersion)! If the Torah was so solicitous of his trifling possessions, how much more so, of his valued possessions; if of his possessions, how much more so, of the life of his sons and daughters; if of those of an evildoer, how much more so of a tzaddik!",
                "13) \"before the Cohein comes in to see the plague-spot\": and not the emptying out (of the house). \"so that there not be made unclean all that is in the house\": What is the intent of this? Because we find with one who enters a plague-spot house that his clothing does not become tamei until he remains there for as long as it takes to eat a pras (a certain quantity of bread), I might think that if there were garments folded over his shoulder or packed inside the house, they would not be tamei until they remained there for as long as it takes to eat a pras; it is, therefore, written \"so that there not be made unclean all that is in the house\" — immediately. \"and then\": to include similar decisions (when the Cohein has to wait before he comes to inspect the house). Rebbi says: (A verse is not necessary for this, for) if we wait because of mundane things, should we not wait because of occasions of mitzvah? And how long is his mitzvah? Let us see. For a groom, we allow the seven days of his feast (without plague-spot inspection) for himself, his house, and his garments. And so, on a festival, we allow him all the days of the festival."
            ],
            "Section 6": [
                "1) (Vayikra 14:37) (\"And he shall see the plague-spot, and, behold, if the plague-spot is in the walls of the house, embedded (sheka'aroroth) deep green or deep red, and their appearance is lower than the wall,\") \"And he shall see the plague-spot\": I might think (if he sees it to be the minimum size of) a garis; it is, therefore, written \"And he shall see the plague-spot and behold, the plague-spot.\" We are hereby taught that the house does not become tamei with less than two garisin.",
                "2) \"in the walls\": implying two. And below, (Vayikra 14:39), it is written [(instead of)] \"wall,\" \"walls,\" giving four, whereby we are taught that it becomes tamei only if it has four walls.",
                "3) From here they ruled: A round house or a house of three walls are not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness.",
                "4) I might think (that the meaning is that it is not subject to tumah) until the plague-spot) is seen on two walls; it is, therefore, written \"and their appearance is lower than the wall\" — even one wall. I might think even (if it appears) on one stone; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:40) \"and they shall remove the stones\" — not fewer than two. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: \"And they shall remove the stones\" does imply two stones, but (Vayikra 14:37) \"and their appearance is lower than the wall\" implies that even one stone is sufficient. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: (For it to be subject to tumah) there must appear two garisin on two stones on two walls in one corner; its length, two garisin, and its width a garis.",
                "5) \"sheka'aroroth\": embedded in their appearance (and not in actuality). \"yerakrakoth or adamdamoth\": the greenest of green, the reddest of red. \"and their appearance is lower than the wall\": their appearance and not their substance.",
                "6) (Vayikra 14:38) \"Then the Cohein shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and he shall shut up the house for seven days\": I might think that he could go to his house and shut it up; it is, therefore, written \"to the door of the house and he shall shut it up.\" If \"to the door of the house,\" I might think that he could stand under the lintel and shut it up; it is, therefore, written \"out of the house.\" How so? He stands at the side of the lintel and shuts it up.",
                "7) And whence is it derived that if he (the Cohein) went to his house and shut it up or stood in his house and shut it up, that the shutting up is valid? From \"and he shall shut up the house\" — in any event.",
                "8) (Vayikra 14:39) (\"And the Cohein shall return on the seventh day and he shall see: If the plague-spot is spread on the walls of the house,\") \"on the seventh\": I might think in the daytime or at night; it is, therefore, written \"on the day,\" and not at night.",
                "9) \"If the plague-spot is spread\": a spreading adjacent to the plague-spot — any amount. Whence is a distant spreading derived for inclusion? From \"in the walls of the house.\" I might think any amount; it is, therefore, written here \"plague-spot,\" and elsewhere (in respect to plague-spots in general) \"plague-spot.\" Just as the latter are a garis; here, too, a garis.",
                "10) In sum: an adjoining spreading, any amount; a distant (spreading), a garis.",
                "11) \"in the walls of the house\": and not in the walls of its annex, and not in the walls of the stable, and not in the walls of the mechitzah, and not in the walls of the menorah (also types of structures around the house). "
            ],
            "Chapter 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 14:40) (\"Then the Cohein shall command, and they shall remove the stones containing the plague-spot, and they shall cast them outside the city into an unclean place.\") \"Then the Cohein shall command and they shall remove\": the commanding by the Cohein; the removing, by anyone.",
                "2) \"and they shall remove\": This teaches us that both of them (i.e., the owner of the affected house and his neighbor, who shares the wall) remove — whence they said \"Woe to the wicked one and woe to his neighbor!\" Both remove, both scrape (viz. Vayikra 14:41), both bring (new) stones. I might think that if the wall adjoined the atmosphere (of his neighbor's property, but was not common to both of their houses) both of them should do the removal; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:43) \"after he removed the stones.\" How is this to be understood? A wall between him and his neighbor, both remove; a wall adjoining the atmosphere, he himself removes.",
                "3) \"and they shall remove the stones\": I might think that he can remove two stones and thus fulfill the mitzvah of \"removing\"; it is, therefore, written \"containing the plague-spot.\" If this (alone were written) I might think (that he must remove) even roof-tiles, even bricks (thus affected); it is, therefore, written \"stones.\" If both verses were not written, we would not know the halachah.",
                "4) \"and they shall cast them outside the city\": \"them outside of every city.\" (to exclude) an afflicted man (i.e., a leper,) who is not \"outside of every city,\" but only of those cities surrounded by a wall (from the time of Joshua). \"into an unclean place\": Its place becomes tamei. R. Yehudah says: \"into an unclean place\" — to include (the place of the stones) that were removed (from there).",
                "5) (Vayikra 14:41) (\"And the house he shall scrape from inside roundabout, and they shall spill the mortar scrapings outside the city into an unclean place.\") \"And the house he shall scrape\": I might think from inside and from outside; it is, therefore, written \"from inside.\" If \"from inside,\" I might think from the ground and from the walls; it is, therefore, written \"roundabout\" — only the area roundabout the plague-spot.",
                "6) \"and they shall spill … which they have scraped off\": I might think that pebbles (are included); it is, therefore, written \"mortar.\" If \"mortar,\" I might think that even what fell of itself (is included); it is, therefore, written \"which they have scraped off.\" If both verses were not written, we would not know the halachah.",
                "7) (Vayikra 14:42) (\"And they shall take other stones, and they shall bring [them] in place of the stones; and he shall take other mortar and he shall plaster the house.\") From here they ruled that no fewer than two stones are taken and no fewer than two stones are brought. And he does not bring one in place of two or two in place of one. But he may bring two in place of two, three, or four, and four in place of three or two.",
                "8) \"and they shall take … stones\": I might think he could take stones from one side and bring them to the other side; it is, therefore, written \"other (stones\"). If (only) \"other\" (were written), I might think even roof-tiles or bricks; it is, therefore, written \"stones.\" If both verses were not written, we would not know the halachah.",
                "9) \"and mortar\" connotes all kinds: even bricks, even ordure, even clay-ground. I might think that he could take mortar from one side and bring it to the other side; it is, therefore, written \"other (mortar\"). If (only) \"other\" (were written), I might think even lime or gypsum; it is, therefore, written \"afar\" (lit., \"earth\"). If both verses were not written, we would not know the halachah....",
                "10) \"and he shall take other mortar and he shall plaster the house.\": His neighbor does not share the plastering with him."
            ],
            "Section 7": [
                "1) (Vayikra 14:43) (\"And if the plague-spot returns and blossoms in the house after he removed the stones and after the house has been scraped and after it has been plastered. (Vayikra 14:44) And the Cohein shall come and he shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread in the house, it is blight leprosy in the house; it is tamei.\") \"And if the plague-spot returns and blossoms in the house\": Just as we speak of a man returning to his place, here, too, the plague-spot returns to the same stones. This tells me only of his place. Whence do we derive the entire house for inclusion? From \"in the house.\" I might think that the size of a garis (makes it subject to tumah); it is, therefore, written here \"plague-spot\" and before, (Vayikra 14:37), \"plague-spot.\" Just as there, two garisin, here, too, two garisin.",
                "2) In sum: Adjacent spreading, any amount; distant (spreading), a garis; returning to houses, two garisin.",
                "3) This tells me only of its (original) appearance. Whence do I derive the same (even if it returns) not in its (original) appearance? From \"and it blossoms,\" whether or not in its (original) appearance.",
                "4) — But perhaps \"it blossoms\" connotes only if it returns and spreads. Now would this follow? There is (plague-spot) tumah in garments, and there is (plague-spot) tumah in houses. Just as in garments, a returning plague-spot confers tumah even without spreading, so, with houses, it should confer tumah even without spreading.",
                "5) Now if we are stringent with garments, where if the plague-spot remains the same at the end of two weeks, the garment is burned, should we be stringent with houses, where if the plague-spot remains the same after two weeks the house is not razed! It is, therefore, written \"blight leprosy\" (here) - \"blight leprosy\" (Vayikra 13:5), in respect to garments) for an identity (gezeirah shavah). Just as with garments, a returning plague-spot confers tumah even without spreading, so with houses, a returning plague-spot confers tumah even without spreading.",
                "6) If in the end we will include a returning plague-spot (even if it does not spread), what is the intent of \"And the Cohein shall come and he shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread\"? — Leave it (i.e., This is not the place of this verse. It does not refer to post-removal and scraping, but to spreading at the end of the second week, as in 7) below.) Or, once we have learned that if the plague-spot returns and blossoms in the house (even if it does not spread, it is tamei), then, if we see it returning on the same day (of the plastering), it should be declared tamei (and razed immediately)! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:39) \"And the Cohein shall return\" - (Vayikra 13:43) \"and if the plague-spot returns.\" Just as the \"returning\" there, is at the end of one week, so, (the returning) here, is at the end of one week.",
                "7) And whence is it derived that if it remained as it was at the end of the first week and it spread in the second week, he removes and scrapes and plasters, and he is given another week? From (Vayikra 13:44) \"And the Cohein shall come and see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread.\" Of what is this speaking? If of spreading in the first week, this has already been stated. It must be speaking, then, of his having come at the end of the first week and finding it to have remained the same, and coming at the end of the second week and finding it to have spread. What should be done? I derive it inductively from the spreading of the first week, i.e., he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week. The same obtains with the spreading of the second week. — Now if we were lenient with spreading in the first week, it is because we were lenient with its remaining the same. Shall we then be lenient with spreading in the second week, where we are stringent with its remaining the same? It is, therefore, written (re the end of the first week, Vayikra 13:39) \"And the Cohein shall return,\" and (re the end of the second week, Vayikra 13:44) \"And the Cohein shall come.\" Returning and coming are one and the same. Just as with \"returning,\" he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week, so, with \"coming.\"",
                "8) Whence is it derived that if it remained the same in this (the first week) and in this (the second week), he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week? From its being written (instead of) \"and if the Cohein comes,\" (Vayikra 13:44), \"and if the Cohein come, shall come\" — two comings. Of what is this speaking? If of its having spread in the first week, this has already been stated. If of its having spread in the second week, this has already been stated. It must be speaking of his having come at the end of the first week and at the end of the second week, (Vayikra 13:44) \"and he shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has not spread,\" i.e., it remains the same. What should be done? Can I think that he (simply) leaves and walks away? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:44) \"for the plague-spot has been healed.\" I have cleansed only what has been healed (through an additional removal, scraping, etc. [See Rashi in Chumash]).",
                "9) \"What should be done?\" I induce from what we find in its spreading in the second week. He removes and scrapes and plasters and is given an additional week. The same obtains with its remaining the same in the second week.",
                "10) Now if we are stringent with spreading in the second week because of stringency with spreading in the first week, shall we be stringent with remaining the same in the second week where there has been leniency with remaining the same in the first week, (only quarantine of the house being required), and render remaining the same like spreading in the second week? It is, therefore, written (instead of) \"and if the Cohein comes,\" \"and if the Cohein come, shall come\" — two comings, that stated above and that stated below. Just as with the first there is removing, scraping, and plastering, and the allocation of an additional week, so with the second.",
                "11) They said in the name of R. Yishmael: \"Blight leprosy\" is written of garments, and \"blight leprosy\" is written of houses. Just as with garments, remaining the same and spreading in the second week was equated with spreading in the first week, so with houses, remaining the same and spreading in the second week was equated with spreading in the first week. (Vayikra 13:43) \"after the house has been scraped and after it has been plastered\": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is known that there is no removing without scraping and plastering.) For I might think that there is no returning (of the plague-spot) and razing except after spreading in the first week. Whence do I derive for inclusion returning (of the plague-spot) after spreading in the second week and after remaining the same in the second week (that both require removing, scraping, and plastering, and, if it returns thereafter, razing)? From (Vayikra 13:43) \"after he removed the stones …\" Let it not be written \"after scraping\" and \"after plastering.\" Is there removing without scraping and plastering? Why, then, is it mentioned? To include a returning (plague-spot) after spreading in the second week and after remaining the same in the second week.",
                "12) Whence is it derived that if (after remaining the same at the end of the first week and having been quarantined for a second week), it (was found to have) dimmed in the second week or disappeared (entirely), he peels (the site of the spot) and he requires birds (for its cleansing)? From (Vayikra 13:49) \"And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, etc.\" This is one house … — whence they ruled: There are ten houses (in this connection): If it dims in the first week or disappears, he peels it and it is tahor (clean). If it dims in the second week or disappears, he peels it and he requires birds. If it spreads in the first week, he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week. If it returns, he razes (the house). If it does not return, he requires birds. If it remained the same in the first week and spread in the second week, he removes, scrapes, and smears, and is given an additional week. If it returned, he razes; if not, he requires birds. If it remained the same both the first week and the second, he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week. If it returned, he razes; if not, he requires birds.",
                "13) (Vayikra 14:44) (\"And if the Cohein shall come and see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread in the house, it is blight leprosy in the house; it is unclean.\") \"it is unclean\": What is the intent of this? (i.e., Was it not unclean until now?) Because we find in a quarantined house that it confers tumah only from its inside, (viz. Vayikra 14:46), we might think that this is so even with a confirmed house; it is, therefore, written \"it is unclean,\" conferring tumah both from the inside and from the outside (by being touched)."
            ],
            "Chapter 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 14:45) \"Then he shall raze the house — its stones, its wood, and all the mortar of the house\": We are hereby taught that a house is not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness unless there be in it stones, wood, and mortar....",
                "2) How many stones (in total) must be in it (on all sides to make it subject to tumah)? R. Yishmael says four (one on each side). R. Akiva says eight (viz. Section 6:4). For R. Yishmael says: Until there appear two garisin on two stones or on one stone. R. Akiva says: Until there appear two garisin on two stones, and not on one stone. R. Elazar says: Until there appear two garisin on two stones on two walls in one corner, its length two garisin, and its width a garis.",
                "3) (if the plague is in) his stones, and his mortar, and his wood: and not, (if the wall were jointly owned), in those of his neighbor. \"his stones\": We are hereby taught (that in a case of joint ownership) he planes (his portion from that of his neighbor) and removes his stones. \"its stones\": all the stones with which the house was built (and not those that were superadded to it after it was built). \"its wood\": all the wood with which the house was built. \"its stones\": and not those of the attic. \"its wood\": and not those of the attic. \"the mortar of the house\": and not that of the attic — whence it was ruled: If a plague-spot appeared in the house, he places the beams in the attic. If it appeared in the attic, he places its beams in the house. \"its stones\": and not stones which were superadded to it after it was built. \"the mortar of the house\": and not mortar that fell off from it (before the house was razed). \"and he shall take them (the stones) outside the city to an unclean place\": If this is already written in respect to removing (the stones, viz. Vayikra 14:40), why need it be written in respect to razing? And if it is written in respect to razing, why need it be written in respect to removing? Because there obtains with removing what does not obtain with razing, and because there obtains with razing what does not obtain with removing. With removing, the stone on a side (common to that of his neighbor) — he removes the whole, (even that of his neighbor [viz. Chapter 4:2]), and when he razes, he razes (only) what is his and leaves that of his neighbor; and in razing, he razes both the stones with a plague-spot and those without a plague-spot. So that because there obtains with removing what does not obtain with razing, and with razing, what does not obtain with removing, both removing and razing must be written.",
                "4) (Vayikra 14:46) (\"And he who comes into the house all the days that he has shut it up shall be unclean until the evening.\") \"And he who comes into the house\": when he enters — his head and the greater part of his body. \"the days that he has shut it up\": and not the days that he peeled its plague-spot (i.e., If he peeled its plague-spot within the days of its quarantine and threw (its peelings) out [even though he thereby transgressed a negative commandment], one who enters does not become tamei.) I might think that I (also) exclude (from tumah one who enters) a confirmed (plague-spot house) whose plague-spot was peeled; it is, therefore, written \"all the days\" (to include such a contingency).",
                "5) \"and he shall be unclean until the evening\": We are hereby taught that his clothes do not become tamei. I might think (that this is so) even if he remained there long enough to eat a p'ras (a half-loaf); it is, therefore, written (in the following verse) \"and he who eats in the house shall wash his clothes.\"",
                "6) This tells me only of eating. Whence do I derive the same for lying down? From (Vayikra 14:46) \"And he who lies in the house shall wash his clothes.\"",
                "7) This tells me only of eating or lying down. Whence do I derive the same for not eating and not lying down, (but simply standing there)? From (the redundancy of) \"he shall wash\" - \"he shall wash.\"",
                "8) If in the end, everything is included, why specify \"he who eats\" and \"he who lies\"? To establish the (minimum) time for lying as corresponding to that of eating. And what is that of eating? As long as it takes to eat a p'ras of a loaf of wheat, (which is eaten quickly), and not (as long as it takes to eat a p'ras of) a loaf of barley, and when one reclines and eats it with relish, (in which instance he eats more quickly).",
                "9) All washing of clothing mentioned in the Torah is (oriented) to stringency, and this, to leniency, (viz.) Even if he were wearing ten trousers and cloaked with ten mantles, they are all tahor until he remains as long as it takes to eat a p'ras.",
                "10) I might think that a beast and a gentile, (who are not subject to tumah) would \"rescue\" clothing (upon them) in a plague-spot house; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:46) \"he shall be tamei until the evening\" (followed by [Vayikra 14:47] \"and he who eats in the house shall wash his clothes\") — One who himself is subject to tumah \"rescues\" clothing in a plague-spot house. This excludes a beast and a gentile, who, not being subject to tumah, do not rescue clothing in a plague-spot house.",
                "11) From here they ruled: If he were standing inside (a plague-spot house) and he stretched his hand outside, with his rings upon it — If he remained in the house as long as it takes to eat a p'ras, they are tamei, (being regarded as part of his body). If he were standing outside and he stretched his hand inside, with his rings upon it, R. Yehudah rules them to be tamei immediately, and the sages (rule them tamei) only if they remain (there) long enough for the eating of a p'ras.",
                "12) They said to R. Yehudah: If when his whole body is tamei, what is upon it is not tamei until he remains there long enough to eat a p'ras, then, when his whole body is not tamei, does it not follow that what is upon it should not be tamei until it remains long enough for the eating of a p'ras?",
                "13) R. Yehudah rejoined: We find that the power of the tamei to rescue (from tumah) is greater than that of the tahor: Israelites are subject to tumah and \"rescue\" garments in a plague-spot house; a beast and a gentile, who are not subject to tumah, do not \"rescue\" garments in a plague-spot house.",
                "14) (Vayikra 14:51) \"and he shall sprinkle upon the house\": on the lintel. Others say: on all of it.",
                "15) (Vayikra 14:53) (\"And he shall send the living bird outside the city over the face of the field, and he shall make atonement for the house, and it shall be clean.\") \"And he shall send the living bird outside the city\": R. Yossi Haglili says: a bird that lives outside the city. Which is that? A free bird (i.e., one which lives anywhere).",
                "15) \"and he shall make atonement for the house and it shall be clean.\": If this (procedure with the birds) is written in respect to a leper, why must it be written in respect to houses? And if it is written in respect to houses, why must it be written in respect to a leper? Because there obtains with houses what does not obtain with a leper, and with a leper what does not obtain with houses. A leper requires an offering and a house does not require an offering. A leper has cleansing from his tumah and a house has no cleansing from its tumah, (but must be razed). So that because there obtains with a leper what does not obtain with houses, and with houses what does not obtain with a leper, both a leper and houses must be written.",
                "16) (Vayikra 14:54) \"This is the law, etc.\": Whence is it derived that a Cohein who is expert in plague-spots (i.e., se'eth, sapachath, and bahereth), but not in nethakim; in nethakim, but not in karachoth; in karachoth, but not in shechin and michvah; in shechin and michvah, but not in garments; in garments, but not in houses — (Whence is it derived that) he should not examine plague-spots until he is expert in (all of) them and in their names? From (Vayikra 14:54-57) \"This is the law for all plague-spots of leprosy and for a nethek and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house, and for a se'eth, and for a sapachath, and for a bahereth, to teach\" (i.e., he should not teach others unless he is expert in all of them). (Vayikra 14:57) Rebbi says: \"on the unclean day and on the clean day\": We are hereby taught that he rules \"unclean\" in the daytime and he rules \"clean\" in the daytime. Chananiah b. Chachonai says: What is the intent of \"to teach\"? We are hereby taught that he does not examine plague-spots until his master teaches him."
            ]
        },
        "Metzora Parashat Zavim": {
            "Section 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 15:2) (\"Speak to the children of Israel, etc.\") The children of Israel become tamei with zivah (a type of genital discharge); gentiles do not become tamei with zivah (by edict of the Torah). But even though they do not become tamei with zivah, they confer tumah as zavim (by Rabbinical enactment). And terumah is burned because of them (by their touching it), and there is no liability because of them for entering the sanctuary (i.e., If a gentile zav touched a Jew and he entered the sanctuary unwittingly, he is not liable to bring an offering.) If \"the children of Israel,\" this tells me only of (native) Israelites. Whence do I derive for inclusion proselytes and bondsmen? From \"and you shall say to them.\" \"a man\": This tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive a minor for inclusion? From \"a man, a man.\" These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon b. R. Yochanan b. B'rokah says: It is written (Vayikra 15:22) \"and of one who flows his flux for male or for female.\" \"for male\": anyone (even a minor) who is a male. \"or for female\": whether grown or a minor.",
                "2) \"if there be a flux (zov) from his flesh\": from the command on. (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow (inductively)? viz.: There is plague-spot tumah and there is zav tumah. Just as plague-spot tumah does not obtain before the command, so zav tumah does not obtain before the command. (And, furthermore, it follows) a fortiori, viz.: If plague-spot tumah, where tumah obtains (even) through external causes, does not obtain before the command, then zav tumah, which does not obtain through external causes (viz. Vayikra 15:7 below) — how much more so should it not obtain before the command! — No, this may be so with plague-spots, whose tumah and taharah obtains only by (declaration of) a Cohein, as opposed to zavim, whose tumah and taharah obtains through (ascertainment of ) any man. This being the case, I would think that it obtains (even) before the command. It must, therefore, be written \"if there be a flux\" — from the command on.",
                "3) \"if there be a flux\": I might think even if it flows from any place (i.e., from his nose or from his mouth), he becomes tamei. But it follows (that this is not so, for) there is tumah with a zav (a male) and tumah with a zavah (a female). Just as with a zavah, the place (the uterus) from which she becomes tamei with lesser tumah, (that of niddah, which does not require seven clean days or an offering), she becomes tamei with stringent tumah, (that of zivuth, which requires seven clean days and an offering) — so, with a zav, the place (the penis) from which he becomes tamei with lesser tumah (that of keri [an accidental seminal discharge]), he becomes tamei with stringent tumah (that of zivuth).",
                "4) — No, this may be so with a zavah, who becomes tamei only with three sightings in three days, as opposed to a zav, who becomes tamei with three sightings in one day. This being the case, (then without being apprised otherwise, we would assume that) he becomes tamei (as a zav from any place). It must, therefore, be written \"from his flesh,\" and not from all of his flesh.",
                "5) Now that Scripture has made this distinction, we can reason (as in 3) above): There is tumah with a zav and tumah with a zavah. Just as with a zavah, the place from which she becomes tamei with lesser tumah, she becomes tamei with stringent tumah — so with a zav, the place from which he becomes tamei with lesser tumah, he becomes tamei with stringent tumah.",
                "6) \"from his flesh\": (He is not tamei) until his tumah (i.e., his discharge) comes outside of his flesh. (For if not for the verse, I would say) Does it not follow (otherwise)? viz.: If a zavah, who becomes tamei only with three sightings in three days, becomes tamei (if the flux remains) inside as well as (if it comes) outside, then a zav, who becomes tamei with three sightings in one day, how much more so should he become tamei inside as well as outside. It must, therefore, be written \"from his flesh\": (He is not tamei) until his tumah comes outside of his flesh.",
                "7) \"from his flesh\" he is tamei, and not from any external cause — whence they ruled: In seven ways they examine a zav (for possible external causes) before he is \"bound\" to zivah (after the first two sightings): for (excessive) eating, for drinking, for jumping, for (carrying) a burden, for sickness, for sight (of a woman), and for thought (of a woman). Once he is \"bound\" to zivah (after the first two sightings), he is not examined. His accident (i.e., one of the external causes) and the possibility of his having seen it (the third sighting) because of (an antecedent discharge of) his semen, render him tamei (and liable for an offering), for there is reason to suppose (that this third sighting is not caused by the other factors).",
                "8) \"his flux is tamei\": We are hereby taught that his flux (itself) is tamei (and not only the man). Now does this not follow (even without a verse, viz.:) If the zav, whose tumah was caused by the flux is tamei, how much more so, the flux itself! — This is refuted by the sent-away he-goat (of Yom Kippur) which causes tumah (to the sender), but which itself is tahor.",
                "9) Do not wonder, then, that the flux, even though it causes tumah (to the man) is itself not tamei. It must, therefore, be written that the flux is tamei.",
                "10) I might think that blood flowing from his penis is tamei; it is, therefore, written \"his flux,\" but not blood.",
                "11) (Vayikra 15:3) (\"And this shall be his tumah in his flux. Whether his flesh drip his zov or his flesh be stopped up with his zov, it is his tumah.\") This tells me only of his zov (discharge as being tamei). Whence do I derive the same for his urine? It follows, viz.: If spittle, which issues from a place of cleanliness, is tamei, then his urine, which issues from a place of tumah (i.e., from the place of his zivah), how much more so should it be tamei! — This is refuted by blood which issues from there, coming from a place of tumah and itself being tahor.",
                "12) Do not wonder, then, if urine, even though it issues from a place of tumah, is not tamei. It must, therefore, be written \"And this\" — to include urine.",
                "13) I might think that his sweat, his pus, and his excrement are also tamei; it is, therefore, written \"it\" (is his tumah\" — to exclude the above,) that are not subject to the tumah of liquids; but I would not exclude his tears and the blood of his plague (-wound), and a woman's milk, which are subject to the tumah of liquids. It is, \"therefore,\" written \"this (shall be his tumah\" — to exclude the above). In sum, there are nine liquids in respect to a zav: Pus, sweat, and excrement are not subject to all (forms of tumah). Tears, plague (-wound) blood, and a woman's milk are subject to the tumah of liquids, (but do not confer tumah upon men and vessels.) His zov (flow) and his spittle and his urine are subject to stringent tumah (and confer tumah upon men and vessels)."
            ],
            "Chapter 1": [
                "1) \"And this shall be his tumah in his flux\": His tumah is contingent upon his flux (i.e., sightings) and not upon (the passage of) days (— two sightings for tumah, three for an offering.)",
                "2) (For without this verse we would say:) Now if a zavah, who confers tumah upon one who lives with her, (as a niddah does,) requires (stringent) tumah, three sightings on three days, then a zav, who does not confer tumah upon one he lives with, how much more so should he require for (stringent) tumah three sightings on three days. It is, therefore, written \"And this shall be his tumah in his flux.\" His tumah is contingent upon his flux (i.e., sightings) and not upon (the passage of) days.",
                "3) (Vayikra 15:3) \"in his flux … his flux … with his flux\": We are hereby taught that he acquires (stringent) tumah with three sightings. This (\"flux\") tells me only of long (flows). Whence do I derive (the same for) short ones? From \"shall be\" — any amount. \"his flesh drips\" — any amount. \"his flesh be stopped up\" — any amount. \"his flesh\" — any amount. If short ones are mentioned, why mention long ones? To set a (time) limit for long ones. So that if he sees one (flux) as (long as) three (short ones) — (the time it takes to walk) from Gidiyon to Shiloach, corresponding to two immersings and two wipings — he is a confirmed zav.",
                "4) Rebbi says: To what may this be compared? To a rope of one hundred cubits. If he saw (zivah) at the beginning of a hundred, at the end of fifty, and at the end of a hundred, he is a confirmed zav. If he saw at the beginning of a hundred, before fifty and at the end of a hundred, or at the beginning of a hundred, after fifty, and at the end of a hundred, he is not a confirmed zav.",
                "5) (Vayikra 15:3) \"from his zov, it is his tumah\": even part of his zov confers tumah. (Vayikra 15:5) \"mishkav\" (his couch) and \"moshav\" (his seat): This includes a zav of two sightings as conferring mishkav and moshav tumah.",
                "6) (Why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If a zavah, who does not count seven (days) for two sightings, confers mishkav and moshav tumah with two sightings, then a zav, who does count seven (days) for two sightings, how much more so should he confer mishkav and moshav tumah with two sightings! — No, this may be true of a zavah, who confers mishkav and moshav tumah with one sighting. Would you say the same for a zav, who does not confer mishkav and moshav tumah with one sighting? Since he does not confer mishkav and moshav tumah with one sighting, (I would say that) he does not confer mishkav and moshav tumah with two sightings. It is, therefore, written \"from his zov\" — even part of his zov confers mishkav and moshav tumah — to include a zav of two sightings as conferring mishkav and moshav tumah.",
                "7) (\"And this shall be) his uncleanliness in his zov\": He confers tumah in his white (discharge) and not with (a penis discharge of) blood. Does it not follow a fortiori (that he should confer tumah with blood)? viz.: If a zavah, who does not confer tumah with white, confers tumah with blood, then a zav, who does confer tumah with white, how much more so should he confer tumah with blood! It must, therefore, be written \"his tumah in his zov\": He confers tumah with white and not with blood.",
                "8) Let it follow a fortiori, then, that a zavah confers tumah with white! viz.: If a zav, who does not confer tumah with blood, confers tumah with white, then a zavah, who does confer tumah with blood, how much more so should she confer tumah with white! It is, therefore, written \"it is his tumah\" — his tumah and not her tumah. The tumah of the man is with white and the tumah of the woman is with blood."
            ],
            "Chapter 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 15:4) (\"Every [object of] lying which the zav lies down upon shall be tamei, and every implement of sitting which he sits upon shall be tamei.\") \"which the zav lies down upon\": I might think even if he lies on a pit cover or on a door; it is, therefore, written (object of) \"lying\"; not on a pit cover and not on a door.",
                "2) I would exclude these, but I would not exclude a mat of reeds or shoots; it is, therefore written \"the lying\" (connoting something which is) customarily used (for lying on).",
                "3) This tells me only of a bed or a garment. Whence do I include a sagus (a kind of cloak), a wrap, a frock, a talith, a fodder basket of four kabim, a traveling bag of five kabim, a crituth (a type of bag) of a sa'ah, and a chemeth (a type of bag) of seven kabim? From \"all the lying.\" I might then think that I include the sarud (a shelf stand), the baker's frame, and the large kneading trough in which the niddoth wash? It is, therefore, written \"which he shall lie upon,\" something intended for lying, and not something about which he is told: \"Get up and let us do our work!\"",
                "4) I might then think that I exclude a sagus, a wrap, a frock, a fodder basket of four kabim, a traveling bag of five kabim, a crituth of a sa'ah, and a chemeth of seven kabim. It is, therefore, written \"all the lying,\" for inclusion (of these). Why do you see fit to include these and to exclude the others? After Scripture included, it excluded. I include these, which can combine lying on them with their work, and I exclude the others, which cannot combine lying on them with their work (viz.: \"Get up and let us do our work!\") (\"And every implement) which he sits upon shall be tamei.\" I might think even if he sits upon a stone or upon a beam; it is, therefore, written \"implement\" — not a stone and not a beam. I would exclude these, but I would not exclude a chair (made of) dried dung and of (sun-baked) earth, and of stones, (which, even though they are not subject to tumah, are considered \"implements.\") It is, therefore, written \"the implement,\" (i.e., the specific implement which is subject to tumah.)",
                "5) This tells me only of a chair, a bench, and a katedra ( soft seat with a back, which are intended for sitting). Whence do I derive for inclusion the chest of the bathing attendants, (with a hole on top for the entrance fee), a chest open on the side, (on which one can sit), and a kneading trough of two logs until seven kabim, which was split, so that he could not wash one of his feet in it? From: \"every implement.\" I might think, even if he inverted a sa'ah (size implement) and sat on it or a tarkav and sat on it; it is, therefore, written \"that he shall sit on,\" i.e., one that was intended for sitting, and not one about which he is told \"Get up and let us do our work!\"",
                "6) — But perhaps I should exclude the chest of the bathing attendants and the chest open on its side, and the kneading trough of two logs until seven kabim, which was split, so that he could not wash one of his feet in it. It is, therefore, written \"every implement.\" For inclusion (of these). Why do you see fit to include these and to exclude the others? After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include these, which can combine sitting with their work (i.e., the work they were intended for), and I exclude the others, which cannot combine sitting with their work.",
                "7) This tells me only of (the zav's conferring tumah) when he lay on the couch or sat on the seat. Whence do I derive (that the same obtains) when he lay on the seat and sat on the couch, or when he stood, was suspended (by a couch or a seat on the other end of a balance [so that he was in effect \"lying\" or \"sitting\" on them]) or leaned on them? From (the redundancy of (Vayikra 15:4) \"he shall be tamei\" - he shall be tamei.\"",
                "8) \"the zav\": and not a ba'al keri (one with a nocturnal discharge). (Why is the verse needed to tell us this?) Does it not follow inductively? viz.: The tumah of the zav is from his organ, and the tumah of the ba'al keri is from his organ. Just as a zav confers tumah to couch and seat, so the ba'al keri confers tumah to couch and seat. It is, therefore written \"the zav,\" and not the ba'al keri.",
                "9) \"the zav\": and not a stone with a plague-spot. (Why is the verse needed?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If the zav, who does not effect (tent-) tumah by entry (into a house), does effect couch and seat tumah, then a plague-spot stone, which does effect tumah by entry, how much more so should it effect couch and seat tumah! It is, therefore, written \"the zav,\" and not a plague-spot stone.",
                "10) \"the zav\": and not one with dead-body tumah. (Why is the verse needed?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If the zav, who does not require sprinkling on the third and seventh (days), confers tumah upon couch and seat, then one with dead-body tumah, who requires sprinkling on the third and seventh (days), how much more so should he confer tumah upon couch and seat! It is, therefore, written \"the zav,\" and not one with dead-body tumah.",
                "11) \"the zav\": and not the dead body: (Why is the verse necessary?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If the zav, who does not confer seven-day tumah (by being touched) confers tumah upon couch and seat, then a dead body, which does confer seven-day tumah, how much more so should it confer tumah upon couch and seat! It is, therefore, written \"the zav,\" and not the dead body.",
                "12) R. Shimon says: \"which he lies on\" and \"which he sits on\": One who has (volition for) lying down and sitting confers tumah to couch and seat — a dead zav does not confer tumah to couch and seat.",
                "13) As to their saying that a zav who dies confers tumah (to the couch or seat) that he carries (upon him) until his flesh has atrophied (and he is known to be dead and not merely to have fainted), this is an ordinance of the scribes (and not a Torah ordinance). \"upon it\": until most of him (i.e., most of his leaning) is upon it."
            ],
            "Section 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 15:5) (\"And a man who touches what he lay upon shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening.\") A man who touches a zav's couch confers tumah to his garments; but a zav's couch that touches (another) couch does not confer tumah to garments (lying upon it). (For if not for the verse,) would it not follow a fortiori that it (the other couch) should confer tumah to garments, viz.: If in a place where a man lying under a zav does not become tamei to confer tumah upon men and garments, a couch under a zav does become tamei to confer tumah upon men and garments, then in a place where a man becomes tamei by touching his couch to confer tumah to his garments, how much more so should a couch become tamei by touching a zav's couch to confer tumah to garments (lying upon it)! It must, therefore, be written: \"And a man who touches what he lay upon shall wash his clothes\" — A man who touches a zav's couch confers tumah to his garments; but a zav's couch that touches (another) couch does not confer tumah to garments (lying upon it).",
                "2) (But now we have) an a fortiori argument that a man lying under a zav should become tamei to confer tumah to men and garments! viz.: If in a place where a couch does not become tamei by touching a zav's couch to confer tumah to garments (lying upon it), a man does become tamei by touching a zav's couch to confer tumah to his garments, then in a place where a couch becomes tamei under a zav to confer tumah to a man and his garments, how much more so should a man lying under a zav become tamei to confer tumah to men and garments! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 15:4) \"Every couch on which a zav lies … shall be unclean.\" A couch becomes tamei under a zav to confer tumah to men and garments, but a man lying under a zav does not become tamei to confer tumah to men and garments.",
                "3) \"And a man who touches his (a zav's) couch\": (It should have been written) \"the couch\" (and not \"his couch,\" and we would understand from the context that it is his couch. It must come to teach us then) that if it breaks (after the zav has lain on it [so that it is no longer \"his couch,\" that he has lain on]), it is tahor. (Why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If an earthen vessel, which cannot be cleaned of its tumah (in a mikvah), becomes tahor if it breaks, then a zav's couch, which can be cleansed of its tumah, how much more so should it be tahor if it breaks! — No, this may be true of an earthen vessel, which does not become an av (i.e., a progenitor) of tumah to confer tumah upon men and vessels, as opposed to the zav's couch, which does become an av of tumah to confer tumah upon men and vessels. Since this is the case, we would say that if it breaks, it does not become tahor. It must, therefore, be written \"his couch,\" (to indicate that) if it broke (after he lay upon it), it is tahor.",
                "4) \"what he lies upon\": and not upon a cord projecting from the bed less than five (tefachim, in which instance it is not considered an adjunct to the bed) or more than ten, (in which instance it is not considered a \"handle\" to the bed, [five to ten serving for the latter purpose]). I might think to exclude (from tumah) from five until ten; it is, therefore, written \"and he shall be tamei.\"",
                "5) \"what he lies upon\": and not on strands which project more than three fingers beyond the rope knots, (these not being needed for tightening or loosening the knot). I might think to exclude (from tumah) from three and below; it is, therefore, written \"and he shall be tamei.\"",
                "6) \"what he (the zav) lies upon, and not what is wrested\" (from another). I might think to exclude (from tumah) one that is stolen (by stealth); it is, therefore, written \"and he shall be tamei.\"",
                "7) R. Shimon says: \"what he lies upon,\" and not what is stolen. I might think to exclude what is wrested; it is, therefore, written \"and he shall be tamei.\"",
                "8) Why do you see fit to include the one and to exclude the other? After Scripture includes (by \"and he shall be tamei\"), it excludes (by \"what he lies upon.\") I include (as tamei) what the owner despairs of (recovering, so that it is now considered \"his\" [the zav's] bed), and I exclude what he does not despair of (recovering).",
                "9) \"And a man who touches what he lies upon shall wash his clothes\": It is only while he touches it that he confers tumah to garments, but not when he departs from it.",
                "10) See Shemini, Section 4:9.",
                "11) From here they ruled: All who confer tumah upon garments while touching (a zav or a zavah or a woman who has given birth or their couch or their seat) confer first-degree tumah upon food and drink, and second-degree tumah on hands (that touched the above), and they confer tumah upon other implements as they do upon garments, and they do not confer tumah upon men or earthenware vessels. After they depart (from the couch or the seat, etc.), they confer first-degree tumah upon drink and second-degree tumah upon food and hands, and, it goes without saying (that they do not confer tumah) upon men and earthenware vessels."
            ],
            "Chapter 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 15:6) (\"And one who sits upon the object that the zav sat upon shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening.\") \"and one who sits upon the object that the zav sat upon … shall be unclean.\": This tells me only of his sitting upon it and touching it. Whence do I derive the same for ten layers (interposing between him and the couch of the zav beneath them, he sitting on top), even if he is sitting atop a stone? It is, therefore, written \"And one who sits upon the object that the zav sat upon … shall become tamei.\" The (same kind of) place that the zav sits upon and confers tumah (to the couch below), the clean man sits upon and becomes tamei (by the couch of the zav below).",
                "2) This tells me only of his sitting there while the zav is (sitting) there. Whence do I derive an equivalence between \"empty\" (the zav's not sitting there) and \"full\" (the zav's sitting there)? From \"the object\" (i.e., the object is the criterion, and not \"fullness\" or \"emptiness\"), making \"empty\" equivalent to \"full.\"",
                "3) This tells me only of the mishkav ([the couch] of the zav, that one who sits upon it becomes tamei to confer tumah upon garments.) Whence do we derive the same for the merkav ([the saddle] of the zav)? It follows by induction, viz.: Just as we find that Scripture did not distinguish between the carrier of and the \"carried by\" the mishkav (of the zav, so it does not distinguish between the carrier of and the \"carried by\" the merkav (of the zav). (No, this may be refuted, viz.:) Why did Scripture not distinguish between the carrier of and the \"carried by\" the mishkav? Because it did not distinguish between touching it and carrying it, (both conferring tumah to impart tumah to garments). Should we then not distinguish between the carrier of and the \"carried by\" the merkav, where Scripture did distinguish touching from carrying, (the touching not imparting tumah to garments, as opposed to the carrier, who does)! It is, therefore, written \"the object,\" to include the merkav.",
                "4) R. Chananiah b. Chanina says: (We can learn from elsewhere that one lifted on the merkav of a zav requires washing of his clothes. Why is a verse necessary for this?) viz.: If in a way that tumah does not descend upon it ([the merkav], i.e., if a zav lifts the merkav, it does not sustain tumah by reason thereof), tumah goes forth from it (i.e., if one lifts the merkav of a zav, he is tamei), then in a way that tumah does descend upon it (i.e., by sitting upon it), how much more so should tumah go forth from it (to confer tumah upon one sitting on it)! — No! Why are we stringent with a lifted merkav (to confer tumah upon its lifter to impart tumah to clothing?) Because Scripture was stringent with a lifted zav. (i.e., if a zav was lifted on a garment, the garment confers tumah upon a man to impart tumah to clothing.) Shall we then be stringent with a merkav that lifts a man (sitting upon it), when Scripture is lenient (in this regard) in respect to a zav (himself) who is lifted! It must, therefore, be written \"the object,\" to include the merkav.",
                "5) (Vayikra 15:7) (\"And he who touches the flesh of the zav shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening.\") \"the flesh of the zav\": and not the dung upon it, and not the hair-knot upon it, and not the clasps, and not the nose rings, and not the finger rings, even though they do not come off. I might think to exclude the hair and the nails; it is, therefore, written \"and he shall be unclean.\"",
                "6) \"the flesh of the zav\": and not a detached bone, and not detached flesh. How much more so is (a bone or flesh) detached from one that is tahor, tahor. How, then, am I to understand (Bamidbar 19:16): \"or the bone of a man or a grave\"? That refers to a limb detached form a living man.",
                "7) If it is written in respect to zav (that what is detached from him is clean), why need it be written in respect to mishkav? (See Section 2:3); and if it is written in respect to mishkav, why need it be stated in respect to zav?) Because there obtains with zav what does not obtain with mishkav, and with mishkav what does not obtain with zav — Zav makes a mishkav, and mishkav does not make a zav; the attachments of a zav are tahor (viz. Bamidbar 19:5 above) and the attachments of a mishkav are tamei (See Section 3:4) — Because there obtains with zav what does not obtain with mishkav and with mishkav what does not obtain with zav, it must be written both in respect to mishkav and in respect to zav.",
                "8) (\"And if the zav spit upon one who is clean, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening.\") \"And if the zav spit upon one who is clean\": I might think even if he spit and it did not touch him he would be tamei; it is, therefore, written \"upon one who is clean\" — it must touch him. This tells me only of his spittle. Whence do I derive the same for his phlegm, his mucus, his slaver, and his nasal flow? From \"And if the zav spit.\"",
                "9) (Vayikra 15:9) (\"And every saddle upon which a zav rides shall be tamei\") \"upon which a zav rides shall be tamei\": I might think even if he rode on a couch or a chair; it is, therefore, written \"saddle\" — not a couch and not a chair.",
                "10) I would then exclude these, but I would not exclude a pack-saddle; it is, therefore, written \"saddle\" — his distinct saddle.",
                "11) Which is a \"distinct\" saddle? An Ashkelonian saddle, a Median saddle, a camel's sumpter-saddle, and the tafitan of a horse, but the ukaf of a na'akah (a long-necked camel) is tamei by reason of moshav (and not of merkav). R. Yossi says: The tafitan of a horse is also tamei by reason of moshav, because it is used for standing upon in the sport plain.",
                "12) This tells me of his lying, sitting and riding upon it, and touching it. Whence do I derive the same for ten saddles, one atop the other, even if he is atop a stone interposing (between himself and the others)? From \"every mishkav,\" and \"every object,\" and \"every saddle.\" \"upon which a zav rides shall be tamei\": (To be tamei) most of him must be carried by it."
            ],
            "Chapter 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 15:10) (\"And whoever touches anything that is beneath him shall be unclean until the evening, and one who carries them shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening.\") \"And whoever touches anything that is beneath him\": beneath the zav (i.e., if one touches the saddle). I might think (that the meaning is) \"beneath it,\" the saddle. It follows a fortiori (that this cannot be said), for if the zav (himself), the stringent (instance), does not confer tumah upon vessels requiring rinsing (to release them from tumah) except by touch (of the zav himself), then the saddle, the less stringent (instance), how much more so does it not confer tumah upon vessels requiring rinsing, except by touch. How, then, am I to understand \"And whoever touches anything that is tachtav? As meaning \"beneath him,\" the zav, (i.e., if one touches the saddle).",
                "2) \"and one who carries them\": What is the intent of this? I might think that only merkav alone confers tumah by being carried. Whence do I derive the same for mishkav and moshav? (But a verse is not necessary for this.) I know it a fortiori, viz.: It merkav, which does not confer tumah upon garments by being touched, does confer tumah upon garments by being carried, then mishkav and moshav, which do confer tumah upon garments by being touched, how much more so do they do so by being carried! — (No,) this is refuted by the upper board and the side board of a coffin (viz. Bamidbar 19:16), which do confer tumah upon garments by being touched, but which do not do so by being carried.",
                "3) Do not wonder, then, if mishkav and moshav do not confer tumah by being carried even though they do confer tumah by being touched. It must, therefore, be written \"and one who carries them,\" to include mishkav and moshav.",
                "4) R. Elazar says: What is the intent of \"and one who carries them\"? I might think that only these (merkav, mishkav, and moshav) confer tumah by being carried. Whence do I derive the same for the discharge of the zav and his spittle and his urine and his semen and the menstrual blood of the niddah? From \"and one who carries them\" — to include all that is mentioned in that context.",
                "5) (Vayikra 15:11) (\"And whoever the zav touches, if he (the zav) did not wash his hands with water (i.e., if he did not immerse), shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening.\" (touches) \"him\": him and not the excrement upon him, and not the hair-knot upon it, and not the clasps, and not the nose rings, and not the finger rings, even though they do not come off. I might think to exclude the hair and the nails; it is, therefore, written \"and he shall be unclean.\" \"if he did not wash his hands with water\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written \"and he shall wash his flesh with water,\" I might think even the hidden parts; it is, therefore written \"his hands.\" Just as his hands are visible, so all that is visible (is to be bathed), excluding the hidden parts.",
                "6) Whence is it derived that if a zav finished counting (the seven days and did not yet immerse himself) — (Whence is it derived) that his status is the same as that of one who was rid (of his plague-spot before he began to count the seven days)? From \"if he did not wash his hands with water\" — even after a hundred years.",
                "7) R. Elazar b. Arach said: From here the sages adduced a Scriptural support for the (Rabbinical) ordinance of washing the hands."
            ],
            "Section 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 15:12) (\"And an earthen vessel which the zav touches shall be broken, and every wooden vessel shall be rinsed in water.\") \"earthen vessel\": This tells me only of an earthen vessel. Whence do I derive for inclusion a vessel made of alum crystals? From \"And an earthen vessel. \"which the zav touches\": I might think even if he touches it from the back it becomes tamei. But (why is a verse needed for this?) It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a dead body, the stringent instance (of tumah), does not confer tumah upon an earthen vessel from the back, then zav, the lesser instance, how much more so does it not confer tumah upon an earthen vessel from the back! — No, this may be so with a dead body, which does not effect (tumah of) mishkav and moshav, as opposed to a zav, which does effect such tumah. And since it does, I would think that since it does so, it would confer tumah upon earthen vessels from the back. It is, therefore, written (lit.,) \"which the zav touches bo\" [\"in it\"], and, elsewhere (Vayikra 6:21) (lit.,) \"which is cooked bo.\" Just as there, the meaning is \"in its atmosphere\", here, too, the meaning is \"in its atmosphere\" (and not if he touches it from the back).",
                "2) Now that we have learned that tumah is conferred upon it from its atmosphere (i.e., even without touching it), what is the intent of \"which he touches\"? As if he \"touches\" all of it (i.e., If he moves it without touching it) — \"heset\" — (all of it must be moved).",
                "3) \"and every wooden vessel shall be rinsed in water\": R. Shimon said: What does this come to teach us? If that he (the zav) confers tumah upon vessels requiring rinsing, by touching (them), is it not already written (Vayikra 6 verse 7) \"and he who touches the flesh of the zav shall wash his clothes\"? If one who touches the zav, thereby confers tumah upon vessels requiring rinsing, then if he himself (touches them), how much more so should he confer tumah upon them! What, then, is the intent of \"and every wooden vessel shall be rinsed in water\"? This refers to the food, drink, and vessels on top of the zav.",
                "4) (And the verse is necessary to teach us this) for (without it) would it not follow a fortiori (that he should not confer tumah to the vessels above him that he is not in direct contact with)? Viz.: If where Scripture made vessels under him that are fit for mishkav (reclining) subject to mishkav tumah, it did not make vessels under him that are unfit for mishkav subject to middaf (indirect contact tumah) — then, above him, where Scripture did not make even vessels fit for mishkav subject to mishkav tumah, how much more so should vessels (above him) not be subject to middaf tumah! It must, therefore, be written \"and every wooden vessel shall be rinsed in water,\" to teach that the vessels above him are subject to middaf tumah.",
                "5) (But now we have a) kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) that the zav is subject to mishkav tumah above him (when there are on his head things that are fit for mishkav beneath him), viz.: If beneath him, where Scripture did not make things subject to middaf tumah, it made him subject to mishkav tumah, then (above him), where Scripture made things subject to middaf tumah, how much more so should they be subject to mishkav tumah! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 6 verse 4) \"Every mishkav on which the zav lies down shall be tamei\" — He confers mishkav (tumah) beneath him and not above him.",
                "6) (But now we have) a kal vachomer that the zav makes (vessels unfit for mishkav) that are beneath him subject to middaf tumah, viz.: If above him, where Scripture did not make things subject to mishkav tumah, it made them subject to middaf tumah, then beneath him, where Scripture made them subject to mishkav tumah, how much more so should they be subject to middaf tumah! It is, therefore, written \"Every mishkav on which the zav lies down shall be tamei\" — He confers mishkav tumah beneath him and not middaf tumah.",
                "7) (But now we have) a kal vachomer that the zav does not confer mishkav tumah (upon layers not directly in contact beneath him), viz.: If above him, where Scripture made things subject to middaf tumah, it did not make them subject to mishkav tumah, then (beneath him), where Scripture did not make them subject to middaf tumah, how much more so should they not be subject to mishkav tumah! It is, therefore, written \"Every mishkav on which the zav lies down shall be tamei\" — whereby we are taught that he does confer mishkav tumah (even upon layers not directly in contact beneath him)."
            ],
            "Chapter 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 15:13) (\"And when the zav is cleansed of his flux, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in running water, and he shall be clean.\") \"and when the zav is cleansed of his flux\": when his flux ceases. \"of his flux\": of his flux and not of his plague-spot (If in addition to his flux he had a [leprous] plague-spot, he need not wait until he is also healed of his plague-spot, but he may count the seven days for it immediately and be cleansed thereby from the specific tumah conferred by a zav.) \"of his flux and he shall count\": Even a partial flux (i.e., fewer than three) requires the seven-day count.",
                "2) to include one who has two zav sightings as requiring the seven-day count. (Why do we need a verse for this?) Does it not follow (of itself)? If he confers mishkav and moshav tumah with two sightings, should he not require the seven-day count with two sightings? (No, this is refuted by zavah, who confers mishkav and moshav tumah with two sightings, but does not count (seven days) for two sightings (See below, Chapter 8:6).",
                "3) Do not wonder then about a zav, even though he confers mishkav and moshav tumah with two sightings, if he would not require the seven-day count with two sightings. It must, therefore, be written \"of his flux and he shall count.\" Even a partial flux requires the seven-day count, to include one who has two sightings as requiring the seven-day count.",
                "4) \"then he shall count for him\" (i.e., for himself — whence they ruled: If a zav and a zavah examined themselves on the first day and found themselves tahor, and on the seventh day and found themselves tahor, and did not examine themselves in all the intervening days — R. Eliezer says: They are presumed to be tahor. R. Yehoshua says: They have this status for the first and seventh days alone (and must count five additional days). R. Akiva says: They have only the seventh day alone. (We suspect that the status of the first day may have been countermanded by a flux on one of the intervening days.)",
                "5) R. Yossi and R. Shimon say: The words of R. Eliezer seem more cogent than the words of R. Yehoshua, and the words of R. Akiva than the words of both, but the halachah is in accordance with the words of R. Eliezer.",
                "6) \"seven days\": I might think either consecutive or non-consecutive; it is, therefore, written \"for his cleansing.\" (The period of) his cleansing must be one (consecutive unit).",
                "7) \"And he shall wash his clothes and bathe his flesh\": Just as the bathing of his flesh must be in cleanliness (i.e., that there be no object intervening between his flesh and the water), so, the washing of his clothes must be in cleanliness — whence we derive that chatzitzah (such intervention) invalidates (the immersion of) vessels, too.",
                "8) \"and bathe his flesh in running water\": The zav requires running water, and not the leper.",
                "9) (Without the verse we would reason otherwise, viz.:) Does it not follow a fortiori? If a zav, who does not require the sprinkling of running water requires immersion in running water, then a leper, who does require the sprinkling of running water (viz. Vayikra 14:7), how much more so does he require immersion in running water! It is, therefore, written \"and he shall bathe 'his flesh' in running water.\" A zav requires immersion in running water, and not a leper.",
                "10) I might think that his vessels, too, require immersion in running water; it is, therefore, written \"his flesh\" — His flesh requires running water, but his vessels may be immersed in all waters.",
                "11) \"and he shall be clean\": from conferring tumah on earthen vessels by carrying them. Ben Azzai says: [Note: The text at this point is obscure.] R. Yossi Haglili said to him: Explain yourself. Ben Azzai: Explanations are not provided for a sage. R. Yossi Haglili: Repeat it. Ben Azzai: Repetitions are not provided for a sage. R. Yossi Haglili then reviewed it and explained: If in a place where clothes rendered tamei through a sheretz were not reckoned as clothes (touching) a sheretz, (yet) an earthen vessel (touching) a sheretz was reckoned as a man touching a sheretz — then where clothes rendered tamei through a zav were reckoned as a zav, how much more so should earthen vessels (carried by) a zav be reckoned as a man (touching) a zav! It is, therefore, written \"and he shall be clean,\" from conferring tumah on earthen vessels by carrying them.",
                "12) (Vayikra 15:14) (\"And on the eighth day, he shall take for himself two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, and he shall come before the L–rd to the door of the tent of meeting, and he shall give them to the Cohein.\") \"on the eighth\": I might think either in the daytime or at night; it is, therefore, written \"on the day\" — on the day and not at night.",
                "13) \"he shall take for himself.\" If he separated them for his first zivah, he should not bring them for his second zivah. \"two turtle-doves or two young pigeons\": The exchange of turtle-doves are young pigeons and the exchange of pigeons are turtle-doves. (i.e., If he set aside money for the first, but could not find them, he may bring the second, and vice versa.) But their exchange is not the tenth of an ephah.",
                "14) Where is it derived that he immerses (on the seventh day) when it is yet day (and not when it gets dark)? From \"and he shall come before the L–rd to the door of the tent of meeting.\" How could he come to the door of the tent of meeting unless the sun had gone down? We are hereby taught that he immerses when it is yet day.",
                "15) (Vayikra 15:15) (\"And the Cohein shall offer them up, one as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering; and the Cohein shall make atonement for him before the L–rd from his discharge.\") \"And the Cohein shall offer them up, one as a sin-offering, and the other as a burnt-offering\": The Cohein must designate them, one for a sin-offering; the other, for a burnt-offering. Whence is it derived that if he (the owner) himself designates them it is valid? From (Vayikra 5:7 and Vayikra 5:8):\" one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering. And he shall bring them to the Cohein.\"",
                "16) \"and the Cohein shall make atonement for him before the L–rd from his discharge\": (implying that) some zavim bring (the sacrifice) and some do not. How so? If he had three sightings, he brings; if he had two sightings, he does not bring. — But perhaps (the meaning is that) if he had two sightings, he brings; if he had three, he does not bring. — But did not one who had three sightings have two sightings? How, then, am I to understand \"and the Cohein shall make atonement for him before the L–rd from his discharge\"? Some zavim bring the sacrifice and some do not. How so? If he had three sightings, he brings; if he had two sightings, he does not bring. "
            ],
            "Chapter 6": [
                "1) (Vayikra 15:16) (\"And a man, if there issue from him semen, then he shall bathe all of his flesh with water, and he shall be unclean until the evening.\") \"And a man\": excluding a minor. I might think to exclude, then, a minor of nine years and one day, (who may have viable semen); it is, therefore, written \"and a man\" (to include the foregoing).",
                "2) \"if there issue from him semen\": (He does not become unclean) until his semen comes outside his flesh. From here they ruled: One who was eating terumah and felt the onset of a zav discharge holds his organ (to prevent it from issuing forth) and swallows the terumah.",
                "3) \"and he shall bathe with water\": even in the water of a mikveh. \"all of his flesh\": Nothing must intervene between his flesh and the \"water\" in which all of his flesh can be immersed. How much is that? A cubit by a cubit at a height of three cubits, so that the capacity of a mikveh is found to be forty sa'ah.",
                "4) (Vayikra 15:17) (\"And every garment and all skin upon which there shall be semen shall be washed in water, and it shall be unclean until the evening.\") \"garment and skin\": This tells me only of garment and skin. Whence do I derive that all other implements are like garment and skin in this regard? From \"every garment and all skin.\" Or, if you wish, \"garment and skin\" is written in respect to sheretz (Vayikra 11:32), and \"garment and skin\" is written in respect to a dead body, and \"garment and skin\" is written in respect to semen. Just as \"garment and skin\" written in respect to sheretz and a dead body applies to all implements, so, \"garment and skin\" written in respect to semen applies to all implements.",
                "5) \"upon which there shall be semen\": even upon part of it. \"semen\": Just as \"semen\" below (Vayikra 11 verse 18) is semen as at its inception, so \"semen\" here is \"semen\" as at its inception — to include vitiated semen. From here they ruled: A woman who discharged semen on the third day (after coitus) is tahor. These are the words of R. Eliezer b. Azaryah. R. Yishmael says: Sometimes (this involves the passage of) four (conjugal) times; sometimes, of five times; sometimes, of six times. R. Akiva says: It always involves the passage of five times.",
                "6) And if part of the first time has passed, this is completed by part of the sixth time.",
                "7) (Vayikra 15:18) (\"And a woman, if a man lie with her, a lying of semen, then they shall bathe in water, and they shall be unclean until the evening.\") \"a woman\": to exclude a minor. I might then think to exclude a child of three years and one day; it is, therefore, written \"and a woman.\"",
                "8) \"if a man lie with her\": to exclude a minor (less than nine years old). \"her\": to exclude a bride, (a woman not conceiving from her first coitus). These are the words of R. Yehudah. They said to him: What does this (verse) have to do with a bride? Rather, \"her,\" to exclude unnatural coitus (i.e., sodomy). (\"a lying of) semen\": to exclude peripheral contact (through which she does not conceive).",
                "9) \"then they shall bathe in water, and they shall be unclean until the evening\": Her bathing is being likened to his bathing. Just as his bathing must be in cleanliness (i.e., without anything intervening between the water and his flesh), so her bathing must be in cleanliness. Just as his bathing is in forty sa'ah, so her bathing must be in forty sa'ah. Just as his bathing excludes hidden parts, so her bathing excludes hidden parts.",
                "10) R. Shimon says: To what end is it written \"then they shall bathe in water, and they shall be unclean until the evening\"? If in respect to (having became tamei by) touching semen, this is already mentioned above. If so, why is it written? In respect to her having become tamei (by contact with the semen) in her hidden parts. — But did we not say that she does not become tamei through such contact? It must be then that (in this instance she does become tamei) through \"the King's edict,\" wherefore it is written \"then they shall bathe in water, and they shall be unclean until the evening.\""
            ],
            "Section 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 15:19) (\"And a woman, if she will have a flow, (if) blood shall be her flow in her flesh, seven days shall she be in her niddah state, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening.\") \"And a woman\": This tells me only of a woman. Whence do we derive that even a one-day-old child (is included in this context of niddah)? From \"And a woman\" — whence they ruled: A one-day-old child for niddah; a ten-day-old child for zivah (seven days of niddah flow and three additional days of zivah flow).",
                "2) \"if she will have\": from the pronouncement on. \"a flow\": I might think even if she flows from any place she is tamei; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 20:18) \"and she has revealed the source of her blood.\" This teaches us about (her) blood that (it causes uncleanliness) only if it comes from the source.",
                "3) I might think any color of flow is tamei; it is, therefore, written \"blood.\" If \"blood,\" I would think one color of blood (i.e., red), (but) (\"and she shall be cleansed from the source of her) bloods\" (Vayikra 12:7) teaches us that many bloods are tamei in her: red, black, bright-colored crocus, (and the color of) earth-water, and mixed wine. Beth Shammai say: Even like that of fenugrec and roast flesh extract. Beth Hillel rule the latter to be tahor.",
                "4) \"in her flesh\": We are hereby taught that she confers tumah internally (by her blood issuing from her source and being contained within her) as well as externally (by appearing on the outside.) For (without this verse) would it not follow that she does not confer tumah internally as well as externally, viz.: If a zav, who requires running water (for his cleansing, viz. Vayikra 15:13), does not confer tumah internally as well as externally, then a niddah, who does not require running water, how much more so should she not confer tumah internally as well as externally! It must, therefore, be written \"in her flesh,\" to teach that she does confer tumah internally as well as externally. This tells me only of a niddah. Whence do I derive the same for a zavah? From \"her flow,\" (implying any flow). Whence do I derive the same for a woman who discharges semen (which is contained by the outer wall)? From \"shall be\" (connoting extension of inclusion). R. Shimon says: It suffices that she be as he who cohabits with her. Just as he does not confer (semen) tumah internally as well as externally, she, too, does not confer (semen) tumah internally as well as externally.",
                "5) \"seven days shall she be in her state of niddah\": and not in her state of zivah, (the blood of these seven days being accounted niddah blood and not zivah blood). I might think that (to be in this state) she must see blood all seven days; it is, therefore, written \"shall she be\" — even though she does not see (all seven but only one).",
                "6) This tells me only of \"days.\" Whence do I derive the nights (for inclusion)? From \"shall she be\" — to include the nights.",
                "7) I might think (any seven days), whether consecutive of scattered; it is, therefore, written \"shall she be\" — their being shall be one (consecutive unit).",
                "8) Whence is it derived that she does not immerse while it is still day? From \"seven days shall she be in her state of niddah\" — she shall be in that state all of the seven days (and she immerses on the night preceding the eighth day).",
                "9) \"whoever touches her shall be unclean\": I might think that one who touches her does not confer tumah upon garments by touching (them) — Now if she confers tumah upon mishkav (a couch) to confer tumah upon men and to confer tumah upon garments, (then if one touches) her herself, should he not confer tumah on garments thereby? If so, why is it written \"whoever touches her shall be tamei until the evening\"? I might think that one who touches her confers tumah upon men and earthen vessels — Now would this follow? One who touches a zav confers tumah, and one who touches a niddah confers tumah. Just as one who touches a zav does not confer tumah upon men and earthen vessels, so, one who touches a niddah! (Why, then, is the verse necessary?)",
                "10) No! — This may be true of a zav, who does not confer tumah upon a person to confer tumah upon a different person, (i.e., If a woman cohabits with a zav, she does not confer tumah upon a different person and upon earthen vessels) — as opposed to a niddah, who confers tumah upon a person to confer tumah upon a different person (i.e., If a niddah cohabits with someone, she does confer tumah upon him to confer tumah upon a different person and upon earthen vessels (viz. Vayikra 15:24, \"then her state of niddah shall be upon him.\") And since she confers tumah upon a person to confer tumah upon a different person, I would think (without a verse) that if one touched her, he would confer tumah upon a different person and upon earthen vessels. It is, therefore written \"whoever touches her shall (himself) be unclean until the evening\"; but he who touches her does not confer tumah upon a (different person) and upon earthen vessels.",
                "11) (Vayikra 15:20) \"And all that she lies upon in her niddah state shall be unclean, and all that she sits upon shall be unclean\": I might think that she confers tumah upon a mishkav that is not distinctive for reclining upon and upon a moshav (a seat) that is not distinctive for sitting upon. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 15:21) \"And whoever touches her (distinctive) mishkav shall wash his clothes.\"",
                "12) (Vayikra 15:22) \"And whoever touches any object that she sits upon shall wash his clothes\": Just as below (i.e., Vayikra 15 verse 21, which elucidates verse 20), she confers tumah only upon a mishkav that is distinctive for lying upon and a moshav that is distinctive for sitting upon, here, too, she confers tumah only upon a mishkav that is distinctive for lying upon and a moshav that is distinctive for sitting upon.",
                "13) I might think that as far as conferring tumah is concerned, she confers tumah only upon a mishkav that is distinctive for lying upon and upon a moshav that is distinctive for sitting upon; but as far as becoming tamei is concerned, all kinds (of moshav and mishkav, even non-distinctive) are susceptible of this. For there are many things which become tamei and yet do not confer tumah (upon other things). It is, therefore written \"upon it\" - \"upon it.\" \"Upon it\" is written in respect to becoming tamei (Vayikra 15 verse 22, lit., \"that she sits upon it\"), and \"upon it\" is written in respect to conferring tumah (Vayikra 15 verse 20). Just as with \"upon it\" in respect to conferring tumah, only a mishkav distinctive for lying upon and a mishkav distinctive for sitting upon confer tumah, so with \"upon it\" in respect to becoming tamei, only a mishkav distinctive for lying upon and a mishkav distinctive for sitting upon become tamei.",
                "14) (Vayikra 15:23) (\"And if on the bed [mishkav] he be, or on the object that she sits upon, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until the evening.\") \"And if on the mishkav,\" even only part of it \"he be (even without directly touching it),\" so that most of him is borne by it, \"or on the object,\" even only part of it,\" that she sits upon.\" From here they ruled: If most of the tamei were over the (object that is) tahor, or over part of it; or if most of the tahor were over the tamei or over part of it — whether zav or mishkav — (the ruling is) tamei. If part of the tamei were over the tahor or over part of it, or part of the tahor over the tamei or over part of it — with a zav (vis-à-vis a man), he is tamei; with (a zav vis-à-vis) a mishkav, (the mishkav is) tahor. R. Shimon says: Even with part tamei over tahor, even with zav, (the ruling is) tahor.",
                "15) (Vayikra 15 verse 23) \"mishkav\": This is mishkav (itself); \"which she sits upon\": This is moshav; \"object\": This is merkav ( a saddle), it being written \"when he touches it.\" Respecting which object was a distinction made between touching it and carrying it, (the former rendering one tamei; the latter, not)? A saddle."
            ],
            "Chapter 7": [
                "1) (Vayikra 15:24) (\"And if a man lie, lie, with her, then her niddah state shall be upon him, and he shall be unclean for seven days; and every mishkav on which he lies shall be unclean.\") \"lie, lie\": to include two manners of lying (i.e., natural coitus and unnatural [sodomy]). \"And if lie, lie\": to include peripheral (non consummated) contact. \"a man\": to exclude a minor. I might think to exclude one of nine years and a day (or older). It is, therefore, written \"and if he lie, lie.\" (and one of that age comes within the context of \"lying.\")",
                "2) \"with her\" (a niddah): to exclude a woman leper (i.e., If one has coitus with her, her state of \"leper\" is not upon him.) (For without a verse) would it not follow a fortiori (that her state is upon him, viz.:) If a niddah, who does not confer tumah (upon all that is in a house), by entering it, does confer tumah upon one who cohabits with her, then a leprous woman, who does confer tumah by entry, how much more so should she confer tumah upon one who cohabits with her! It is, therefore, written \"with her\" (a niddah), to exclude a woman leper.",
                "3) \"then her niddah state shall be upon him.\" I might think that he followed her schedule (e.g., if he cohabited with her on her third day, he completes another four days as she does, and immerses and becomes tahor); it is, therefore, written \"and he shall be unclean for seven days\" (even if he cohabited with her on her seventh day). Let it be written \"and he shall be tamei seven days.\" Why \"then her niddah state shall be upon him?\" I might think that he does not confer tumah upon men and earthen vessels; it is, therefore, written \"then her niddah state shall be upon him\" — Just as she confers tumah upon men and earthen vessels, so does he. I might then think that just as she confers tumah upon a mishkav to confer tumah upon men and garments, so does he. It is, therefore, written \"then her niddah state shall be upon him, and every mishkav on which he lies shall be unclean.\" Let this (\"and every mishkav, etc.\") not be written, (for we can learn this from \"then her niddah state, etc.\") Its purpose must be, then, to cut him off from stringent tumah (that his mishkav not be as stringent as hers, to confer tumah upon men and vessels upon it) and to bring him to lesser tumah, that (his mishkav) confer tumah only upon food and drink.",
                "4) In sum, then, you are saying that his mishkav (that of a man who touches the mishkav of one who cohabited with a niddah) is like his touching him. Just as his touching him confers tumah upon one (himself) and invalidates one (thing, i.e., the terumah that he then touches), so, (touching) his mishkav confers tumah upon one and invalidates one.",
                "5) We find, then, that if a loaf of terumah were wrapped in a towel and placed between one mattress, (that which the cohabiter is lying on) and another — If it (the loaf) were aligned with him (the cohabiter), it becomes tamei. For if the towel becomes tamei (as the mishkav of the cohabiter), the loaf (within it) becomes tamei, [his mishkav conferring tumah upon food and drink]); and if it (the loaf) were not aligned with him, it is tahor, its touching (i.e., the touching of the towel by the mishkav) not conferring tumah upon garments, (in this instance, the towel).",
                "6) \"and he shall be tamei for seven days\": He counts the seven from the last cohabitation. (Why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow by induction, viz.: He becomes tamei by a dead body and he becomes tamei by a niddah. Just as we find with the first that he counts seven days only from the last tumah, so when he becomes tamei by a niddah, he should count the seven days only from the last union.",
                "7) — But perhaps go in this direction: she becomes tamei and she confers tumah upon her cohabiter. Just as she counts the seven days only from the first sighting (even if she had other sightings all seven days), so, when he becomes tamei by a niddah, he should count seven only from the first union.",
                "8) Let us see whom he most resembles, viz.: We derive tumah which is from a different source (the niddah) from tumah which is from a different source (a dead body), and this is not to be refuted by blood, which is from her own body.",
                "9) Or go in this direction: We derive tumah which is caused by blood, from tumah which is caused by blood, and this is not to be refuted by dead body tumah, which is not caused by blood. It is, therefore, written \"and (after the \"lying\") he shall be tamei for seven days.\" He counts seven days from the last union.",
                "10) \"and every mishkav on which he lies shall be unclean.\" (and everything that he sits upon shall be unclean). I might think that he confers tumah upon a mishkav that is not distinctive for reclining and a moshav that is not distinctive for sitting. No — Just as she confers tumah only upon a mishkav that is distinctive for reclining and upon a moshav that is distinctive for sitting, so, he.",
                "11) I might think that both she and he do not confer stringent tumah but both confer only lesser tumah (See 3 above); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 15:24) \"mishkav … yishkav,\" (which connotes both types). This tells me only (of his conferring tumah) when he is lying upon it (the moshav) and touching it. Whence is the same derived (for a situation) where there are ten layers (of moshav) one atop the other, even with a stone intervening? From \"on every mishkav on which he lies.\""
            ],
            "Section 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 15:25) (\"And a woman, if the flow of her blood flows many days, not in the time of her niddah period; or if she flows beyond her niddah period, then all the days of the flow of her uncleanliness, as the days of her niddah state shall she be; she is unclean.\") \"a woman\": whether a Jewess, or a convert, or a maidservant, or a free maid-servant. \"if there flows the flow of her blood\": \"her blood\": the blood which is attributable to her, and not that which is attributable to the onset of childbirth (in the possible zivah days, i.e., the three days after the seven-day niddah period). — But perhaps the meaning is: because of herself (i.e., her bodily state [including the onset of childbirth]), and not her blood which is attributable to some (external) accident! — (This cannot be,) for the redundant \"flow\" includes external accidents. How then am I to understand \"her blood\"? As that which is attributable to her, and not to the (pressure of) the fetus.",
                "2) How long (before birth) may she be in kishui (protracted travail) and the blood of that kishui be attributable to the fetus alone (and not to a zivah flow)? R. Meir says: Even forty-five days. R. Yehudah says: Her (ninth) month suffices (for that assumption). (Non-zivah) kishui may be assumed for more than two weeks (preceding childbirth). Therefore, if she was in kishui for seventeen days (preceding childbirth), the first three are susceptible of zivah, and she is presumed to have given birth in a state of zivah.",
                "3) And there are those in kishui for twenty-five days and yet are not in a state of zivah because of them: two out of her niddah time (i.e., in the eleven days separating her niddah periods), seven of her niddah time, two after her niddah time, and fourteen days in which the fetus cleanses her (i.e., days which are attributable to kishui and not to zivah). But it is impossible that she be (bleeding) in kishui for twenty-six days without giving birth in a state of zivah.",
                "4) And there are those who see blood (without kishui) a hundred days and yet are not in a state of zivah because of them: two out of her niddah time, seven of her niddah time, two after her niddah time, and eighty days after the birth of a female (viz. Vayikra 12:5), seven of her niddah time and two after her niddah time.",
                "5) (\"and if her blood flows many days\") \"days\": two (and \"many\" makes it three). I might think (that it means) many (more) days. (Concerning this) R. Akiva says: Anything that can be (understood as connoting) either a maximum or a minimum, if you have seized the maximum, you may not have caught it; if you have seized the minimum, you have caught it, (at least a minimum being subsumed in the maximum).",
                "6) R. Yehudah b. Betheirah says: Of two parameters, one finite; the other, infinite, we choose the finite and not the infinite.",
                "7) R. Nechemiah says: Does Scripture come to open (i.e., to open the way to understanding) or to close (the way)? If you say that \"days\" is ten, (this can be challenged:) \"Perhaps it means a hundred!\" \"Perhaps two hundred!\" \"Perhaps a thousand!\" \"Perhaps ten thousand!\" And when you say \"days\" is two, you have opened (the way to understanding).",
                "8) R. Mona says in the name of R. Yehudah: \"Days\" signifies two. If you would say that \"many\" is intended, this is already written. It must mean, then, the minimum of days, i.e., two.",
                "9) \"many\" — three. I might think (that it signifies) ten. (This cannot be, for) it is written \"days\" and it is written \"many.\" Just as \"days\" signifies the minimum of days, \"many\" must signify the minimum (of the increase [i.e., one] so that (in total) \"many days\" must signify) three. I might think \"two\" and \"three\" — five. (This cannot be, for) is it written \"days and many\"? \"Many days\" is what is written. How is \"many days\" to be understood then? (As) these \"many\" make it more than two, so that the sum total is three."
            ],
            "Chapter 8": [
                "1) I might think that if she sees (a flow) three (consecutive days) in the beginning (i.e., before the onset of her niddah time) she becomes a zavah (to count seven clean days and to bring an offering). And how will I understand (Vayikra 15:19) \"And a woman, if she has a flow, etc.\" (where seven clean days and an offering are not required)? As referring to (her seeing for) one day; but if she sees for three days in the beginning (as above) she would become a zavah (for counting clean days and for an offering). It is, therefore written (Vayikra 15 verse 25) \"above her niddah state\" — She becomes tamei (for the above purposes) after her niddah state, and not in the beginning (i.e., before the onset of her niddah time.)",
                "2) This tells me only (of her seeing) conjoined with her niddah time (i.e., on days eight, nine and ten after her seven-day niddah time). Whence do I derive the same for her \"skipping\" from her niddah time (i.e., not seeing on day eight and seeing on days nine, ten, and eleven)? From \"or if she flows.\" This tells me only of a one-day skipping. Whence do I derive the same for a skipping of two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, or nine days (before beginning her three day consecutive count for zivah)? (We derive it) from what we find to be true of the fourth day (after her niddah time). That since it is fit for counting (of seven clean days) it is fit for zivah. I, accordingly, include the aforementioned days, which being fit for counting are fit for zivah.",
                "3) Whence is it derived that the eleventh day is included (for a zivah of three consecutive days even though it is not fit for the counting of seven clean days for the first three days of zivah)? From \"not in the time of her niddah period.\" I might then think to include the twelfth day, (so that if she saw on ten, eleven, and twelve she would be accounted a confirmed zavah and her twelfth day flow would not be accounted a flow of niddah but a flow of zivah). No, this is not to be maintained. Why is it seen fit to include the eleventh (in zivah) and to exclude the twelfth? After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include the eleventh as being counted in \"or if she flows (beyond her niddah period\"), and I exclude the twelfth as not being counted therein.",
                "4) This tells me only of one who sees three days that she becomes a (\"great\") zavah, (who is required to bring an offering). Whence do I derive that one who sees two days (is also a zavah and is tamei)? From \"all the days of the flow\" (the minimum of \"days\" being two). Whence do I derive that one who sees one day is (also) a zavah? From \"all (the days of) her flow … as the days of her niddah state.\"",
                "5) Whence is it derived that she counts one day (of cleanliness) for one day (of zivah)? From \"shall be to her.\" I might think that just as she observes one day (of counting) for one day (of zivah), so she observes two days for two days. And it follows a fortiori (that she should observe seven days of counting for two sightings), viz.: If a zav, who does not count one day for one day, counts seven days for two days, then a zavah, who counts one day for one day, how much more so should she count seven days for two days! It is, therefore, written (re a woman who sees zivah for two days) \"shall be to her,\" (connoting in the Hebrew that) she observes only one day (of counting).",
                "6) I know only that a woman who has three (zivah) sightings confers mishkav and moshav tumah. Whence do I derive the same for one who has only two sightings? From \"the days (a minimum of two) of her (zivah) flux, as the mishkav of her niddah state.\"",
                "7) Whence do I derive the same for one who has only one sighting? From \"all the days of her flux, as the mishkav of her niddah state.\"",
                "8) \"shall she be tamei\": We are hereby taught that she renders unclean (as a zav) the one who cohabits with her. \"tamei is she.\": She renders unclean the one who cohabits with her; but a zav does not render unclean (as a zav) the one who cohabits with him (i.e., who sodomizes him).",
                "9) For (without a verse) would it not follow (that he does render him unclean), viz.: If a zavah, who becomes tamei only with three sightings in three days confers tumah upon the one who cohabits with her, then a zav who becomes tamei with three sightings in one day, how much more so should he confer tumah upon the one whom he cohabits with (i.e., whom he sodomizes)! It is, therefore, written \"she.\" She confers tumah upon the one who cohabits with her, but a zav does not confer tumah upon the one who sodomizes him; but the sages spoke euphemistically, (saying \"the one whom he cohabits with\" instead of \"the one whom he sodomizes.\")",
                "10) (Vayikra 15:26) (\"Every mishkav which she lies upon all the days of her flow, as the mishkav of her niddah period shall be to her. And every object that she sits upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanliness of her niddah period.\") As the (degree of) tumah of her niddah period, and not as the (number of) days of her niddah period. For (without the verse) would it not follow a fortiori (that the object is tamei the same number of days as the niddah!), viz.: Now if in a place where the tumah of the \"conferred upon\" (i.e., the man) was not made equivalent to (the severity of) the tumah of the conferrer (i.e., the niddah), the (number of) days of the conferred upon were made equivalent to the days (seven) of the conferrer, then here, where (the degree of severity of) the tumah of the conferred upon was made equivalent to that of the conferrer, how much more so should the days of the conferred upon be made equivalent to those of the conferrer! It is, therefore, written: \"as the tumah of her niddah period.\" As the tumah of her niddah period, and not as the days of her niddah period. (Vayikra 15:27) \"And whoever touches them shall be unclean\": even their projections (those of the zav or of the aforementioned objects)."
            ],
            "Chapter 9": [
                "1) (Vayikra 15:28) \"And if she is cleansed of her flow, then she shall count for herself seven days, and after, she shall be clean.\") \"And if she is cleansed of her flow\": (The meaning is) \"when (her flow) ceases\" (and not \"when she has immersed herself\"). \"of her flow\": and not of her flow and her plague-spot. (viz. Chapter 5:1). \"then she shall count for her\": for herself (i.e., she may be trusted to do so). \"seven (clean) days\": I might think (that they may be either consecutive or scattered [i.e., with unclean days intervening between them]). It is, therefore, written \"and after, she shall be clean\": after all of the (consecutive seven days, she shall be clean).",
                "2) R. Shimon says: \"and after she shall be clean\": after the act of immersion, (when part of the seventh day has passed), she shall be clean. Once she has immersed herself, she is permitted to occupy herself with taharoth (sacred food [and to live with her husband]); but the sages said: She should not do this lest she bring herself to doubt (i.e., lest she see blood after her immersion in the daytime and contravene the count).",
                "3) (Vayikra 15:29) (\"And on the eighth day she shall take for her two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, and she shall bring them to the Cohein, to the door of the tent of meeting.\") See Chapter 5:13.",
                "4) See Chapter 5:13.",
                "5) See Chapter 5:13 (Vayikra 15:30) \"And the Cohein shall make atonement for her before the L–rd from the flow of her uncleanliness\": from the flow of her uncleanliness and not from the flow of her childbearing (See Tazria, Chapter 4:1).",
                "6) (Vayikra 15:31) (\"And you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanliness, and they shall not die in their uncleanliness by defiling My tabernacle which is in their midst.\") \"And you shall separate (vehizartem) the children of Israel. Nezirah (as in \"vehizartem\") is nothing other than separation, as it is written (Ezekiel 14:7): \"… and he separated (veyinazer) from Me and he brought up his abominations upon his heart,\" and (Isaiah 1:4): \"And they have separated themselves (nazoru), (turning) backwards.\"",
                "7) \"And you shall separate the children of Israel from their uncleanliness\": This is an exhortation (that they shall separate from sacred food and from the sanctuary in the days of their tumah. \"and they shall not die in their uncleanliness\": This (death, i.e., kareth) is the punishment. \"when they defile My tabernacle which is in their mist\": Though they be tamei, My shechinah is in their midst.",
                "8) (Vayikra 15:32) (\"This is the law of the zav and of him from whom semen issues forth to be made unclean thereby.\") \"This is the law of the zav\"; of one sighting, who is comparable to one from whom semen issues forth (For a zav of two sightings must observe seven clean days); and he immerses and eats his Paschal offering at night.",
                "9) (Vayikra 15:33) (\"And (of) her who flows with her menstrual flow, and (of) him who flows with his (zov) discharge, for male or female, and (of) him who lies with her who is unclean.\") \"And (of) her who flows with her menstrual flow, and (of) the zav\" (of two sightings), who, like a niddah, confers tumah upon mishkav and moshav (and who requires the counting of seven days). And, (even more than a niddah), he requires running water (for his cleansing). And he is not obligated to bring an offering. \"the law of the zav (of one sighting) and the zav (of two sightings) his zov\" (the zav) of three sightings: This is the confirmed zav, who confers tumah upon mishkav and moshav, who requires running water, and who is obligated to bring an offering.",
                "10) \"the law of the zav and of him from whom semen issues forth\": Just as a zav (flow) (during the seven-day clean count) interrupts the zov (count), so a semen flow (in those seven days) interrupts the zov (count, the semen of a zav not being without some intermixture of zov particles.) I might think that just as a zov (flow) (during that time) contravenes the entire count, so a semen flow (during that time) contravenes the entire count. It is, therefore, written \"to be made unclean thereby.\" The interruption is for only one day.",
                "11) I might think that a urinal flow (at that time) would also interrupt the zov (count); it is, therefore, written \"This (i.e., only semen, which is mentioned in the verse) is the law.\"",
                "12) \"and she who flows with her menstrual flow\": The early elders were wont to say: She should remain in her state of niddah. She should not paint her eyes nor rouge herself until she immerses — until R. Akiva came and taught: This may result in his coming to hate her and to divorce her. How, then, am I to understand \"and she who flows benidathah\"? She retains the status of niddah until she immerses.",
                "13) (lit.) \"and the zav his discharge\": Others say: Just as the zav confers tumah by being carried, so does his discharge. \"for male\": to include the leper; \"or for female\": to include the woman who bore a child. R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan b. Beroka says: \"and who flows with his discharge for male or for female\": \"for male\" — for whatever is \"male,\" whether adult or minor. \"and for female\": whether minor or adult \"and he who lies with her who is unclean\": to include (as unclean) one who cohabits with a woman observing a day (of tentative zavah uncleanliness) for a day, (the preceding day of a flow)."
            ]
        },
        "Acharei Mot": {
            "Section 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 16:1) (\"And the L–rd spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron when they drew near before the L–rd and they died,\") \"And the L–rd spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron\": What is the intent of this (\"two\")? Because it is written (Vayikra 10:1) \"And the sons of Aaron took, Nadav and Avihu, each his coal-pan\" — \"the sons of Aaron\" — they did not seek counsel from Aaron; \"Nadav and Avihu\" — they did not seek counsel from Moses; \"each his coal-pan\" — each by himself; they did not take counsel from each other. Whence is it derived that just as the transgression of the two was identical, so the death of the two was identical? From \"after the death of the two sons of Aaron.\"",
                "2) \"when they drew near before the L–rd and they died\": R. Yossi Haglili says: They died because of the drawing near (and entering the holy of holies without permission), and not because of the incense offering. R. Akiva says: They died because of the offering and not because of the drawing near. One verse (our verse) states \"when they drew near before the L–rd and they died,\" and another verse states (Vayikra 11:1) \"and they offered before the L–rd a strange fire.\" The resolution (Bamidbar 3:4) \"when they drew near (with) a strange fire before the L–rd\" — They died because of the drawing near and not because of the offering. R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: The offering is sufficient (for death) unto itself, and the drawing near is sufficient unto itself.",
                "3) (Vayikra 16:2) (\"And the L–rd said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, and let him not come at all times to the holy place within the curtain before the ark-cover which is on the ark, that he not die. For in the cloud I shall appear upon the ark cover.\") \"And the L–rd said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, and let him not come at all times\": — But we do not know what was said to him the first time (i.e., after 16:1 \"And the L–rd spoke to Moses, etc.\")! R. Elazar b. Azaryah was wont to say: To what may this be compared? To a patient who visited a doctor and was told by him: \"Do not drink cold and do not lie in wet,\" after which a different doctor said to him: \"Do not drink cold and do not lie in wet, so that you do not die as so and so died.\" The latter directive is the most effective. This is the thrust of \"after the death of the two sons of Aaron… And the L–rd said to Moses: 'Speak to Aaron your brother and let him not come at all times,'\"",
                "4) for if he does come he will die, as his sons died, viz.: \"and let him not come … that he not die\" — If he comes, he will die!",
                "5) It was said in the name of R. Yishmael: Since two dicta are mentioned here, one aside the other, ( 1) \"And the L–rd spoke to Moses…\" 2) \"And the L–rd said to Moses…\", one (i.e., the second) \"open\" (i.e., explained); the other, (the first) \"closed\" (i.e., unexplained), the \"open\" elucidates the closed, viz.: Just as the \"open\" speaks of Moses' telling Aaron not to enter the sanctuary, so, the \"closed\" speaks of Moses' telling Aaron not to enter the sanctuary. And in what connection is this mentioned? That of (abstaining from) wine and strong drink (before entering the sanctuary), viz. (Vayikra 10:6) \"And let your brethren, the entire house of Israel, mourn the burning that the L–rd has burned… (Vayikra 10:8) And the L–rd spoke to Aaron, saying … Wine or strong drink you shall not drink, etc.\"",
                "6) Aaron is constrained from coming (into the sanctuary), but Moses is not. — But perhaps (the meaning is that) Aaron is constrained from coming, but not his sons. R. Eliezer said: Would that follow? If one, (Aaron), who was commanded to come (into the holy of holies on Yom Kippur), was (here) commanded not to come, then one, (an ordinary Cohein), who was not commanded to come (on Yom Kippur), how much more so is he commanded (here) not to come! — No, this is refuted by the instance of those (Cohanim) without blemish, who are commanded to come to the tent of meeting, but are commanded not to come having drunk wine and strong drink;",
                "7) but those who are blemished, who are not commanded to come, are not commanded not to come having drunk wine — here, too, (we would say that) the commanded (to come, i.e., Aaron) is commanded (not to come at all times, but not the sons, who are not commanded to come.) It is, therefore, written (\"Speak to Aaron) your brother.\" Let \"your brother\" not be stated. Why is it stated? To include the sons.",
                "8) \"and let him not come\": on Yom Kippur. \"at all times\": to include the other days of the year. R. Eliezer said: (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If he (the high-priest), on the day that he is commanded to come (i.e., on Yom Kippur), he is commanded not to come (on the other times of that day [i.e., those times not specified for sacred service]), then, on a day that he is not commanded to come (i.e., the other days of the year), how much more so is he commanded not to come (at all times)! — No, this is refuted by the instance of Yisrael, who are commanded to come on the festivals and who are commanded not to come empty-handed,",
                "9) but on the other days of the year, when they are not commanded to come, they are not commanded not to come empty-handed — here, too, (we would say that) on a day that he is commanded, he is commanded, (but not when he is not commanded). It is, therefore, written \"at all times,\" to include the other days of the year.",
                "10) \"within the curtain\": This is the holy of holies; \"to the holy place\": This is the sanctuary. I might think that for all, the punishment is death. It is, therefore, written \"before the ark cover which is on the ark, that he not die.\" How is this to be understood? \"before the ark cover\" is punishable by death; (if he enters) the other parts of the sanctuary, (he is in transgression of) an exhortation.",
                "11) \"before the ark cover (kaporeth) which is on the ark\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written \"kaporeth,\" I might think that (in addition to the kaporeth) there is a covering for the ark. It is, therefore, written \"which is on the ark.\" The kaporeth is on the ark and there is no (other) cover on the ark.",
                "12) I might think that there is no cover on the ark, but that some other material intervenes between the kaporeth and the (tablets of the) Testimony; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 16:13) \"and the cloud of incense shall cover the ark cover which is on the Testimony, and he shall not die\" — nothing intervenes between the kaporeth and the Testimony.",
                "13) \"that he not die\": This is the punishment. \"for in a cloud I shall appear upon the ark cover\": This is the exhortation. And R. Elazar said: I might think that both the punishment and the exhortation were stated before the death of the two sons of Aaron; it is, therefore, written \"after the death of the two sons of Aaron.\" I might think that both were stated after the death of the sons of Aaron; it is, therefore, written \"for in the cloud I shall appear upon the ark cover.\" How is this to be understood? The exhortation was stated before the death of the sons of Aaron, and the punishment was not stated until after their death. "
            ],
            "Chapter 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 16:3) \"With this shall Aaron come to the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering.\" \"With this\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written \"to the holy place … before the ark cover which is on the ark,\" I might think that this applies only to a holy place where there is an ark and an ark cover. Whence do I derive the same for a holy place where there is no ark and ark cover? From \"With this shall Aaron come to the holy place\" — to equate (for this purpose) a holy place where there is an ark and an ark cover to one where there is not.",
                "2) You say that the intent of \"to the holy place\" is to render a holy place that is not like this (i.e., one that is without ark and ark cover fit for a bullock like this.) But perhaps its intent is rather to render a bullock that is not like this fit for this holy place. And which is that (bullock?) That which is offered for all of the mitzvoth.",
                "3) And would this not follow a fortiori (that he should enter the holy of holies with the blood of this bullock all the days of the year?) viz.: If for the possible (defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred things on the part of the Cohanim) the high-priest enters the holy of holies with his bullock (on Yom Kippur), how much more so should he do so (all the days of the year) for known (transgression) of all of the mitzvoth! It is, therefore, written \"With this (Yom Kippur bullock) shall Aaron come to the holy place,\" to exclude the bullock which is brought for (known transgression of) all of the mitzvoth, that he not enter with it to the holy of holies.",
                "4) \"with a young bullock for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering\": I might think that in the place (the inner altar) where he applies the blood of the bullock, there he applies the blood of the ram. R. Yossi says (to show that this is not so): (It is written [Shemoth 30:9]) \"You shall not bring up upon it (the inner altar) strange incense, nor burnt-offering nor meal-offering.\" Which burnt-offering must Scripture exclude (from the inner altar)? This is the ram for a burnt-offering (of Yom Kippur).",
                "5) (Vayikra 16:4) (\"A holy linen tunic shall he wear, and linen breeches shall be upon his flesh, and with a linen girdle shall he gird himself, and a linen mitre shall he place upon his head; they are holy garments. And he shall bathe his flesh in water, and he shall put them on.\") See Tzav, Chapter 2:1.",
                "6) Why is \"linen\" mentioned four times (in this verse)? To exclude four garments in respect to which it is written \"before the L–rd.\" Because it is written of the choshen (the breastplate) (Shemoth 28:29) \"And Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel in the choshen of judgment upon his heart when he comes into the holy place as a remembrance before the L–rd always,\" I might think that he could enter with it (even) into the holy of holies\"; it is, therefore, written \"linen\" — and not with the choshen.",
                "7) Because it is written of the ephod (Shemoth 28:12) \"And Aaron shall bear their names (on the ephod) before the L–rd on his two shoulders as a remembrance,\" I might think that he could enter with it (even) into the holy of holies; it is, therefore, written \"linen\" — and not with the ephod.",
                "8) Because it is written of the robe (me'il) (Shemoth 28:35) \"And it shall be upon Aaron to minister; and its sound shall be heard when he comes to the holy place before the L–rd,\" I might think that he could enter with it (even) into the holy of holies; it is, therefore, written \"linen\" — and not with the me'il.",
                "9) Because it is written of the tzitz (the frontlet) (Shemoth 28:38) \"And it shall be on his forehead always for acceptance for them before the L–rd,\" I might think that he could enter with it (even) into the holy of holies; it is, therefore, written \"linen\" — and not with the tzitz.",
                "10) \"holy, shall he wear\": They must come from Temple funds. This tells me only of these alone. Whence do I derive for inclusion the other high-priestly vestments and those of his brother Cohanim? From \"they are holy garments,\" this being an archetype for (the purchase of) all (priestly) garments from Temple funds.",
                "11) Whence is it derived that he requires immersion? From \"And he shall bathe his flesh in water, and he shall put them on.\"",
                "12) And whence is it derived that when he changes from white garments to gold garments and from gold garments to white garments he must immerse? From \"holy garments, and he shall bathe his flesh in water and he shall put them on.\"",
                "13) I might think that if he changes from gold garments to (other) gold garments or from white garments to (other) white garments he must immerse; it is, therefore, written \"holy garments are they\" (i.e., all holy garments of one color are considered one and require only one washing). I might think that he requires immersion between breeches and tunic, between tunic and belt and between belt and mitre; it is, therefore, written \"and he shall put them on.\" All as one.",
                "14) Why, then, is it written \"shall he wear,\" \"shall he gird himself,\" and \"shall he place upon his head\" (instead of including all of them in \"shall he wear\")? Because he is to change into different garments towards evening, we might think that if he does not have any, he should not don those of the morning in the morning; it is, therefore, written \"shall he wear,\" \"shall he gird himself,\" and \"shall he place upon his head.\""
            ],
            "Section 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 16:5) (\"And from the congregation of the children of Israel he shall take two he-goats for a sin-offering and one ram for a burnt-offering.\") \"And from the congregation of the children of Israel\": They must be from (i.e., are funded by) the community. \"he shall take two he-goats\": The minimum of he-goats is two. Why, then, is it written \"two\"? That they be alike (in all respects). And whence is it derived that even if they are not alike, they are (nevertheless) valid? From \"he-goat\" (Vayikra 16:9); \"he-goat\" (Vayikra 16:10), (connoting de facto validity with) any he-goat.",
                "2) \"and one ram for a burnt-offering\": Rebbi said: The \"one ram\" mentioned here is the same as that mentioned in Bamidbar (Bamidbar 29:9). R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: They are two rams, one mentioned here, and one in Bamidbar. (Vayikra 16:6) \"And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering which is his.\": He shall not bring it from community (funds). I might think that he does not bring it from the community because it does not atone for the community, but that he may bring it from his fellow Cohanim, whom it does atone for. It is, therefore, written again \"which is his\" (Vayikra 16:11). I might think he should not bring it ab initio, but if he did, it is valid. It is, therefore, written again (Vayikra 16:11) \"which is his.\" (Vayikra 16:6) \"and he shall make atonement for himself and for his household. This is verbal atonement. But perhaps (it is speaking of) atonement through (the sprinkling of) the blood. (This cannot be, for) it \"atonement\" is written here, and it is written in respect to the (sent-away) he-goat. Just as the \"atonement\" there is verbal confession, so the \"atonement\" of the bullock is verbal.",
                "3) Or, if you wish, this can be derived from \"And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering which is his, and he shall make atonement for himself and for his household\" — and the bullock has not yet been slaughtered. (It is obvious, then, that verbal atonement is intended.)",
                "4) (viz. Yoma 36b) How did he (the high-priest) confess? \"Ana Hashem\" (\"I beseech You, O L–rd\") — \"I have transgressed, I have offended, I have sinned before You — I and my house — Ana Hashem, atone, I beseech You, for the transgressions, and the offerings, and the sins that I have transgressed, and offended, and sinned before You — I and my house, as it is written in the Torah of Moses Your servant (Vayikra 16:30) 'For on this day He shall atone for you to cleanse you of all your sins; before the L–rd you shall be clean.'\" And thus (i.e., in this order) is it written (in respect to the scape-goat, (Vayikra 16:21) \"And he shall confess over it all the transgressions of the children of Israel and all their offenses of all of their sins.\" These are the words of R. Meir. And the sages say: \"Transgressions\" — these are the deliberate sins. \"their offenses\" — these are (the sins of) rebellion. \"their sins\" — these are the unwitting sins. Now if he already confessed for deliberate sins and sins of rebellion, does he now go back and confess for unwitting sins! Rather, the formula for confession is: \"Ana Hashem, I have sinned, I have transgressed, I have offended before You, I and my household. Ana Hashem, atone I beseech You, for the sins and the transgressions, and the offenses, that I have sinned, and transgressed, and offended before You, I and my household, as it is written in the Torah of Moses, Your servant 'For on this day He shall atone for you to cleanse you.'\" And they answer after him: \"Blessed be the name of the glory of His kingdom forever.\"",
                "5) And thus do we find with all the \"confessors.\" David said (Tehillim 106:6) \"We have sinned with our fathers; we have transgressed, and we have been wicked\" (i.e., offended). Solomon, his son, said (I Melachim 8:47) \"We have sinned, and we have transgressed, and we have been wicked.\" Daniel said (Daniel 9:5) \"We have sinned, and we have transgressed, and we have been wicked and rebelled.\" He, too, confessed thus: \"I have sinned, and I have transgressed, and I have offended before You.\"",
                "6) As to Moses' saying (in different order) (Shemoth 34:7) \"He forgives transgression, offense, and sin, and absolves\" and (Vayikra 16:21) \"And he shall confess over it all the transgressions of the children of Israel, and all their offenses of all of their sins\" — Once he confesses his transgressions and sins of rebellion, they are regarded as unwitting sins before Him."
            ],
            "Chapter 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 16:7) (\"And he shall take the two he-goats and he shall stand them before the L–rd at the door of the tent of meeting.\") \"And he shall take the two he-goats\": We are hereby taught that they are mutually exclusive. \"before the L–rd at the door of the tent of meeting\": They are stood at the east of the azarah to the north of the altar, their backs to the east and their faces to the west.",
                "2) (Vayikra 16:8) (\"And Aaron shall place on the two he-goats lots, one lot for the L–rd, and the other lot for Azazel.\" \"And Aaron shall place on the two he-goats lots\": lots of any substance. I might think two on this and two on the other; it is, therefore, written \"a lot for the L–rd and a lot for Azazel.\" I might think \"for the L–rd and for Azazel\" on this, and \"for the L–rd and for Azazel\" on the other; it is, therefore, written \"one lot for the L–rd and one lot for Azazel.\" There is only one for Azazel.",
                "3) If so, why is \"lots\" written? That they both be alike: That one not be large, and the other small; one of silver and the other of gold; one of marble and the other of box-wood.",
                "4) (Vayikra 16:9) (\"And Aaron shall present the he-goat on which the lot came up for the L–rd, and he shall make it a sin-offering.\") \"And Aaron shall present the he-goat on which is the lot for the L–rd\": I might think that he places it on its back; it is, therefore, written \"on which the lot came up for it\" — It came up for His name from the ballot box.",
                "5) \"and he shall make it\": that if one of them died after he had cast the ballot, he brings the others and casts the lot upon them as in the beginning, and says: If the one for the L–rd died, then this one, for whom the lot came up \"for the L–rd\" is in its place. And if the one for Azazel died, then this one, for whom the lot came up \"for Azazel\" is in its place, and the second one is to die. These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: It is made to graze until it sustains a blemish, and is sold, and its monies are given for a donative offering. \"and he shall make it a sin-offering\": He says: \"For the L–rd, a sin-offering.\" R. Yishmael says: He did not have to say \"a sin-offering,\" but only \"for the L–rd.\"",
                "6) (Vayikra 16:10) (\"And the he-goat on which the lot came up for Azazel shall be stood living before the L–rd, to make atonement over it, to send it to Azazel to the desert.\") \"and the he-goat on which is the lot\": I might think that he places it on its back; it is, therefore, written \"on which the lot came up for it\" — It came up for its name from the ballot box. \"shall be stood living before the L–rd\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written \"to send it (to Azazel\"), I might think that it is to be sent to life; it is, therefore, written \"shall be stood living before the L–rd.\" How is this to be understood? His standing is \"living before the L–rd,\" and its death is (to be precipitated) from Tzor (a mountain).",
                "7) How long must it be kept alive? Until the sprinkling of the blood of its mate. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: Until he makes atonement over it, as it is written \"to make atonement over it,\" atonement through its body. \"to send it\": so that if the blood were spilled out, the scape-goat is to die. If the scape-goat dies, the blood is to be spilled out.",
                "8) \"to Azazel\": to the \"hardest\" (az) place in the mountains. I might think in a settled area; it is, therefore, written \"to the desert.\" And whence is it derived that it must be on a peak? From (Vayikra 16:22) \"to the land of gezeirah\" (lit., \"cutting\").",
                "9) (Vayikra 16:11) (\"And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering which is his, and he shall make atonement for himself and for his household, and he shall slaughter the bullock of the sin-offering which is his.\") \"And Aaron shall present the bullock … and for his household\": This, as has been stated, is verbal confession. How did he (the high-priest) confess? \"Ana Hashem, I have sinned, I have transgressed, and I have offended before You — I and my house and the sons of Aaron Your holy nation, for on this day, etc.\" And they answer after him: \"Blessed be the name of the glory of His kingdom forever.\" "
            ],
            "Chapter 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 16:12) (\"And he shall take a full coal-pan of coals of fire from off the altar before the L–rd and his full handfuls of spices ground small, and he shall bring them within the curtain.\"): \"and he shall slaughter the bullock of the sin-offering which is his. And he shall take a full coal-pan, etc.\": He gives it to another (Cohein) to stir its blood on the fourth level of the sanctuary, so that it does not congeal.",
                "2) Every day he would scoop out (the coals) with a silver (shovel) and empty them into one of gold, and on this day (Yom Kippur) he would scoop them out with a gold one and with it would bring them (to the inner altar). Every day he would scoop them out with (a shovel of) four kabim and empty them into (one of) three kabim. On this day he would scoop them out with one of three kabim and with it would bring them (to the inner altar).",
                "",
                "4) \"coals\": I might think dying coals; it is, therefore, written \"fire.\" If \"fire,\" I might think a flame. It is, therefore, written \"coals of fire.\" How is this effected? (He brings) glowing coals. And whence is it derived that the fire is secondary to the coals? From \"coals of fire.\"",
                "5) \"from off the altar\": I might think (from) all of it; it is, therefore, written \"before the L–rd.\" How is this effected? (He takes the coals from that part of the altar) which is close to the west, (before the entrance to the sanctuary).",
                "6) R. Yossi said: This is the sign (i.e., the rule): Anything (e.g., coals) which is taken from the outside (of the sanctuary) to be placed within, is taken from (the side of the altar) which is close to the (entrance of) the sanctuary.",
                "7) And anything which leaves the sanctuary to be placed outside it is placed on what is near it (the entrance) outside.",
                "8) \"and his full handfuls of incense of spices ground small\": the taller (high-priest) relative to his size, and the shorter, relative to his (i.e., there is no absolute measure for the handful.) And this (an exact handful) was its size. \"incense\": to be (supplied) from communal funds. \"spices\": (all of the eleven) spices (enumerated in Shemoth, Ki Tissa) to be contained therein. \"ground small\": What is the intent of this? Is it not already written (Shemoth 30:26) \"And you shall crush it fine? Why, then, \"ground small\"? That it be ground extra fine.",
                "9) How was this effected? He would separate three varieties on the eve of Yom Kippur in order to fill his palms and then he would return them to the mortar to satisfy \"extra fine.\"",
                "10) (Vayikra 16:12-13) \"and he shall bring them within the curtain and he shall put the incense upon the fire before the L–rd, and the cloud of incense shall cover the ark cover which is upon the Testimony and he shall not die\"): \"and he shall bring them within the curtain, and he shall put the incense on the fire before the L–rd.\": that he not prepare it first on the outside and then enter — as opposed to the view of the Sadducees, who said that it should be prepared on the outside and then brought in, (saying) if it is done so before flesh and blood, how much more so before the Holy One Blessed be He! And it is written (Vayikra 16:2): \"for in a cloud I shall appear upon the ark cover\" — to which the sages responded: But is it not already written \"And he shall put the incense on the fire before the L–rd,\" (i.e.,) he does so only in the holy of holies (and not outside it). What, then, is the intent of \"for in a cloud I shall appear upon the ark cover\"? That he would put therein a \"smoke-raiser.\" And whence is it derived that he did so? From \"and the cloud of incense shall cover the ark cover which is upon the Testimony, and he shall not die\" — whence it is seen that if he did not put therein a \"smoke-raiser,\" or if he left out one of its spices, he was liable to death.",
                "11) (Vayikra 16:14) (\"And he shall take the blood of the bullock, and he shall sprinkle with his finger on the face of the kaporeth (the ark cover) to the east; and before the kaporeth shall he sprinkle seven times of the blood with his finger.\") \"And he shall take the blood of the bullock\": He takes it from the one who was stirring it. \"and he shall sprinkle\": and not let it drip (from his finger). \"and he shall sprinkle\": and not fling. \"his finger\": \"his finger\" is written here and elsewhere (Vayikra 14:16) in respect to a leper). Just as \"his finger\" there is the most dexterous, i.e., the index finger of the right hand, so, \"his finger\" here.",
                "12) \"upon the face of the ark cover to the east\": This is the archetype (binyan av) for \"face\" always connoting \"east.\"",
                "13) A variant: \"on the face of the ark cover to the east\": He did not aim at sprinkling above or below, but made a whip-swing motion.",
                "14) \"before the ark cover shall he sprinkle seven times\": not seven drops. \"seven times\": he counts seven times — one (above) and seven (below)."
            ],
            "Section 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 16:15) (\"And he shall slaughter the he-goat of the sin-offering which is the people's, and he shall bring its blood inside the curtain; and he shall do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and he shall sprinkle it upon the ark cover and before the ark cover.\"): \"And he shall slaughter the he-goat of the sin-offering which is the people's\": His fellow Cohanim are not to receive atonement through it. And through what is this atonement effected? Through the bullock of their brothers. I might think that their atonement is not effected through that of their brothers, it being written (Vayikra 16:6) (\"the bullock) which is his\" (Aaron's), which implies that they do not have atonement through it. But (Vayikra 16:33) \"And for the Cohanim and for the entire people of the congregation he shall make atonement\" indicates that they do have atonement. Through what, then, is this atonement effected? It is better that they have atonement through the bullock of their brother Cohanim — For we find that part of the criterion (\"which is his\" [i.e., Aaron's] Vayikra 16:6) was separated (from the literal \"his\"), finding as we do that (both) he and his family receive atonement through it — than that they receive atonement through the bullock of the congregation, where we find no such separation from the criterion. And, if you will, it may be derived thus (Vayikra 16:6) \"And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering which is his, and he shall make atonement for himself and for his household,\" and they (the Cohanim) are (part of) the household of Aaron, as it is written (Tehillim 235:19): \"House of Aaron (i.e., the Cohanim) — Bless the L–rd!\"",
                "2) \"and he shall bring its blood inside the curtain\": We are hereby taught that he enters with it into the holy of holies. This tells me (that he does so) only with the blood of the he-goat. Whence is the same derived for the blood of the bullock? From \"and he shall do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bullock.\" — Just as he enters into the holy of holies with the blood of the he-goat, so he enters into it with the blood of the bullock.",
                "3) \"and he shall sprinkle it upon the ark cover\": We are hereby taught that he applies one above (i.e., upon the ark cover). \"and before the ark cover\": I would not know how many. (But) I derive it as follows: Application of the blood below is mentioned in respect to the bullock, and application of the blood below is mentioned in respect to the he-goat. Just as with the first there are seven (applications), so, with the second.",
                "4) — But perhaps go in this direction: \"Blood\" is mentioned (in respect to application) \"above,\" and it is thus mentioned \"below.\" Just as \"above\" — one, so, \"below\" — one! Let us see what it most closely resembles. We derive \"below\" from \"below,\" and we do not derive \"below\" from above. — But perhaps go in this direction: We derive the blood of the he-goat from the blood of the he-goat, and we do not derive the blood of the he-goat from the blood of the bullock! It is, therefore, written \"and he shall do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bullock.\" Just as with the blood of the bullock, seven below, so, with the blood of the he-goat, seven below.",
                "5) And I would not know how many to apply of the blood of the bullock above. (But I derive it as follows:) Application of the blood above is mentioned in respect to the he-goat, and application of the blood above is mentioned in respect to the bullock. Just as with the first, there is one application, so, with the second.",
                "6) But perhaps go in this direction: \"Blood\" is mentioned (in respect to application) \"below,\" and it is thus mentioned \"above.\" Just as \"below\" — seven, so, \"above\" — seven!",
                "7) Let us see what it most closely resembles. We derive \"above\" from \"above,\" and we do not derive \"above\" from \"below.\" — But perhaps go in this direction: We derive the blood of the bullock from the blood of the bullock, and we do not derive the blood of the bullock from the blood of the he-goat! It is, therefore, written \"and he shall do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bullock.\" Let \"as he did\" not be stated. Why is it stated? (To stress) that all of its \"doings\" are to be alike. Just as the blood of the bullock — \"seven below,\" so, the blood of the he-goat. And just as the blood of the he-goat — \"one above,\" so, the blood of the bullock."
            ],
            "Chapter 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 16:16) (\"And he shall make atonement for the holy place from the uncleanlinesses of the children of Israel, and from their offenses of all of their sins; and so shall he do for the tent of meeting that dwells with them in the midst of their uncleanlinesses.\") \"And he shall make atonement for the holy place from the uncleanlinesses of the children of Israel\": Three \"uncleanlinesses\" may be adduced here: that of idolatry, viz. (Vayikra 20:3) (\"for of his seed he has given to the Molech) to defile My Sanctuary and to profane My holy name\"; that of illicit relations, viz. (Vayikra 18:30) \"not to do in the manner of the abominations that were done before you, and you shall not become unclean in them\"; that of bloodshed, viz. (Bamidbar 35:34) \"And you shall not defile the land wherein you dwell, in whose midst I dwell.\"",
                "2) I might think that the he-goat atones for all of these defilements; it is, therefore, written \"from the uncleanlinesses,\" and not all the uncleanlinesses. Which tumah do we find Scripture to have distinguished from all other uncleanlinesses (by making it subject to an oleh veyored [sliding scale] offering)? That of defiling the sanctuary and its consecrated objects; here, too, we adduce only that of defiling the sanctuary and its consecrated objects. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon said: It may be adduced from its very context, viz. \"And he shall make atonement for the holy place from the uncleanlinesses of the children of Israel\" — from the defilements of the sanctuary.",
                "3) I might think (that this he-goat atones) for all defilements of the sanctuary; it is, therefore, written \"their offenses (pisheihem) — these are sins of rebellion (i.e., deliberate sins, as in II Kings 3:7) \"The king of Moav pasha against me,\" and (II Kings 8:22) \"Then tifsha Livnah at that time\") and sins like peshaim, that are not subject to an offering. ",
                "4) From here they ruled: Wherever there was awareness in the beginning (i.e., where he is aware that he has become unclean), and no awareness in the end, (i.e., where he is not aware that he has touched a sanctified object in his state of uncleanliness), judgment is suspended (by the he-goat presented within and Yom Kippur) until he becomes aware and he brings a sliding scale offering, it being written \"from their offenses of all of their sins.\" (i.e., he is shielded from judgment of those offenses, which, when he becomes aware of them, will result in a sin-offering.) (See Vayikra, Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 13:11-12).",
                "5) \"and so shall he do for the tent of meeting\": Just as he does in the holy of holies, so does he do in the sanctuary. Just as in the holy of holies, one above and seven below of the blood of the bullock, so, in the sanctuary. And just as in the holy of holies, one above and seven below of the blood of the he-goat, so, in the sanctuary.\" \"who dwells with them in the midst of their tumah\": Even though they are tamei, the Shechinah dwells among them.",
                "6) (Vayikra 16:17) (\"And no man shall be in the tent of meeting when he comes to make atonement in the holy place until he goes out. And he shall make atonement for himself, and for his household, and for the entire congregation of Israel.\") \"And no man shall be\": I might think in the azaroth (the Temple courts); it is, therefore, written \"in the tent of meeting.\" This tells me only of the tent of meeting (in the desert). Whence do I derive (the same for) Shiloh and for the Temple? From \"in the holy place.\" This tells me only of the time that he enters with the incense. Whence do I derive (the same) for the time that he enters with the blood? From \"when he comes to make atonement\" (which is done by the sprinkling of the blood). This tells me (that no one shall be there) only upon his entering. Whence do I derive (the same for) his leaving? From \"until he goes out.\" \"And he shall make atonement for himself, and for his household, and for the entire congregation of Israel.\": His own atonement comes before that for his household, and that for his household comes before that for all of Israel.",
                "7) (Vayikra 16:18) (\"And he shall go out to the altar which is before the L–rd, and make atonement upon it. And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the he-goat, and he shall place it upon the corners of the altar roundabout.\") \"And he shall go out to the altar which is before the L–rd\": What is the intent of this? (i.e., Is he not already standing in the sanctuary, where the golden altar is found?) R. Nechemiah answered: Because we find in respect to the bullock that is brought for all the mitzvoth (i.e., the bullock of the anointed priest) that the Cohein stands outside (i.e., at the far end of) the altar and sprinkles upon the curtain, I might think that the same applies here. It is, therefore, written \"And he shall go out to (the far end of) the altar.\" Where was he, (then, until now)? On the inside of the altar (before the curtain).",
                "8) — But perhaps we are speaking of the outer altar (that he goes out to from the sanctuary)! (This is not to be entertained, for) it is written \"which is before the L–rd,\" which can apply only to the inner altar.",
                "9) \"and he shall make atonement upon it (the altar)\": atonement which is (made) upon its body. (i.e., atonement through the blood, which is placed upon the corners of the altar [and not verbal atonement]).\"and he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the he-goat\": intermixed. I might think of each by itself; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 30:10) \"of the blood of the sin-offering of the atonement once a year.\" How, then, am I to understand \"and he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the he-goat\"? As \"intermixed.\" (For otherwise, it would be twice a year.)",
                "10) \"and he shall place it on the corners of the altar\": He begins from the northeast corner (and then proceeds) northwest, southwest, southeast. Where he begins, (sprinkling the blood of) the sin-offering upon the outer altar, there he concludes (the sprinkling of the mixed bloods) upon the inner altar. R. Yehudah says in the name of R. Elazar: He stands on his place and he sprinkles. And on all (of the corners) he applies (the blood) from bottom to top, except in the one before which he is standing, where he applies it from top to bottom.",
                "11) \"roundabout\": R. Yishmael says: \"roundabout\" is written here, and \"roundabout\" is written elsewhere (viz. Shemoth 1:5). Just as here there are four distinct applications (one on each corner), so, there, there are four distinct applications.",
                "12) (Vayikra 16:19) (\"And he shall sprinkle upon it of the blood with his finger seven times; and he shall cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleanliness of the children of Israel.\") \"And he shall sprinkle upon it\": upon the \"clean spot\" of the altar (i.e., After sprinkling upon the corners, he moves the coals and the ashes on the altar aside and sprinkles on the area that has been cleared.) \"of the blood\": of the blood under discussion (i.e., that in the sprinkling bowl). \"seven times\": and not seven drops. \"seven\": He counts seven times, not \"one and seven\" (as he does in the instance of the sprinklings on the curtain).",
                "13) \"and he shall cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleanlinesses of the children of Israel\": He cleanses it from past defilements so that it is hallowed for future use."
            ],
            "Section 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 16:20) (\"And when he has finished making atonement for the holy place, and the tent of meeting, and the altar, then he shall draw near the living he-goat.\") \"And when he has finished making atonement for the holy place\": If he has made atonement, he has finished. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yehudah said to him: Why not say (as per the verse) \"If he has finished, (including spilling out the left-over blood at the base of the altar), he has made atonement\"? To teach that if one of the applications (of blood) were lacking, it is as if he has not made atonement. \"And when he has finished making atonement for the holy place\": This refers to (the sprinklings between the staves of the ark in) the holy of holies. \"the tent of meeting\": This refers to (the sprinklings on the curtain in) the sanctuary.",
                "2) From here they ruled: If he made part of the applications within and the blood spilled, he brings other blood and begins again with the applications within. R. Elazar and R. Shimon said: He starts only from where he left off. If he finished the applications within and the blood spilled, he brings other blood and begins again with the outer applications. If he made part of the (outer) applications and the blood spilled, he brings other blood and begins again with the outer applications. R. Elazar and R. Shimon say: He starts only from where he left off. If he finished the outer applications and the blood spilled, he brings other blood and begins with the altar applications. If he made part of the altar applications and the blood spilled, he brings other blood and begins again with the altar applications. R. Elazar and R. Shimon say: He starts only from where he left off.",
                "3) If he finished the altar applications and the blood spilled, then (failure to) spill out the remaining blood at the base of the altar does not impede (the atonement). And all of them (i.e., all bullocks that were slaughtered to replace blood that was spilled) confer tumah upon the garments (of those who burned them), and they (the bullocks) are burned in the Bet Hadeshen (viz. Vayikra 16:28). These are the words of R. Elazar. R. Shimon and R. Meir say: The only one which confers tumah upon garments and is burned in the Bet Hadeshen is the last one, which consummates the atonement. \"and then he shall draw near the living he-goat\": Up to this point (for the atonement to \"take\") it must be alive.",
                "4) (Vayikra 16:21) \"And Aaron shall place his two hands on the head of the living he-goat, and he shall confess over it all the transgressions of the children of Israel, and all their offenses of all of their sins, and he shall place them on the head of the he-goat, and he shall send him by the hand of an appointed man to the desert.\") \"And Aaron shall place his two hands on the head of the he-goat\": We are hereby taught that semichah (laying on of hands) with two hands is an archetype (binyan av) for all the semichoth in the Torah.",
                "5) \"on the head of the living\": the living (he-goat) requires semichah, and not the he-goats (sacrificed) for (unwitting congregational) service of idolatry, viz. (Bamidbar 15:24). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: The living he-goat requires semichah by Aaron (and his sons), but not the idolatry he-goats. For R. Shimon was wont to say: Every congregational sin-offering, whose blood enters within (the sanctuary) requires semichah.",
                "6) \"and he shall confess over it\": verbal confession. How did he confess? \"Ana Hashem, atone, I beseech You, for the sins, and for the transgressions, and for the offenses, which they have sinned, and transgressed, and offended before You, Your people, the house of Israel, as it is written in the Torah of Moses Your servant (Vayikra 16:30) 'For on this day He shall atone, etc.'\" And they answer after him \"Blessed be the name of the glory of His kingdom forever.\"",
                "7) This tells me (that he confesses) only their definite sins. Whence do I derive (that he also confesses) their possible sins, their sins by constraint, and their unwitting sins? From \"all\" in respect to \"transgressions,\" \"offenses,\" and \"sins.\" I might think that (sins liable to) sin-offerings and guilt-offerings are included among them. It is, therefore, written \"them\" — \"them on the head of the he-goat,\" and not (sins liable to) sin-offerings and guilt-offerings on the head of the he-goat.",
                "8) From here they ruled: (Offerings of) definite liability for sin-offerings or guilt-offerings, which Yom Kippur passed by, must be brought after Yom Kippur; and suspended guilt-offerings (for possibility of having transgressed) are exempt. \"and he shall send them by the hand of a man\": even one who is not a Cohein. \"appointed\": that he be readied (the preceding day). \"appointed\": even on the Sabbath. \"appointed\": even if he is in a state of uncleanliness.",
                "9) (Vayikra 16:22) \"And the he-goat shall bear upon itself (all of their transgressions\"): It bears them upon itself, \"unassisted\" by the other he-goats (the inner and outer he-goats). And for what do the other he-goats atone? For tumah of the sanctuary and its sanctified objects. And for what variety of this tumah do the other he-goats atone? For deliberate transgression, thereof, this being atoned for by the inner he-goat."
            ],
            "Chapter 5": [
                "1) From here they ruled: Wherever there is awareness in the beginning, awareness in the end, and hiddenness in the middle, there is oleh veyored (\"sliding scale\") liability. Where there is awareness in the beginning and not at the end, the he-goat (of Yom Kippur) which is presented within and Yom Kippur suspend (his judgment) until he becomes aware, whereupon he brings an oleh veyored offering.",
                "2) If there were no awareness in the beginning, but there was awareness in the end, the kid presented outside (on the outer altar) and Yom Kippur atone, it being written (Bamidbar 29:11) \"aside from the offering of atonement.\" Whatever the latter atones for, the former atones for. Just as the inner (altar sacrifice) atones only where there was awareness, so the outer (altar sacrifice) atones only where there was awareness.",
                "3) And where there is no awareness, neither in the beginning nor in the end, the kids of the festivals and the kids of Rosh Chodesh atone. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: The kids of the festivals atone, but not the Rosh Chodesh kids. And for what do the kids of Rosh Chodesh atone? For a tahor eating (unwitting) something unclean. R. Meir says: The atonement of all the kids is the same, (all atoning for) defiling the sanctuary and its holy orders.",
                "4) R. Shimon was wont to say: The kids of Rosh Chodesh atone for a tahor eating something unclean; those of the festivals atone for unawareness neither in the beginning nor in the end, and that of Yom Kippur, for awareness in the beginning, but not in the end.",
                "5) They asked him: May this be offered up for the other? (i.e., If the kid designated for Yom Kippur were lost, and atonement was made with another, and the first were found on a festival or Rosh Chodesh, may it be used as the kid offering of the day?) He answered: They may be offered. They asked him: But if their atonement is not the same, how can one be substituted for the other? He answered: They all come for defiling the sanctuary and its holy objects.",
                "6) R. Shimon b. Yehudah said in his (R. Shimon's) name: The kids of Rosh Chodesh atone for a tahor eating something unclean. Over and above them are those of the festivals, which atone for a tahor eating something unclean and for unawareness in the beginning and in the end. Over and above them are those of Yom Kippur, which atone for a tahor eating something unclean, for unawareness in the beginning and in the end, and for unawareness in the beginning and awareness in the end.",
                "7) They asked him: May this be offered up for the other? He answered: Yes. They asked: If so, let those of Yom Kippur be offered on Rosh Chodesh, but how can those of Rosh Chodesh be offered on Yom Kippur for an atonement which is not of their kind? He answered: They all come to atone for defiling the sanctuary and its holy objects.",
                "8) And for willful defiling of the sanctuary and its holy objects the kid presented within and Yom Kippur atone. And for the other transgressions of the Torah: light and stringent, willful and unwitting, known and unknown, positive commandment and negative commandment, krithoth and judicial death penalties, the sent-away kid atones. (See Mishnayoth Shevuoth 1:2-1:6)"
            ],
            "Chapter 6": [
                "1) (Midbar [desert] is mentioned three times in this section:) 15:10, Bamidbar 16:21, and Bamidbar 16:22 — to include (the [sending away to the] desert requirement for the sanctuaries of) Nov, Givon, Shiloh, and the Temple.",
                "2) (Vayikra 16:23) (\"Then Aaron shall come to the tent of meeting, and he shall take off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the holy place, and he shall leave them there.\") \"Then Aaron shall come to the tent of meeting\": The entire section is stated according to the order (of the service of the high-priest) except for this verse. And why did he come there? To remove the incense ladle and the coal pan.",
                "3) R. Yehudah said: Whence are derived the five immersions and the ten lustrations (washing of hands and feet) that the high-priest performs on that day? From (Vayikra 16:23) \"Then Aaron shall come to the tent of meeting, and he shall take off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the holy place … (Vayikra 16:24) And he shall bathe his flesh in water in a holy place, and he shall put on his (eight everyday) garments.\" From here we derive that all transitions from one service to another requires immersion — whence we derive that he performed five immersions and ten lustrations on that day.",
                "4) Rebbi says: Do I derive it from there? Is it not already written (Vayikra 16:4) \"And he shall bathe his flesh in water and he shall put them on,\" and (Vayikra 16:4) \"they are holy garments\"? All the garments are likened to each other, to teach that changing from golden vestments to white vestments and from white vestments to golden vestments requires immersion (and since there are five changings, there are five immersions and ten lustrations for each doffing and donning).",
                "5) He would perform five services: the morning tamid (daily burnt-offering) in golden vestments and the service of the day in white garments; his ram and the ram of the people, in white vestments. He then entered (the sanctuary) to take out the incense ladle and the coal pan, in white vestments, and he performed (the service of) the afternoon tamid in golden vestments. \"And he shall bathe his flesh in water in a holy place and he shall put on his garments.\" This must be speaking of lustration of hands and feet. And whence is it derived that there are two lustrations of hands and feet for each immersion? From \"and he shall take off … and he shall wash … and he shall wash and he shall put on\" (connoting that lustration is required both for doffing and for donning.) R. Elazar b. R. Shimon said: This follows a fortiori, viz.: If in a place (the tent of meeting, all the days of the year) where immersion is not required, lustration of hands and feet is required (viz. Shemoth 40:32), then in a place where immersion is required (i.e., on Yom Kippur, for each change of clothing), how much more so is lustration of hands and feet required! ",
                "6) — Take what you have brought\" (i.e., you cannot deduce more than you begin with — Just as there (the tent of meeting, etc.) only one (lustration is required), here, too, (you may derive) only one (and not two)! It must, therefore, be written (Shemoth 40:23) \"and he shall take off the linen garments which he put on.\" Would it enter your mind that he could take off anything other than he put on? (Why, then, need this be stated?) It must be to liken taking off to putting on, viz.: Just as putting on requires lustration of hands and feet, so, taking off.",
                "7) (Vayikra 16:23) \"and he shall leave them there\": We are hereby taught that they require genizah (\"secreting,\" not to be used again). R. Yossi says: They may be used by an ordinary Cohein (in the course of the year). What, then, is the intent of \"and he shall leave them there\"? That he (the high-priest) does not use them for another Yom Kippur.",
                "8) \"And he shall bathe his flesh in water in a holy place\": In the Beth Haparvah quarter (in the south of the azarah). And five immersions took place there on that day, all in the holy (area) of the Beth Haparvah — aside from the first that he performed (for the slaughtering of the tamid) every day at the Water Gate. (Vayikra 16:24) \"and he shall go out and offer up his burnt-offering and the burnt-offering of the people, and he shall make atonement for himself and for the people.\": His burnt-offering precedes that of the people, and his atonement precedes that of the people.",
                "9) (Vayikra 16:25) \"And the fat of the sin-offering he shall cause to smoke upon the altar\": even on the Sabbath; even if he is in a state of uncleanliness. "
            ],
            "Section 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 16:26) (\"And he who sends the he-goat to Azazel shall wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water, and then he may come to the camp.\") \"And he who sends\": not he who sends the sender (i.e., not those who accompany him). \"And he who sends the he-goat to Azazel shall wash his clothes\": I might think that his clothes become unclean as soon as he leaves the wall of the azarah (the Temple court). It is, therefore, written \"to Azazel (he) shall wash his clothes.\" If \"to Azazel (he shall wash his clothes,\" I might think that his clothes do not become unclean until he reached Tsok (the mountain from which the goat was precipitated). And he who sends the goat to Azazel shall wash his clothes.\" How (are these verses to be reconciled)? As soon as he leaves the wall of Jerusalem his clothes become unclean. These are the words of R. Yehudah.",
                "2) R. Yossi says: \"to Azazel (he) shall wash his clothes\": His clothes do not become tamei until he reaches Tsok. R. Shimon says: He who sends the he-goat to Azazel shall wash his clothes\": He thrusts it headlong (down the mountain) and his clothes become tamei.",
                "3) \"he shall wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water\": I might think that it is a decree of the King (that he must immerse, just as the high-priest does); it is, therefore, written \"and then he may come to the camp.\" Just as \"and then he may come to the camp\" there (in respect to the red heifer [Bamidbar 19:7]) (means that he may immerse) to free himself of tumah; here, too, (it means) to free himself of tumah, (but if he wishes to prolong his state of tumah, he need not immerse.)",
                "4) (Vayikra 16:27) \"And the bullock of the sin-offering and the he-goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought to make atonement in the holy place, he shall take … (Vayikra 16:28) And he who burns them shall wash his clothes, etc.\" What is the intent of this (repetition of \"sin-offering\")? I might think that only these render clothes unclean and are to be burned in the Bet Hadeshen. Whence do I derive for inclusion the bullock of the anointed priest, the bullock of congregational forgetfulness (he'elam davar), and the he-goats brought for (unwitting) idolatry? From the repetition of \"sin-offering.\" These are the words of R. Yehudah. Rebbi says: It is to be inferred from the source itself, viz. \"whose blood was brought to atone in the holy place.\" This is an archetype (binyan av). All (offerings) whose blood enter the inner (sanctuary) — the clothes of him who burns them become unclean. \"to make atonement in the holy place\": If they have made atonement as prescribed, they are burned in the Bet Hadeshen and render clothes unclean; otherwise (i.e., if there were some unfitness in them), they are burned in the Bet Habirah (a place in the Temple Mount) and they do not render clothes unclean.",
                "5) \"he shall take outside the camp\": Elsewhere, (in respect to the bullock of the congregation and the bullock of the anointed Cohein,) you give them three camps (i.e., they must be burned outside of three camps, viz., the azarah, the Temple Mount, and Jerusalem), and here you give them one camp. If so, what is the intent of \"he shall take outside the camp\"? To teach that as soon as he leaves one camp he who burns them renders (his) garments unclean.",
                "6) From here they ruled: They would carry them (the bullocks) on staves. When those in front went outside the wall of the azarah, and those in the rear had not yet done so, the first rendered their garments unclean, and the others did not do so until they, too, went outside.",
                "7) \"and they shall burn in fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung\": \"skin, flesh, and dung\" is written here, and it is written elsewhere (Vayikra 4:11), re the anointed Cohein). Just as there, (the animal is first cut into pieces, here, too.",
                "8) \"And he who burns\": not he who lights the fire, and not he who arranges the wood pile. And who is \"He who burns\"? He who tends (the fire) at the burning (of the bullock). I might think that it renders clothing unclean even after it has been reduced to ashes. It is, therefore, written (\"And he who burns) them.\" They (when they are intact) render clothing unclean; but he who burns them when they have been reduced to ashes does not render (his clothing) unclean. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: They do not render clothing unclean until the fire has \"taken\" in the greater part of them. (And he also says:) \"them\" (i.e., only when they are intact, do they render clothing unclean.) But if the flesh has been cut into pieces, he who burns them does not render his clothing unclean."
            ],
            "Chapter 7": [
                "1) (Vayikra 16:29) (\"And it shall be to you an eternal statute: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls. And all work you shall not do, the citizen and the stranger that sojourns in your midst.\") \"And it shall be to you\" (for atonement): and not to idolators. \"an eternal statute\": for the eternal house (i.e., the Temple, to exclude sacrificial mounds, where those offerings are not sacrificed.) \"in the seventh month\": I might think all of it; it is, therefore, written \"on the tenth day of the month.\" \"you shall afflict your souls\": I might think that one should sit in the sun or in the cold in order to afflict himself; it is, therefore, written, (following:) \"And all work you shall not do.\" I have forbidden work to you in a different context (Shabbath), and I have forbidden (non-) affliction (by eating) in a different context. Just as the work that I forbade you in a different context is work which is liable to kareth (cutting off), so, the (non-) affliction that I forbade you in a different context is such that is liable to kareth.",
                "2) And these are (the eating of) nothar (portions of sacrifices \"left over\" beyond the permitted eating time) and (the eating of) piggul (sacrifices invalidated by improper intent of the officiating Cohein). Whence is (the eating of) tevel (untithed produce) to be derived? From \"shall you afflict your souls,\" this (\"your souls\") serving as an inclusion.",
                "3) I would then include tevel, which is subject to the death penalty; but I would not include neveilah (carcass), which is not subject to the death penalty; it is, therefore, written (in several places) \"you shall afflict your souls\" to include (all these). I would include neveilah, which is subject to a negative commandment, but I would not include chullin (mundane food), which is not subject to a negative commandment; it is, therefore, written (in several places) \"you shall afflict your souls\" (to include (all these). I would include chullin, which is not subject to a positive commandment, but I would not include terumah and second-tithe, which are (in some instances) subject to a positive commandment (e.g., in respect to Cohanim). It is, therefore, written \"you shall afflict your souls,\" for inclusion. I would include terumah and second-tithe, which are not subject to \"And you shall not leave over\" (Vayikra 22:30); but I would not include consecrated food, which is subject to it; it is, therefore, written \"you shall afflict your souls,\" for inclusion. Variantly: \"You shall afflict your souls\" — affliction which affects (the preservation of) your souls. Which is that? (Abstention from) eating and drinking.",
                "4) It was said in the name of R. Yishmael: It is written here \"you shall afflict your souls,\" and, elsewhere, (Devarim 8:3) \"And He afflicted you, and caused you to hunger, and fed you with manna.\" Just as the affliction there is hunger, so, the affliction here is hunger.",
                "5) \"And all work you shall not do\": I might think he should not clean greens, and not spread beds, and not rinse cups; but it follows (that this is not so, viz.:) It is written here \"work,\" and it is written in respect to the work of the tabernacle \"work.\" Just as \"work\" there involves (prior) deliberation, so, \"work\" here.",
                "6) — But then, why not say that just as \"work\" in respect to the tabernacle connotes finished work, here, too, it connotes finished work, i.e., that he should not write a scroll, and not weave a garment, and not make a whole sieve. Whence do I derive that he should not write two letters, and not weave two strands, and not make two holes in a sieve? From \"all work.\"",
                "7) This tells me only of (the ban on) mundane work. Whence do I derive the same for the work (involved in performing) a mitzvah — that he should not write two letters in (holy) scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzoth, and that he should not weave two strands in the breeches (of the priestly vestments) and in the curtain (in the tabernacle)? From \"all work.\"",
                "8) This tells me only of work which is liable to (the penalty of) kareth. Whence do I derive the same for work that is not liable to kareth? — that one letter not be written, that one strand not be woven, that one hole not be made in a sieve? From \"all work.\"",
                "9) This tells me only of work in whose general category there is kareth liability. Whence do I derive the same for work in whose general category there is no kareth liability? — that he should not climb a tree, that he should not ride on a beast, that he should not swim, that he should not clap, that he should not dance? From \"shabbaton shvuth\" (\"a resting of restings,\" viz. Devarim 16:31). This tells me only of mundane restings. Whence do I derive the same for restings of mitzvah? — that he not dedicate (an offering), that he not evaluate, that he not set apart, that he not take terumah, that he not take ma'aser, that he not betroth, that he not divorce, that he not refuse (a betrothal), that he not perform chalitzah (release from levirate marriage), that he not perform yibum (levirate marriage), that he not redeem fruits of the fourth year and second tithe? From \"shabbaton shvuth.\" \"citizen\": This is the citizen per se; \"the citizen\": to include the citizen's wife; \"stranger\": This is the stranger per se; \"that sojourns\": to include the stranger's wife; \"in your midst\": to include bondsmen."
            ],
            "Chapter 8": [
                "1) (Vayikra 16:30) (\"For on this day He shall atone for you to cleanse you of all of your sins; before the L–rd you shall be clean.\") \"For on this day He shall atone for you\": by the offerings. And whence is it derived that even without offerings and without the he-goat, the day (itself) atones? From \"For on this day He shall atone.\" For transgressions between man and G d Yom Kippur atones; for transgressions between man and his neighbor Yom Kippur does not atone until he conciliates his neighbor.",
                "2) Thus did R. Elazar b. Azaryah expound: \"Of all of your sins before the L–rd you shall be clean\": For things between yourself and G d you are pardoned. For things between yourself and your neighbor you are not pardoned until you conciliate your neighbor.",
                "3) And whence is it derived that eating, drinking, bathing, anointment, shodding, and cohabitation are forbidden on Yom Kippur? From \"shabbaton shvuth.\" I might then think that all of these are forbidden on the Sabbath of creation (i.e., an ordinary Sabbath). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 16:31) \"Sabbath shabbaton is it\" (Yom Kippur). It is forbidden in all of them, but not the Sabbath of creation.",
                "4) (Vayikra 16:32) (\"And the Cohein shall make atonement, who shall be anointed, and who shall be invested with the priesthood in place of his father; and he shall put on the linen garments, the holy garments.\") \"And the Cohein shall make atonement, who has been anointed\": What is the intent of this? Because this entire section is written in respect to Aaron, I might think that it applies only to Aaron himself. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) a different Cohein? From \"who shall be anointed.\" This tells me only of one anointed by the anointing oil. Whence do I derive (for inclusion a Cohein who wore) the many garments (i.e., the eight garments of the high-priest)? From \"who shall be invested\" (See Shemoth 29:9). Whence do I derive (for inclusion) a different Cohein who is appointed (to take his place if he becomes disqualified)? From \"And the Cohein shall make atonement.\"",
                "5) \"with the priesthood in place of his father\": We are hereby taught that the son takes precedence to all others (for appointment to the high-priesthood). I might think that this is so even if he cannot (properly) fill his father's station. It is, therefore, written \"and who shall be invested (lit., \"and who shall fill his hand\"). If he can fill his father's station, he takes precedence; if not, let another come and serve in his stead.",
                "6) Whence is it derived that just as another Cohein is readied to take his place in case he becomes disqualified, so, another woman is conditionally betrothed for him lest something happens to his wife? From (Vayikra 16:11) \"And he shall make atonement for himself and for his house\" — \"his house\" being his wife. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Yossi said to him: \"If so, there is no end to the matter!\"",
                "7) Whence is derived the donning of other (linen) vestments at dusk (for the removal of the incense ladle and the coal pan)? From \"and he shall put on the linen garments.\" \"the holy garments\": This is an archetype (binyan av) for all the linen garments, that they must come from Temple funds.",
                "8) (Vayikra 16:33) (\"And he shall make atonement for the sanctity of the holy place. And for the tent of meeting and for the altar shall he make atonement. And for the Cohanim and for all the people of the congregation shall he make atonement.\") \"And he shall make atonement for the sanctity of the holy place\" — this is the holy of holies; \"the tent of meeting\" — this is the sanctuary; \"the altar\" — as the term implies; \"shall he make atonement\" — also for the azaroth (the Temple courts); \"the Cohanim\" — as the term implies; \"the people of the congregation\" — these are the Israelites; \"shall he make atonement\" —- also for the Levites. They are all subsumed in one atonement. We are hereby taught that they are (all) atoned for by the sent-away he-goat. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: Just as the blood of the he-goat, which is applied within, atones for Israel (without confession), so the blood of the bullock atones for the Cohanim. Just as the confession over the sent-away he-goat atones for Israel, so the confession over the bullock atones for the Cohanim.",
                "9) (Vayikra 16:34) (\"And this shall be to you for an everlasting statute to atone for the children of Israel from all of their sins once in the year. And he did as the L–rd commanded Moses.\") \"And this shall be to you, etc.\": What is the intent of this? Because we find that this (the day of Yom Kippur) atones for him (even) without its he-goats, I might think that the other days (Rosh Chodesh and the festivals also) atone for him without their he-goats; it is, therefore, written \"once in the year.\" I would then exclude Pesach and Succoth, which are seven days; but I would not exclude Shavuoth, which is one day. I would exclude Shavuoth, which is a festival along with the others, (Pesach and Succoth, which are excluded), but I would not exclude Rosh Hashanah, which is a holiday (in itself) as is Yom Kippur. It is, therefore, written \"This (Yom Kippur) … once in the year.\" This atones for you without its he-goats, but not the other days.",
                "10) Whence is it derived that this entire section is stated in the order (in which it is to be performed)? From \"And he did as the L–rd commanded Moses.\" Whence is it derived that Aaron did not wear the garments for his aggrandizement, but only to fulfill the decree of the King? From \"And he did as the L–rd commanded Moses.\" Whence is it derived that even though Aaron heard it from Moses, it is as if he heard it from the Holy One (Himself)? From \"And he did as the L–rd commanded Moses.\" And thus is he extolled in the Tradition (Malachi 2:5-6) \"My covenant was with him … the Torah of truth was in his mouth and wrong was not found on his lips. In peace and justness he walked with Me, and many did he turn from transgression.\""
            ],
            "Section 6": [
                "1) (Vayikra 17:2) (\"Speak to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel and say to them: This is the thing that the L–rd has commanded, saying:\") This teaches us that the children of Israel are commanded not to slaughter and bring an offering outside (the Temple court), but not gentiles. And, what is more, a gentile is permitted to build a bamah (a temporary altar) in all places and to offer sacrifices to Heaven. If (it were written only) \"the children of Israel,\" I would know (that this applies) only to the children of Israel. Whence do I derive (that it applies also) to proselytes and bondsmen? From \"and say to them.\" I might thing that (only) Israelites, who are commanded against offering sacrifices within (viz. Bamidbar 18:4), are commanded against slaughtering outside; but Aaron and his sons, who are not commanded against offering sacrifices within, are not commanded against slaughtering outside. It is, therefore, written (\"Speak to) Aaron and to his sons.\" Whence is it derived that the heads of tribes are included here? It is written here \"This is the thing,\" and elsewhere (Bamidbar 30:1, in connection with vows,) \"This is the thing.\" Just as there, the heads of tribes (are specified), here, too, the heads of tribes (are intended). And just as here, Aaron and his sons and the children of Israel (are specified), so, there, Aaron and his sons and the children of Israel (are intended — See Nedarim 78b).",
                "2) \"This is the thing that the L–rd has commanded\": We are hereby taught that this section was stated (by Moses to Israel) word for word. This tells me only of this section alone. Whence do I derive that it applies to all of the sections? From \"This is the thing that the L–rd has commanded\" (i.e., He has commanded that it serve as an archetype (binyan av) for all of the sections.",
                "3) (Vayikra 17:3) (\"A man, a man, from the house of Israel, who slaughters an ox, or a lamb, or a goat in the camp, or who slaughters outside the camp,\") I might think that if he slaughtered a sin-offering in the south (of the azarah [the camp of the Shechinah], instead of in the north, as prescribed), he would be liable; it is, therefore, written \"outside the camp\" (and the above is not outside the camp.) If \"outside the camp\" (alone) were written, I might think (that he was not liable) until he slaughtered outside of the three camps. Whence do I derive (that he is liable) even if he slaughtered in the camp of the Levites? From \"in the camp.\" If \"in the camp\" (alone were written), I might think that even if he slaughtered a sin-offering in the south (of the camp of the Shechinah), he would be liable. It is, therefore, written \"outside of the camp.\" Just as \"outside of the camp\" is distinguished by being out of bounds for the slaughtering of any sacrifice, so (\"in the) camp\" refers to a camp that is out of bounds for the slaughtering of any sacrifice, to exclude one's slaughtering (a sin-offering) in the south (of the camp of the Shechinah), which is kasher for the slaughtering of lower order offerings.",
                "4) I might think that only one who slaughters a beast is liable (for kareth). Whence do I derive the same for one who slaughters a bird? From \"or who slaughters.\" I might think that one who \"pinches\" a bird is liable, and that this would follow a fortiori, viz.: Now if for shechitah, which is not its valid mode (of slaughtering) within, he is liable outside, then for melikah (pinching), which is its valid mode within, how much more so should he be liable for it outside! It is, therefore, written \"who slaughters\" (lit., who performs shechitah). He is liable for shechitah, but not for melikah.",
                "5) (Vayikra 17:4) (\"And to the door of the tent of meeting he did not bring it to present as an offering to the L–rd before the sanctuary of the L–rd, blood shall it be reckoned to that man; he has spilled blood, and that man will be cut off from the midst of his people.\") I might think that one who slaughtered chullin (an unconsecrated animal) within were liable, and that this would follow, a fortiori, viz.: If for consecrated animals, which had a time of fitness for being slaughtered outside (before they were consecrated) — If for them one is liable if he slaughters them outside, then for chullin, which never had a time of fitness for being slaughtered within — how much more so should he be liable if he slaughters them within! It is, therefore, written \"as an offering.\" He is liable for an offering, but not for chullin.",
                "6) If \"as an offering,\" I would think that there was liability for (the slaughtering outside of animals dedicated to) Temple maintenance. It is, therefore, written \"and to the door of the tent of meeting he did not bring it\" — which excludes the above, which are not brought to the door of the tent of meeting.",
                "7) I would then exclude (animals dedicated to) Temple maintenance, but I would not exclude an animal that sodomized a man or one that was sodomized, an animal devoted to idolatry, one that was an object of idol worship, an exchange (for an animal inappropriate for an offering), the hire (of a harlot), an admixture (kilayim), a treifah, one of Caesarian birth, turtle-doves whose time (for offering) has passed, and animals with permanent blemishes. It is, therefore, written \"to present\" — those which are fit to present — to exclude those which are not fit to present. I would then exclude those which are not fit to present, but I would not exclude the sent-away he-goat. It is, therefore written \"to the L–rd,\" those which are designated for the L–rd, to exclude those (like the sent-away he-goat) which are not designated for the L–rd.",
                "8) I would then exclude those which are not designated for the L–rd; but I would not exclude a burnt-offering before its time (for sacrifice) or a sin-offering whether by virtue of its own (present) state or that of its owners (e.g., if the owner were a zav), and turtle-doves whose time had not yet arrived, and those with temporary blemishes. It is, therefore, written \"before the sanctuary of the L–rd,\" those which are fit to be offered now — to exclude those who will be fit only later. R. Shimon says: They render one liable for transgression of a negative commandment."
            ],
            "Chapter 9": [
                "1) I might think that I exclude (from kareth liability outside slaughtering of) a burnt-offering before its time by virtue of the state of its owners (e.g., zav) the guilt-offering of a Nazirite (in that state) and the guilt-offering of a leper that were slaughtered not for the sake of an offering (lo lishmah); it is, therefore, (to make them liable for such outside slaughtering) written \"ox\" — in any event; \"lamb\" — in any event; \"goat\" — in any event, (since the owners, even in their unfit state, are fit to slaughter them as donative offerings). \"blood shall it be reckoned to that man\": and not to his sender, (there being no \"emissary\" for transgression). \"he has spilled blood\": one who slaughtered is liable; two (holding the knife) who slaughtered are not liable.",
                "2) For (without this verse) would it not follow (otherwise) a fortiori, viz.: If in a place (i.e., on the outside), where one who offers up (a consecrated animal) for a profane purpose is not liable (to kareth for offering up on the outside), two who offer up (for the L–rd) are liable — then in a place (i.e., on the outside), where one who slaughters (a consecrated animal) for a profane purpose, is liable (to kareth for slaughtering on the outside), how much more so should two who slaughtered (for the L–rd) be liable! It is, therefore, written \"he has spilled blood\" — One who slaughters is liable; two who slaughtered are not liable. \"and that man will be cut off\": the man, and not the congregation. \"that man\": and not one who is constrained, and not one who is unwitting, and not one who is mistaken. \"from the midst of his people\": And not his people (i.e., his people will not be cut off). His people remain at peace.",
                "3) Until here (Vayikra 17:5) Scripture speaks of consecrations which were dedicated at the time that bamoth (temporary altars) were interdicted and he offered them outside (instead of within), their punishment being stated (to be kareth). Where is the exhortation against this? In (Devarim 12:13) \"Take heed unto yourselves lest you offer up your burnt-offerings in every place that you see. (Devarim 12:14) \"but in the place, etc.\"",
                "4) From this point on Scripture speaks of consecrations which were dedicated at the time of the permissibility of bamoth and which were offered at the time when bamoth were forbidden, viz. (Vayikra 17:5) \"So that the children of Israel bring their sacrifices which they sacrifice\" — sacrifices which had been permitted to them before. \"in the open field\": We are hereby taught that all who sacrifice on a bamah (at the time when bamoth were permitted) are accounted as sacrificing in the field.",
                "5) (Vayikra 17:5) \"and they shall bring them to the L–rd\": This is the positive commandment. Where is the negative commandment? In (Vayikra 17:7) \"And they shall sacrifice no more their sacrifices to the satyrs, after which they go astray.\" And I would not know which sacrifices were offered up on a bamah; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 17:7) \"peace-offerings.\" This tells me only of peace-offerings. Whence do I derive burnt-offerings for inclusion? From \"sacrifices of (peace-offerings.\")",
                "6) But perhaps I should include sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. It is, therefore, written (to show that they are not included) \"them.\" Why do you see fit to include these and to exclude the others? After Scripture includes it excludes. It is written \"peace-offerings\": Just as peace-offerings are distinctive in being brought as vow or gift, so I include only that which is brought as vow or gift, i.e., meal-offerings and Nazirite offerings. These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: Only burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are offered up on a bamah.",
                "7) (Vayikra 17:6) (\"And the Cohein shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of the L–rd at the door of the tent of meeting, and he shall cause the fat to smoke, a sweet savor to the L–rd.\") \"And the Cohein shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of the L–rd\": There is sprinkling of blood by a Cohein on the altar and there is no sprinkling of blood by a Cohein on a bamah, but even proselytes, women, and bondsmen are kasher for (officiating at) a bamah. \"on the altar of the L–rd at the door of the tent of meeting\": There was no \"altar of the L–rd\" on a bamah, but even if he sacrificed on a rock or a stone it was valid. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Shimon says: It was not valid unless he built a kind of altar and sacrificed thereon. \"and he shall cause the fat to smoke, a sweet savor to the L–rd.\": There is no \"sweet savor\" on a bamah.",
                "8) (Vayikra 17:7) \"And they shall sacrifice no more their sacrifices to the satyrs (se'irim)\": \"se'irim\" are shedim (demons), viz. (Isaiah 13:21) \"And se'irim will dance there.\" \"after which they go astray\": to include other forms of idolatry. \"an everlasting statute\": for the Temple.",
                "9) \"shall this be\": at this time (when there is no Temple). \"throughout their generations\": continuously."
            ],
            "Chapter 10": [
                "1) (Vayikra 17:8) (\"And to them shall you say: A man, a man, from the house of Israel, and from the strangers that shall dwell in their midst, who shall offer up a burnt-offering or a sacrifice,\") \"And to them shall you say\": in respect to the foregoing. \"Israel\": (the congregation of) Israel; \"strangers\": proselytes; \"that shall dwell\": to include the wives of proselytes. \"in their midst\": to include women and bondsmen.",
                "2) If so, why is it written \"a man, a man\"? To include two who offered up (together as liable). These are the words of R. Shimon. R. Shimon said: For (without a verse) it would follow (otherwise) a fortiori, viz.: If in a place (i.e., on the outside), where one who slaughters (a consecrated animal) for a profane purpose is liable (kareth), two who do so are not liable, then in a place (i.e., on the outside), where one who offers (a consecrated animal) for a profane purpose is not liable, how much more so should two who offer it up not be liable! It is, therefore, written \"a man, a man,\" to include two (as being liable). R. Yossi says: (It is written [Vayikra 17:9]) \"then that (man shall be cut off\") — one who offered up is liable; two who offered up are not liable.",
                "3) \"who shall offer up a burnt-offering\": This tells me only of a burnt-offering. Whence do I derive the same for the devoted portions of a sin-offering and of a guilt-offering and of holy of holies (the atzereth lambs) and of lower order offerings? From (\"or a) sacrifice.\" And whence do I derive the same for (the sprinkling of) the blood (on the outside)? From \"or a sacrifice.\"",
                "4) (Vayikra 17:9) (\"and not bring it to the door of the tent of meeting to offer it up to the L–rd, then that man shall be cut off from his people.\") Whence is the same derived for the fistful and the frankincense and the incense and the meal-offering of the Cohanim and the meal-offering of the anointed Cohein and the libation meal-offering and the three logs of water and the three logs of wine? \"and he did not bring it to the door of the tent of meeting.\" There is liability for all that is brought to the door of the tent of meeting.",
                "5) This tells me only (of offerings) which are fit (to be offered up ab initio). Whence do I derive the same for offerings which are not fit (ab initio, but are not taken down from the altar once they have been brought up), such as: (offerings where there was) undue delay (between sprinkling of the blood and smoking of the devoted portions) and (an offering) leaving (the sanctuary precincts), and (an offering that became) tamei, and one that was slaughtered outside of its (fit) time or place, and one whose blood was received and sprinkled by one unfit to do so, (their devoted portions now being offered up on the outside), and offerings (whose blood was to be) applied below (the red line), which was applied above, or those (whose blood was to be) applied above, which was applied below, or which was to be applied within, and was applied on the outside, or which was to be applied on the outside, and was applied within, and a Pesach or a sin-offering slaughtered not for their sakes, (and their blood or their devoted portions now being offered on the outside)? It is, therefore, written (to include liability for the foregoing) (\"and to the door of the tent of meeting) he does not bring to make it\" — (he is liable for) anything which is accepted (\"for making\") in the tent of meeting.",
                "6) \"and he shall be cut off\": and he is liable (separately) for both the slaughtering and the offering (if he did both outside). R. Yossi Haglili says: If he slaughtered it within and offered it (outside), he is liable; if he slaughtered it outside and offered it outside, he is not liable (for the offering), for he offered something unfit. They said to him: (But) also if he slaughtered it within and offered it outside, since he took it out, it is unfit, (and he should not be liable for the offering — in spite of which Scripture made him liable. In your instance, too, Scripture made him liable.)",
                "7) Rebbi says: \"What the sages say is no refutation of R. Yossi, for) if he slaughters within and offers outside he is liable (for the offering) because he had a time of validity (for offering it within after he slaughtered it, as opposed to slaughtering outside and offering outside, where he had no time of validity. R. Elazar b. Shimon says (in the same vein): If he slaughters within and offers outside he is liable, for the altar would accept it, (if it were returned within), as opposed to slaughtering outside and offering outside, where the altar would not accept it. (A similar instance, viz. Vayikra 7:20:) One who is tamei, if he ate consecrated food, whether it is tamei or tahor, he is liable. R. Yossi Haglili says: If he ate (consecrated food that was) tahor, he is liable; if he ate tamei, he is not liable, for he only ate something that was tamei (and not \"consecrated.\") He said to him: (But, according to your reasoning, also one who is) tamei who ate tahor — once he touched it, he renders it tamei, (and he should not be liable), and a tahor who eats tamei should not be liable, for there is liability only for tumah of one's body (and not for that of the animal)! (See Zevachim 43b)",
                "8) I might think that one who offered up (outside) less than an olive-size of a burnt-offering, of the devoted portions, of the fistful, of three logs of wine, would be liable; it is, therefore, written (\"to make) it\" — he is liable for a whole and not for a part.",
                "9) I might think that one were liable if he offered up (outside) flesh of a sin-offering, of a guilt-offering, of holy of holies, of lower order offerings, of the left-overs of the omer (after the fistful), of the two breads, of the show bread, of the left-overs of meal-offerings — It is, therefore, written \"a burnt-offering,\" which is designated for the flames (of the altar), excluding the above, which are not thus designated.",
                "10) I might think that one were liable (for performing on the outside) pouring the oil (upon the meal-offering), mixing (it with oil), breaking it into pieces, salting, waving, presenting, arranging the table, cleansing the lamps, taking the fistful, and receiving blood — It is, therefore written \"who shall offer up,\" offering up being the culmination of the service — excluding the above, which are not the culmination of the service.",
                "11) \"then that man shall be cut off\": and not the congregation. \"that man\": one who offered up is liable; two who offered up (together) are not liable. These are the words of R. Yossi. R. Shimon says: \"a man, a man\" — to include two. If he offered up (on the outside), and (after an interval) offered up again, and then again, he is liable for each act of offering These are the words of R. Shimon. R. Yossi says: He is not liable until he offers it up on the head of the altar. R. Shimon says: He is liable even if he offers it up on a rock or a stone. (See Chapter 9:7)"
            ],
            "Section 7": [
                "1) (Vayikra 17:10) (\"And a man, a man, from the house of Israel and from the stranger that sojourns among them, that shall eat any blood — I shall set My face against the soul that eats the blood, and I shall cut it off from the midst of its people.\") \"Israel\": (the congregation of) Israel; \"the stranger\": proselytes; \"that sojourns\": to include the wives of proselytes; \"in their midst\": to include women and bondsmen.",
                "2) If so, (i.e., if all have been accounted for) why is it written \"a man, a man\"? R. Elazar b. R. Shimon said: To include the child of an Israelite (mother) by a gentile or by a bondsman.",
                "3) \"that shall eat any blood\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 17:11) \"For the life of the flesh is in the blood; (and I have given it to you upon the altar to atone for your souls\"), I might think that one is liable only for blood of the soul (i.e., the blood of shechitah, by which the soul leaves) in consecrated animals. Whence do I derive (the same for) the blood of the soul in chullin (non-consecrated animals), and residual blood in chullin and residual blood in consecrated animals? From \"that shall eat any blood.\" These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: For all of these he is not liable (kareth) except for \"blood of the soul\" alone.",
                "4) \"I shall set My face (against the soul that eats the blood\"): I shall free Myself from all of My other affairs and I shall deal with him alone. \"against the soul\": and not against the congregation. \"that eats\": and not that feeds others (i.e., he is not liable to kareth) \"that eats … from the midst of its people\": Its people will remain at peace. ",
                "5) \"For the life of the flesh is in the blood\": This is the reason (that it is forbidden). \"and I have given it\": If he makes (even) one application (of the blood) it atones. (\"I have given it) to you\": and not to others. (Gentiles do not bring sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.) \"upon the altar\": anywhere on the altar that it is applied (post factum), it atones. \"upon the altar\": and not upon the ground of the altar (in the azarah). (Vayikra 17:11) \"for the blood in the soul (i.e., by which the soul lives) atones\": so that if he applied residual blood, he has done nothing (towards atonement).",
                "6) (Vayikra 17:12) \"Therefore, I have said to the children of Israel: All souls of you shall not eat blood\": to exhort the elders over the children. I might think that they would be cut off because of them (if they did not exhort them); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 17:10) (\"that soul which eats blood\"): the eater (alone) will be cut off.",
                "7) I might think that they would not be cut off because of (feeding) minors, for they themselves are not cut off (for eating blood), but that they would be cut off because of (feeding) adults, for they themselves are cut off (for eating it). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 17:14) \"All of its eaters will be cut off.\" They (the feeders) are not cut off for (feeding) either adults or minors."
            ],
            "Chapter 11": [
                "1) (Vayikra 17:13) (\"And a man, a man, from the children of Israel and from the stranger that sojourns in their midst, that shall hunt a hunting of animal or bird that may be eaten — he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.\") \"Israel\": (the congregation of) Israel. \"the stranger\": proselytes; \"that sojourns\": to include the wives of proselytes; \"in their midst\": to include women and bondsmen. If so, why is a man, a man, mentioned? To include. For from \"that shall hunt\" I know only of hunting. Whence do I derive (the same for an animal that was) purchased, inherited, or received as a gift? From \"a man, a man\" (in any event).",
                "2) \"that shall hunt\": This tells me only of \"hunting\" (literally). Whence do I derive the same for those which are already \"hunted\" and standing, such as geese and chickens? From \"a hunting\" — in any event. If so, why say \"that shall hunt\"? The Torah is hereby teaching proper conduct, that one should not eat flesh unless it is obtained thus adventitiously.",
                "3) \"bird\": I might think that even an unclean bird is included; it is, therefore, written \"animal.\" Just as an animal (carcass) renders garments tamei, so a bird which renders garments tamei — to exclude a bird that is unclean (for eating), which does not render garments tamei (viz. Chapter 12:7). — (Why don't we say, then:) Just as an animal is not (included) in (the mitzvah of) \"Do not take the mother (while she is) on the young\" (Devarim 22:6) — to exclude (from the mitzvah of covering the blood) a clean bird, which is (included) in (the mitzvah of) \"Do not take the mother on the young\"! It is, therefore, written \"that shall be eaten\" — to exclude an unclean bird, which may not be eaten.",
                "4) This (\"bird that may be eaten\") tells me only of a bird. Whence do I derive (that this refers also to) an animal? From (the juxtaposition) \"animal or bird that may be eaten.\" \"animal\" connotes any number of animals, whether many or few. \"bird\" connotes any number of birds, whether many or few — whence they ruled: If he slaughtered a hundred animals in one place, he may use one covering for all; a hundred birds in one place, he may use one covering for all. Animals and birds in one place, he may use one covering for all. R. Yehudah says: If he slaughtered an animal, he should cover (the blood) and then slaughter the bird, it being written \"animal or bird that may be eaten.\" They said to him: But is it not already written (Devarim 22:14) \"for the soul of all flesh, its blood is in its soul!\"",
                "5) \"that may be eaten and he shall pour out\": to exclude one's slaughtering and the animal's becoming carcass (neveilah) in his hand, or his stabbing or ripping (instead of slaughtering). \"and he shall pour out\": to include one's slaughtering for gentiles or for feeding to dogs, (for it is still subsumed in \"it may be eaten\").",
                "6) One who slaughters an animal and finds it to be a treifah; one who slaughters an animal for idol worship; one who slaughters non-consecrated animals inside (the azarah) and consecrated animals outside; one who slaughters birds or animals that were to be stoned — R. Meir rules him liable (for covering the blood), it being written \"and he shall pour out … and he shall cover.\" The sages say: (It is written) \"that may be eaten and he shall pour out and he shall cover\" — With shechitah which renders the animal kosher for eating he is liable for covering (of the blood), and with that which does not render the animal kosher for eating, he is not liable for covering (of the blood).",
                "7) \"and he shall pour out … and he shall cover\": With what he slaughtered (i.e., with his hand or with his knife), he shall cover. Whence is it derived (that if he did not cover it), others, too, are required to do so? From (Devarim 22:14) \"For the life of all flesh, its blood is in its soul, and I have said to the children of Israel, etc.\"",
                "8) \"And he shall pour … and he shall cover\": It is a mitzvah for him to cover it, (but) if he covered it and it became uncovered, he is not required to cover it. If the wind covered it (and it became uncovered), he is required to cover it.",
                "9) \"its blood and cover it\": We are hereby taught that he must cover all of its blood — whence it was ruled: Blood which splashes forth (at slaughtering) and that upon the blade must be covered. R. Yehudah said: When is this so? When there is no blood beside that (which can be covered); but if there is, he need not cover it.",
                "10) \"and he shall cover it\": I might think that he could cover it with vessels; it is, therefore, written \"with earth.\" This tells me only of earth. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) crushed stone, crushed earthenware, thin scraps of flax, thin wood shavings, thin fertilizer, thin sand, lime, clay-ground, ground bricks, and crushed sealing-clay? From \"and he shall cover it.\" ",
                "10) If \"and he shall cover it,\" I might think (to include) ground metal vessels, and flour, and bran-flour, and coarse bran; it is, therefore, written \"with earth.\" Why do you see fit to include the first and to exclude the others? After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include the first, which are similar to earth, and I exclude the others, which are not similar to it.",
                "11) And this generalization is indeed needed. For R. Shimon b. Gamliel would have it: Just as earth is distinctive in producing growths and serving for the covering (of blood), so, all (are permitted) for covering, which do the same — to exclude from covering, those things which do not produce growths.",
                "12) (Vayikra 17:14) \"For the soul of all flesh, its blood is its soul.\" This is the underlying reason (for what precedes). (Vayikra 17:14) \"And I said to the children of Israel: The blood of all flesh you shall not eat.\": to exhort adults vis-à-vis minors. (See Section 7:6 and Vayikra 17:7)"
            ],
            "Chapter 12": [
                "1) (Vayikra 17:12) (\"And every soul that shall eat neveilah (an animal that dies of itself) and treifah (one that is organically unfit), whether citizen or stranger, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening; then he shall be clean.\")",
                "2) \"And every soul\": I might think even a gentile; it is, therefore, written \"stranger.\" If \"stranger,\" I might think even a sojourning stranger; it is, therefore, written \"citizen.\" Just as \"citizen\" is a son of the Covenant, so, \"stranger\" is a son of the Covenant (i.e., a convert to Judaism). \"that shall eat\": \"eating\" is not less than an olive-size. Variantly: \"that shall eat neveilah\" — to exclude beak, nails, wings, feathers, and eggs.",
                "3) I might think that it confers tumah upon clothing (that he put on even after he ate it), while it is in the midst of his stomach; it is, therefore, written \"he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and he shall be unclean until the evening; then he shall be clean,\" which indicates (that neveilah in the stomach) does not confer tumah upon clothing. I might think that it does not confer tumah upon clothing while it is in the midst of his stomach, but it does confer tumah upon clothing while it is in his mouth (even before he swallows it); it is, therefore, written (\"and every) soul\" — It confers tumah \"in the house of the soul\" (i.e., when it is swallowed and gives the soul pleasure), and not in the midst of the stomach and not in the midst of the mouth.",
                "4) I might think that if he regurgitates it, it would confer tumah upon his clothing on leaving (his esophagus); it is, therefore, written \"that shall eat\": It confers tumah by way of eating and not by way of regurgitation.",
                "5) I might think that the neveilah of a beast confers tumah upon clothing (when it is) in the esophagus; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:8) \"A neveilah and a treifah he shall not eat to become unclean.\" (The allusion is to the neveilah of an animal [i.e., a bird],) which confers tumah only by being eaten — to exclude the neveilah of a beast, which confers tumah (even) before it is eaten.",
                "6) I might then think that the neveilah of a bird confers tumah (in the esophagus) by Scriptural edict, and that of a beast, a fortiori (viz.: If the neveilah of a bird, which does not confer tumah by touch, does so by being eaten, how much more so, the neveilah of a beast, which does confer tumah by touch!) It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:8) (\"to become unclean through it\" [the neveilah of a bird]) — Only through it is tumah conferred upon clothing by being swallowed, and not through the neveilah of a beast.",
                "7) I might think that the neveilah of an unclean bird conferred tumah upon clothing, in the esophagus; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 17:15) \"that shall eat neveilah and treifah.\" (The allusion is to that) which is forbidden by reason of eating neveilah — to exclude an unclean bird, which is not forbidden by reason of eating neveilah. These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages derive it from \"neveilah and treifah,\" connoting the neveilah (of a bird) which is subject to treifah — to exclude an unclean bird, which is not subject to treifah. ",
                "8) \"that shall eat neveilah\": (According to R. Yehudah,) why mention \"treifah\"? R. Yehudah said: If Scripture (is speaking of) a living treifah (i.e., that he ate an olive-size of it while it was yet alive and it confers tumah upon his clothing when in the esophagus) — is it not written \"neveilah,\" (which confers tumah only after death)? And if (Scripture is speaking of) a dead treifah, this is already included in \"neveilah\"! If so, why mention neveilah? To include a treifah that was slaughtered, (to tell us that it confers tumah as a neveilah, its shechitah not cleansing it thereof).",
                "9) R. Meir said; Now if the neveilah of a beast, which confers tumah by touching and lifting, its shechitah cleanses its treifah of its tumah — then the neveilah of a bird, which does not confer tumah by touching and carrying, how much more so should its shechitah cleanse its treifah of its tumah! And just as we find with its shechitah, which renders it kasher for eating, that it cleanses its treifah of its tumah, so its melikah (pinching), which renders it kasher for eating (to Cohanim), should cleanse its treifah of its tumah. R. Yossi says: It is sufficient that it be in the status of the neveilah of a beast (from which you want to derive the halachah a fortiori), viz.: Its shechitah cleanses it and not its melikah.",
                "10) I might think that melikah (\"pinching\" of birds, which is performed) within (the azarah) renders clothing tamei in the esophagus; it is, therefore, written \"neveilah and treifah.\" Just as neveilah does not render permissible anything that was previously forbidden, so, treifah — to include (in esophagus neveilah) melikah (of a consecrated bird) outside (the azarah) and chullin (a non-consecrated bird) both within and outside, which do not render permissible (to eat) what was previously forbidden (as opposed to melikah within, which renders the eating of the bird permissible to the Cohanim).",
                "11) Others say (i.e., they derive the above ruling from) \"whether citizen or stranger,\" (which connotes) equality of the prohibition (of neveilah) for both citizen and stranger — to exclude melikah within, where this equality does not exist, (it being permitted for citizen Cohanim to eat the neveilah of a bird that was pinched.)",
                "12) I might think that one who slaughters (by shechitah) chullin within, and consecrated animals both within and outside, would confer tumah upon his clothing in the esophagus (i.e., when he swallowed the flesh [for I would say that since their shechitah does not permit them to be eaten, they are considered neveilah]); it is, therefore, written \"whether neveilah or treifah.\" Just as (the prohibition of) neveilah obtains within as it does outside, so, treifah obtains within as it does outside — to exclude (from the stricture of esophagus neveilah) shechitah of chullin within, and of consecrated (birds), both within and outside, for they are not similar on the inside and on the outside. \"and he shall wash his clothes\": (See Shemini, Section 4:9)",
                "13) We find, then, that if one were eating the neveilah of a clean bird, one of his hands on an (earthen) stove, and the other on his neighbor, both are tahor. (Vayikra 17:16) \"And if he does not wash … then he shall bear his sin\": I might think that for failure to wash his clothes he incurs the punishment of kareth; it is, therefore, written \"not bathe his flesh, then he shall bear his sin — For failure to bathe his body the punishment is kareth, but for failure to wash his clothes, it is forty lashes.",
                "14) Whence do we derive that Scripture is speaking here of his rendering the sanctuary and its consecrated objects tamei? Scripture exhorted against tumah and adduced a punishment for it, and it made one liable for an offering for conferring tumah (unwittingly). Just as in the latter instance it is indicated that the offering is for tumah of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects, so in the former, the tumah in question is that of the sanctuary and its consecrated objects.",
                "15) Others say: (It is written here) \"then he shall bear his sin,\" and, elsewhere, (Vayikra 19:8) \"Its eater shall bear his sin\" for a gezeirah shavah (identity). Just as (the punishment) there is (indicated to be) kareth, here, too, it is kareth."
            ],
            "Section 8": [
                "1) (Vayikra 18:1) \"And the L–rd said to Moses, saying: (Vayikra 18:2) Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: I am the L–rd your G d.\" I am the L–rd who spoke and caused the world to come into being. I am full of mercy. I am a Judge, who exacts payment, and who is trusted to reward.",
                "2) It is I, who exacted payment from the generation of the flood, and from the people of Sodom, and from the Egyptians, and I am destined to exact payment from you if you follow in their ways.",
                "3) Whence is it derived that there was no people whose acts were more detestable than those of the Egyptians? From (Vayikra 18:3) \"As the deed of the land of Egypt … you shall not do.\" And whence is it derived that those of the last generation were the worst of all? From \"As the deed of the land of Egypt where you dwelt you shall not do.\" Whence is it derived that (the deeds of the people of) the place where Israel dwelt were the worst of all? From \"where you dwelt you shall not do.\" And whence is it derived that the dwelling of Israel (there) prompted them to all of these deeds? From \"where you dwelt you shall not do.\"",
                "4) And whence is it derived that there was no people whose acts were more detestable than those of the Canaanites? From (Vayikra 18:3) \"And as the deed of the land of Canaan you shall not do.\" And whence is it derived that those of the last generation were the worst of all? From \"to which I bring you.\" And whence is it derived that the coming of Israel (there) prompted them to all of these deeds? From \"to which I bring you you shall not do.\"",
                "5) R. Shimon says (Isaiah 41:4) \"Who wrought and did? He who called forth the generations from the beginning.\" He readied (punishment) for the guilty generation, that Israel come and exact it of them.",
                "6) R Yossi Haglili says: After Scripture equates the deed of the land of Egypt with that of the land of Canaan, and that of the land of Canaan with that of the land of Egypt, why did the Canaanites merit remaining in their land for forty-seven years, as it is written (Bamidbar 13:22) \"And Chevron (in Canaan) was built seven years before Tzoan (in) Egypt\" (and add forty years for their sojourn in the desert)? It was because they honored our father Abraham, saying (Bereshith 23:5) \"Hear us, my lord, a prince of G d are you in our midst\" — wherefore they merited remaining on their land forty-seven years.",
                "7) R. Shimon b. Gamliel says in the name of R. Shimon b. Lakish: And thus is it written (Joshua 11:15) (\"And the name of Chevron of yore was the city of Arba [Abraham]), the great man among the Anakim, and the land had rest from war.\" Men who honored the tzaddik merited that their land rest (from war).",
                "8) If \"As the deed of the land of Egypt and as the deed of the land of Canaan, you shall not do,\" I might think they should not build or plant as they do; it is, therefore, written (Joshua 11:15) \"and in their statutes you shall not walk.\" I have proscribed for you only those statutes which were instituted for them and for their forefathers and for the fathers of their forefathers. What did they do? A man would wed a man, and a woman, a woman. A man would wed a woman and her daughter, and a woman would wed two — wherefore Scripture states \"and in their statutes you shall not walk.\"",
                "9) (Vayikra 18:4) (\"My judgments you shall do, and My statutes you shall heed to walk in them; I am the L–rd your G d.\") \"My judgments\" — these are the laws; \"My statutes\" — these are the midrashoth (exegetical derivations); \"you shall heed\" — this is the Mishnah; \"to walk in them\" — this is the deed; \"shall you heed to walk in them\" — It is not the Mishnah which conducts you (to the world to come), but the deed.",
                "10) (Vayikra 18:5) \"And you shall heed My statutes and My judgments, which a man shall do\": to ascribe heeding and doing to statutes and heeding and doing to judgments, (the previous verse having ascribed only doing to judgments and heeding to statutes). (Vayikra 18:5) \"and he shall live in them\": in the world to come. If you would say, in this world, is it not one's end to die? How, then, is \"and he shall live in them\" to be understood? In the world to come. (Vayikra 18:5) \"I am the L–rd\" — trusted to reward."
            ],
            "Chapter 13": [
                "1) (Vayikra 18:6) (\"A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh shall not draw near to reveal nakedness; I am the L–rd.\") What is the intent of \"a man, a man\"? To include gentiles to be exhorted against illicit relations as Jews are. \"You (plural) shall not draw near\": What is the intent of this (plural)? Because it is written \"a man,\" I might think that a man is being exhorted against illicit relations with a woman. Whence do I derive the same for a woman vis-à-vis a man? From \"You (plural) shall not draw near.\"",
                "2) (Vayikra 18:1 and Vayikra 18:2) \"And the L–rd said to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: I am the L–rd your G d.\" R. Shimon b. Yochai says: This is as is written elsewhere (Shemoth 20:2) \"I am the L–rd your G d, etc.\" (He said to them:) Am I not the L–rd, whose Kingdom you accepted upon yourselves in Egypt? They: \"Yes! Yes!\" He: You accepted My Kingdom — accept My decrees (Shemoth 20:3) \"There shall not be unto you other gods beside Me.\" That is what is intended here: \"I am the L–rd.\" Am I not He whose Kingdom you accepted in Sinai? They: \"Yes! Yes!\" He: You accepted My Kingdom — accept My decrees. R. Yishmael says: Grave are the arayoth (illicit relations), which open with yod-keh and end with yod-keh (the name of the L–rd.) In the beginning (Vayikra 18:6) \"A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh shall not draw near to reveal nakedness; I am the L–rd.\" In the end (Vayikra 18:30) \"And you shall keep My charge, not to do in the manner of the abominations … I am the L–rd your G d.\" Grave are the arayoth, which open with yod-keh and end with yod-keh!",
                "3) Rebbi says: It was revealed before Him who spoke and brought the world into being that they were destined to balk against (the restrictions of) arayoth, wherefore He confronted them with a decree: \"I am the L–rd your G d\" — Know who decrees (these strictures of arayoth) upon you! And we find similarly that they balked against arayoth in (Bamidbar 11:10) \"And Moshe heard the people weeping over their families\" (i.e., against the restrictions of illicit relations). And thus did Malachi say to them (Malachi 2:13) \"And this you do a second time: covering the altar of the L–rd with tears, with weeping and with sighing.\" He said to them: This is not the first time (you weep so.) You already wept (over this) in the days of Moses. They answered (Malachi 2:15) \"And did not One do (this) and He is noble of spirit!\" Did not He who created Israel create the (other) peoples? (Why, then, can we not intermingle with them!) To this he replied (Malachi 2:15) \"And what is it that this 'One' desires, (but) the seed of G d!\" (and not of the nations) — at which they all responded (Malachi 2:12) \"Let the L–rd cut off from the man that does this a quick one and an answerer from the tents of Yaakov\" — Let him not have \"a quick one\" among the sages nor \"an answerer\" among the disciples — And, if he were a Cohein, (Malachi 2:12) \"or a presenter of a meal-offering to the L–rd of hosts.\" And thus is it written (re the materialization of such intermingling, Nechemiah 13:29) \"And one of the sons of Yoyada, the son of Elyashiv the high-priest, was son-in-law to Sanvalat the Choronite.\"",
                "4) Rebbi says: (Vayikra 18:2) \"Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: I am the L–rd your G d.\" Say to them: \"I (Moses), too, was exhorted.\" Just as I (the L–rd exhorted you (to separate from your wife) and you accepted, so tell them (to separate from arayoth) and they will accept it. (A variant:) \"and say to them\" This is an exhortation to beth-din (to separate Israel from arayoth). \"I am the L–rd your G d\" (Elokim = the Judge). I am a Judge to exact payment, and I am trusted to reward.",
                "5) (See Section 8:3)",
                "6) (See Section 8:4)",
                "7) (See Section 8:6)",
                "8) (Vayikra 18:3) \"and in their statutes you shall not walk\": What did Scripture leave unsaid (that this need be stated)? Is it not already written (Devarim 18:10) \"There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire … (Devarim 18:11) and a chover chaver, etc.\"? What, then, is the intent of \"and in their statutes you shall not walk\"? In their customs — those things that are established for them — such as theatres, circuses, and sports. R. Meir says: These are \"the ways of the Emorites,\" which the sages enumerated. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: that you not preen yourself (to attract women), and not cultivate locks, and not wear the hair komi (a gentile fashion). And lest you say: \"They have statutes and we have no statutes\" — It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:9) \"My judgments shall you do and My statutes you shall heed to walk in them; I am the L–rd your G d.\" — But there is still \"hope\" for the yetzer hara to reflect and say \"But theirs are more beautiful than ours!\" — It is, therefore, written (Devarim 4:6) \"And you shall heed and you shall do. For this is your wisdom and your understanding.\"",
                "9) (Vayikra 18:4) \"My judgments you shall do\": These are the things, which if they had not been written would \"ask\" to be written, such as (the interdiction of) theft, illicit relations, blaspheming the Name, and bloodshed. (Vayikra 18:4) \"and My statutes you shall heed\": These are the things that the yetzer hara \"queries\" and that the idolators query, such as (the prohibition against) eating pig and wearing sha'atnez (a mixture of wool and linen), chalitzah (the levirate-refusal ceremony), the cleansing of the leper and the sent-away he-goat. It is, therefore, written (in response to such \"queries\") \"I, the L–rd,\" have decreed them, and it is not for you to call them into question.",
                "10) (Vayikra 18:4) \"to walk in them\": Make them primary and not secondary. \"to walk in them\": Your converse should be only in them, not intermixed with any mundane matters. Do not say: I have learned the wisdom of Israel; now I will learn the wisdom of the world. \"to walk in them\": You are not permitted to depart from them. And thus (Mishlei 5:17) \"They shall be ours alone … (Vayikra 6:22) In your going forth, it shall guide you\" — in this world; \"in your reclining, it shall guard you\" — at the time of death; \"and when you awake, it shall converse with you\" — in the world to come. And (Isaiah 26:19) \"Awake and sing, you dwellers in the dust!\" And lest you say: \"Gone is my hope and my prospect!\" It is, therefore, written \"I am the L–rd.\" I am your hope and your prospect and upon Me is your trust. And (Isaiah 46:4) \"And until (your) old age, I am He, etc.\" And (Isaiah 44:6) \"Thus said the L–rd, the King of Israel and its Redeemer, the L–rd of hosts, etc.\" (Isaiah 48:12) \"I am He. I am first and I am last.\" And (Isaiah 41:4) \"I, the L–rd, am first, and with the last shall I be,\"",
                "11) (Vayikra 18:5) \"And you shall heed My statutes and My judgments\": This tells me only of what Scripture specifies. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the other exegeses of the parshah? From \"And you shall heed (eth) My statutes and (eth) My judgments.\"",
                "12) \"which a man shall do\": R. Yirmiyah was wont to say: Whence is it derived that even a gentile who observes the Torah is like the high-priest? From \"which a man (any man) shall do, and he shall live in them.\" It is not written: This is the Torah of Cohanim, Levites, or Israelites,\" but (II Samuel 7:19) \"And this is the Torah of man, O L–rd, G d.\" And thus is it written (Isaiah 26:2) \"Open, ye gates, and let there come\" — Cohanim, Levites, and Israelites is not written, but — (Tehillim 118:20) \"tzaddikim shall come therein.\" And (Tehillim 33:1) \"Sing, tzaddikim in the L–rd\" — not Cohanim, Levites, and Israelites. And (Tehillim 125:4) \"Do good, O L–rd, to the good\" — not \"to Cohanim, Levites, and Israelites.\" Even a gentile who observes the Torah is like the high-priest.",
                "13) (Vayikra 18:5) \"and he shall live in them\": and not die in them. R. Yishmael was wont to say: Whence is it derived that if one is told in private to serve idolatry or be killed, he should transgress and not be killed? From \"and he shall live in them,\" and not die in them. — But perhaps even in public he should accede. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:32) \"And you shall not desecrate My holy name, and I shall be sanctified in the midst of the children of Israel.\" If you sanctify My name, I, too, will sanctify My name through you. For just as Chananiah, Mishael, and Azaryah, when all the peoples of the world were prostrated before the idol, stood (straight) as palms — as related of them in the tradition (Shir Hashirim 7:8) \"This, your stature, is like a palm\" — (Ibid. 9) \"I said: 'I shall rise on the palm, I shall grasp its branches'\" — This day I shall rise through them in the eyes of the peoples of the world, the deniers of Torah. This day I shall exact punishment for them of their foes — This day I shall resurrect their dead. \"I am the L–rd,\" the Judge, to exact punishment, and trusted to reward.",
                "14) (Vayikra 18:6) \"A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh shall not draw near to reveal nakedness\" — general. (Vayikra 18:7) \"The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not reveal\" — specific. General-specific (The rule is:) The general subsumes only the specific. (See Hermeneutical Principles 4) (And no arayoth are to be added (by induction) other than those which are specifically mentioned. For otherwise I would say:) Since he is permitted to marry the daughter of his father's brother and his father's brother is permitted to marry his daughter, then, if I have learned that he is forbidden to marry the wife of his father's brother, so, his father's brother should be forbidden to marry his wife. (A second instance:) Since he is permitted to marry the wife of his stepfather, and his stepfather is permitted to marry his wife, then, if I have learned that he is forbidden to marry the daughter of his stepfather, so, his stepfather should be forbidden to marry his daughter. If so, you have adduced arayoth by induction! — wherefore it is written \"A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh shall not draw near to reveal nakedness\" — general. \"The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not reveal\" — specific. General-specific. (The rule is:) The general subsumes only the specific. \"I am the L–rd,\" the Judge, to exact punishment and trusted to reward.",
                "15) (Vayikra 18:19) \"You shall not approach to uncover her nakedness\" - I only know of nakedness. From where [do we know] not to approach? [Hence] we learn to say, \"To a woman, while in her menstrual impurity, you shall not approach to uncover her nakedness.\" I only know about a menstruant, that she is [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal. From where [do we know] about all of the sexual prohibitions, that they are [forbidden] with, do not approach and with, do not reveal? [Hence] we learn to say, \"you shall not approach to uncover.\" \"I am the L–rd,\" the Judge, to exact punishment and trusted to reward.",
                "16) (Vayikra 18:24) \"Do not become unclean with any of these\" (abominations): all or part. For with all of these the nations become unclean: These are the Egyptians. \"which I am sending away before you\": These are the Canaanites. (Vayikra 18:25) \"And the land became unclean\" — whereby we are taught that these things (illicit relations) render the land unclean. \"and I visited its sin upon it.\": As soon as I open the accounting book, I exact payment for everything. \"and the land vomited out its inhabitants\": as a man vomits out his food. ",
                "17) \"And you shall keep My statutes\": You are fit to keep them (the laws governing arayoth), for you originated them (in Egypt). And thus is it written (Shir Hashirim 4:12) \"A locked garden is My sister, My bride; a locked spring, a sealed fountain.\" ",
                "18) And you shall not do all of these abominations\": all or part. \"citizen\": as it implies. \"the citizen\": to include the wives of citizens. \"stranger\": a proselyte. \"the stranger\": to include the wives of strangers. \"in your midst\": to include bondsmen.",
                "19) (Vayikra 18:27) \"For all of these abominations were done by the people of the land which were before you, and the land became unclean\" — whereby we are taught that these things render the land unclean. (Vayikra 18:28) \"So that the land not vomit you out … as it vomited out the nation that was before you\" — whereby we are taught that the land incurs exile because of those things.",
                "20) \"For all who do any of these abominations\": all or part; \"the souls (plural) shall be cut off.\" What is the intent of this? Because it is written \"a man,\" I might think that a man incurs kareth by (fornicating with) a woman. Whence do I derive the same for a woman by a man? From \"the souls\" — two.",
                "21) (\"the souls that do\"): What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 18:6) \"You shall not draw near,\" I might think they incurred kareth for drawing near (alone); it is, therefore written \"that do,\" and not that draw near. \"from the midst of their people\": but their people remain at peace.",
                "22) (Vayikra 18:30) \"And you shall keep My charge\": Make a \"keeping\" (i.e., protection) for My charge. \"And you shall keep My charge\": to exhort beth-din (to be vigilant) in this regard. \"not to do in the manner of the abominations that were done before you, and you shall not become unclean (tamei) in them\": We are hereby taught that all of the arayoth are called \"tumah.\" (Vayikra 11:43) \"And do not become unclean with them that you be unclean with them\": If you become unclean with them, you render yourselves unfit for Me. What benefit do I have of you when you are in debt to Me for destruction! — wherefore it is written (Vayikra 18:30) \"I am the L–rd your G d.\" ",
                "23) And in this vein Ezra writes (Ezra 9:14) \"Shall we again break Your commandments and make marriages with the people of these abominations? Would You not rage against us until You consumed us, without remnant or escape? (Ezra 9:15) O L–rd, G d of Israel, You are righteous!\" "
            ]
        },
        "Kedoshim": {
            "Section 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 19:1) \"And the L–rd spoke to Moses, saying (Vayikra 19:2) Speak to the entire congregation of the children of Israel, and say to them: Holy shall you be.\" We are hereby taught that this section was stated in the presence of all. Why so? Because most of the major tenets of Torah are inherent in it. \"Holy shall you be\": Separate yourselves (from arayoth.) \"Holy shall you be, for holy am I, the L–rd your G d.\" If you sanctify yourselves, I will consider it as if you had sanctified Me, and if you do not sanctify yourselves, I will consider it as if you had not sanctified Me. — But perhaps the meaning is: If you sanctify Me, I am holy, and if not I am not holy. It is, therefore, written \"for holy am I\" — I remain in My holiness whether or not I am sanctified (by men). Abba Shaul says: What is the duty of the King's retinue? To follow in the footsteps of the King (and to be holy).",
                "2) (Vayikra 19:3) (\"A man, his mother and his father, you shall fear, and My Sabbaths you shall keep; I am the L–rd your G d.\") \"A man\": This tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive the same for a woman? From \"you (plural) shall fear.\"",
                "3) If so, why is \"a man\" written? A man is in a position of doing (things to honor his parents), unlike a woman, who is subject to her husband's will.",
                "4) It is written \"A man, his mother and his father, you shall fear,\" and (Devarim 6:13) \"The L–rd your G d you shall fear.\" Scripture likens the fear of father and mother to fear of the L–rd.\"",
                "5) It is written (Shemoth 19:12) \"Honor your father and your mother\" and (Mishlei 3:9) \"Honor the L–rd from your wealth.\" Scripture likens honoring father and mother to honoring the L–rd.",
                "6) It is written (Shemoth 20:17) \"And he who curses his father and mother shall be put to death\" and (Vayikra 24:15) \"A man, a man, if he curse his G d, shall bear his sin.\" Scripture likens cursing of father and mother to cursing of the L–rd.",
                "7) But it is impossible to write of striking vis-à-vis the L–rd, (as it is written vis-à-vis parents [Shemoth 21:15]). (And one's honoring parents) is justly (compared to his honoring the L–rd), for the three of them are partners in his creation.",
                "8) R. Shimon says: Lambs precede goats in most places (in Scripture). I might think that this is because they are preferred; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 4:32) \"And if a lamb he brings as his offering for a sin-offering\" (after 4:28 \"a kid of the goats\"), to teach that both are equal. Turtle-doves precede pigeons in most places. I might think that this is because they are preferred; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 12:6) \"and a young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering,\" to teach that both are equal.",
                "9) Father precedes mother in all places. I might think that the father's honor is above that of the mother; it is, therefore, written \"A man, his mother and his father you shall fear,\" to teach that they are both equal. But the sages said: The father takes precedence to the mother in all instances because both he and his mother are obliged to honor his father.",
                "10) Which is fear? He shall not sit in his place, and he shall not speak in his place, and he shall not contradict his words. Which is honoring? Giving him to eat and to drink and clothing and covering and bringing in and taking out. \"A man, his mother and his father you shall fear\": I might think that if his father or mother told him to transgress one of the mitzvoth of the Torah he should heed them; it is, therefore, written \"and My Sabbaths you shall keep\" — You are all obliged to honor Me. (Vayikra 19:4) \"Do not turn to the idols (elilim)\": Do not turn to serve them (in thought). R. Yehudah says: Do not turn to scrutinize them.",
                "11) \"elilim\": This is one of the ten pejorative names of idols: elilim — because they are hollow; pesel — because they are sculpted; masechah — because they are molten; matzevah — because they are stood up; atzabim — because they are made in sections; teraphim — because they rot; gilulim — because they are revolting; shikutzim — because they are detestable; chamanim — because they stand in the sun; asherim — because they are supported by others. \"Do not turn to the idols, and molten gods do not make for yourselves.\" In the beginning, they are idols; if you turn to them, you make them gods.",
                "12) \"and molten gods do not make\": I might think that others can make it for them; it is, therefore, written \"not … for you.\" I might think that they can make it for others; it is, therefore, written \"Do not make (it) (not) for you\" (i.e., for others) — whence they ruled: If one makes an idol, he transgresses two exhortations: \"Do not make\" and \"not for you.\" R. Yossi says: (He transgresses) three: \"You shall not make,\" \"not for you,\" and (Shemoth 20:3) \"There shall not be unto you.\" "
            ],
            "Chapter 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 19:5) \"And if you slaughter a sacrifice of peace-offerings to the L–rd, for your will shall you slaughter it. (Vayikra 19:6) On the day that you slaughter it, it shall be eaten, and on the next day.\": Let this not be stated, (for it has already been written, viz. [Vayikra 7:16]). If it is not needed for eating, learn it as applying to slaughtering, i.e., even when you slaughter it, your intent should be to eat it for two days.",
                "2) This tells me only of peace-offerings. Whence do I derive the same for all (offerings) that are eaten for two days? From \"And if you slaughter a sacrifice.\"",
                "3) (Vayikra 19:5) \"shall you slaughter it\": two heads are not slaughtered at the same time.",
                "4) (Vayikra 19:6) \"And if it is eaten on the third day, it is rejected (piggul); it shall not be accepted. Let this not be stated (i.e., it is obvious). If it is not needed for (eating it) outside of its prescribed time, learn it as applying to (eating it) outside of its prescribed place (i.e., as eating peace-offerings outside of Jerusalem.)",
                "5) (Vayikra 19:8) \"And the eater of it shall bear his sin, for he has profaned the holy thing of the L–rd; and that soul shall be cut off from its people.\" This is a prototype (binyan av) for (desecration of) all that is holy, that its punishment is kareth.",
                "6) (Vayikra 19:9) (\"And when you cut the harvest of your land, do not end off the corner of your field to cut it; and the gleaning of your harvest, you shall not gather.\") \"and when you cut\": \"And when you cut\": to exclude cutting by thieves, nibbling by ants, or breaking by wind or beast. \"And when you cut\": to exclude cutting by gentiles — whence it was ruled: If a gentile harvested his field and then became a proselyte, he is exempt from (the laws of) leket (the poor man's share), shikchah (forgotten sheaves), and peah (the corner of the field). R. Yehudah makes him liable for shikchah, shikchah obtaining only at the time of the sheaving.",
                "7) This tells me only of cutting. Whence do I derive the same for tearing? From \"to cut,\" (the repetition connoting extension of inclusion). Whence do I derive uprooting? From \"your harvest.\" This tells me only of grain. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) beans? From \"your land\" (all that is in your land). Whence do I derive trees? From \"your field.\" I might think that greens and cucumbers and gourds and melons, and cucumber-melons are all included. It is, therefore, written \"harvest.\" Just as \"harvest\" connotes what is edible, and guarded (to exclude what is hefker [ownerless]), and growing from the ground, and gathered at one time, and stored for preservation — to exclude greens, which though they are gathered at one time, are not stored for preservation; to exclude figs, which, although they are stored for preservation, are not gathered at one time. And grain and beans are included in the general rule.",
                "8) And, in trees, red berries (of the summac tree), and carobs, and nuts, and almonds, and grapes, and pomegranates, and olives, and dates are subject to peah, (being included in the general rule). ",
                "9) \"Do not end off the corner of your field\": Peah is a function of ending (even if he ended in the middle of the field), and there is no peah without a name (i.e., without his calling it \"peah\"), and peah (is given) only from the end (of his field). From here they ruled: If he gave (i.e., if he called it \"peah\") in the beginning or in the middle (of the harvest) it is peah, so long as he does not give less than one-sixtieth at the end. ",
                "10) And this is what R. Shimon was wont to say: For four reasons the Torah dictated not ending off the end of his field (as opposed to some other portion): So that the poor not be cheated (by his favoring one of his own kinsmen before they are aware that he has left something over); so that the (time) of the poor not be wasted (in waiting to see which portion will be left over); so that he not leave himself open to suspicion (of not having set aside peah); and so that he not be in violation of \"Do not end off the corner of your field.\" \"so that the poor not be cheated\": so that a man not wait for an opportune time (when other poor men are not around) and tell his poor kinsman: \"Come and take peah for yourself.\"; \"so that the (time) of the poor not be wasted\": so that the poor not sit and wait the whole day, saying \"Now he will give peah\"; but they will go to glean in a different field, and return at the time of the ending. \"so that he not leave himself open to suspicion\": so that the passersby not say: \"See how this man has harvested his field and not left over peah for the poor!\"; \"and so that he not be in violation of 'Do not end off the corner of your field'\": (by telling people that he has left over peah somewhere else in the field.)",
                "11) \"your field\": and not the field of others (i.e., If he harvests the field of gentiles, he is exempted from peah et al. R. Shimon b. Yehudah says in the name of R. Shimon: \"your field\": and not if he (has a field) in partnership with a gentile. \"your field\": to make him liable (for peah) for each one of his fields."
            ],
            "Chapter 2": [
                "1) From here (the above) they ruled: These intervene (to create two fields) for purposes of peah: a stream, a rivulet, a way for one (four cubits), a way for many (sixteen cubits), a path for many and a path for one, passable in the dry season and in the rainy season, an uncultivated (field), newly broken land, (a field which is sown with) other seed (aside from the regular), and (a field which is) cut for fodder. These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: It does not intervene unless he plows it.",
                "2) A permanent water duct is (regarded as) intervening. R. Yehudah says: If (as a result) the fields cannot be cut as one, it is (regarded as) intervening. And for all mounds which can be hoed with a (hand) hoe, even though the cattle cannot cross them with their gear, he gives one peah for all.",
                "3) All things intervene for seeds; and only a fence of twenty handbreadths intervenes for trees. If their boughs were intertwined (above the fence), it does not intervene, but he gives one peah for all.",
                "4) And for carob trees, as long as he can see one (of the trees on the other side of the fence while standing beside) another, (the fence is not regarded as intervening). R. Gamliel said: My father's house was wont to give one peah for all the olives on each side, and for carobs, wherever one could be seen from the other. R. Eliezer b. Tzaddok says in his name: The same was done even for carobs that they had in the whole city.",
                "5) \"And the gleaning (leket) of your harvest (you shall not cut\"): And not the leket (that falls) from plucking (by hand). \"and the leket of your harvest\": Only leket which comes from harvesting is regarded as leket. From here they ruled: If he harvested his handful or plucked his fistful and was stuck by a thorn or stung by a scorpion, and it fell from his hand to the ground, it belongs to the owner (of the field). (If it fell) from the midst of his hand or from the movement of the sickle (while he was harvesting), it belongs to the poor. (If it fell) after his hand or after the sickle (i.e., as the result of a non-harvesting related movement), it belongs to the owner. (If it fell) from the tip of the sickle of from his finger tips, R. Yishmael says: It belongs to the poor; R. Akiva says: It belongs to the owner.",
                "6) \"You shall not gather … (Vayikra 19:10) for the poor\": Do not aid the poor man (in gathering, for you thereby lessen another's chances). \"You shall not gather\": The poor man (who owns a field) is hereby being exhorted (to leave leket) from his own."
            ],
            "Chapter 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 19:10) \"And your vineyard you shall not glean; and the fallow fruit (peret) of your vineyard you shall not gather. To the poor man and to the stranger you shall leave them; I am the L–rd your G d.\") \"And your vineyard you shall not glean (te'oleil)\": From here they ruled: A vineyard which is all oleiloth (tendrils which have no grapes bunched together or hanging down from the end) — R. Eliezer says: It belongs to the owner; R. Akiva says: It belongs to the poor. R. Eliezer (to R. Akiva): It is written (Devarim 24:21): \"When you harvest the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it\" — If there is no harvest, whence the gleanings? R. Akiva: But it is written \"and your harvest you shall not glean\" — even if it is all gleanings. If so, what is the intent of \"when you harvest you shall not glean\"? I might think that since Scripture permitted the gleanings to the poor, they could come and take them whenever they wished; it is, therefore, written \"When you harvest … you shall not glean.\" The poor have no rights to the gleanings before the harvest.",
                "2) \"and the peret of your vineyard\": (The taking of) peret obtains only with harvesting — whence they ruled: If he were harvesting, and in cutting the clusters, they became entangled in the leaves and fell to the ground and became peret (single grapes), these belong to the owner. If one left a basket under the vine while harvesting (so that any single grapes fall into it), he is robbing the poor (of their due). Of this it is written (Mishlei 22:28) \"Do not remove the bound of yore.\"",
                "3) What are oleiloth? (Tendrils which have) neither grapes bunched together (katef) nor hanging down from the end (netef). If they had katef but not netef, or netef but not katef, they belong to the owner. If their status is doubtful, they belong to the poor. If there were oleiloth in the arkuvah (a part of the vine laid on the ground) — if it were cut together with the cluster, it belongs to the owner; if not, it belongs to the poor. A single berry — R. Yehudah says: This is regarded as (part of the) cluster. The sages say: (They are regarded as) oleiloth.",
                "4) \"to the poor man\": I might think (that this applies, too,) to the poor of others (i.e., of gentiles); it is, therefore, written \"to the stranger\" (i.e., the proselyte, who is Jewish). If \"to the stranger,\" I might think that the reference is to a ger toshav (a \"sojourning stranger,\" who is not Jewish); it is, therefore, written (in this context, Devarim 26:13) \"to the Levite.\" Just as a Levite is a son of the Covenant, so \"stranger\" is a son of the Covenant (and not a gentile).",
                "5) If \"to the Levite and to the stranger,\" I might think (that they take peah) whether or not they are in need. It is, therefore, written \"to the poor man\" — Just as \"the poor man\" is in need and is a son of the covenant, so all (to obtain peah) must meet these criteria. \"you shall leave them\": Lay it down before them and let them take it for themselves. Even if ninety-nine say that (you should) divide it (among them), and one says that (you should let them) take it — even if he is healthy and strong — he is to be heeded, for he says according to the halachah. I might think (that the same applies) to hanging (grapes) and to (hanging) dates, (where there is danger in allowing them to take it themselves); it is, therefore, written (\"leave) them\" (and not others, for taking). (In the instance of hanging fruit,) even if ninety-nine say to take them and, one says to divide them — even if he is old, even if he is sick (and is suspected to be motivated by self-interest) — he is to be heeded, for he says according to the halachah.",
                "6) Why did you see fit to say that with hanging grapes and dates they divide and with all other fruits they take? After Scripture includes, it excludes. It is written \"harvest,\" which is distinctive in that (in being on the ground), the weak can deal with it as well as the strong, to exclude hanging grapes and dates, where this is not the case. R. Shimon says: Slippery nut trees are in the same category as vines and date palms.",
                "7) \"shall you leave\": before them. Leave grain in its stalk; fenugrec, in its spike; dates in their \"broom.\" I might think (that the stalks are peah) even if the wind dispersed them; it is, therefore, written \"them\" (and not their dispersed stalks). If he set them aside (as peah, in their stalks), and then the wind dispersed them, then just as they (the poor) have acquired them, they have acquired their stalks. Whence is it derived that a possibility (safek) that something might be leket is leket, and that safek shikchah is shikchah, and safek peah is peah? From \"to the poor man and to the stranger shall you leave them\" (even a \"possibility\" of them). \"I am the L–rd your G d\" (elokeichem) (\"elokim is a judge). I exact of you \"souls\" in payment, as it is written (Mishlei 22:22 and Mishlei 22:23) \"Do not rob the needy one because he is needy, nor oppress the poor man in the gate. For the L–rd will take up their quarrel and He will rob their robbers of (their) soul.\""
            ],
            "Section 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 19:11) (\"You shall not steal, and you shall not deny, and you shall not lie, one to another.\") \"You shall not steal\": What is the intent of this (i.e., the prohibition against stealing has already been stated.) Because it is written in respect to stealing (Shemoth 22:6) \"He shall pay double, we know the punishment. Where is the exhortation? (It is here,) \"You shall not steal.\" ",
                "2) \"You shall not steal\": (Even if only) to taunt the owner, (thinking to return the theft afterwards). \"You shall not steal\": (Even to benefit the owner,) thinking to pay (kefel) double (the amount of what you have stolen) or to pay \"four and five\" (times the amount of what you have stolen.) Ben Bag Bag says: Do not steal what is yours from behind the thief, so that you yourself not appear to be a thief, (but claim the object from him to his face).",
                "3) \"and you shall not deny\": What is the intent of this\"? (i.e., it is already written, viz.: [Vayikra 5:22]). From there, we learn the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From \"and you shall not deny.\"",
                "4) \"one man to the other (amitho)\": This tells me of a man vis-à-vis his fellow man. Whence do I derive the same for a man vis-à-vis a woman? From \"amitho,\" which connotes both.",
                "5) \"You shall not steal, and you shall not deny, and you shall not lie, one man to another. (Vayikra 5:12) \"and you shall not swear in My name falsely.\" If you do steal, in the end you will deny; in the end you will lie; in the end, you will swear in My name falsely.",
                "6) \"you shall not swear falsely in My name\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Shemoth 20:7) \"You shall not take the name of the L–rd your G d in vain,\" I might think that one is liable for the distinctive name (the Tetragrammaton) alone. Whence would I derive (for inclusion) all of the epithets? It is, therefore, written \"in My name\" — any name that I have.",
                "7) (Vayikra 19:12) \"and (thereby) profane the name of your G d\": We are hereby taught that a vain oath is a profanation of the Name. Variantly: \"and you profane\" — you thereby become profane (and vulnerable to attack) to animals and beasts.",
                "8) And thus is it written (Isaiah 24:6) \"Therefore a (vain) oath has devoured the earth, and the dwellers therein are found guilty. Therefore, the inhabitants of the earth are parched, and few men are left.\"",
                "9) (Vayikra 19:13) (\"You shall not oppress your neighbor, and you shall not rob. There shall not abide with you the wages of a laborer until morning.\") \"You shall not oppress your neighbor\": I might think even by saying that one is not strong, when he is strong; that he is not wise, when he is wise; that he is not rich, when he is rich; it is therefore, written \"and you shall not rob.\" Just as \"robbery\" is distinctive in applying to money, so, \"oppression\" here applies to money. How so? Withholding the wages of a hired worker. \"There shall not abide with you the return of a hired man with you until morning.\": This tells me only of the wage of a man. Whence do I derive the same for the wage (i.e., the \"return\") of a beast (that is lent out); of vessels; of land? From \"There shall not abide with you the return\" of all things.",
                "10) \"until morning\": He does not transgress (\"There shall not abide) until the first morning. I might think (that he transgresses) even if he did not come and did not claim it; it is, therefore, written (lit.,) \"You shall not hold back\" (forcibly).",
                "11) I might think (that he transgresses) even if he diverted him (for his payment) to a storekeeper or to a money changer; it is, therefore, written \"with you\" — that it not abide with you, by your will.",
                "12) \"There shall not abide the wages of a laborer with you until the morning. This tells me of a day laborer, that he can claim (his wage) all the night. Whence do I derive that a night laborer can claim all the day? From (Devarim 24:15) \"In his day shall you give him his hire.\"",
                "13) (Vayikra 19:14) (\"You shall not curse the deaf man), and before the blind man do not place a stumbling-block. And you shall fear your G d; I am the L–rd.\") \"You shall not curse the deaf man.\": This tells me only of a deaf man. Whence are all men included? From (Shemoth 22:7) \"and a prince among your people you shall not curse.\" If so, why is \"deaf man\" written? Just as a deaf man is distinctive in being alive, (so all living men are included) — to exclude a dead man, who is not alive.",
                "14) \"and before the blind man do not place a stumbling-block.\": before one who is \"blind\" in a certain matter. If someone asks you: \"Is that man's daughter fit for (marriage into) the priesthood? Do not tell them that she is \"kosher\" if she is not. If they ask you for advice, do not give them advice that is unfit for them. Do not say: \"Leave early in the morning,\" so that robbers should assault them. \"Leave in the afternoon,\" so that they fall victim to the heat. Do not say to him \"Sell your field and buy an ass,\" and you seek occasion against him and take (procure) it from him. Lest you say \"But I gave him good advice!\" — these things are \"known to the heart,\" viz.: \"And you shall fear your God; I am the Lord.\""
            ],
            "Chapter 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 19:15) (\"You shall not do wrong in judgment. You shall not lift up the face of the poor man, and you shall not favor the face of the great one. In righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.\") \"You shall not do wrong in judgment.\": We are hereby taught that a judge who perverts justice is called \"wrong,\" \"hated,\" \"revolting,\" \"rejected,.\" \"abominable,\" and he leads to five things: He defiles the sanctuary, he desecrates the Name, he drives out the shechinah, he causes Israel to fall by the sword, and he exiles it from its land.",
                "2) \"You shall not lift up the face of the poor man\": Do not say: He is a poor man and since I and this rich man are obliged to sustain him, I shall vindicate him in judgment, so that he can support himself honorably.",
                "3) \"and you shall not favor the face of the great one\": Do not say: He is a wealthy man, the son of great ones. How can I shame him and look on at his shame!",
                "4) \"In righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.\": that one be allowed to speak at length, and the other told \"Speak briefly,\" and that one stand and the other sit. Variantly: \"In righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.\": Judge every man in the scale of merit.",
                "5) (Vayikra 19:16) (\"You shall not go spying out among your people. You shall not stand by the blood of your neighbor; I am the L–rd.\") \"You shall not go rachil among your people\": You shall not be rach (soft) to one and hard to the other. Variantly: You shall not be like a rochel (a merchant), who bandies words (from one locale to another [thus, \"rechiluth\"]).",
                "6) R. Nechemiah said: This is the practice of the judges: The litigants stand before them and state their cases, after which they are taken outside and they (the judges) deliberate upon the matter. When they are finished doing so, the litigants are brought back in, at which time the chief judge says: \"So and so, you are liable, etc.\"",
                "7) And whence is it derived that if one of the judges goes out, he should not say \"I found for you, but what can I do, my fellow (judges) are in the majority\"? From \"You shall not go rachil among your people.\" And (Mishlei 11:13) \"He who goes rachil reveals a secret, and the faithful of spirit conceals a thing.\"",
                "8) And whence is it derived that if you can testify on someone's behalf, you are not permitted to remain silent? From \"You shall not stand by the blood of your neighbor.\" And whence is it derived that if you see someone drowning in the river or being waylaid by robbers or attacked by a wild beast, that you must rescue him? From \"You shall not stand by the blood of your neighbor.\" And whence is it derived that (if you see) a man pursuing another to kill him or to sodomize him, or after a betrothed maiden, that you must rescue the pursued by (taking) the life of the pursuer? From \"You shall not stand by the blood of your neighbor.\" (Vayikra 19:17) \"You shall not hate your brother in your heart. Reprove shall you reprove your neighbor, but do not bear sin because of him.\") \"You shall not hate your brother\": I might think (that this means) that he should not curse him or strike him or slap him; it is, therefore, written \"in your heart.\" Scripture speaks only of hatred in the heart. And whence is it derived that if he reproved him four or five times (and he did not take heed), he should keep on doing so? From \"Reprove shall you reprove.\" I might think that he must do so even if his face changes color (in shame); it is, therefore, written \"but do not bear sin because of him.\" ",
                "9) R. Tarfon said: I swear that there is no one in this generation who is able to reprove, (for the one he reproves is likely to attribute even worse faults to him). R. Elazar b. Azaryah said: I swear that there is no one in this generation who is able to accept reproof. R. Akiva said: I swear that there is no one in this generation who knows how to give reproof. R. Yochanan b. Nuri said: I call heaven and earth as witness for me that more than four or five times Akiva was beaten because of me before R. Gamliel, to whom I would complain about him, and he loved me all the more for it, in keeping with (Mishlei 9:8) \"Do not reprove a scoffer lest he hate you.\"",
                "10) (Vayikra 19:18) (\"You shall not take revenge, and you shall not bear a grudge against the children of your people. And you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the L–rd.\") \"You shall not take revenge\": How far does the \"power\" of revenge extend? If one said to another: Lend me your sickle, and he did not lend him, and the next day the other said to him: Lend me your spade, and he answered: No, just as you did not lend me your sickle.",
                "11) \"you shall not bear a grudge\": How far does the \"power\" of grudge-bearing extend? If one said to another: Lend me your spade, and he did not lend him, and the next day the other said to him: Lend me your sickle, and he answered: Here it is; I am not like you, who did not lend me your spade.",
                "12) \"You shall not take revenge and you shall not bear a grudge against the children of your people\": You may take revenge of and bear a grudge against others (idolators). \"And you shall love your neighbor as yourself\": R. Akiva says: This is an all-embracing principle in the Torah. Ben Azzai says: (Bereshith 5:1) \"This is the numeration of the generations of Adam\" — This is an even greater principle.",
                "13) (Vayikra 19:19) (\"My statutes you shall keep. Your beast you shall not mate with a different breed. Your field you shall not sow with diverse seeds. And a mingled (kilaim) interwoven (sha'atnez) garment shall not come upon you.\") If it were written only \"You shall not mate your beast,\" I might think he should not take a (female) beast and stand it before a male; it is, therefore, written \"kilaim\" (a different breed); it is only kilaim that is interdicted, (and not breeding alone).",
                "14) This tells me (of mixed breeding being interdicted) only of \"your beast\" with your beast. Whence do I derive the same for your beast with that of others (gentiles); that of others with your beasts, that of others with that of others? From \"My statutes you shall keep.\"",
                "15) This tells me only of beast with beast. Whence do I derive the same for beast with animal, animal with beast, unclean with clean, clean with unclean? From \"My statutes you shall keep.\" ",
                "16) \"Your field you shall not sow\": This tells me only that he shall not sow (it with kilaim). Whence is it derived that he shall not preserve it (if it is already sown in that manner)? From \"kilaim, your field, not\" (thus, the order of words in the verse).",
                "17) Whence is it derived that it is forbidden to graft a non-fruit tree with a fruit tree, a fruit tree with a non-fruit tree, a fruit tree (of one kind) with a fruit tree (of a different kind)? From \"My statutes you shall keep.\"",
                "18) \"And a mingled, interwoven garment\": What is the intent of this? (i.e., Why mention \"garment\"?) Because it is written (Devarim 22:11) \"You shall not wear an interweaving, wool and linen together,\" I might think it is forbidden to wear strips of wool and stalks of flax; it is, therefore, written \"garment.\" This tells me only of a garment. Whence do I derive the same for felt (stuff): From \"sha'atnez,\" anything that is hackled, spun, and twined (\"shua, tavui, vanuz\" [acronym on sha'atnez]). R. Shimon b. R. Elazar says: (on \"sha'atnez\") He (the transgressor of \"sha'atnez\") is perverse (naloz) and he turns (meliz) his Father in heaven against him. From \"shall not come upon you\" I might think that he may not throw a bundle (containing sha'atnez) over his shoulder. It is, therefore, written \"You shall not wear\" (sha'atnez). If only that were written, I would think that only \"wearing\" were forbidden. Whence is the same derived for covering oneself with it? From \"there shall not come upon you.\" He is permitted to spread it beneath him but the sages have forbidden it lest a strand entwine itself on his flesh. "
            ],
            "Chapter 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 19:20) (\"And a man, if he lie with a woman, a lying of seed, and she be a maidservant, bound to a man, and redeemed she has not been redeemed, or freedom not been given to her — there shall be censure; they shall not die, for she was not freed.\") \"a man\": to exclude a minor. I might think that I exclude one older than nine years and one day (even though he might be potent); it is, therefore, written \"And a man\" (connoting inclusion).",
                "2) \"if he lie with a woman\": to exclude a minor (less than three years and one day, who is not fit for intercourse). \"a lying of seed\": to exclude peripheral (unconsummated) intercourse. \"and she be a maidservant\": I might think that Scripture is speaking of a Canaanite maidservant; it is, therefore, written \"and redeemed,\" (which cannot apply to a Canaanite maidservant). If \"and redeemed,\" I might think that she was entirely redeemed; it is, therefore, written \"she was not redeemed.\" How is this to be understood — \"redeemed and not redeemed\"? Scripture is speaking of one who is half-maidservant, half-freed woman and betrothed to a Hebrew manservant. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: Scripture is speaking of a Canaanite maidservant who is betrothed to a Hebrew manservant. If so, how is \"redeemed she has not been redeemed\" to be understood? Scripture speaks in the language of man. R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: All of the arayoth (forbidden women) have already been stated (to be free women), so that this one, which remains, must be half-maidservant, half-freedwoman, who is betrothed to a Hebrew manservant. Others say: (Scripture is speaking) of a Canaanite maidservant betrothed to a Canaanite manservant.",
                "3) \"and redeemed she has not been redeemed\": through money or its equivalent. Whence is (the possibility of redemption by) writ (of emancipation) derived? From \"or freedom not given to her,\" and elsewhere (Devarim 24:3): \"And he shall write to her a writ of divorce\" — Just as there, a writ; here, too, a writ. This tells me only that money effects half- (redemption [viz., \"and redeemed she has not been redeemed\"]), and that a writ (of emancipation) effects complete (redemption). Whence is it derived that a writ, too, can effect half-redemption? From \"and redeemed she has not been redeemed, or freedom not been given to her\" — Just as money can effect half- (redemption), so, a writ.",
                "4) \"there shall be censure\": stripes. We are hereby taught that she receives stripes. I might think that he, too, receives stripes. It is, therefore, written (lit.,) \"she shall be (censured.\") — She receives stripes; he does not.",
                "5) \"they shall not die, for she was not freed\": But if she were freed, they are liable to the death penalty. R. Shimon says in the name of R. Akiva: I might think that money consummates (her union with the manservant, so that both she and her consort are put to death); it is, therefore, written \"they shall not die for she was not freed (by writ)\" — The entire section is leading up to \"she was not freed,\" whereby we are taught that only the writ (of emancipation) effects consummation.",
                "6) (Vayikra 19:21) \"And he shall bring his guilt-offering to the L–rd, to the door of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt-offering.\" It is written here \"a ram for a guilt-offering,\" and, elsewhere (Vayikra 5:15) \"a ram .. for a guilt-offering. Just as there, with shekels of silver, here, too, with shekels of silver.",
                "7) (Vayikra 19:22) (\"And the Cohein shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt-offering before the L–rd because of his sin which he has sinned, and it shall be forgiven him (of) his sin which he has sinned.\") \"And the Cohein shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt-offering before the L–rd because of his sin which he has sinned\": We are hereby taught that he brings one offering for numerous acts of coitus (within the same time period). \"and it shall be forgiven him (of) his sin which he has sinned\": (What is the intent of this repetition?) To equate a deliberate sin with an inadvertent one (for purposes of bringing an offering).",
                "8) (In the instance of) all the arayoth, a minor (i.e., a male of nine years of age and a female of three years of age) is equated with an adult (in making the adult partner liable for the death penalty); but with a maidservant, a minor maidservant is not equated with an adult (maidservant in making her partner liable for the death penalty [viz. Vayikra 5:2]).",
                "9) (In the instance of) all the arayoth, peripheral intercourse is equated with consummated intercourse (vis-à-vis) the death penalty; but with a maidservant peripheral intercourse is not equated with consummated intercourse [viz. Vayikra 5:2]).",
                "10) (In the instance of) all the arayoth, men are equated with women both in respect to stripes (for deliberate transgression) and in respect of (bringing) an offering (for unwitting transgression); but with a maidservant, she receives stripes and he does not, and she brings a guilt-offering and he does not. (In the instance of) all the arayoth, a sin-offering (is brought), and in that of a bound maidservant, a guilt-offering. (In the instance of) all the arayoth, there is liability (for a separate offering) for each act of coitus; but in that of a maidservant, there is liability for only one offering for many acts of coitus. (In the instance of) all the arayoth, deliberate transgression was not equated with unwitting transgression (vis-à-vis the obligation to bring an offering); but in that of a maidservant, deliberate transgression was equated with unwitting transgression."
            ],
            "Section 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 19:23) (\"And when you come to the land and you plant every food tree, then you shall count as forbidden its fruit. Three years it shall be to you forbidden; it shall not be eaten.\") \"when you come\": I might think (that the laws of arlah apply) when they come to trans-Jordan; it is, therefore, written: \"to the land\" — to the specific land (i.e., Eretz Yisrael proper).",
                "2) \"when you come … and you plant\": to exclude (from arlah) what was planted by the gentiles before they entered the land. — But perhaps I exclude what was planted by gentiles after they came to the land! It is, therefore, written \"every tree\" — whence they ruled: What our ancestors found to have been planted before they came to the land is exempt (from arlah). What they planted, even before they had conquered the land, is subject (to arlah). \"and you plant\": to exclude what grows of itself. \"and you plant\": to exclude (from arlah) what is engrafted and what is sunk (in the ground to grow as an independent plant) — whence they ruled: The connection of grape vines and the engrafting on an engrafted part, even though it is sunk into the ground, is permitted (vis-à-vis arlah). R. Meir says: If (he sunk into the ground) a healthy (self-sufficient) engrafting, it is permitted; if, an unhealthy engrafting, it is forbidden. This tells me (as being subject to arlah) only of his planting a nut and an almond. Whence do I derive the same for planting a young shoot (thereof)? From \"tree\" (including a shoot thereof). \"food tree\": and not a barren tree. \"food tree\": to exclude what is planted for fencing, beams, and fuel. R. Yossi says: Even if he said: The inner is for food and the outer for fencing, the inner is subject (to arlah), and the outer not.",
                "3) R. Shimon b. Gamliel said: When is this so? (that what is planted for fencing, beams, and fuel is not subject to arlah)? When what he planted is fit for these things; but if it is not fit for these things, it is subject (to arlah). If he planted it for fuel and (afterwards) thought to use it for food, whence is it derived that it is subject (to arlah)? From \"every food tree.\" From when does he start counting? From the time of its planting, (and not from the time of its producing fruit). \"its fruit\": to exclude leaves, palm branches, vine sap, and bud sap. I might think that early grapes and half-ripe grapes are also excluded; it is, therefore, written: \"eth piryo\" (\"along with its fruit,\") to include the latter. These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva says: It is written (in the verse:) \"va'araltem\" (\"forbidden\") \"arlatho,\" \"areilim\" — to include all (as subject to arlah).",
                "4) \"three years\": I might think that for three years (arlah fruits) are forbidden, but after three years they are permitted; it is, therefore, written \"It shall be\" (i.e., it shall remain forbidden for all time). \"to you\" (plural): to include (as subject to arlah) what is planted for all.",
                "5) R. Yehudah says: \"to you\": to exclude (from arlah) what is planted for all. R. Shimon b. Elazar said in his name: What one plants for all is subject to arlah. What grew of itself for many is not subject to arlah.",
                "6) \"it shall not be eaten\": This tells me only that it may not be eaten. Whence is it derived that one may not dye with it or (otherwise) benefit from it? From \"va'araltem,\" \"arlatho,\" \"areilim\" — to include all.",
                "7) (Vayikra 19:24) (\"and in the fourth year all of its fruit shall be holy for praise to the L–rd.\") Whence is it derived that thirty days before Rosh Hashanah is considered a full year (for purposes of arlah, so that he need count only two more years until the fourth year)? From \"And in the fourth year.\" \"all of its fruit\": including peret (fallen grapes [for the poor]) and oleiloth (gleanings [for the poor]), as per Beth Hillel. For Beth Shammai says: He has peret and he has oleiloth, and the poor redeem it for themselves, whereas Beth Hillel says it all goes to the wine press.",
                "8) \"holy\": It is written here \"holy,\" and elsewhere, (in respect to ma'aser [viz. Vayikra 27:30]), \"holy.\" Just as \"holy\" there requires a one-fifth surcharge (for redemption), and removal (from the house in the fourth and seventh years of the shemitah periods), so, \"holy\" here requires a one-fifth surcharge and removal.",
                "9) \"for praise\" (lit., \"praises\"): We are hereby taught that it requires a benediction both before and after (eating). From here R. Akiva was wont to say: A man should taste nothing before reciting a blessing. (Vayikra 19:5) (\"And in the fifth year you may eat its fruit to increase for you its produce; I am the L–rd your G d.\") Whence is it derived that thirty days before Rosh Hashanah is considered a full year (for purposes of fruits of the fifth year, so that he need count only three more years until the fifth year)? From \"And in the fifth year.\" \"to increase for you its produce\": R. Yossi says: It is as if you are adding the fruits of the fifth year to the fruits of the fourth year, viz.: Just as the fruits of the fifth year belong to the owner, so the fruits of the fourth year belong to the owner. R. Akiva says: Scripture here \"addresses itself\" to the evil inclination. Lest one lament: \"I must labor fruitlessly for four years!\" it is, therefore, written (as an incentive): \"to increase for you its produce.\"",
                "10) \"its produce\": We are hereby taught that only (matured) produce is redeemed — whence they ruled that revai (the fruit of the fourth year) is not redeemed until it arrives at the tithing season."
            ],
            "Chapter 6": [
                "1) (Vayikra 19:26) (\"You shall not eat over the blood. Do not practice divination and do not practice soothsaying.\") Whence is it derived that one who eats of a beast before it expires transgresses a negative commandment? From \"You shall not eat over the blood\" (i.e., while the life-blood is still in the animal) Variantly: \"You shall not eat over the blood\": You shall not eat of the flesh (of an offering) while the blood is still in the salver (and has not yet been sprinkled). R. Dossa says: Whence is it derived that a meal of consolation is not eaten over those executed by beth-din? From \"You shall not eat over the blood.\" R. Akiva says: Whence is it derived that a Sanhedrin which executed someone is not to taste anything that day? From \"You shall not eat over the blood.\" R. Yossi b. Chalafta says: Whence is derived the exhortation against a \"rebellious son\"? From \"You shall not eat over the blood\" (i.e., You shall not eat in such a manner as to be driven to the spilling of blood.\")",
                "2) \"Do not practice divination\": in the manner of those who divine by weasels, birds, and stars. \"Do not practice soothsaying\": in the manner of those who \"capture\" the eyes (of others, causing them to believe that they are seeing wonders). R. Yishmael says: in the manner of one who passes seven kinds of semen (from different animals) over his eyes (and performs magic thereby). R. Akiva says: in the manner of those who prognosticate times on the basis of (such observations as) \"The eves of seventh years are bound to be bountiful\" (in the growth of grain); legumes are \"uprooted\" (from good at those times and are destined) to be bad.",
                "3) (Vayikra 19:27) (\"Do not round off the corners of your head, and do not destroy the corners of your beard.\") \"Do not round off\" (plural): both the doer and the subject.\" \"the corners of your head\": the edges of your head, the temples on both sides. ",
                "4) \"and do not destroy the corners of your beard\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 21:5) \"and the corners of their beard they (Cohanim) shall not shave off,\" I might think that even cutting off with a scissors as with a razor makes him liable; it is, therefore, written \"and do not destroy the corners of your beard.\" If (it were written only) \"do not destroy the corners of your beard,\" I might think that even if he removed it with a tweezer or a depilatory it makes him liable; it is, therefore, written \"and the corners of their beard they shall not shave off.\" How is this to be understood? As referring to shaving where there is destruction, i.e., (shaving with) a razor.",
                "5) \"the corners of your beard\": the edges of your beard — so that he is liable, for the head, for two — one on each side; and for the beard, two on each side and one below. R. Elazar says: If he removed all of them as one, he is liable for only one (transgression). ",
                "6) And he is not liable until he removes them with a razor. R. Elazar says: Even if he removed them with a tweezer or with a depilatory he is liable.",
                "7) (Vayikra 19:28) (\"And a cutting for a (dead) person, you shall not make in your flesh; and writing that is engraved you shall not make upon yourselves; I am the L–rd.\") \"and a cutting\": I might think that even if one lacerated himself (out of anguish) over his house that collapsed or over his ship that sank in the sea, he would be liable; it is, therefore, written \"for a person.\" Only laceration for a dead (person) is intended.",
                "8) Whence is it derived that for five lacerations for one dead person, he is liable for each laceration? From \"and a cutting,\" to make him liable for each laceration.",
                "9) R. Yossi says: Whence is it derived that for one laceration for five dead persons he is liable for each dead person? From \"for a (dead) person,\" to make him liable for each dead person.",
                "10) \"and writing that is engraved\": I might think that if he wrote, but did not engrave (into the skin), he would be liable; it is, therefore, written \"engraved.\" If \"engraved,\" I would think that if he engraved but did not write, he would be liable; it is, therefore, written \"and writing.\" How so? (He is liable) only when he writes and engraves: with ink, bluing, or anything else that leaves an impression. R. Shimon says: He is not liable until he writes the name (of an idolatry), as it is written \"… you shall not make upon yourselves — I am the L–rd.\" "
            ],
            "Chapter 7": [
                "1) (Vayikra 19:29) (\"Do not profane your daughter to make her a harlot, lest the land fall into harlotry and the land be filled with lewdness.\") \"Do not profane your daughter to make her a harlot\": I might think that (this means that) he (a Cohein) should not give her to a Levite or to an Israelite (in marriage, this being regarded as \"profanation\" in that she thus becomes unfit to eat terumah); it is, therefore, written \"to make her a harlot.\" Scripture is speaking only of the \"profanation\" of harlotry.",
                "2) And what is that? One's giving his single daughter to his neighbor, not for the sake of marriage, and, similarly, her giving herself, to this end.",
                "3) \"lest the land fall into harlotry\": by withholding its fruit. I might think (that this occurs even) if individuals (sin in this regard); it is, therefore, written \"and the land be filled with lewdness,\" and not if individuals (alone sin).",
                "4) R. Yehudah says: It is written (Jeremiah 3:23) \"And you have polluted the land with your harlotries and with your wickedness. Therefore, the showers have been withheld, and there has been no latter rain; and you had a harlot's forehead; you refused to be ashamed.\"",
                "5) R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: Because he (thereby) lives with many women, without remembering which, and she conceived from many men, without remembering which, he may mistakenly marry his own daughter or marry her to his son — so that he is married to his daughter, and his son, to his sister — so that the world is filled with mamzerim (bastards), this being the thrust of \"lewdness,\" \"zimah,\" acronymically \"zo mah hi\" (\"This one — what is it?\" [i.e., What is its parentage?])",
                "6) R. Elazar says: Whence is it derived that he (one who is promiscuous) is as guilty before the L–rd as one who lives with a woman and with her mother? It is written here \"zimah,\" and elsewhere (Jeremiah 20:14) \"And a man, if he takes a woman and her mother, it is zimah\" — whereby we are taught that he is as guilty before the L–rd as one who lives with a woman and with her mother.",
                "7) (Vayikra 19:30) (\"My Sabbaths you shall keep, and My sanctuary you shall fear; I am the L–rd.\") I might think that the building of the Temple countermanded the (keeping of the) Sabbath; it is, therefore, written \"My Sabbaths you shall keep, and My Sanctuary you shall fear.\" I might think that one should fear the sanctuary; it is, therefore, written \"My Sabbaths you shall keep, and My sanctuary you shall fear.\" Just as with the Sabbath, it is not the Sabbath that you fear, but Him who commanded that the Sabbath be kept, so, with the sanctuary, it is not the sanctuary you fear, but Him who commanded concerning it.",
                "8) This tells me only of the time when the Temple existed. Whence do I derive the same (i.e., that one must deport himself with fear at the Temple site) even when the Temple does not exist? From \"My Sabbaths you shall keep, and My sanctuary you shall fear.\" Just as the keeping of the Sabbath is eternal, so, fearing of the sanctuary is eternal.",
                "9) Which is \"fear'? One should not enter the Temple Mount with his staff and with his traveling bag, with his shoes, with his money-belt, and with the dust on his feet; and he must not make a short-cut of it — and, it goes without saying, he must not spit in it.",
                "10) (Vayikra 19:31) (\"Do not turn to the ovoth and to the yidonim. Do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the L–rd your G d.\") \"Do not turn to the ovoth and to the yidonim.\" \"ov\": This is a wizard, who speaks from his armpits; \"yidoni\": This is one who speaks (in magical fashion) through his mouth. They (the practitioners) incur the penalty of stoning, and those who solicit them transgress an exhortation.",
                "11) \"Do not seek them out to be defiled by them.\": We are hereby taught that they do not come upon one unless he turns his mind to them to be defiled by them. \"I am the L–rd your G d.\": If you defile yourself through them, know What you are exchanging for what.",
                "12) (Vayikra 19:32) (\"Before the hoary head you shall rise, and you shall honor the face of the elder. And you shall fear your G d; I am the L–rd.\") \"Before the hoary head you shall rise\": I might think even for a wicked (old man); it is, therefore, written \"elder, an elder being one who has acquired wisdom, viz. (Bamidbar 11:16) \"Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel.\" R. Yossi Haglili says: An elder (\"zaken\") is one who has acquired (\"zeh kanah\") wisdom, viz. (Mishlei 8:22) \"The L–rd has acquired me (wisdom), the beginning of His way.\"",
                "13) I might think he could stand before him from afar; it is, therefore, written \"and you shall honor the face of the elder.\" If \"and you shall honor,\" I might think with money; it is, therefore, written \"you shall rise and you shall honor.\" Just as rising involves no monetary loss, so, honoring (spoken of here) involves no monetary loss.",
                "14) What constitutes \"honoring\"? Not sitting in his place, not speaking in his place, and not contradicting his words. I might think he could close his eyes as if he did not see him, this thing is relegated to the \"heart,\" as it is written \"And you shall fear your G d; I am the L–rd.\" Of all things that are relegated to the heart (and to the Knower of hearts) it is written \"And you shall fear your G d.\"",
                "15) R. Shimon b. Elazar says: Whence is it derived that the elder should not cause (others) to exert (themselves for him)? From \"elder. And you [(for purposes of this homily, the elder)] shall fear.\""
            ],
            "Chapter 8": [
                "1) (Vayikra 19:33) (\"And if there dwell among you a stranger (i.e., a proselyte) in your land, you shall not oppress him.\") If one came and said; I am a proselyte, I might think that he is to be accepted (as such); it is, therefore, written \"among you\" — when he is acknowledged among you (to be a proselyte). If he comes along with his witnesses (that he is a proselyte), whence is it derived (that he is to be accepted)? From \"And if there dwell, etc.\" \"in your land\": This tells me (that they are accepted) only in Eretz Yisrael. Whence do I derive (the same) for outside the land? From \"among you\" — wherever you are. If so, why is it written \"in your land\"? In your land he must bring proof (that he is a proselyte); outside the land he need not bring proof.",
                "2) \"you shall not oppress him\": You shall not say to him: \"Yesterday you were an idolator, and today you have entered under the wings of the Shechinah!\"",
                "3) (Vayikra 19:34) (\"As the home-born among you shall he be to you, the stranger that lives among you.\" And you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt; I am the L–rd your G d.\") \"As the home-born\": Just as the home-born takes upon himself all the words of the Torah, so, must the proselyte take upon himself all the words of the Torah. From here they ruled: If a proselyte took upon himself all the words of the Torah except one, he is not to be accepted. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: Even (if he did not accept) a small thing of the inferences of the Scribes.",
                "4) \"shall be to you the stranger that lives among you. And you shall love him as yourself.\" Just as it is written of Jews (Vayikra 19:18) \"and you shall love your fellow as yourself,\" so is it written of proselytes \"and you shall love him as yourself.\" \"for you were strangers in the land of Egypt\": Know the soul of the strangers, for you yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt.\"",
                "5) (Vayikra 19:35) (\"You shall not do wrong in judgment: in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.\") \"You shall not do wrong in judgment\": To whom is this directed? If to a judge, it is already written, (viz. Vayikra 19:15). It is to teach us, rather, that a measurer is called a judge, and if he falsifies in measurement, he is called: \"wrong,\" \"hated,\" \"revolting,\" \"rejected,\" \"abominable,\" and he brings about five things: He defiles the sanctuary, he desecrates the Name, he drives out the Shechinah, he causes Israel to fall by the sword, and he exiles them from their land.",
                "6) \"in meteyard\": This is land measure. \"in weight\": tritani (gold and silver measure). \"in measure\": This refers to the large crest (in dry measure). Others say: This refers to kutith (in liquid measure). Others say: This refers to the leveling stick.",
                "7) (Vayikra 19:36) (\"Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin shall you have; I am the L–rd your G d, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.\") \"just balances\": Justify the scales precisely. \"just weights\": Justify the weights precisely. \"a just ephah\": Justify the eiphoth (dry measures) precisely. \"and a just hin\": Justify the hin (liquid measure) precisely. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: Is not \"hin\" included in \"ephah\"? Why, then, is it written \"and a just hin\"? To teach that your \"No\" should be just and that your \"Yes\" (\"hehn,\" similar to \"hin\") should be just.",
                "8) \"shall you have\": Appoint agardimim (market commissioners) to this end — whence they ruled: The wholesaler cleans his measures once in thirty days; the retailer, once in twelve months. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: Reverse it. The shopkeeper cleans his measures twice a week, and wipes his weights once a week, and cleans his scales for each weighing.",
                "9) R. Shimon b. Gamliel said: When is this so? With liquid measure, but with dry measure it is not needed. And (in weighing a litra of meat or more), he must allow the scale (containing the meat) to sink one handbreadth lower (than the scale of weights [i.e., he most give overweight]). If he weighed exactly, he must give him the due surplus — one-tenth in liquid measure and one-twentieth in dry measure.",
                "10) \"I am the L–rd your G d, who brought you out of the land of Egypt\": On this condition I brought you out of the land of Egypt, that you take upon yourselves the mitzvoth of measures. For all who acknowledge the mitzvah of measures acknowledge the exodus from Egypt, and all who deny the mitzvah of measures deny the exodus from Egypt.",
                "11) (Vayikra 19:37) (\"And you shall heed all of My statutes and all of My judgments, and you shall do them; I am the L–rd.\") \"And you shall heed all of My statutes and all of My judgments and you shall do them\": to assign heeding and doing to the statutes, and heeding and doing to the judgments. \"I am the L–rd.\": trusted to reward."
            ],
            "Section 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 20:2) (\"And to the children of Israel you shall say: A man, a man, of the children of Israel, and of the stranger who sojourns in Israel, who gives of his seed to the Molech, he shall die; the people of the land shall stone him with a stone.\") \"And to the children of Israel you shall say\": \"And to the children of Israel you shall speak,\" \"Say to the children of Israel,\" \"Speak to the children of Israel,\" \"Command the children of Israel,\" \"And you command the children of Israel\": R. Yossi says: The Torah spoke in the language of man, in many forms, and all require expounding: \"Israel\" — as stated; \"stranger\" — these are the proselytes; \"who sojourns\" — to include the wives of the proselytes. \"in Israel\" — to include women and servants.",
                "2) If so, why is it written \"a man, a man\"? To include gentiles who cohabit with the arayoth of the nations (i.e., with those whom they consider arayoth), that they are to be punished according to the laws of the nations (i.e., by the sword); and who cohabited with the arayoth of Israel, that they are to be punished according to the laws of Israel.",
                "3) who gives of his seed to the Molech\": and not to other varieties (of idolatry). \"who gives of his seed to the Molech\": What is the intent of this? (i.e., Is it not already written (Vayikra 18:21) \"And from your seed you shall not give, etc.\"?) (For) if from there, I might think that even if he (himself) passed (him through fire) and did not give him (to the priest of Molech to do so), he would be liable; it is, therefore, written (for emphasis) \"who gives of his seed.\" I might think that even if he gave, but did not pass, he is still liable; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:21) \"And from your seed you shall not give to pass to the Molech.\" I might think he would be liable even if he did not pass him through fire; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 18:10) \"There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire\" \"passing\"-\"passing\" for an identity (gezeirah shavah) — Just as \"passing\" here is for the Molech, so \"passing\" there; and just as \"passing\" there is through fire, so, \"passing\" here. In sum: There must be giving, and passing, through fire, to the Molech.",
                "4) \"he shall die\": at the hands of beth-din. Whence is it derived that if beth-din lack the power to do so, the people of the land may assist them\"? From \"the people of the land shall stone him.\" Variantly: \"the people of the land\" — the people for whose sake the land was created. R. Gamliel says: the people who are destined to inherit the land by carrying out those things. \"shall stone him\" — unclad. \"with a stone\": If he dies through one stone, it sufficed.",
                "5) (Vayikra 20:3) (\"And I will set My face against that man, and I will cut him off from the midst of his people; for of his seed he has given to the Molech, to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name.\") \"And I will set My face (panai)\": I will \"free myself (poneh ani [similar to panai]) from all of My \"affairs,\" and occupy Myself entirely with him. \"against that man\": and not against the congregation. \"that man\": and not one who is constrained, or unwitting, or mistaken. \"and I will cut him off from the midst of his people\": But his people will remain at peace.",
                "6) \"for of his seed he has given to the Molech\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Devarim 18:10) \"There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire,\" I might think only his son or daughter. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the daughter of his son and the son of his daughter? From \"for of his seed he has given to the Molech.\"",
                "7) This tells me only of kosher seed. Whence do I derive (the same) for seed that is pasul (such as a mamzer)? From (Vayikra 20:4) \"when he gives of his seed to the Molech\" — all seed.",
                "8) (Vayikra 20:3): \"to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name\": We are hereby taught that he defiles the sanctuary, and desecrates the Name, and drives out the Shechinah, and causes Israel to fall by the sword, and exiles them from their land.",
                "9) (Vayikra 20:4) (\"And if the people of the land avert, they shall avert their eyes from that man when he gives of his seed to the Molech, not to kill him.\") Whence is it derived that if they \"avert\" in one thing, they shall \"avert\" in many things? From \"And if avert, they shall avert.\"",
                "10) And whence is it derived that if one beth-din averts (its eyes), many batei-din are destined to do so? From \"And if avert, they shall avert.\"",
                "11) Whence is it derived that if the sanhedriyoth of Israel \"avert,\" the Great Sanhedrin is destined to do so and they will forfeit the adjudication of capital offenses? ",
                "12) From \"And if the people of the land avert, they shall avert.\" \"not to kill him\": in any manner that they choose (if they cannot do it as indicated here).",
                "13) See 5) above. \"and against his family\": R. Shimon asked: How did his family sin? We are hereby taught that there is no family with a tax-gouger where all are not tax-gougers; where there is a thief, where all are not thieves — for they (support and) cover up for him.",
                "14) (Vayikra 20:5) \"And I shall cut off him\": What is the intent of this (emphasis upon \"him\")? \"He is to be cut off (kareth), and not his family, but they are to suffer afflictions.",
                "15) \"And I shall cut off him and all who stray after him to stray after the Molech\": to include (as subject to kareth their serving) other idolatries (in one manner of the Molech service). \"from the midst of their people\": but their people remain at peace. "
            ],
            "Chapter 9": [
                "1) (Vayikra 20:9) (\"For a man, a man, who curses his father and his mother shall be put to death. He has cursed his father and his mother; his blood is in him.\") \"A man\": This tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman? From \"A man, a man.\" \"who curses his father\": and not the father of his father. \"and his mother\": and not the father of his mother. \"his father\": (one who is) definitely (his father), and not one (whose paternity is) in doubt. \"his mother\": definitely, and not in doubt.",
                "2) \"He has cursed his father and his mother\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Shemoth 21:19) \"And he who curses his father and his mother shall be put to death,\" I might think that he is not liable until he curses both of them; it is, therefore, written \"He has cursed his father; (\"He has cursed) his mother\" — either one. A proselyte, then, is liable for (cursing) his mother, but not for (cursing) his father, (there being no \"fatherhood\" for a proselyte.) These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Akiva says: \"He has cursed his father and his mother\": One who is liable for (cursing) his father is liable for (cursing) his mother. One who is not liable for his father is not liable for his mother. R. Akiva concedes that a shtuki (an illegitimate child of unknown fatherhood) is liable for (cursing) his mother even though he is not liable for (cursing) his father.",
                "3) Variantly: \"He has cursed his father and his mother\": even after death. For (without this verse) would it not follow (that he is not liable), viz.: The striker (of his parents) is liable, and the curser is liable. Just as the striker is liable only in their lifetime, so, the curser. It must, therefore, be written \"He has cursed his father and his mother\" — even after death. \"His blood is in him\": (He is to be put to death) by stoning.",
                "4) (Vayikra 20:22) \"And you shall heed all of My statutes and all of My judgments, and you shall do them\": to assign heeding and doing for statutes, and heeding and doing for judgments. (Vayikra 20:22) \"and the land will not vomit you out, whither I bring you, to dwell in it\": I bring you there to inherit it — not as the Canaanites, who were caretakers of the place until your coming.",
                "5) (Vayikra 20:23) \"And you shall not walk in the statutes of the nation\" — the Egyptians. \"which I am sending away before you\" — the Canaanites. \"For all of these they did\": We are hereby apprised that the Canaanites were steeped in these things, and I am exiling them only because of these things, as a man who despises his food.",
                "6) (Vayikra 20:24) \"And I said to you: You shall inherit their land\": You are deservant of it, for you initiated this (i.e., you were chaste in the very beginning, viz. (Shir Hashirim 4:12) \"A locked garden is My sister, My bride; a locked spring; a sealed fountain.\"",
                "7) (Vayikra 20:24) \"And I will give it to you to inherit it\": I am destined to give it to you as an eternal inheritance. Lest you say: \"Have you nothing to give us, but what belongs to others!\" — It is yours, the inheritance of Shem and his sons. And they (the Canaanites) are the sons of Cham. What, then, are they doing there? They were caring for the place until you came!",
                "8) (Vayikra 20:24) \"I am the L–rd your G d, who separated you from the peoples.\": See how different you are from the peoples. Among the idolators, a man decorates his wife and gives her to another; a woman decorates herself and gives herself to another!",
                "9) (Vayikra 20:25) (\"And you shall separate between the clean beast and the unclean, and between the unclean fowl and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves disgusting through the beast or the fowl, or through anything with which the ground swarms, which I have separated for you as unclean.\") \"And you shall separate between the clean beast and the unclean\": It should be \"between the cow and the ass.\" But these have already been stated. What is the intent, then, of \"between the clean beast and the unclean\"? Between what is clean for you and what is unclean for you. Between the severing of the majority of the windpipe, (in which case the animal is kasher) and the severing of half (in which case it is treifah). And what is that difference? A full hairsbreadth!",
                "10) \"which I have separated for you as unclean (i.e., as forbidden, [as in the above]).",
                "11) (Vayikra 20:26) \"And you shall be holy unto Me, for I, the L–rd, am holy\": Just as I am holy, so, you be holy. Just as I am separate, so, you be \"separate.\"",
                "12) (Vayikra 20:26) \"and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine\": If you are separate from the peoples, you are Mine; if not, you are \"Nevuchadnezzar's\" and his cohorts'. R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: Whence is it derived that a man should not say: I do not desire to wear sha'atnez; I do not desire to eat the flesh of a pig; I do not desire to cohabit with ervah (illicit relations). I do desire it, but what can I do? My Father in heaven has decreed against it! — From \"and I have set you apart from the peoples to be unto Me.\" It is found, then, that he separates from sin because he accepted upon himself the Kingdom of heaven.",
                "13) (Vayikra 20:27) \"And a man or a woman, if there be in them an ov or a yidoni, they shall be put to death\": This tells me only of a man or a woman. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) a tumtum (one of indefinite sex) or a hermaphrodite? From \"or a woman.\" \"if there be in them\": not (to be put to death are) those who solicit them. \"ov\": This is a wizard, who speaks from his armpits. \"yidoni\": This is one who speaks (in magical fashion) through his mouth. They incur stoning, and those who solicit them transgress an exhortation.",
                "14) (Vayikra 20:27) \"they shall be put to death. With stones they shall stone them; their blood is in them\": This is the archetype (binyan av) for all \"their blood is in them\" mentioned in scripture as referring to death by stoning."
            ],
            "Chapter 10": [
                "1) (Vayikra 10:6) \"And the soul that turns to the ovoth and to the yidonim to stray after them\": Why is this written? From (Vayikra 20:27) \"And a man or a woman an ov or a yidoni … with stones shall they stone them,\" we hear the punishment. Whence do we derive the exhortation? From (Vayikra 19:31) \"Do not turn to the ovoth and to the yidonim.\" We hear the punishment and the exhortation, but we have not heard kareth (cutting-off). It is, therefore, written \"And the soul that turns to the ovoth and to the yidonim … I shall cut him off from the midst of his people.\"",
                "2) (Vayikra 20:7) \"And you shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy\": This is the holiness of separation from idolatry. You say that it is the holiness of separation from idolatry, but perhaps it is the holiness of (performing) all of the mitzvoth! — \"Holy shall you be\" (Vayikra 19:2) already speaks of the holiness of all the mitzvoth. \"And you shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy,\" then, must refer to the holiness of separation from idolatry. (Vayikra 19:7) \"For I am the L–rd your G d\": I am the Judge, exacting (punishment) and trusted to reward.",
                "3) (Vayikra 20:8) \"And you shall heed My statutes and do them\": This tells me only of what Scripture specifies. Whence do I derive (the necessity of observance of) the other inferences of the section? From (Vayikra 20:8) \"And you shall heed My statutes and do them.\"",
                "4) (Vayikra 20:8) \"I am the L–rd who makes you holy\": Just as I am holy, so, you be holy.\"",
                "5) (Vayikra 20:9) \"For a man, a man\": What is the intent of this? To include a daughter, a tumtum, and a hermaphrodite. \"who curses his father and his mother shall be put to death\": This tells me only of his father and his mother. Whence do I derive the same for (one who curses) his mother without (cursing) his father, or his father without his mother? From \"He has cursed his father and his mother,\" in any event. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: (\"His father and his mother) implies both together or each by itself unless Scripture explicitly states \"together\" (as it does in the case of kilaim).",
                "6) \"For a man, a man, who curses his father and his mother\": by the Name (i.e., the tetragrammaton). — You say: by the Name. But perhaps (it means even) by epithet. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 24:16) \"If he blasphemes the Name, he shall die.\" Let it not be written \"the Name,\" (for in that context it is obvious). (It must be written, then,) for the purpose of including one who curses his father and mother, that he is not liable until he curses them by the Name. These are the words of R. Achi b. Yoshiah. R. Chanina b. Iddi says: Since Scripture states \"Swear\" and \"Do not swear,\" \"Curse\" and \"Do not curse,\" just as \"Curse\" is by the Name, so, \"Do not curse\" is by the Name.",
                "7) \"he shall be put to death\" by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps it is by one of the other death penalties in the Torah. It is, therefore, written \"his blood is in him,\" and elsewhere (Vayikra 24:27), (in respect to ov and yidoni) \"Their blood is in them.\" Just as there, by stoning; here, too, by stoning. We have heard the punishment, but we have not heard the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 22:27) \"Elohim you shall not curse.\" If his father is a judge, he is included in \"Elohim you shall not curse,\" and if he is a prince (nassi), he is included in (Shemoth 22:27) \"and a prince in your people you shall not revile.\" If he is neither a judge nor a prince, it is to be derived by induction (binyan av) through both, viz.: Judge is not like prince and prince is not like judge. Their common denominator is that they are \"in your people,\" and you are exhorted against cursing them. Your father, too, is \"in your people,\" and you are exhorted against cursing him.",
                "8) (Vayikra 20:10) (\"And a man who lives with another man's wife, who lives with the wife of his neighbor — they shall be put to death, the adulterer and the adulteress.\") \"And a man\": to exclude a minor. \"who lives with another man's wife\": to exclude the wife of a minor. \"who lives with the wife of his neighbor\": to exclude the wife of others (i.e., idolators). \"shall be put to death\": by strangulation. You say by strangulation, but perhaps it is by one of the other death penalties in the Torah. Would you say that? Go and see every unqualified \"death\" in the Torah — you are not permitted to draw it out towards severity, but towards leniency, (and strangulation is the most lenient of the death penalties). These are the words of R. Yoshiah. R. Yonathan says: Not because it is the most lenient, but because it is written unqualified, and every \"death\" written unqualified is strangulation. Rebbi says (in explanation of R. Yonathan): \"Death\" is written in respect to death at the hands of Heaven, and \"death\" is written in respect to death at the hands of man. Just as death at the hands of Heaven leaves no visible trace, so, death at the hands of man leaves no visible trace — whence they said: The procedure for strangulation: They would steep him in waste matter until his hips, place a hard cloth in a soft one, tie it around his neck, and one would pull from one side and one from the other, until his soul expired. We have heard the punishment. Whence is the exhortation derived? From (Shemoth 20:13) \"You shall not commit adultery\" — both the man and the woman.",
                "9) (Vayikra 20:11) (\"And a man who lies with his father's wife, he has revealed the nakedness of his father. Both of them shall be put to death; their blood is in them.\") \"And a man\": to exclude a minor. \"who lies with his father's wife\": This implies both his father's wife who is his mother and his father's wife who is not his mother. Whence do we derive (for inclusion) his mother who is not his father's wife, (as when his father raped a woman, who gave birth to him)? From \"he has revealed the nakedness of his father,\" which is superfluous for (purposes of) comparison and the derivation of an identity (gezeirah shavah [below]). \"Both of them shall be put to death\": by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps it is by one of the other death penalties in the Torah! It is, therefore, written \"their blood is in them\" and, elsewhere (Vayikra 20:27) \"their blood is in them.\" Just as the penalty there is stoning; here, too, it is stoning. We have heard the punishment, but we have not heard the exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:7) \"The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not reveal.\" \"the nakedness of your father\" — this is your father's wife. You say that it is your father's wife, but perhaps it is your father's nakedness, literally, (i.e., sodomy)! — You reason (otherwise), viz.: It is written here (Vayikra 18:7) \"the nakedness of your father,\" and elsewhere (Vayikra 20:11) \"he has revealed the nakedness of his father.\" Just as \"the nakedness of his father there refers to the wife of your father, so \"the nakedness of your father\" here (Vayikra 18:7) refers to the wife of your father, and it implies both the wife of his father who is his mother and the wife of his father who is not his mother. Whence is derived (for inclusion) his mother who is not the wife of his father, (but a woman he ravished)? From (Vayikra 18:7) \"the nakedness of your mother you shall not reveal.\" This tells me only of the exhortations. Whence are the punishments derived? You derive it by induction, viz.: It is written here (Vayikra 18:7) of the nakedness of his father, and it is written elsewhere (Vayikra 10:11) of the nakedness of his father. Just as in the latter instance, his mother who is not the wife of his father, (but a woman he ravished) is equated with his father's wife, in the former instance, too, she is equated with his father's wife, (and this is the \"gezeirah shavah\" referred to above). (Vayikra 18:7) \"she is your mother\": You make him liable for (only one sin-offering, by reason of her being) his mother, and you do not make him liable for (another sin-offering, by reason of her being) his father's wife.",
                "10) (Vayikra 20:12) (\"And if a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death. They have wrought corruption; their blood is in them.\") \"And a man if he lies with his daughter-in-law … they have wrought corruption\": in that they have \"twisted the cord\" (of procreation, both father and son lying with the same woman). They shall be put to death\": by stoning. You say it is by stoning, but perhaps it is by one of the other death penalties in the Torah! It is, therefore, written \"their blood is in them,\" and, elsewhere (Vayikra 20:27) \"their blood is in them.\" Just as the penalty there is stoning; here, too, it is stoning. We have heard the exhortation, but we have not heard the punishment; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:15) \"The nakedness of your daughter-in-law you shall not reveal.\" If \"your daughter-in-law,\" I would think even a maidservant or a gentile woman; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:15) \"She is the wife of your son.\" Scripture speaks only of a woman with whom there is \"wifehood\" with your son — to exclude a maidservant and a gentile woman, where this does not obtain.",
                "11) (Vayikra 20:13) (\"And if a man lies with a male, the lyings of a woman, an abomination has been wrought by both of them. They shall be put to death; their blood is in them.\") \"a man\": to exclude a minor. \"who lies with a male\": Even a minor is implied. \"the lyings of a woman\": R. Yishmael says: This comes to teach (something about lying with a male) and ends up being taught (something about lying with a female) — that there are two lyings with a woman (for liability, normative and non-normative). \"they shall be put to death\": by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps it is by one of the other death penalties in the Torah; it is, therefore, written \"their blood is in them.\" Just as \"their blood is in them\" elsewhere (Vayikra 20:27) is by stoning, so, here. We have heard the punishment, but we have not heard the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:22) \"And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman.\" This is an exhortation only against the active participant. Whence is derived the exhortation against the passive participant? From (Devarim 23:18) \"There shall be no harlot from the sons of Israel,\" and (I Kings 14:24) \"And also a harlot (masculine) was in the land; they did according to all the abominations of the nations.\" (and homosexuality, specifically, is called \"abomination.\") R. Akiva says (In) \"And with a male you shall not lie (tishkav) the lyings of a woman,\" (\"tishkav\") can (also) be read as \"tishachev\" (\"be lain with\"). R. Chanina b. Iddi says: (A man's) lying with a male and with an animal were included in all of the arayoth (illicit relations). Why did Scripture single them out to call them \"abominations\"? To teach: Just as these are ervah, deliberate transgression of which is liable to kareth, and unwitting transgression, to a sin-offering, and because of which the Canaanites were exiled, so (for) every ervah which is thus liable, the Canaanites were exiled.",
                "12) (Vayikra 20:14) (\"And if a man takes a woman and her mother, it is lewdness (zimah). In fire they shall be burned, he and they, and there shall not be lewdness in your midst.\") \"And a man\": to exclude a minor. \"if he takes a woman and her mother\": In all instances (of ervah), \"lying\" is written, and here \"taking\" is written, to teach that he is liable (for ervah) only by way of (previous) taking (in marriage) — whence they ruled: One may marry (the close kin) of a woman that he has forced or seduced; but one who forces or seduces (the close kin) or a woman he has married is liable.",
                "13) \"a woman and her mother\": This tells me only of a woman and her mother. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) her daughter, the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son? It is written here \"zimah,\" and elsewhere (Vayikra 18:17) \"zimah.\" Just as there, her daughter, her daughter's daughter, and her son's daughter, so, her.",
                "14) Whence is it derived that males re like females (in this regard; i.e., that his progeny outside of wedlock (his daughter, his daughter's daughter and his son's daughter) are like hers (the progeny of his wife by marriage [see above])? It is written \"zimah\" here, and elsewhere (Vayikra 18:17) — Just as there, males are like females (in this regard), so, here. And whence is it derived that the lower (i.e., more distant kin — his father-in-law's mother and his mother-in-law's mother) are as the higher (i.e., closer kin — his mother-in-law — in this regard)? It is written here \"zimah,\" and elsewhere (Vayikra 18:17) \"zimah\" — Just as there, the lower (i.e., her daughter's daughter and her son's daughter) are as the higher (i.e., her own daughter), so, here.",
                "15) \"in fire shall they be burned, he and ethhen\" — (acronym of) \"eth achath mehen\" (\"one of them, i.e., even if only one of them [wife and mother-in-law] is alive, she [evidently, the mother-in-law] is to be burned.) These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: he and both of them (i.e., only if both of them are alive is she [his mother-in-law] to be burned.) We have heard the punishment, but not the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:17) \"The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not reveal.\""
            ],
            "Chapter 11": [
                "1) (Vayikra 20:15) (\"And if a man gives his lying to a beast, he shall be put to death, and the beast you shall kill.\") \"And a man\": to exclude a minor. \"who gives his lying to a beast\" — whether full grown or not. \"he shall be put to death\": by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps it is by one of the other death penalties in the Torah; it is, therefore, written \"and the beast you shall kill,\" and, elsewhere (Devarim 13:10) \"You shall surely kill him.\" Just as there, by stoning; so, here, by stoning.",
                "2) We have learned the punishment for the active participant. Whence do we derive the punishment for the passive participant? From (Shemoth 28:18) \"Whoever lies with a beast shall be put to death.\" If it is not needed for the active participant, learn it as applying to the passive one. We have learned the punishment both for the active participant and for the passive one. Whence is derived the exhortation? From (Vayikra 18:23) \"And with every beast do not give your lying to become unclean with it.\" We have learned the exhortation for the active participant. Whence do we learn that for the passive participant? From (Devarim 23:18) \"There shall not be a harlot from the sons of Israel,\" and (I Kings 14:24) \"And there was also a harlot in the land; they did as all the abominations of the nations, etc.\" These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: This is not needed; it is written \"Do not give shechavtecha\" (\"your lying\"), which can also be read as \"Do not give shechivatecha\" (\"your being lain with.\")",
                "3) (Vayikra 20:16) (\"And a woman who comes to any beast so that it mount her, you shall kill the woman and the beast. They shall be put to death; their blood is in them.\") \"They shall be put to death\": by stoning. You say by stoning, but perhaps it is one of the other death penalties in the Torah. It is, therefore, written here \"their blood is in them,\" and, elsewhere (Vayikra 20:27) \"the blood is in them. Just as there, by stoning; here, too, by stoning.",
                "4) We have heard the punishment, but not the exhortation; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:23) \"And a woman shall not stand before a beast to mount her; it is perverse.\"",
                "5) \"and you shall kill the woman and the beast\": If the man sinned, how did the beast sin? But because it led to the man's undoing, Scripture writes \"Let it be stoned!\" Now does this not follow a fortiori: If of beast, which cannot discriminate between good and evil, because it led to a man's undoing, Scripture writes \"Let it be stoned!\" then a man, who leads his fellow to veer from the path of life to the path of death — how much more so should the Holy One remove him from the world!",
                "6) Similarly: (Devarim 12:2-3) \"Destroy shall you destroy all the places … and you shall throw down their altars, etc.\" Now if of the places and the tree (used for idolatry), which cannot see and cannot hear and cannot speak, because they led to a man's undoing, Scripture writes \"Destroy!\" \"Burn!\" \"Raze!\" and \"Remove (them) from the world!\" then a man who leads his fellow to veer from the path of life to the path of death — how much more so should the Holy One remove him from the world! What is written of the righteous? (Devarim 20:19) \"If you besiege a city many days to war upon it, to capture it, do not destroy its tree by lifting an axe against it, for from it shall you eat, but it shall you not cut down\": Now does this not follow a fortiori: If trees, which do not see, and which do not hear, and which do not speak — because they grow fruits, the Holy One pitied them, not to remove them from the world, then a man who \"grows\" Torah and does the will of his Father in heaven — how much more so will the Holy One pity him against removing him from the world!",
                "7) Of the wicked: (Devarim 20:20) \"Only a tree that you know that it is not a fruitful tree, it shall you destroy and cut down, etc.\": Now does this not follow a fortiori: If trees, which do not see, and which do not hear, and which do not speak, because they do not grow fruits, the Holy One did not pity them against removing them from the world, then a man who does not \"grow\" Torah and does not do the will of his Father in heaven, how much more so will the Holy One not pity him against removing him from the world.",
                "8) R. Yochanan b. Zakkai said (Devarim 27:6) \"Of whole (shleimoth) stones shall you build the altar of the L–rd your G d, etc.\": \"stones which make peace\" (shalem). Now does this not follow a fortiori: If stones, which do not see, and which do not hear, and which do not speak — because they \"make peace\" between Israel and their Father in heaven, Scripture writes (Devarim 27:5) \"You shall not lift iron over them,\" then a man who makes peace between a man and his wife, between family and family, between city and city, between country and country, and between one people and another — how much more so will calamity not befall him!",
                "9) R. Shimon b. Elazar says: Iron was created to shorten a man's days, and the altar was created to lengthen them. It is not fit that the \"shortener\" be lifted over the \"lengthener.\"",
                "10) (Vayikra 20:17) (\"And a man who takes his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is chesed. And they shall be cut off before the eyes of their people. The nakedness of his sister he has revealed; he shall bear his sin.\") \"And a man\": to exclude a minor. \"who takes his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother\": This tells me only of the daughter of his father, who is not the daughter of his mother, or the daughter of his mother, who is not the daughter of his father. Whence do I derive (for inclusion his sister) both from his father and from his mother? From (the repetition of) \"his sister\" — in any event. — But even without the repetition, I would derive it a fortiori, viz.: If he is liable for his sister from his father, who is not the daughter of his mother, and from his mother, who is not the daughter of his father, how much more so (is he liable for his sister) both from his father and from his mother! — But if you say this, you have punished by means of an a fortiori argument — wherefore it is written \"his sister,\" to teach that there is no punishment by means of an a fortiori argument.",
                "11) \"and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness\": (In order for both to be liable to kareth) they must both transgress wilfully (and not unwittingly). \"it is chesed\" (connoting \"shameful\") And lest you say: But Cain married his sister! It is, therefore, written \"it is chesed (sometimes connoting lovingkindness) and the world, in its beginning, was created only with lovingkindness, viz. (Tehillim 89:3) \"For I have said: The world will be built by chesed.\"",
                "12) \"And they shall be cut off before the eyes of their people.\" We have heard the punishment, but we have not heard the exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:9) \"The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother … you shall not reveal.\" This tells me only of ht daughter of his father who is not the daughter of his mother, or the daughter of his mother who is not the daughter of his father. Whence do I derive (for inclusion his sister) both from his father and from his mother? From (the repetition of ) \"your sister\" (Vayikra 18:11) — in any event. — But even without the repetition, I could derive it a fortiori, viz.: If he is exhorted for his sister from his father, who is not the daughter of his mother, and from his mother, who is not the daughter of his father, how much more so (is he exhorted for his sister) both from his father and from his mother! — But if you say this, you have exhorted by means of an a fortiori argument — wherefore it is written \"your sister,\" to teach that there is no exhortation by means of an a fortiori argument.",
                "13) If (Vayikra 18:9) \"your sister,\" I might think even by a maidservant or by a gentile woman; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:11) \"the daughter of your father's wife.\" If \"the daughter of your father's wife,\" I would think even (the daughter) by another man; it is, therefore, written \"begotten of your father\" If so, why is it written (Vayikra 18:9) \"born of the home or born of the outside? Whether (born of one concerning whom) we tell him \"Keep her\" (in the home, i.e., one that he was permitted to marry) or (born of one concerning whom) we tell him \"Send her out\" (i.e., one that he was not permitted to marry). "
            ],
            "Chapter 12": [
                "1) (Vayikra 20:18) (\"And a man who lies with a woman in her flow and reveals her nakedness — he has bared her fountain and she has revealed the fountain of her blood; and both of them shall be cut off from the midst of their people.\") \"And a man\": to exclude a minor. \"who lies with a woman in her flow\" (davah): \"davah\" is \"niddah,\" as it is written (Vayikra 15:33) \"And she who flows (davah) with her niddah flow, and he who flows with his discharge.\"",
                "2) He has bared (he'erah) her fountain, and she has revealed the fountain of her blood\" — whence it is derived that peripheral (non-consummated) intercourse (\"he'arah\") is reckoned as consummated intercourse. This tells me only of niddah. Whence do I derive the same for all of the arayoth? — Just as with niddah, where willful transgression is liable to kareth and unwitting transgression, to a sin-offering, he'arah is reckoned as consummated intercourse — so, with every ervah, where willful transgression is liable to kareth and unwitting transgression, to a sin-offering, he'arah is reckoned as consummated intercourse. — No, this may be so with niddah, where tumah obtains, wherefore he'arah is reckoned as consummated intercourse, but not with all the other arayoth, where tumah does not obtain, wherefore he'arah is not reckoned as consummated intercourse! It is, therefore, written (in relation to the sister of his father or of his mother) \"For he has bared (he'erah) his kin.\" You derive it from both, viz.: Niddah (where tumah obtains) is not like the sister of his father, and the sister of his father, (who is kin), is not like niddah. What is common to both is that they are ervah, where willful transgression is liable to kareth, and unwitting transgression to a sin-offering, and he'arah is reckoned as consummated intercourse. Likewise, I derive that with every ervah, where willful transgression is liable to kareth and unwitting transgression to a sin-offering, he'arah is reckoned as consummated intercourse.",
                "3) \"and both of them shall be cut off from the midst of their people\": We have heard the punishment but not the exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:19): \"And to a woman in the niddah state of her uncleanliness, (you shall not come near to reveal her nakedness.\")",
                "4) (Vayikra 20:19) (\"And the nakedness of the sister of your mother and the sister of your father you shall not reveal. For he has bared his kin; they shall bear their sin.\") \"And the nakedness of the sister of your mother and the sister of your father you shall not reveal.\": \"the sister of your mother\": whether from her father or from her mother. \"and the sister of your father\": whether from her father or from her mother. — But perhaps the meaning is from her father, but not from her mother. And this would follow, viz.: Since he is forbidden to the wife of his father's brother, and he is forbidden to the sister of his mother and to the sister of his father, then just as he is forbidden (only) to the wife of his brother from his father, and not from his mother, so, he should be forbidden (only) to the sister of his mother and the sister of his mother from her father and not from her mother! It is, therefore, written (a second time, [after 18:12 and Vayikra 18:13]) \"And the nakedness of the sister of your mother and the sister of your father you shall not reveal\" — \"the sister of your mother,\" whether from her father or from her mother, \"and the sister of your father,\" whether from her father or from her mother. \"For he has bared his kin\": as we have stated (above, halachah 2).",
                "5) \"they shall bear their sin\": We have heard the punishment but not the exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:12-13): \"The nakedness of the sister of your father you shall not reveal; she is the kin of your father. The nakedness of the kin of your mother you shall not reveal; for she is the kin of your mother.\"",
                "6) (Vayikra 20:20) (\"And a man who lies with his uncle's wife, the nakedness of his uncle he has revealed. They shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.\") \"And a man\": to exclude a minor. \"who lies with his uncle's wife\": The verse speaks of the wife of his father's brother. — But perhaps it speaks of the wife of his mother's brother! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:14): \"The nakedness of the brother of your father you shall not reveal. To his wife do not come near\"; (she is your uncle []i.e., the wife of your uncle]\") It is written here (our verse) \"dodathecha\" (lit., \"dodatho\") and there \"dodathecha\". Just as there the verse refers to the wife of his father's brother; here, too, it refers to the wife of his father's brother. — But perhaps it refers to the wife of his father's brother by his mother, and this would follow, viz.: Just as he is forbidden to the sister of his mother and to the sister of his father, and he is forbidden to the wife of his father's brother, then just as with the sister of his mother and the sister of his father, (he is forbidden) whether (she is his sister) either by her father or by her mother, so, with the wife of his father's brother (i.e., he should be forbidden to her) whether (he is his brother) either by his father or by his mother! And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori (that he should be forbidden to the wife of his father's brother by his mother), viz.: If in an instance (levirate marriage [yibum]), he is permitted to the wife of his brother by his father by his father, he is forbidden to the wife of his brother by his mother, then in an instance where he is not permitted to the wife of his brother by his father, should it not follow that he should not be permitted to the wife of his brother by his mother! It is, therefore, written \"his uncle.\" It is written \"his uncle\" here, (\"the nakedness of his uncle he has revealed\"), and it is written \"his uncle\" elsewhere ([Vayikra 25:49]) \"Or his uncle or his uncle's son shall redeem him). Just as there, the family of the father (is being referred to); here, too, the family of the father (is intended).",
                "7) \"They shall bear their sin; they shall die childless (aririm)\": If they have children, they bury their children; if they have no children, they die without children. And even though there is no proof for this, there is an \"intimation\" (i.e., Biblical support) for it, viz. (Jeremiah 29:30): \"Write this man down as 'ariri,' a man that shall not prosper in his days, (for no man of his seed shall prosper\"). We have heard the punishment, but not he exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Jeremiah 18:14): \"The nakedness of the brother of your father you shall not reveal.'",
                "8) (Vayikra 20:21) (\"And a man who takes the wife of his brother, she is niddah. He has revealed the nakedness of his brother; they shall be childless.\") \"And a man\": to exclude a minor. \"who takes the wife of his brother\": either by his father or by his mother. You say: either by his father or by his mother. But perhaps only by his father and not by his mother! And this would follow, viz.: He is liable here, and he is liable with his aunt. Just as his aunt by his father and not by his other, here, too, by his father and not by his mother! Let us see to what he may be compared. Do we derive his own kin from his own kin (i.e., from his sister, to whom he is forbidden — both to his sister by his father or to his sister by his mother), and this is not to be refuted by (the instance of) his aunt, who is the kin of his father — or go in this direction: We derive something (forbidden) through marriage from something (forbidden) through marriage, and this is not to be refuted by (the instance of) his sister, which is something forbidden of itself. It is, therefore, written \"he has revealed the nakedness of his brother\" — either by his father or by his mother.",
                "9) \"He has revealed the nakedness of his brother; they shall be childless (aririm)\": If they have children, they bury their children; if they have no children, they die without children. And even though there is no proof for this, there is an \"intimation\" (i.e., Biblical support) for it, viz. (Jeremiah 29:30): \"Write down this man as \"ariri,\" etc.\" We have heard the punishment, but not the exhortation. It is, therefore, written (Jeremiah 18:16): \"The nakedness of the wife of your brother you shall not reveal; she is the nakedness of your brother.\"",
                "10) (Vayikra 18:18) (\"And a woman together with her sister you shall not take, to be rivals, to reveal her nakedness upon her in her lifetime\") What is the intent of \"upon her\"? Because it is written (Devarim 25:5) \"Her yavam (her husband's brother) shall come upon her,\" I might think that this applied even to one of the Scriptural forbidden relations; it is, therefore, written here \"upon her,\" and there \"upon her.\" Just as there, Scripture speaks of a yevamah; here, too, Scripture speaks of a yevamah, (notwithstanding which Scripture states \"You shall not take.\") This tells me only of (the prohibition against taking) his wife's sister (in yibum). Whence do I derive the same for the other arayoth (i.e., for his daughter married to his brother)? — Just as it is forbidden to take in yibum his wife's sister, who is an ervah, deliberate transgression with which is liable to kareth, and unwitting transgression, to a sin-offering, so, every ervah which is thus liable.",
                "11) This tells me only of (the prohibition against taking in yibum) her. Whence do we derive the same for her rival (i.e., his brother's other wife)? From \"to be rivals.\" Whence do we derive the same for the rivals of all the arayoth? — Just as it is forbidden (to take in yibum) the rival of his wife's sister, deliberate transgression with whom is liable to kareth, and unwitting transgression, to a sin-offering, sop every ervah which is thus liable — whence we derive: \"Fifteen women exempt their rivals and the rivals of their rivals (from yibum) all the way down the line.\"",
                "12) I might think) that (also) forbidden are even the rival wives of the six \"severe\" arayoth (who are married to other men, [not his brothers]) [the six \"severe\" arayoth: his mother, his father's wife, his father's sister, his sister by his father, his father's brother's wife, and the wife of his brother by his father] — you would say (to counter this, that this is not so, for) just as in the instance (as in our verse) of his wife's sister, an ervah with which deliberate transgression is liable to kareth and unwitting transgression to a sin-offering and she is permitted to marry his brother, her rival is forbidden — so, every ervah with which deliberate transgression is liable to kareth and unwitting transgression to a sin-offering and she is permitted to marry his brother, her rival is forbidden — a (forbidden) \"rival\" obtaining only with (a woman married to) his brother (and not with these six, who are married to strangers) — whence they ruled: \"The six more 'severe' arayoth, because they are married to others, their rivals are permitted.",
                "13) We have heard the exhortation (against taking a woman together with her sister in yibum), but we have not heard the punishment. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 18:29) \"For all who do any of these abominations (shall be cut off [kareth]) from the midst of their people.\")",
                "14) (Vayikra 18:28) \"so that the land not vomit you out by your making it unclean, (as it committed out the nation that was before you\"): Eretz Yisrael, unlike other lands, does not maintain transgressors (within it). To what may this be compared? To a prince, who being fed something which, (being \"princely\") he cannot \"digest,\" he vomits it up. So, Eretz Yisrael cannot maintain transgressors (within it) — wherefore it is written \"so that the land not vomit you out by your making it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.\""
            ]
        },
        "Emor": {
            "Section 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 21:1) (\"And the L–rd said to Moses, saying: Speak to the Cohanim, the sons of Aaron, and you shall say to them: For a dead body he shall not become tamei among his people.\" The sons of Aaron may not become tamei for a dead body; the daughters of Aaron may become tamei for a dead body. \"the sons of Aaron\": I might think that challalim (those of imperfect priestly status, are also included in the interdict); it is, therefore, written \"Cohanim\" — to exclude challalim. And whence is it derived that those with blemishes are included? From \"the sons of Aaron.\" \"the sons of Aaron\": even the minors.",
                "2) \"and you shall say to them: For a dead body (nefesh) he may not become tamei among his people.\": This tells me only of the dead body. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the blood? It is, therefore, written \"for a nefesh,\" and elsewhere (Devarim 12:23) it is written \"for the blood is the nefesh.\"",
                "3) Whence is derived for inclusion all the tumah segments that separate from the body? From \"and you shall say to them\" — to include these. \"For a dead body he shall not become tamei among his people\": When his people are there [i.e., when there are non-priests who can tend to the body, he is not to become tamei, but he is to become tamei for a meth mitzvah (a body which has no one to tend to it.)",
                "4) (Vayikra 21:2) (\"Only for his flesh that is near to him, his mother and his father, his son and his daughter and his brother.\") \"Only for his flesh that is near to him\": \"flesh\" is his wife, viz. (Vayikra 18:12) \"She is the flesh (i.e., the wife) of your father.\" \"that is ner\": to exclude one that was betrothed to him. \"to him\": to exclude one that he divorced. Let it be written (only) \"to his mother.\" Why need \"to his father\" be written? (i.e., it can be derived a fortiori), viz.: If he makes himself tamei to his mother, who becomes a challalah (by relations with one who is unfit), how much more so should he make himself tamei to his father, who does not make himself a challal thereby! — If so, I would say: Just as his mother is definitely known (to be his mother), so his father must be definitely known. Whence would I know (that he makes himself tamei for him even when he is known as) his father by common acceptance? It must, therefore, be written \"to his father.\"",
                "5) Or, if it were written \"to his father\" and not \"to his mother,\" I would say: If he makes himself tamei for his father, who is such only by common acceptance, how much more so does he make himself tamei for her, (who is definitely known to be his mother!) — If so, I would say: Just as his father does not make himself a challal (see above), (then he may make himself tamei) only for his mother who has not become a challalah. Whence would I know that he does so even if she has become a challalah? It must, therefore, be written \"to his mother.\"",
                "6) Let it be written (only) \"to his son and to his daughter.\" Why need \"to his mother and to his father\" be written? (i.e., it can be derived a fortiori), viz. If he makes himself tamei to his son and to his daughter, whom he is not commanded to honor, how much more so should he make himself tamei to his mother and father, whom he is commanded to honor! — If so, I would say (that the verse speaks also of) his aborted son or daughter. It is, therefore, written \"to his mother and to his father.\" Just as his mother and his father were alive, so, his son or daughter (must have been) alive — to exclude his aborted son or daughter, who were not alive.",
                "7) And why are \"to his son\" and \"to his daughter\" mentioned (separately)? (i.e., let one be mentioned and I would know the other). Because there obtains with a son what does not obtain with a daughter, and there obtains with a daughter what does not obtain with son. With a son, the father is commanded to perform mitzvoth — to circumcise him, to redeem him, to teach him Torah, to teach him a trade and to get a wife for him, which does not obtain with a daughter. With a daughter, the father has title to what she finds, to the work of her hands, and to the nullification of her vows, which does not obtain with a son. Therefore, both \"to his son\" and \"to his daughter\" must be written.",
                "8) Let it be written (only_ \"to his brother and to his sister.\" Why need \"to his son and to his daughter\" be written? (i.e., it can be derived a fortiori) viz.: If he makes himself tamei to his brother and to his sister, in respect to whom he is not commanded to perform mitzvoth, how much more so should he make himself tamei to his son and to his daughter, in respect to whom he is commanded to perform mitzvoth! — If so, I would say that \"to his brother\" and \"to his sister\" applies (also) to his maternal brother and sister; it is, therefore, written \"to his son and to his daughter. Just as his son and daughter inherit him, so his brother and his sister (to whom he makes himself tamei) inherit him — to exclude his maternal brother and sister, who do not inherit him.",
                "9) Let it be written (only) \"to his brother.\" Why need \"to his sister\" be written? If it were written \"to his brother,\" and not \"to his sister,\" I would say: Just as (he makes himself tamei) for his brother, whether married or unmarried, so, for his sister, whether a virgin or not; it is, therefore, written \"and for his sister, the virgin,\" and not one who is not a virgin.",
                "10) If it were written \"for his sister,\" and not \"for his brother,\" I would say: Just as his sister, who has not had intercourse, so, his brother who is unmarred; it is, therefore, written \"for his brother,\" whether married or unmarried.",
                "11) (Vayikra 21:3) (\"And for his sister, the virgin, who is near to him, who was not wed to a man — for her shall he make himself tamei.\") \"and for his sister, the virgin\": to exclude one who was forced or seduced. I might think that I (also) exclude one whose hymen was accidentally ruptured. It is, therefore, written \"who was not wed to a man,\" (the implication being) one who lost her virginity by being possessed by a man, and not through other causes.",
                "12) \"who is near\": to include one who was betrothed. \"to him\": to include a bogereth (one beyond the age of twelve and a half, even if she lost part of her virginal signs in the process of maturing). \"for her shall he make himself tamei\": It is a mitzvah to do so. If he demurred, we force him to do so. And it happened with Yosef the Cohen, whose wife died on the eve of Pesach, and who did not wish to make himself tamei for her, that the sages pushed him and made him do so perforce.",
                "13) \"for him shall he make himself tamei\": for (one who is his sister of) a certainty; and he does not make himself tamei for one who is not his sister or a certainty. \"for her shall he make himself tamei\": and not for others with her, i.e., he should not say: Since I have already made myself tamei (for her), I shall collect the bones of so and so. \"for him shall he make himself tamei\": but not for her (discrete) limbs, which she lost when she was alive, his being forbidden to do so (even) for the limbs of his father; but he does make himself tamei for a bone the size of a barley-corn of his father.",
                "14) It once happened with Yosef b. Pachsas (a Cohein) that his foot ulcerated and the surgeon wished to amputate it, at which (Yosef) said: \"When it is hanging by a thread, let me know.\" When it reached that point, the surgeon told him and he (Yosef) called to Nechunya his son: \"Chunia, my son, until now you were obligated to attend upon me. But now, leave, for the son (of a Cohein) does not make himself tamei for a limb (amputated) from a live father.\" And when the sages heard about this, they said (on Koheleth 7:15): \"The tzaddik has lost, but his righteousness remains with him.\"",
                "15) (Vayikra 21:4) (\"Let a husband not become tamei among his people to become profaned.\") \"Let a husband not become tamei among his people to become profaned.\" What is the intent of this? Because it is written that he makes himself tamei for his mother and his father, his son and his daughter, his brother and his sister, whether they are or are not fit (for the priesthood), I might think that he does so also for his wife.\" It is, therefore, written \"Let a husband (who is a Cohein) not become unclean (for his wife.\" There is a husband who becomes unclean and there is a husband who does not become clean. How so? He makes himself tamei for his wife who is kasher, and does not make himself tamei for his wife who is pasul (i.e., who makes his children challalim, this being the thrust of \"to become profaned\").",
                "16) \"among his people\": when they act as his people do, and not when they have strayed from the ways of the congregation. \"to become profaned\": If he (the strayer) follows this course, he (the Cohein in question) becomes chullin (\"mundane,\" and unfit for the priestly service.) I might think that he remains chullin forever; it is, therefore, written \"beamav.\" As long as he (the strayer in question) is \"with it\" (imo [i.e., as long as he persists in this course]), then he (the Cohein) is chullin. Once he departs from it, he (the Cohein) reverts to his original sanctity."
            ],
            "Chapter 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 21:5) (\"They shall not make a baldness upon their head, and the corners of their beard they shall not shave off, and in their flesh they shall not cut any cutting.\") \"They shall not make a baldness\": I might think that (even) if he made four or five bald spots he would be liable for one alone; it is, therefore, written \"a baldness,\" to stipulate liability for each one individually.",
                "2) \"upon their head\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Devarim 14:1) \"Do not lacerate yourselves and do not make baldness between your eyes for the dead,\" I might think that only \"between the eyes\" entails liability. Whence is the head included? From \"upon their head,\" to include (all of) the head.",
                "3) I might think that (only) with Cohanim, to whom Scripture relegated additional mitzvoth, is there liability for each bald spot and for the head as well as between the eyes, but with Israelites, where this does not obtain, there is liability there for one bald spot only, and only for \"between the eyes.\" It is, therefore, written \"baldness\" (here, in respect to Cohanim). \"baldness\" (there, in respect to Israelites), to create an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: Just as with Cohanim there is liability for each bald spot and for the head as well as for between the eyes, so, with Israelites. And just as with Israelites liability for (creating) baldness obtains only vis-à-vis the dead, so, with Cohanim.",
                "4) \"and in their flesh they shall not cut\": If this alone were written I might think that if he made five cuts he is liable only for one; it is, therefore written \"any cutting,\" to impose liability for each cutting.",
                "5) I might think that (only) with Cohanim, to whom Scripture relegated additional mitzvoth, is there liability for each laceration but with Israelites, where this does not obtain, there is liability for one (laceration) only; it is, therefore, written \"cutting\" (here, in respect to Cohanim) - \"cutting\" (there [Devarim 19:22] in respect to Israelites), to create an identity, viz.: Just as with Cohanim there is liability for each cutting, so with Israelites. And just as with Israelites liability (for cutting) obtains only vis-à-vis the dead, so, with Cohanim.",
                "6) (Vayikra 21:6) \"Holy shall they be to their G d\": perforce (i.e., even if they are willing to be unclean) \"and they shall not profane the name of their G d; for the fire-offering of the L–rd, the bread of their G d, they offer up — and they shall be holy\": This is the cause (i.e., by divesting themselves of the mitzvah of the priesthood, they divest themselves of their holiness.) \"they offer up\": and not the Levites. \"and they shall be holy\": to include those with blemishes.",
                "7) (Vayikra 21:7) (\"A woman who is a zonah and a challalah they shall not take, and a woman divorced from her husband they shall not take; for he is holy to his G d.\") \"a woman who is a zonah\": R. Yehudah says: This is an aylonith (a barren woman [i.e., the term \"zonah\" also includes an aylonith]). And the sages say: This is a proselytess or a freed maidservant or one whose cohabitation was one of znuth (i.e., illicit). R. Eliezer says: Also (included) is cohabitation of a single man with a single woman not for the sake of marriage.",
                "8) \"and a challalah\" What is a challalah? A woman that was born of a marriage forbidden (to the priesthood).",
                "9) \"a woman divorced\": This tells me only of a divorcée. Whence do I derive (for inclusion in unfitness to the priesthood) a chalutzah (a woman \"released\" from levirate marriage)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a divorcée, who is permitted (for remarriage) to the divorcer, is unfit to the priesthood, then a chalutzah, who is forbidden to revert to the choletz (the man in the chalitzah ceremony) — how much more so, should she be unfit to the priesthood! — (No,) this is refuted by tzarah (the co-wife), who is forbidden to revert to the choletz, yet is permitted to the priesthood.",
                "10) (No,) there is a (crucial) difference (between them), viz.: In the instance of a divorcée the man performs an act (in the woman), and in the instance of chalutzah, the man is involved in an act (with the woman). And this is not to be refuted by tzarah, where he is not involved in an act (with the tzarah). And if you would say that just as \"and\" a woman\" includes a chalutzah\" (as forbidden to a Cohein), I should say that tzarah, too, is like a chalutzah and should be forbidden to a Cohein, it is, therefore, written \"and a woman divorced from her husband\" — where her divorce is in the hands of her husband, and not when it is in the hands of the woman (as in the instance of tzarah).",
                "11) \"and a woman divorced from her husband\" This was expounded by R. Elazar b. Mattia: If her husband (a Cohein) went abroad and they told her that her husband had died and she were betrothed (to another) and her husband returned — whence is it derived that she may return to the first even if the second gave her a divorce, this divorce not making her unfit to the priesthood? From \"and a woman divorced from her husband\" (is forbidden to the priesthood), and not (a woman who was given a divorce) by a man who was not her husband.",
                "12) \"they shall not take … they shall not take\": (twice) We are hereby apprised that the woman is exhorted against this as well as the man.",
                "13) (Vayikra 21:8) (\"And you shall make him holy, for he offers up the bread of your G d; holy shall he be unto you, for holy am I the L–rd, who sanctifies you.\") And whence is it derived that if he refuses (to divorce her), he is forced to do so? From \"And you shall make him holy\" — (even) against his will. \"for he offers up the bread of your G d\": We are hereby apprised of the reason (for his being forced). \"holy shall he be unto you\": to include blemished Cohanim, (who are forbidden to sacrifice, as being thus exhorted). \"for holy am I the L–rd who sanctifies you\": to include beth-din as being thus exhorted.",
                "14) (Vayikra 21:9) (\"And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, if she profanes herself through fornication, it is her father that she profanes; in fire shall she be burned.\") \"And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, if she profanes\": I might think that even if she desecrated the Sabbath she should be subject to burning; it is, therefore, written \"if she profanes … through fornication\" — when the profanation were that of fornication, and not any other kind.",
                "15) I might think that the penalty was burning even if she were single when she fornicated; it is, therefore, written here \"her father,\" and there (Devarim 22:21, in respect to a betrothed maiden) \"her father. Just as there, the reference is to fornication within the context of marital ties, so, here. — But perhaps the thrust of \"her father (a Cohein)\" is to exclude (from burning a maiden [even a single maiden] who fornicated with her father) — with any man (i.e., with her father who is not a Cohein)! — (This cannot be, for) \"she profanes (her father)\" implies (that her fornication is with) \"any man.\" (For if it were with her father, then he would be profaning her). How, then, am I to understand \"her father\"? As \"Just as there, the reference is to fornication within the context of marital ties, so, here.\"",
                "16) — But why not say, then, that just as \"her father\" there is mentioned within the context of a betrothed maiden [na'arah (between twelve and twelve and a half)] so, too, here, too, the context must be one of a betrothed maiden. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) a wedded maiden, a betrothed bogereth (after twelve and a half), a wedded bogereth — even an old woman? From \"And the daughter of a Cohein\" — in any event.",
                "17) This tells me (of the penalty of burning) of the daughter of a Cohein (wedded) to a Cohein. Whence do I derive the same for the daughter of a Cohein (wedded) to a Levite, the daughter of a Cohein (wedded) to an Israelite — even (of the daughter of a Cohein (wedded) to a Nathin or to a mamzer? From \"And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, even if she herself is not wedded to a Cohein.",
                "18) \"she profanes her father\": R. Eliezer: When she is with (i.e., in the domain of) her father (i.e., when she is betrothed), the penalty is stoning (the severest of the penalties), and with her in-laws (i.e., when she is wedded), it is burning. \"in fire shall she be burned\": Her penalty is burning; but the penalty of her consort is not burning, (but strangulation). She shall be burned, but not \"scheming witnesses\" against her. (Their penalty is strangulation."
            ],
            "Section 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 21:10) (\"And the Cohein who is greater than his brothers [i.e., the high-priest], upon whose head the oil of anointment has been poured, and who has been invested to wear the garments — his hair he shall not dishevel and his garments he shall not rend.\") \"And the Cohein who is greater than his brothers\": He must be greater than his brothers in wealth, strength, strength, and wisdom. Whence is it derived that if he is lacking these attributes, his brother Cohanim are to elevate him? From \"greater than (lit., \"from\") his brothers\" — his greatness should come from his brothers. They said about Pinchas of Havata upon whom the lot fell to be high-priest, that the (Temple) treasures and trustees went after him and found him quarrying, whereupon they filled the quarry with golden dinars. R. Chananiah b. Gamliel said: Now was he a quarrier? Was he not our son-in-law, and did they not find him plowing? As it was related: Twelve (ox-) pairs went before him, and he came after the twelfth!",
                "2) \"upon whose head the oil of anointment has been poured\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Shemoth 29:31) \"Seven days shall he anoint his sons, who ministers in his stead put them on, when he comes to the tent of meeting to minister in the holy place,\" I might think (that he is ordained as high-priest) only if he is anointed for seven days and invested (in the garments) for seven days. Whence do I derive that the same applies if he is anointed for seven and invested for one, or anointed for one and invested for seven, or if he is anointed for one and invested for one — even for one moment? From \"upon whose head the oil of anointment has been poured\" — even for one moment; \"and who has been invested to wear the garments\" — even for one moment.",
                "3) If it were written \"The hair he shall not dishevel and the garment he shall not rend, I might think that this refers to the hair and to the garment of a sotah (See Bamidbar 5:18); it is, therefore, written \"his (the high-priest's) hair\" and \"his garments.\" R. Meir says: \"his hair he shall not dishevel and his garments he shall not rend\" — for his dead, as others do for their dead. How so? The high-priest rends from the bottom (of his garment), and others, from the top.",
                "4) (Vayikra 21:11) (\"And to any dead body he shall not come. For his father and for his mother he shall not become tamei.\") \"And to any dead body he shall not come\": R. Akiva said: Whence is it derived that a fourth of a log of blood issuing from two dead bodies (is tamei)? From \"And to any dead (lit., \"bodies, he shall not come\" — two bodies and one amount (of blood [connoted by \"dead body\"]). \"he shall not come\" \"he shall not come\" and \"he shall not become tamei\": He is liable for (both) \"he shall not come\" (into the tent of the dead body) and \"he shall not become tamei.\" This tells me only that the high-priest is liable for both. Whence is it derived that the same applies to an ordinary Cohein, (in respect to whom only \"he shall not become tamei\" is written [viz. Vayikra 21:1])? From gezeirah shavah (identity) of \"he shall not become tamei\" (here) and \"he shall not become tamei\" (there) — Just as with that written in respect to the high-priest there is liability for both \"he shall not come\" and for \"he shall not become tamei,\" so with that written in respect to an ordinary Cohein. \"For his father and for his mother he may not become tamei\": (but) he does make himself tamei for a meth mitzvah (a dead body without anyone else to bury it).",
                "5) (Vayikra 21:12) (\"And from the sanctuary he shall not go out, and he shall not profane the sanctuary of his G d; for the crown of the anointing oil of his G d is upon him, I am the L–rd.\") \"And from the sanctuary he shall not go out\": He does not go out (i.e., he does not follow the litter), but follows after them, when they (the litter bearers) are concealed\" (in an alleyway), he is revealed.\" When they are concealed (in a second alleyway), he is revealed. And he goes out with them until the entrance of the city. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: \"And from the sanctuary he shall not go out\": He does not go out at all.",
                "6) And when is it derived that if he performed the (sacrificial) service (and does not go out after the hearse), it is valid? From \"And (if he does not go out after the hearse) he does not profane the sanctuary of his G d.\" But if an ordinary Cohein serves while in mourning, his service is invalid. \"for the crown of the anointing oil of his G d is upon him\": This tells me (that he may not go out) only if he is anointed with the oil of anointment. Whence is the same derived for one who is clothed in the many vestments (of the high-priest)? From \"for the crown of the anointing oil of his G d is upon him\": This (i.e., the \"crown\" of the high-priesthood [the many vestments, along with the anointing oil] is the cause (of his not going out).",
                "7) (Vayikra 21:13) (\"And he, a woman in her virginity he shall take\"): \"He\" (the high-priest), and not the king (is under the interdict); \"he\" and not the Nazirite, (though they, too, are \"crowned\"): \"he,\" to include (in the interdict) the Cohein anointed for war. \"a woman in her virginity he shall take\": excluding a bogereth (a maid after twelve and a half years), whose (signs of) virginity have diminished. R. Eliezer and R. Shimon permit a bogereth."
            ],
            "Chapter 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 21:14) (\"A widow, and a divorcée, and a challalah, and a zonah — these he shall not take; but only a virgin from his people shall he take as a wife.\") Let it be stated (only) \"a widow.\" Why is \"a divorcée (also) written? For if \"a widow\" (alone) were stated and not \"a divorcée,\" I would say: If a widow, who is permitted to an ordinary Cohein, is forbidden to a high-priest, then a divorcée, who is forbidden to a high-priest, how much more so is she forbidden to a high-priest! If so, I would say: A widow, who is permitted to an ordinary Cohein — his seed from her is profane (vis-à-vis the priesthood); a divorcée, who is forbidden to an ordinary Cohein — his seed from her is a mamzer. It is, therefore, written \"a divorcée …\" (Vayikra 21:15) And he shall not profane.\"",
                "2) Or if it were written \"divorcée\" and not (only) \"widow,\" I would say: A divorcée, who is forbidden to an ordinary Cohein — his seed from her is profane; a widow, who is permitted to an ordinary Cohein — his seed from her is kasher. It is, therefore, written \"A widow … And he shall not profane,\" \"A divorcée … And he shall not profane\" — \"a widow,\" for severity; \"a divorcée,\" for leniency.",
                "3) \"and a challalah\": Which is a \"challalah\"? A woman who was born of one of those forbidden to the priesthood (e.g., the daughter of the union of a widow and a high-priest).",
                "4) \"a zonah\": Why is this written? (i.e., I can derive it a fortiori from her being forbidden to an ordinary Cohein.) For I might think that only the seed of a high-priest by those unfit for him become challalim. Whence do I derive the same for the seed of an ordinary Cohein? It is, therefore, written \"zonah\" (here) and \"zonah\" (Vayikra 21:7, in respect to an ordinary Cohein), for a gezeirah shavah (identity). Just as the seed of a high-priest by those unfit for him are challalim, so, the seed of an ordinary Cohein.",
                "5) \"these he shall not take\": \"these he shall not take … And he shall not profane.\" But his seed from a niddah do not become chullin (i.e., challalim). For it would follow a fortiori (that they do become challalim), viz.: If the children of these, cohabitation with which does not render him liable to kareth — if the children of these are challalim, how much more so the children of niddah, cohabitation with which does render him liable to kareth! It is, therefore, written \"these he shall not take … And he shall not profane,\" (but) his seed from a niddah is not profaned.",
                "6) \"but only a virgin\": We are hereby taught that it is a mitzvah for him to wed a virgin. \"from his people\": to include the daughter of an Ammonite proselyte (from a Cohein) as fit for (marriage to) the priesthood. \"he shall take as a wife': What is the intent of this? Whence is it derived that if one (a Cohein) betrothed a widow and he was then appointed high-priest, he is permitted to wed her (even though she is not a virgin)? From \"he shall take as a wife.\" It happened with Yehoshua b. Gamla that he betrothed Marta the daughter of Baisus and the king appointed him high-priest, and he wed her. I might think that the same applied if he made a ma'amar (verbal betrothal) in his yevamah (a woman that fell to him for levirate marriage); it is, therefore, written \"he shall take a wife,\" and not a yevamah. \"and he shall not profane his seed\": This tells me only of his seed. Whence is it derived that she herself becomes a challalah? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If her seed, who did not transgress, are rendered challalim, she, who did transgress, how much more so!",
                "8) No! (This is no proof.) He (the Cohein) himself refutes it, having transgressed and not having become a chalal. No, this may be so with a man, who does not become a chalal elsewhere, as opposed to a woman, who does become a challalah elsewhere. Or, if you will, it is derived that she herself becomes a challalah from (the repetitious) \"and she shall not profane.\"",
                "9) \"from his people\": to include the daughter of a male chalal as unfit for (marriage to) the priesthood. R. Yehudah says: The daughter of a male proselyte is (a challalah) like the daughter of a male chalal. \"for I am the L–rd who makes him holy\": This is the basis of the law. "
            ],
            "Section 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 21:17) (\"Speak to Aaron, saying: \"A man of your seed, to their generations, who will have in him a blemish, shall not come near to offer up the bread of his G d\": (\"A man of your seed\"): R. Elazar b. R. Yossi said: A child is unfit even if he is unblemished. When is his service kasher? Once he grows two (pubic) hairs. But his fellow Cohanim do not initiate him in his service until he is twenty years old.",
                "2) \"who will have in him a blemish\": This tells me (that for his service to be kasher) he is not to have a blemish after the pronouncement (of the law), as in the instance of zivah and negaim (plague-spots). Whence is it derived (that his service is not kasher) if he has the blemish before the pronouncement? From \"in him a blemish.\" This tells me only of his having been born unblemished and having become blemished. Whence do I derive the same for one who was born blemished from his mother's womb? From \"in him a blemish.\"",
                "3) \"he shall not come near to offer up the bread of his G d\": This tells me only of the temidim (the daily burnt-offerings), which are called \"bread,\" (viz. Bamidbar 28:2) \"My offering, My bread for My fires.\" Whence do I derive the same for the other offerings? From the repetition of \"bread\" (here). Whence is the same derived for the (sprinkling of) the blood? From \"to offer up\" (here) and (Bamidbar 9:9) \"And the sons of Aaron offered up the blood to him.\"",
                "4) Whence do I derive the same for the devoted portions of the sin-offering and of the guilt-offering and of holy of holies and of lower-order offerings? From \"he shall not come near (to offer up.\") Whence do I derive the same for the fistful, the frankincense, the meal-offering of the Cohanim, and meal-offering of the anointed Cohein, and the meal-offering of the libations? From (Bamidbar 9:26) \"the fire-offerings of the L–rd.\" Whence do I derive the same for the oil pouring, the mixings, the wavings, the presentings, the fistful takings the incense takings, the pinchings, and the (blood) receivings? From \"he shall not come near to offer up.\" I might think that Cohanim with blemishes are liable (stripes) for performing all of them; it is, therefore, written \"bread.\" Just as \"bread\" connotes the (sacrificial) service itself, (so all, for such liability must characterize the sacrificial service), excluding the above, which are not intrinsic to the service (i.e., if they are omitted, the offering is still kasher.)",
                "5) (Vayikra 21:18) (\"For every man who has in him a blemish shall not come near: a man who is blind, or lame, or charum or asymmetrical of limb.\") \"every man who has in him a blemish\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 21:21) \"the seed of Aaron,\" I might think that the halachah applied to his seed only. Whence do I derive that it applies (also) to Aaron himself? From \"For every man.\" This tells me only of a permanent blemish. Whence do I derive the same for a passing blemish? From \"every man who has in him a blemish.\"",
                "6) \"blind\": whether he is blind in both eyes or only in one. Whence is it derived that white spots on the cornea or constant watery occlusion (are also considered blemishes)? From \"a man who is blind\" (i.e., though the impairment in vision is due not to the eye itself, but to some mal-functioning of the man.\")",
                "7) \"lame\": whether he is lame in both legs or only in one. Whence is it derived that if his foot is arched and curved in the shape of a scythe (this is also considered a blemish)? From \"or lame\" (connoting extension of inclusion). \"charum\": one whose nose is sunken in. Whence do I derive that noses which are fore-shortened, fused at the nostrils, or cadent (i.e., falling beneath the lip) (are also considered blemishes)? From \"or charum.\"",
                "8) Abba Yossi says: Who is \"charum\"? One (whose nose is so sunken that he can \"blue\" his two eyes as one. They said to him: You are exaggerating. (He is considered \"charum\") even if he cannot blue his two eyes as one.",
                "9) \"asymmetrical of limb (sarua): a thigh that has come out of joint. Whence is it derived (that the following are also included?): the projection of a bone from his thumb, a retro-projection of his heel, a goose-footed broadness of sole? From \"or sarua.\"",
                "10) (Vayikra 21:19) (\"Or a man that has in him a brokenness of foot or a brokenness of hand\") \"a brokenness of foot\": This tells me only of a brokenness of foot. Whence do I derive for inclusion one who is knock-kneed or bandy-legged or club-footed? From \"a man.\"",
                "11) \"a brokenness of hand\": This tells me only of a brokenness of hand. Whence do I derive for inclusion one whose fingers are fused at the tips or from the base to the middle phalange without being incised? From \"or a brokenness of hand.\"",
                "12) (Vayikra 21:20) (\"Or one who is gibein or dak or tevalul in his eye; or one who is garav or yalefeth or meroach ashech.\") \"gibein\": one who has two eyebrows (that are fused). Whence do I derive from inclusion one who has no eyebrows or only one? From \"or gibein.\" R. Dossa says (\"Gibein refers to) one whose brows droop (over his eyes.) R. Chanina b. Antignos Says (\"Gibein refers to) one who has two backs and two spines. \"dak\": This is cataract. Whence do I derive for inclusion chilazon, nachash, and einav? From \"or dak.\"",
                "13) \"tevalul\": If the white (of the eye) enters the black or the black enters the white. R. Yossi says: There is no blemish in the white. What is \"tevalul\"? If the white breaks through the ring and enters the black.",
                "14) \"in his eye\": Any defect of the eye is implied. From here it is derived that if both his eyes were oriented upwards or downwards, if one eye were oriented upwards and the other downwards, if he saw the room or the attic as one, if he \"hated the sun,\" if his eyes were unmatched, if he spoke with one person and gave the impression that he was looking at him [— all of these are considered blemishes).",
                "15) \"garav\": a scabby condition. \"yalefeth\": the Egyptian lichen, \"meroach ashech\": R. Yishmael says: one whose testicles are crushed. R. Akiva says: one with distended testicles. Chanania b. Antignos says: one whose skin has taken on a swarthy coloration."
            ],
            "Chapter 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 21:21) (\"Every man in whom there is a blemish, of the seed of Aaron the Cohein, shall not come near to offer up the fire-offerings of the L–rd. There is a blemish in him; the bread of his G d he shall not come near to offer up.\") This tells me only of these (i.e., the aforementioned blemishes). Whence are the other blemishes derived? From \"in whom there is a blemish, of the seed of Aaron the Cohein.\" (i.e., only those who bear a normal human semblance may serve.)",
                "2) Whence is derived (for inclusion) (one with the skin-coloring of) a Cushite, one who is red-spotted, one who is white-spotted, one who is pole-like in appearance (i.e., unusually long and thin), one who is dwarf-like, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and those with (halachically) clean plague-spots? From \"Every man.\"",
                "3) (For without \"every\" we would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori, (that all of the aforementioned (#2) should be permitted in a Cohein), viz.: If a beast, which is unfit (for consummation) in the instances of \"it and its son\" (Vayikra 22:28), are treifah (organic defect) and Caesarian section, is kasher in all of the aforementioned instances, ",
                "4) then a man (i.e., a Cohein, who is fit (for the sacrificial service) in the instances of he and his son, etc., how much more so should he be kasher in all of the aforementioned instances! It must, therefore, be written \"Every man, etc.\"",
                "5) \"There is a blemish in him\": to exclude (from disqualification in the instances of) \"he and his son,\" treifah, and Caesarian section. (For without \"in him\" we would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori: (that all of these are forbidden in a Cohein), viz.: If a beast, which is kasher in the instances of Cushite, etc., is unfit in the instances of \"it and its son, etc.\", then a man (a Cohein), who is unfit in the instances of Cushite, etc., how much more so should he be unfit in the instances of \"he and his son, etc.\"! It must, therefore, be written \"There is a blemish in him,\" to exclude \"he and his son, etc.\"",
                "6) \"there is a blemish in him\": to exclude (from disqualification) one whose blemish has left him. (The verse is needed, for without it we would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori (that this should disqualify him, viz.:) If a beast, which is unfit in the instance of \"it and its son, etc.,\" is kasher in an instance of the blemish leaving it, then a man (a Cohein), who is kasher in the instance of he and his son, etc., should he not be kasher in an instance of the blemish leaving him?",
                "7) (No,) it may be that a beast is kasher in such an instance because he is kasher in the instances of Cushite, etc. Would you say the same for a man (a Cohein), who is not kasher in all of these instances? It must, therefore, be written \"there is a blemish in him,\" to exclude one whose blemish has left him.",
                "8) (Vayikra 21:22) \"The bread of his G d, of the holy of holies, and of the holy he may eat.\": If \"holy of holies\" is written, why is \"holy\" written; and if \"holy\" is written, why is \"holy of holies\" written? For if \"holy of holies\" were written, and not \"holy,\" I would say that he (a Cohein with a blemish) may eat holy of holies, for there is an instance of \"holy of holies\" (a meal-offering on a small bamah), which is permitted to a non-Cohein; but he may not eat lower-order offerings. It must, therefore, be written \"of the holy.\" And if \"holy\" were written, and not \"holy of holies,\" I would say that he may eat of the first but not of the second. It must, therefore, be written both \"of the holy of holies\" and \"of the holy.\"",
                "9) \"he may eat\": even in the machloketh (the regular allotment of his father's priestly house). (For if it were not written \"he may eat\") we would say:) Does it not follow (that he should not eat in the machloketh), viz.: If tvul yom (A Cohein who immersed in the daytime) and one lacking atonement, who are fit for the (sacrificial) service of the next day, may not eat in the machloketh, then a blemished Cohein, who is not fit for the service of the next day — how much more so may he not eat in the machloketh! It must, therefore, be written \"he may eat\" — even in the machloketh.",
                "10) (Vayikra 21:23) (\"But to the veil he shall not come, and to the altar he shall not come near, for a blemish is in him; and he shall not profane My holy things, for I am the L–rd who sanctifies them.\") If \"to the veil\" is written, why \"to the altar\"? And if \"to the altar\" is written, why \"to the veil\"? For if it were written \"to the veil\" and not \"to the altar,\" I would say that he should be unfit for (entry to) the veil, which is within (the sanctuary), but not for the altar, which is not within. It must, therefore, be written \"to the altar.\" And if it were written \"to the altar,\" but not \"to the veil,\" I would say that he is unfit for the altar, which is kasher for the (sacrificial) service, but not for the veil, which is not fit for the service, (but only for the sprinkling of the blood. It must, therefore, be written (both) \"to the altar\" and \"to the veil.\"",
                "11) I might think that he (a blemished Cohein) could not enter (between the hall and the altar) to do repair work; it is, therefore, written \"But (to the veil he shall not come\"), (\"But\" connoting limitation of exclusion. This is the mitzvah (for entry): Cohanim enter. If there are no Cohanim, Levites enter. If there are no (ritually) clean ones, unclean ones enter. If there are no unblemished ones, blemished ones enter. And whence is it derived that if he (a blemished Cohein) performed his (sacrificial) service, it is invalid? From \"and he shall not profane My holy things.\" And whence is it derived that a blemished Cohein is liable to the death penalty (for such profanation)? R. Yehudah says: It is written here \"profanation,\" and elsewhere (Vayikra 22:9) \"profanation.\" Just as profanation there is punishable by death, here, too. And the sages say: A blemished Cohein is not subject to death, but to (violation of) an exhortation (Vayikra 21:17).",
                "12) (Vayikra 21:24) \"And Moses spoke to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel\": He exhorted Aaron ( in respect to blemishes) by way of the sons, and the sons by way of Aaron, and the sons by each other (i.e., by mutual surveillance), and the (beth-din of the) Israelites over them (the Cohanim)."
            ],
            "Section 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 22:1-2) (\"And the L–rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his sons that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, and that they not profane My holy name, which they make holy to me; I am the L–rd.\") \"and that they separate themselves (\"veyinozru\"): \"nezirah\" connotes separation, as it is written (Ezekiel 14:7) \"who separates himself (\"veyinazer\") from Me and brings up his idols,\" and (Isaiah 1:4) \"They have turned back\" (\"nazoru acher\") (i.e., separated). \"from the holy things of the children of Israel\": They are liable for piggul [inappropriate intention), nothar (viz. Isaiah 19:6), and uncleanliness in respect to the offerings of the children of Israel, but not in respect to the offerings of gentiles. \"the holy things of the children of Israel\": This tells me only of the holy things of the children of Israel. Whence do we derive the same for their own holy things? From \"which they make holy to Me\" — to include all (holy things).",
                "2) Whence is it derived that our verse is speaking of (a Cohein) who has become tamei? \"Profanation\" is written here, and it is written elsewhere (Vayikra 22:9) (in respect to eating terumah). Just as \"profanation\" there refers to tumah, so, \"profanation\" here refers to tumah. And just as \"profanation\" there is punishable by death) at the hands of Heaven), so, \"profanation\" here is punishable by death. And just as for \"profanation\" there, there is (no) placation, so, for \"profanation\" here there is no placation. R. Yehudah says: It is written here \"I am the L–rd,\" and, below, (Vayikra 22 verse 3) \"I am the L–rd.\" Just as there, the context is kareth (\"cutting off\"), here, too, it is kareth.",
                "3) (Vayikra 22:2) (\"Say to them: Throughout your generations, every man who will draw near, or all your seed, to the holy things that the children of Israel make holy to the L–rd, and his uncleanliness be upon him, then that soul will be cut off from before Me; I am the L–rd.\") \"Say to them\": to those standing at Mount Sinai. \"throughout your generations\": that it be binding for all generations. If this was stated for the fathers, why was it stated for the sons, and if it was stated for the sons, why was it stated for the fathers? For there are (mitzvoth) which obtain with the fathers, but not with the sons; and with the sons, which do not obtain with the fathers. (For example:) What is stated for the fathers, (who did not enter Eretz Yisrael, (but not for the sons)? (Bamidbar 36:8) \"And every daughter who received an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel\" (her father having had no son) \"to one of the family of the tribe of her father shall she be as a wife, so that the children of Israel will inherit, each, the inheritance of his fathers\" in the midst of the children of Israel). (So that the mitzvah of tribal intermarriage applied only to those who left Egypt, but not to their children after them). And there are many mitzvoth that apply to the sons, (who entered Eretz Yisrael, i.e., those mitzvoth contingent upon the land of Eretz Yisrael), which did not apply to the fathers, (who did not enter). So that because there are (mitzvoth obtaining) with the fathers, which do not obtain with the sons, and (mitzvoth obtaining) with the sons, which do not obtain with the fathers, it must be written in respect to the fathers (i.e., \"Say to them\"), and it must be written in respect to the sons (\"throughout your generations\").",
                "4) \"(every) man\": This tells me only of a man. Whence is (the same derived for a woman? From \"of all your seed.\" Whence is (the same derived for all Israelites, (who are not of the seed of Aaron)? From \"every man.\"",
                "5) \"every man who will draw near, of all your seed, to the holy things that the children of Israel make holy to the L–rd, and his uncleanliness be upon him, then that soul will be cut off from before Me\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Bamidbar 7:20) \"And the soul that eats flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings which is the L–rd's, and his uncleanliness is upon him, that soul shall be cut off,\" I might think that there is kareth liability for tumah only for peace-offerings. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) all of the offerings? From \"Say to them: Throughout your generations, every man who will draw near, of all your seed, to the holy things, etc.\" — But perhaps there should be included only what is similar to peace-offerings, which are eaten for two days. Whence do I derive the same for what is eaten for one day? From \"flesh\" (i.e., all flesh is implied.) This tells me only (of those offerings) whose remnants are eaten. Whence do I derive the same for (those offerings) whose remnants are not eaten? From \"of the sacrifice.\" This tells me only of (animal) sacrifices. Whence do I derive the same for birds and meal-offerings, which are not types of (animal) sacrifices — to the point of inclusion of the log of oil of the leper? From (Vayikra 22:2) \"which they make holy to Me.\"",
                "6) \"then that soul will be cut off\": I might think that (he is to be cut off) \"from one side to another\" (i.e., that he is to be exiled, as Cain was); it is, therefore, written \"from before Me; I am the L–rd\" — in all places! (\"Cutting off,\" then, must refer to kareth [death].) ",
                "7) I might think that tumah liability obtains only where piggul (inappropriate thought) liability obtains. And this, indeed, would follow, viz.: If piggul (transgression), which is subject to a standard (sin-offering) (for unwitting transgression) and which obtains only with one awareness, (at the end, after his having transgressed, his never having been aware that it was piggul before he ate it, [as opposed to tumah, where there is awareness in the beginning, awareness at the end, and non-awareness in the middle]), and where nothing of its class is permitted, (piggul being forbidden even where the entire congregation transgresses, as opposed to tumah, which was forbidden in such an instance) — (If piggul) obtains only with offerings where there are \"permitters\" (see Chapter 13:5 in Tzav), then tumah transgression, which obtains with two awarenesses, and is subject to a sliding scale (and not a standard) offering, and where something of its class (congregational tumah) is permitted — how much more so should it obtain only where there are \"permitters\"! Whence, then, (do we derive tumah liability) for the fistful, the frankincense, the incense, the libation meal-offering, the meal-offering of Cohanim, and the meal-offering of the anointed (high-priest, where there are no \"permitters')? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3) \"to (eat) the holy things which they make holy,\" to include all.",
                "8) I might think that they would be liable for it (immediately if they ate the flesh in a state of tumah before the blood was sprinkled); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3) \"Every man who draws near.\" R. Elazar explains: Now is one who touches it liable? (Is he not liable only if he eats it, as it is written (Vayikra 22:4) \"A man of the seed of Aaron, if he is a leper or a zav, shall not eat, etc.\"?) What, then, is the intent of \"who draws near\"? The intent is that there is no (tumah) liability for eating it until it has been made fit to be offered. How so? An offering that has permitters, (such as the devoted portions and the flesh, which are \"permitted\" by the sprinkling of the blood) — when its permitters have \"drawn near\" (And this is the sense of \"Every man who draws near\"). An offering that does not have \"permitters\" (such as the meal-offering of Cohanim, etc.) — when they are consecrated in a vessel (for the \"eating\" of the altar). \"and his uncleanliness is upon him\": bodily uncleanliness. I might think the uncleanliness of the flesh (of the offering is being referred to). It is, therefore, written (here) \"and his uncleanliness is upon him\" (and there, [Bamidbar 19:13] in respect to uncleanliness in entering the sanctuary) \"and his uncleanliness is upon him,\" for an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: Just as there, bodily uncleanliness is being referred to, so, here, bodily uncleanliness is being referred to, and not uncleanliness of the flesh. Rebbi says: \"and his uncleanliness is upon him\": Scripture speaks (here) of bodily uncleanliness, and not of uncleanliness of the flesh. R. Chiyya says: The offerings are written in the plural and cleanliness (tumatho) in the singular. How, then, must \"tumatho\" be understood? As referring to the tumah of his body and not to the tumah of the flesh (of the offerings). Others say: Scripture speaks of that from which tumah can depart (i.e., the man), as opposed to the flesh, from which tumah cannot depart. "
            ],
            "Chapter 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 22:4) (\"A man, a man, of the seed of Aaron the Cohein, if he is a leper or a zav (see section 15), of the holy things he shall not eat until he is clean. And one who touches anyone who is unclean through the dead; or a man from whom semen issues,\") \"the seed of Aaron\": This tells me only of the seed of Aaron. Whence is Aaron himself derived (as subsumed in the prohibition)? From \"if he is a leper or a zav.\" \"of the holy things (terumah) he shall not eat until he is clean\": (i.e., when the sun goes down,) but Israelites may eat ma'aser t'vulei yom (having immersed themselves in the daytime). Whence is it derived that Aaron and his sons (may eat ma'aser, t'vulei yom)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If Israelites, who may not eat of terumah (even) when the sun goes down, may eat of ma'aser t'vulei yom, then Aaron and his sons, who may eat of terumah when the sun goes down — how much more so may they eat of ma'aser t'vulei yom! Israelites, then, are derived (by implication) from the verse, and Aaron and his sons, a fortiori (as being permitted to eat ma'aser t'vulei yom.",
                "2) \"until he is clean\": I might think, until he immerses; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:7) \"And when the sun sets, he shall be clean.\" Just as his being clean below is with the setting of the sun, so, his being clean here.",
                "3) \"And one who touches anyone who is unclean through the dead\": One who is unclean through the dead confers tumah only through touch (i.e., if a man or vessels touch him). \"or a man from whom semen issues\": This is a ba'al keri (one who had a nocturnal pollution. Whence is the toucher of semen to be included? From \"or a man.\"",
                "4) (Vayikra 22:5) (\"Or a man who touches any creeping thing by which he becomes unclean, or a (dead) man by which he becomes unclean, to all his uncleanliness\") \"who touches (any) creeping thing\": This tells me only of a creeping thing (sheretz). Whence is animal carcass (neveilah) to be derived (for inclusion)? From \"any sheretz.\" \"by which he becomes unclean\": to include (becoming unclean not only by touching the whole object, but even particles of) the size required for uncleanliness. \"man\": This is a dead body. \"has uncleanliness\": to include zavim, zavoth, niddah, and yoledeth (a woman after childbirth). This tells me only of their stringent days (i.e., the days of their seeing the discharge). Whence do I derive (the same for) their lenient days? (i.e., the days of their counting)? From \"to all of his uncleanliness.\" \"by which he becomes unclean\": to include one who cohabits with a niddah. \"by which he becomes clean (lit.,) \"to it\"): to include one who swallows the carcass of a clean bird.",
                "5) (Vayikra 22:6) (\"The soul that touches it shall be unclean until the evening; and he shall not eat of the holy things until he bathes his flesh in water.\") \"The soul that touches it\": and not one (that becomes unclean) by moving it. \"The soul that touches it shall be unclean until the evening; and he shall not eat of the holy things.\": There are holy things of which he may not eat, to include intermixtures of less than a hundred.",
                "6) This tells me only of an intermixture of foods of terumah with foods of terumah, (i.e., that a Cohein may not eat a sa'ah of unclean terumah that became intermixed with less than a hundred sa'ah of clean terumah.) Whence do I derive the same for an intermixture of foods of terumah with foods of chullin (non-terumah), foods of chullin with foods of terumah, foods of terumah with sanctified foods, sanctified foods with foods of terumah, terumah drink with chullin drink, chullin drink with terumah drink, terumah drink with sanctified drink, sanctified drink with terumah drink, sanctified drink with (another kind of) sanctified drink? To this end it is written \"of the holy things,\" to include (all of the above).",
                "7) \"until he bathes his flesh\": I might think that he could bathe each limb individually; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22 verse 7) \"And when the sun sets he shall be clean\" — Just as the sun sets as a whole, so the bathing in water must be as a whole (and not limb by limb).",
                "8) (Vayikra 22:7) (\"And when the sun sets he shall be clean, and then he may eat of the holy things, for it is his bread.\") \"And when the sun sets he shall be clean\": The setting of the sun is a prerequisite for his eating terumah, but his atonement (i.e., the bringing of his offering) is not a prerequisite for his eating terumah.",
                "9) \"and then he may eat of the holy things\": There are holy things of which he may eat, to include intermixtures of more than a hundred.",
                "10) This tells me only of an intermixture of foods of terumah with foods of terumah (i.e., that a Cohein may eat a sa'ah of unclean terumah that became intermixed with more than a hundred sa'ah of clean terumah.) Whence do I derive the same for an intermixture of foods of terumah with foods of chullin, foods of chullin with foods of terumah, foods of terumah with sanctified foods, sanctified foods with foods of terumah, terumah drink with chullin drink, chullin drink with terumah drink, terumah drink with sanctified drink? To this end it is written \"of the holy things,\" (to include all of the above).",
                "11) (\"It should have been written )\"for (holy) bread.\" (Why) \"his bread\"? (To teach that) he sifts the flour as he wishes and perforates the greens as much as he wishes. I might think that the remnants of the perforated greens are rendered profane (not holy); it is, therefore, written \"it is his bread\" — it remains in its holiness.",
                "12) (Vayikra 22:8) (\"A neveilah [the carcass of an animal that died by itself] and a treifah [a torn animal] he shall not eat to become unclean thereby; I am the L–rd.\") I might think that the neveilah of an unclean beast made one's clothing unclean upon entering the esophagus; it is, therefore, written \"A neveilah and a treifah he shall not eat to become unclean\" — what confers tumah only by being eaten, to exclude the neveilah of a beast, which confers tumah before being eaten (by being touched or carried).",
                "13) I might think that the neveilah of a bird confers tumah via the verse and the neveilah of a beast, a fortiori, [viz.: If the neveilah of a bird, which does not confer tumah by being touched or carried, does confer tumah in the esophagus, then the neveilah of a beast, which does confer tumah by being touched or carried, how much more so should it confer tumah in the esophagus!) It is, therefore, written \"to become unclean thereby. Tumah is conferred thereby (i.e., a by a bird) in the esophagus, and not by the neveilah of a beast.",
                "14) (Vayikra 22:9) (\"And they shall keep My charge, that they not bear sin because of it. And they will die for it if they profane it; I am the L–rd who makes them holy.\") \"And they shall keep My charge\": They shall keep a charge for Me (i.e., they shall make \"fences\" for My charge.)\" And they shall keep My charge\": Beth-din is hereby being charged (to exhort the Cohanim to guard His terumah against tumah.) \"that they not bear sin\": I might think that Scripture speaks here of neveilah; it is, therefore, written \"because of it\" (\"terumah\" in context). Scripture here speaks of the holy thing and not of neveilah.",
                "15) \"And they will die for it,\" and not for (eating) ma'aser sheni (in a state of uncleanliness) \"if they profane it\": to exclude one who is clean, who ate something (already) unclean.",
                "16) If the lesser (transgression), (touching a sheretz and then eating ma'aser sheni) is mentioned, why mention the graver (touching a dead body) (i.e., why not derive one from the other?) For if the lesser were mentioned and not the graver, I would say that for the lesser he is liable (only) for (transgression of) a negative commandment, and for the graver, for death. Therefore, the graver must be mentioned (as not being liable to death, but only for transgression of a negative commandment). And if the graver were mentioned and not the lesser, I would say that for the graver he was liable (for transgression of a negative commandment), but for the lesser he was not liable at all. Therefore, both the graver and the lesser must be mentioned. (Vayikra 22:10) (\"And every zar [a non-priest] shall not eat the holy thing [terumah]; the tenant of a Cohein and his hired man shall not eat the holy thing.\") \"zar\": I might think that \"zar\" refers to a \"mamzer\" (a bastard). Whence do I derive that it denominates even a Levite, even an Israelite? From \"every zar.\" \"shall not eat\": \"eating\" is not less than the size of an olive. \"the holy thing\": Just as \"the holy thing\" stated elsewhere (Devarim 26:13) refers to \"the holy things of the boundary\" (i.e., terumah and ma'aser, which may be eaten within the entire boundary of Eretz Yisrael [as opposed to \"the holy things of the altar,\" which may be eaten only in Jerusalem]), so \"the holy thing\" stated here refers to \"the holy things of the boundary.\"",
                "17) \"the tenant of a Cohein or his hired man\" (\"toshav Cohein vesachir\"): \"toshav\" is one that is acquired forever (i.e., a servant whose ear is bored and who serves until the Jubilee year). \"Sachir is one that is acquired for years (i.e., a servant who leaves after six years). Let it be written (only) \"toshav.\" Why is \"sachir\"? If one that is acquired forever does not eat, should one who is acquired (only for several) years eat? If so, I would say that \"toshav\" denotes one that is acquired for (several) years. Now that \"sachir\" is written, it reveals \"toshav\" to mean one that is acquired forever.",
                "18) R. Yishmael says: \"Toshav vesachir\" are written here and in respect to the Paschal lamb (Shemoth 12:48). Just as with \"toshav vesachir\" stated in respect to the Paschal lamb, an aral (one who is uncircumcised) may not eat of it,\" so with \"toshav vesachir\" stated here (in respect to terumah), an aral may not eat of it. R. Akiva said: This (identity) is not needed. It is written (Shemoth 12 verse 4) \"A man, a man,\" to include the aral."
            ],
            "Section 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 22:11) (\"And a Cohein, if he acquire a soul, the acquisition of his money, he may eat of it, and one that is born in his house — they may eat of his bread.\") Whence is it derived that if a Cohein marries a woman and acquires (gentile) servants (as opposed to Hebrew servants, whose body he does not acquire) — whence is it derived that they eat terumah? From \"And a Cohein, if he acquire a soul, the acquisition. His acquisition\" — Even the acquisition of his acquisition eats.",
                "2) I might think that even if he bought a Hebrew servant he eats terumah; it is, therefore, written (\"his) money\" — to exclude a Hebrew servant, who is not (the acquisition of his) money (see above).",
                "3) I would exclude a Hebrew servant (from eating terumah), but I would not exclude the servant of partners (i.e., a gentile servant, who is half his master's - half his own); it is, therefore, written \"he (may eat of it\") — to exclude a (gentile servant), who is part-servant, part-free.",
                "4) \"one that is born in his house\": What is the intent of this? If \"the acquisition of his money\" eats (terumah) shall one born in his house not eat it? If so, I would say: Just as \"the acquisition of his money\" had monetary value, so, one that is born in his house must have monetary value (in order to eat terumah). Whence is it derived that (he eats) even if he is worth nothing monetarily? From \"one born in his house\" — in any event.",
                "5) But I still would say: One born in his house eats whether or not he has monetary value. But the acquisition of his money eats only if he has monetary value. It is, therefore, written \"the acquisition of his money and one that is born in his house. Just as the second eats even if he has no monetary value, so, the first.",
                "6) Whence is it derived that a son (born of an Israelitess married to a Cohein, who later died) \"feeds\" his mother terumah (i.e., qualifies her to eat terumah)? — It follows, viz.: If the seed becomes like the father to disqualify (her from eating terumah, in the instance of the daughter of a Cohein married to an Israelite, who left her with a son), then he becomes like the father to qualify her to do so. — (No,) If the seed become like the father to disqualify, shall the seed become like the father to qualify, the \"thrust\" for disqualifying being greater (than that for qualifying)? It is, therefore, written \"and one that is born in his house \"feeds\" (\"feeds\" is a possible construction in the Hebrew). \"they may eat\": They may eat (terumah), but animals may not eat it. I might think that they are not even permitted to eat carshinah (horse-bean, rarely used as a human food); it is, therefore, written \"soul,\" (and animals are also subsumed under that term). \"of his bread\": to exclude (authorization to eat the terumah of) the dead, who do not have bread (i.e., who are not considered to possess it). (That is, if the Cohein died and his heirs are not Cohanim, his servants do not eat the terumah even if the heirs have not yet acquired them.)",
                "7) (Vayikra 22:12) (\"And the daughter of a Cohein, if she will be (wed) to a man who is a zar, she, of the terumah of the holy things shall not eat.\") \"And the daughter of a Cohein, if she will be (wed) to a man who is a zar\": This tells me only of a mamzer (a bastard). Whence do I derive (that the same applies) even (if she were wed) to (a Levite or an Israelite)? From \"to a man who is a zar\" (a non-priest). Whence is (the same derived) for a widow (wed) to a high-priest or a divorcée or one who had performed chalitzah (levirate refusal), who was (wed) to an ordinary Cohein? From \"to a man\" (including) the man who feeds her, (who in the above instances, is a zar [ineligible] to her.)",
                "8) (Why is the verse needed to tell me this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If an Israelite, whose cohabitation (with the daughter of a Cohein) does not disqualify her from the priesthood (i.e., an Israelite widow may marry a Cohein), still, it disqualifies her from terumah), then, a high-priest, whose cohabitation disqualified her from the priesthood (i.e., he renders her a challalah) — how much more so must his habitation disqualify her from terumah? — No, this may be so with an Israelite, who does not feed feed (terumah to) others (i.e., to his other wives, who are not daughters of a Cohein). Would you say the same for a high-priest, who does feed his other wives? (i.e., Even after she becomes a challalah, he is not disqualified from his priesthood.) Since he feeds others, his cohabitation should not disqualify her from terumah! It must, therefore, be written \"to a man\" (including) the man who feed her.",
                "9) \"she, of the terumah of the holy things shall not eat\": She does not eat, but she feeds her mother.",
                "10) How so? The daughter of an Israelite, who married a Cohein (who later died), and she had a daughter by him, who went and married an Israelite (and he died, and the daughter returned to her father's house) — I would say that just as she does not eat the terumah [\"the lifting\"] of the holy things [i.e., the breast and the thigh), so, her mother should not eat. It is, therefore, written \"she, of the terumah of the holy things shall not eat\" — She does not eat, but she \"feeds\" her mother."
            ],
            "Section 6": [
                "1) (Vayikra 22:13) (\"And the daughter of a Cohein, if she be widowed or divorced, and she have no seed, then she shall return to the house of her father in her maidenhood. From the bread of her father she may et, but no non-priest may eat of it.\") If we learned [Vayikra 22:12] (that the mother eats on the strength of the \"seed\") in respect to terumath hakodshim (the breast and the thigh), why need it be stated [Vayikra 22:11] in respect to kodshim (terumah)? And if it is stated in respect to \"kodshim,\" why need it be stated in respect to \"terumah\"? For there obtains with kodshim what does not obtain with terumoth, and with terumoth what does not obtain with kodshim. Kodshim are permitted to a zar and terumoth are not permitted to a zar. Kodshim are liable for piggul, nothar, and tamei, and terumoth are not. So that because there obtains with terumah what does not obtain with kodshim, and with kodshim what does not obtain with terumoth, both must be stated."
            ],
            "Chapter 5": [
                "1) \"widowed or divorced\": Let \"divorced\" be stated and not \"widowed.\" And I would say: If a divorcée who is forbidden to an ordinary Cohein returns (to her father's house to eat terumah), then a widow, who is forbidden to an ordinary Cohein, how much more so does she return! — (No, for) If so, I would say: A divorcée who has no children returns; a widow, whether or not she has children, returns. It is, therefore, written \"If she be widowed or divorced and have no seed.\"",
                "2) And if it were written \"widowed,\" but not \"divorced,\" I would say: A widow who has no seed returns, but a divorcée, whether or not she has seed, does not return. It must, therefore, be written (both) \"a widow who has no seed\" and \"a divorcée who has no seed\" — a widow, for stringency; a divorcée, for leniency.",
                "3) \"and she have no seed\" (vezera ein la): This tells me only of her own children (as disqualifying her from eating terumah). Whence do I derive the same for her children's children? From \"vezeira ein (not) lah,\" (the added yod in \"ein\" signifying intensification of exclusion). How so? The daughter of a Cohein marries an Israelite and has a daughter by him. (The Israelite dies.) The daughter goes and marries a Cohein and has a son by him, who is fit to be high-priest and to stand and serve on the altar. He \"feeds\" his mother (terumah) and disqualifies his mother's mother! The latter says \"Not like my (grandson, the high-priest, who disqualifies me from eating terumah!",
                "4) This tells me only of legitimate children (as disqualifying her from eating terumah). Whence do I derive the same for illegitimate children? From \"and she have no seed.\" How so? The daughter of an Israelite marries a Cohein or the daughter of a Cohein marries an Israelite. (In both instances, the husband dies.) The daughter goes and marries a servant or a gentile and has a son by him, who is a mamzer (and she, too, dies). If the mother of his mother was the daughter of an Israelite who married a Cohein, she eats terumah (for she has from him \"seed of seed,\" though illegitimate). If she was the daughter of a Cohein who married an Israelite, she does not eat terumah (for she has seed of seed from an Israelite).",
                "5) I might think that seed from a maidservant or from a gentile woman disqualifies or \"feeds\" (with the daughter of a Cohein married to an Israelite or the daughter of an Israelite married to a Cohein, respectively). It is, therefore, written \"and she have no seed\" — excluding the above, which is not considered her seed. How so? The daughter of an Israelite is married to a Cohein or the daughter of a Cohein to an Israelite. She has a son by him [(the son dying later)], who goes and consorts with a maidservant or a gentile woman, who begets a son by him. I might think that he can disqualify or \"feed\" (see above). It is, therefore, written \"and she have no seed\" — excluding the above, which is not considered her seed."
            ],
            "Chapter 6": [
                "1) \"then she shall return to the house of her father\": to exclude a woman awaiting levirate marriage, (her being linked to the yavam.) \"as in her maidenhood\": to exclude one who is pregnant. (— But why is the verse needed for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in a place where a child from her first husband is not made equivalent to a child from her second husband to exempt her from levirate marriage, a fetus is made equivalent to a child (to exempt her), then here, where a child from her first husband is made equivalent to a child from her second husband to disqualify her from terumah (in her father's house), how much more so should a fetus be equivalent to a child to disqualify her from terumah! — No, why is a fetus made equivalent to a child to exempt her from levirate marriage? Because a dead child is made equivalent to a living child (i.e., If her husband had a son who died after his father's death, she is exempt from levirate marriage.) Should we then make a fetus equivalent to a child to disqualify her from terumah, where a dead child is not made equivalent to a living child? (i.e., Only a living child disqualifies her from the terumah of her father's house, and not a dead child. (Therefore, the verse is necessary.) \"then she shall return\": I might think (that she returns) even to the breast and the thigh. It is, therefore, written \"From the bread of her father she may eat. We are speaking only of \"the holy things of the boundary\" (i.e., terumah, and not of \"the holy things of the altar,\" breast and thigh).",
                "2) Whence is it derived that the daughter of a Cohein who married an Israelite and then ate terumah, and, similarly, a Cohein who ate the terumah of his neighbor — I might think that they are liable for the fifth; It is, therefore, written \"but no non-priest (zar) may eat of it, (followed by 22:14) \"And a man if he eat the holy thing unwittingly, (then he shall add its fifth [in payment] upon it\") — to exclude those who are not zarim to it. \"a man\" — to exclude a minor.",
                "3) \"if he eat\": There is no \"eating\" (for \"fifth\" liability) less then an olive. Just as \"the holy thing\" there (Vayikra 22:13) speaks of the holy things of the boundary (i.e., terumah), so, \"the holy thing\" here.",
                "4) \"unwittingly\": to exclude (one-fifth liability) in an instance of knowing violation. R. Yossi said: I have heard that if one ate of the flesh of holy of holies after the sprinkling of the blood, he pays the principal and one-fifth to the Cohanim and they buy peace-offerings for the money. \"then he shall add its fifth upon it\": so that it and its fifth are five (e.g., if the valve were four, he does not pay one-fifth of the four, but adds, as it were, an equal fifth part to the four parts.",
                "5) Whence is it derived that he does not pay (for what he ate of the terumah) from shikchah (viz. Devorim 24:19), from peah (viz. Vayikra 19:9), from hefker (what is ownerless), from first tithe whose terumah has been taken, or from second tithe which was redeemed? From \"and he shall give to the Cohein the holy thing\" — that which can become holy (thus, the signification in the Hebrew).",
                "6) And whence is it derived that payment is made only with the same kind (of food) that he ate? From \"and he shall give to the Cohein the holy thing\" — the same holy thing that he ate. Therefore, if he ate cucumbers of the eve of the Sabbatical year, he waits for those of the end of the sabbatical year and pays with them. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Elazar says: Payment may be made from one kind for another, as long as he pays from a superior kind for an inferior one. How so? If he ate figs and paid in dates — \"May he be blessed!\"",
                "7) I might think that its separation (by the zar for payment) makes it holy towards liability for the principal and a fifth (if he eats it); it is, therefore, written \"and he shall give to the Cohein the holy thing.\" His living renders it holy towards liability for the principal and a fifth, and not its separation. These are the words of Rebbi. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: His separation, too, renders it holy towards liability for the principal and fifth.",
                "8) (Vayikra 22:15) (\"And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel which they will lift to the L–rd.\") \"And they shall not profane\": to include (in the prohibition) one who anoints (himself with terumah) as well as one who drinks it. \"the holy things of the children of Israel\": There is one-fifth liability for the holy things of the children of Israel, but not for those of the gentiles. These are the words of R. Shimon.",
                "9) I might think that there is liability (for the principal and a fifth) for the terumah in the tevel (i.e., if one unwittingly ate the food before terumah was taken from it); it is, therefore, written \"which they will lift to the L–rd.\" They are liable for what has been lifted (from the tevel), and they are not liable for the terumah in the tevel.",
                "10) (Vayikra 22:16) (\"And they will cause them to bear the sin of guilt when they eat their holy things; for I am the L–rd who makes them holy.\") \"And they will cause them to bear the sin of guilt\": For eating tevel, too (before terumah has been taken from it), there is death liability. \"when they eat their holy things\": to exclude (from such liability) burning or conferring tumah (upon the tevel). \"for I am the L–rd who makes them holy.\" This is the \"rationale\" for the death liability."
            ],
            "Section 7": [
                "1) (Vayikra 22:18) (\"Speak to Aaron and to his sons and to the children of Israel, and say to them: A man, a man, of the house of Israel, and of the ger proselyte in Israel, who will present his offering, of all of their vows and all of their free-will offerings, which they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering,\") \"Israel\": as stated; \"ger\": the proselytes; \"the ger\": to include the wives of the proselytes; \"in Israel\": to include bondsmen.",
                "2) If so, why \"a man, a man\"? To include gentiles, who vow votive (offerings) and gift-offerings as a Jew does \"which\" they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering\": This tells me only of a burnt-offering. Whence do I include peace-offerings? From \"their vows.\" Whence do I include the thank-offering? From \"their free-will offerings. Whence do I include bird-offerings, meal-offerings, wine, frankincense, and wood? From \"of all their vows,\" \"of all their free-will offerings.\" If so, why is it written \"which they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering\"? To exclude the burnt-offering of a Nazirite. (Naziriteship not \"taking\" with a gentile). These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yossi Haglili said to him: Even if you \"include\" a whole day, only a burnt-offering obtains (i.e., Whatever he brings becomes a burnt-offering). (Vayikra 22:19) According to your wills, a male without blemish, of the cattle, of the sheep, and of the goats.\") (According to your wills\": No coercion is exercised for the presentation of communal offerings. \"a male without blemish, of the cattle, of the sheep, and of the goats\": The absence of blemishes and maleness are criteria for beasts but not for birds. I might think (even) if its wing withered, if its eye were gouged out or its leg cut off; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:14) \"of the bird,\" and not all of the bird.",
                "3) (Vayikra 22:20) (\"All that has a blemish in it you shall not present, for it will not be acceptable for you.\") \"that has a blemish in it. This tells me only of a permanent blemish. Whence do I derive the same for a passing blemish? From \"All that has a blemish in it.\"",
                "4) \"you shall not present\": If to prohibit the slaughtering (of animals with blemishes), this is already stated below (Vayikra 22:22). Its intent must be, then, that you shall not designate as sacred.",
                "5) From here they ruled: One who dedicates animals with blemishes to the altar transgresses five injunctions: \"You shall not make sacred\"; \"You shall not slaughter\"; \"You shall not sprinkling the blood\"; \"You shall not cause (the fats) to smoke\"; \"You shall not cause part (of the fats) to smoke.\" R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: Also \"You shall not receive the blood.\" \"for it will not be acceptable for you.\" We are hereby taught it (for blood) does not effect conciliation (at all).",
                "6) (Vayikra 22:21) (\"And if a man present a sacrifice of peace-offerings to the L–rd, for an explicit vow or as a free-will offering, of the cattle or of the sheep, perfect shall it be for acceptance; no blemish shall be in it.\") \"a man\": An individual brings gift peace-offerings, and not the community.",
                "7) But perhaps the intent of \"man\" is to exclude partners. \"And a man\" includes partners. How, then, am I to understand \"man\"? An individual brings gift peace-offerings, and not the community.",
                "8) \"if a man present a sacrifice of peace-offerings\": Whence is a burnt-offering included? From \"vow.\" Whence is a thank-offering included? From \"a free-will offering.\" Whence are child-birth and Nazirite offerings included? From \"explicit.\" Whence are sin-offerings and guilt-offerings included? From \"of the sheep.\" Whence is a tithe offering included? From \"of the cattle.\" Whence are offspring and exchanges included? From \"or the cattle.\"",
                "9) \"perfect shall it be for acceptance\": a positive commandment. Whence the negative commandment? \"No blemish shall be in it.\" If it fell from a roof and were broken I might think that he (the owner) is in transgression; it is, therefore, written \"No blemish shall be on it\" — Do not cause a blemish in it.",
                "10) From here they ruled: A first-born animal afflicted by (an access of) blood, even if it would die (without bloodletting), is not to undergo bloodletting (lest a blemish be caused thereby). These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: It is to undergo blood-letting, with care taken not to cause a blemish. And if a blemish were caused, it is not to be slaughtered (for mundane eating) because of it. R. Shimon said: It should undergo bloodletting even if it might sustain a blemish.",
                "11) (Vayikra 22:22) (\"Blind or broken or charutz or yabeleth or garev or yalefeth — you shall not present these to the L–rd; and a fire-offering you shall not make of them on the altar of the L–rd.\") \"Blind\": whether blind in both eyes or in one. \"broken\": What is the intent of this? Because if is written (Vayikra 21:19) \"a brokenness of foot or a brokenness of hand, I might think (that the rule applies) only if its foreleg or hind leg were broken. Whence do I derive (the same rule for) a broken tail? From \"or broken.\" I might think that I include a broken rib; it is, therefore, written \"a brokenness of foot or a brokenness of hand.\" Just as these blemishes are external, (so, all that are external), to include a broken rib, which is not external.",
                "12) charutz: if the lid of its eye were pierced, injured, or split; and so the lip; if its outer incisors were broken off or leveled (with the gum), or its inner ones rooted out. R. Chananiah b. Antignos says: No examination is required from the bicuspids inwards, including the bicuspids themselves.",
                "13) yabeleth: This is nominal (i.e., an animal with warts [and not a warty limb.]) \"garav\": a scabby condition. \"yalefeth\": the Egyptian lichen. Here (in respect to the blemishes of a beast) \"dak\" and \"tevalel\" are not stated, and there (Vayikra 21:20) in respect to the blemishes of a man) \"yabeleth\" is not stated. Whence do we derive that what is stated (to be a blemish) in a beast is also (a blemish in) a man, and what is stated (to be a blemish in a man is also (a blemish in) a beast? From the identity (gezeirah shavah) \"garav\" - \"garav\"; \"yalefeth\" - \"yalefeth\" (stated in respect to both man and beast, to serve as a paradigm for mutual inclusion)."
            ],
            "Chapter 7": [
                "1) \"you shall not present\": If (the meaning is) that you shall not designate as sacred, this is already stated above (Vayikra 21:20). Its intent must be, then, that you shall not slaughter.",
                "2) \"you shall not present these to the L–rd.\": These you shall not present, but you may present animals designated as sacred with which work was done.",
                "3) (For, without the verse) it would follow otherwise, a fortiori, viz.: If the red heifer, which is not invalidated by a blemish is invalidated by having been worked with, then offerings, which are invalidated by blemishes, how much more so should they be invalidated by having been worked with! It is, therefore, written \"These\" — These you shall not present (as offerings), but you may present animals which have been worked with.",
                "4) \"and a fire-offering you shall not make\": This refers to (the smoking of) the fats (of a blemished animal). This tells me only of all of them. Whence is (the prohibition against smoking even) part of them derived? From \"of them.\" \"on the altar\": (to include in the prohibition) the blood (of a blemished animal. \"to the L–rd\": to include the sent-away he-goat (of Yom Kippur as being invalidated by a blemish.)",
                "5) (Vayikra 22:23) (\"And an ox or a lamb, sarua or kalut, a gift you may make it, and as a vow it shall not be accepted.\") Whence is it derived that all of the disqualifiers of ox and lamb render them unacceptable (as offerings)? From (the superfluous) \"And an ox or a lamb\" — to include all disqualifiers of ox and lamb (as rendering them unacceptable as offerings).",
                "6) sarua: an animal whose thigh has come out of joint. \"and kalut\": one whose hooves are fused (and not split), as those of an ass. \"a gift you may make it\": For Temple maintenance. And whence is a vow derived (as similarly permissible)? From \"and as a vow.\" I might think (that it is permissible) even for the altar (i.e., as an offering); it is, therefore, written \"it shall not be accepted.\" This tells me only of a vow. Whence do I derive the same for a gift? (— It is understood as if it were written) \"and as a vow and as a gift (for the altar) it will not be received.\" Rebbi says: It is derived from its context (that altar offerings are being referred to), it being written \"and as a vow it shall not be accepted.\" And which holy thin effects acceptance? The altar (offerings), as it is written (in that context, Vayikra 1:4, \"and it shall effect acceptance for him and make atonement for him.\")",
                "7) \"a gift you may make it\": \"It you may make a gift, but you may not make an unblemished animal a gift for Temple maintenance.",
                "8) From here they ruled: If one designates an unblemished animal for Temple maintenance, he transgresses a positive commandment. Whence is it derived that he also transgresses a negative commandment? From (Vayikra 1:17): \"And the L–rd spoke to Moses lemor\" (also construable as \"lo amar\" [\"He said not\"]. These are the words of R. Yehudah. The sages say: There is no transgression here of a negative commandment.",
                "9) (Vayikra 22:24) (\"And one [whose testicles are] bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut, you shall not present to the L–rd; and in your land you shall not do this.\") \"or bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut\": All of these refer to the testicles. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Eliezer says: All of these refer to the organ. R. Yossi says: \"bruised or crushed,\" to the testicles; \"torn or cut,\" to the organ.",
                "10) \"you shall not present\": This is as R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah said: If this (not \"present\") refers to not designate (a blemished animal) as sacred, this has already been stated; if not to sprinkle the blood, this has already been stated; if not to slaughter, this has already been stated; if not to smoke (all of) the fats, this has already been stated; if not to smoke part of it, this has already been stated. It must be stated here, then, only (to teach us) not to receive the blood.",
                "11) \"you shall not present\": This tells me only of presenting (a blemished animal as an offering). Whence is derived the prohibition of making (a blemish)? From \"you shall not do this.\" This tells me only of (blemishing) unblemished animals. Whence do I derive (the same for already) blemished animals? ?instances? This tells me only of a beast, unblemished or blemished. Whence do I derive (the same for) a bird and an animal? From \"in your land.\" This tells me only of your land. Whence do I derive (that the same obtains) outside of your land? From \"you shall not do this\" — wherever you are. Chanina b. Chachinai says: Whence do I derive (the same for) a man? From (the exegetical construction) \"and in you\" (\"uvachem\") [a combination of the first two letters (vav beth) and the last two letters (chaf mem) of \"uvearzechem.\"]",
                "12) (Vayikra 22:25) (\"And from the hand of a gentile you shall not present the bread of your G d of all these, for their corruption is in them; a blemish is in them; they will not be acceptable for you.\") Whence is it derived that shekalim (coins for communal offerings) are not accepted from idolators? From \"And from the hand of a gentile you shall not present the bread of your G d.\" This tells me only of daily offerings, which are called \"bread,\" as it is written (Bamidbar 28:2) \"My offerings, My bread for My fires.\" Whence do I derive the same for the other communal offerings? From \"of all these.\" Whence is it derived that females are subject to (the interdict against) sterilization? From \"for their corruption is in them; a blemish is in them.\" R. Yehudah says: \"in them\" (masculine) — Females are not subject to (the interdict against) sterilization. \"for their corruption is in them; they will not be acceptable.\" We are hereby taught that they do not effect acceptance (i.e., atonement)."
            ],
            "Section 8": [
                "1) (Vayikra 22:27) (\"An ox, or a sheep, or a goat, when it is born, shall be seven days under its mother; and from the eighth day and on, it shall be acceptable as an offering of fire to the L–rd.\") \"an ox … when it is born\" (to exclude [from kashruth] one delivered by Caesarian section) — not a man (i.e., a Cohein delivered by Caesarian section is fit to serve.) (Why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in the instance of a treifah (an organic defect), which forbids an animal for mundane purposes (i.e., eating), the offenders (i.e., the Cohanim), were not made like the offerings (i.e., A Cohein with such a defect is permitted to serve), then in the instance of a Caesarian birth, which is permitted in an animal for mundane purposes, how much more so should the offerings (i.e., Cohanim of Caesarian birth) not be made like the offerers (and should be permitted to serve!) — (No,) this is refuted by the instance of a blemished animal, which, though it is permitted for mundane purposes, the offerers (i.e., Cohanim with blemishes) were made (forbidden) like the offered.",
                "2) Do not wonder, then, if in the instance of Caesarian section, though it is permitted for mundane purposes, the offerers were made (forbidden) like the offered. It must, therefore, be written \"an ox … when it is born\" (by Caesarian section is forbidden as an offering), and not a man when he is born, (etc.)",
                "3) \"an ox or a sheep\": to exclude a hybrid. \"or a goat\": to exclude a nidmeh (a sheep which looks like a goat, or vice-versa). When it is born\": to exclude one delivered by Caesarian section. \"and it shall be seven days\": to exclude (acceptability) before that time. \"under its mother\": to exclude an orphaned animal. R. Yishmael b. R. Yochanan Beroka says: It is written here \"under,\" and elsewhere (in respect to tithes, Vayikra 27:32) \"under (the staff\"). Just as \"under\" here excludes a hybrid, a Caesarian, before its time, and an orphan, so, \"under\" there. And just as \"under\" there excludes a treifah, so, \"under\" here.",
                "4) R. Yossi Haglili says: What is the intent of \"it shall be seven days under its mother\"? Because it is written (Shemoth 22:19) \"seven days shall it be with its mother,\" I might think that it must be with its mother all seven days; it is, therefore, written \"under its mother\" (negating [in the Hebrew] the above assumption). If under its mother I might think (that it is acceptable) even if it left the mother's womb after she died; it is, therefore, written \"with its mother.\" How is this to be reconciled? Even if its mother survives for only one moment (after its birth, it is acceptable).",
                "5) \"and from the eighth day and on it shall be acceptable\": I might think that from the eighth day on it is permitted, but on the eighth day itself it is forbidden. It is, therefore, written in respect to a bechor (a first-born male animal, Shemoth 22:29) \"On the eighth day you shall give it to Me.\" I might think that a bechor is permitted on the eighth day, but that from the eighth day on it is forbidden; it is, therefore, written of the holy things (here) \"and from the eighth day and on it shall be acceptable.\" But why do I not rule that a bechor is permitted (only) in the eighth day, and the holy things from the eighth day and on? Whence do I derive that I apply what is stated in respect to bechor (also) in respect to the holy things, and what is stated in respect to the holy things also in respect to bechor? From \"its mother\" (here, in respect to the holy things) - \"its mother\" (there, in respect to bechor), a gezeirah shavah (identity).",
                "6) \"it shall be accepted isheh\": to be brought up upon the fires (ishim, of the altar). Whence is it derived also that one may not dedicate an animal before its time )for offering, i.e., before it is eight days old?) From \"as an offering.\" \"to the L–rd\": to include the sent-away he-goat of Yom Kippur (as forbidden to be brought before its time, eight days).",
                "7) (Vayikra 22:28) (\"And an ox or a sheep, it and its son you shall not slaughter in one day.\") Whence is it derived that if one slaughtered \"it and its son\" of consecrated (and not only mundane) animals he is in transgression of \"it shall not be accepted.\" From (the juxtaposition of) \"shall be accepted as an offering of fire to the L–rd. And an ox or a sheep, it and its son you shall not slaughter in one day\" — whereby we are taught that one who does slaughter \"it and its son\" of consecrated animals in one day is in transgression of \"it shall not be accepted.\"",
                "8) \"an ox\": and not an animal (is subject to \"it and its son\") (The verse is needed, for without it I would say:) Does it not follow a fortiori that an animal is subject to \"it and its son,\" viz.: If a beast, which is not subject to the mitzvah of covering (its blood), is subject to the mitzvah of \"it and its son,\" then an animal, which is subject to the mitzvah of covering, how much more so should it be subject to the mitzvah of \"it and its son!\" It must, therefore, be written \"an ox\" — and not an animal.",
                "9) \"a sheep\"; and not birds: Does it not follow (otherwise)? viz.: If a beast, which is not subject to the mitzvah (against taking) the mother with the yond, is subject to the mitzvah of it and its son, then a bird, which is subject to the mitzvah (against taking) the mother with the young, how much more so should it be subject to the mitzvah of \"it and its son!\" It must, therefore, be written \"a sheep\" — and not a bird.",
                "10) If it were written \"an ox and a sheep and its son,\" I would think that he were not liable until he slaughtered both of them and their son; it is, therefore, written \"or a sheep\" — either one or the other.",
                "11) I might think that \"it and its son\" applied both to males (i.e., the father animal and his child) and females (the mother animal and her child), and it would follow (even without a verse that it applied only to mother and child, viz.: There is liability here and there is liability in the instance of \"mother with her young\" (re birds) — Just as there, males were not equated with females, here, too, males are not to be equated with females.",
                "12) No, this may be true of \"mother with her young,\" where domesticated birds were not equated with non-domesticated ones (to be subject to the mitzvah, as opposed to our instance (of \"it and its son) where domesticated beasts were equated with non-domesticated ones. And since this is so, we would think that \"it and its son\" should apply to males as well as to females; it is, therefore, written \"it and its son.\""
            ],
            "Chapter 8": [],
            "Chapter 9": [
                "1) (Vayikra 22:29) (\"And when you sacrifice a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the L–rd, with your acceptance shall you sacrifice it. (Vayikra 22:30) On that day it shall be eaten.\") Let this (\"On that day, etc.\") not be stated (i.e., it is already written in 7:15). If it is not to be understood as referring to eating per se, understand it as referring to slaughtering, i.e., the very beginning of the slaughtering should be with the intention of eating it on the day. ",
                "2) This tells me only of a thanksgiving offering. Whence do I derive the same for all offerings? From \"And when you sacrifice a sacrifice,\" to include (all) sacrifices that are to be eaten in one day.",
                "3) (Vayikra 22:31) (\"And you shall heed My mitzvoth and you shall do them; I am the L–rd.\") \"And you shall heed them\" — this refers to Mishnah (i.e., learning); \"and you shall do them\" — this refers to performance (of the mitzvoth). And all who are not in learning are not in doing. \"And you shall heed My mitzvoth and you shall do them\": This subsumes heeding and doing in \"mitzvoth\" (i.e., the learning, aside from its leading to doing is a mitzvah in itself). \"I am the L–rd\" — trusted to reward (for both the learning and doing).",
                "4) (Vayikra 22:32) (\"And you shall not profane My holy name, that I may be sanctified in the midst of the children of Israel; I am the L–rd who sanctified you.\") From \"And you shall not profane\" I understand that he should sanctify it. (Why, then, is \"that I may be sanctified\" needed?) (It means:) Commit yourself (in your thoughts) to the sanctification of My name. I might think (that if he does not give his life for sanctification of the Name even) in private (he incurs the death penalty); it is, therefore, written \"in the midst of the children of Israel\" — in public (i.e., in the midst of ten Jews).",
                "5) From here they ruled: One who commits himself (to be killed for sanctification of the Name on condition that a miracle be performed for him — a miracle is not performed for him. If not on condition that a miracle be performed for him — a miracle is performed for him. For thus do we find with Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who said to Nevuchadnezzar (Daniel 3:16-18) \"We have no need to answer you in this matter. For if so it must be, our G d whom we serve is able to save us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will save us from your power, O king. But even if He does not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your god or worship the statue of gold that you have set up.\" And when Toraynus caught Lulianus and his brother, Pappus in Laodicea, he said to them: \"If you be the people of Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your G d come and save you from my hand, just as He saved Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the hand of Nebuchadnezzar!\" They answered: \"Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were perfectly righteous, and were worthy of having a miracle performed for them; and Nebuchadnezzar was a bona fide king, who deserved having a miracle wrought through him. But you are a wicked king and are not fit to have a miracle wrought through you. And we have incurred the penalty of death, and if you do not kill us, the L–rd has many emissaries. There are many fiery serpents, many scorpions that can kill us. But in the end, the Holy One Blessed be He will exact payment from you for our blood!\" It was said: He did not budge from there until officers came from Rome and split his skull with axes.",
                "6) (Vayikra 22:33) (\"Who took you out of the land of Egypt to be your G d; I am the L–rd.\") \"Who took you out of the land of Egypt\": On condition did I take you out of the land of Egypt — that you dedicate yourselves to the sanctification of My name. \"to be your G d\": (even) against your will. \"I am the L–rd\" — trusted to reward."
            ],
            "Section 9": [
                "1) (Vayikra 23:2) (\"Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: The festivals of the L–rd, which you shall call (them) callings of holiness — these are My festivals.\") And whence is it derived that the year is intercalated for the sake of those living in exile, (who left their places) and have not yet reached (Jerusalem for the festival)? From \"the children of Israel … The festivals of the L–rd\" — Arrange the festivals so that they can be observed by all of Israel.",
                "2) If the year had to be intercalated, and they (beth-din) sat and deliberated and were unable to proclaim \"It is intercalated\" until the advent of Nissan, I might think that it were intercalated; it is, therefore, written \"which you shall call them .. My festivals.\" If you call them, they are My festivals. If not, they are not My festivals.",
                "3) If the year should not have been intercalated, and they intercalated it perforce or unwittingly or mistakenly — Whence is it derived that it is (nevertheless) intercalated? From (Vayikra 23:9) (\"These are the festivals of the L–rd, callings of holiness, which you shall call (them) in their times\": \"them\" — even unwittingly; \"them\" — even mistakenly; \"them\" — even perforce.",
                "4) I might think that if they intercalated it at night, or one year for (purpose of) the next, for less than a month of for more than a month — I might think that it were intercalated; it is, therefore, written \"them (only those halachically proclaimed) … these are My festivals,\" and not those.",
                "5) And whence is it derived that the year is intercalated to answer some special need? From \"which you shall call (them) in their times.\"",
                "6) I might think that just as the year is intercalated to answer some special need, so, it is intercalated because of tumah (of the populace); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 23:5) \"In the first month … it is Pesach\" — Let the first month not pass without Pesach.",
                "7) (Vayikra 23:3) (\"Six days shall work be done, and on the seventh day is a Sabbath of resting, a calling of holiness. All work you shall not do; it is a Sabbath to the L–rd in all of your dwellings.\") What does the Sabbath have to do with (the section on) festivals? To teach that all who desecrate the festivals are considered as having desecrated the Sabbaths, and that all who keep the festivals are considered as having kept the Sabbath.",
                "8) And whence is it derived that if Yom Kippur fell on a Sabbath and he unwittingly performed a (forbidden) labor that he is liable for each (day) in itself? From \"It is Sabbath,\" (Vayikra 23:27) \"It is Yom Kippur.\" These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yossi says: He is liable only for one."
            ],
            "Chapter 10": [
                "1) Above (Vayikra 23:2), intercalation of the year is being spoken of, and here (Vayikra 22:4) sanctification of the month is being spoken of. If (the moon) were seen clearly, or witnesses came and testified (to that effect) before them (beth-din), and they were unable to proclaim \"It is intercalated until it became dark — whence is it derived that it is intercalated? From \"which you shall call (them) in their times.\" If you called them, they are My festivals. If not, they are not My festivals.",
                "2) If they sanctified it (erroneously) without witnesses, or if witnesses came and testified and were found to be scheming witnesses, whence is it derived that it is sanctified? From which you shall call (them) in their times.\" If you called them, they are My festivals. If not, they are not My festivals.",
                "3) If they sanctified it perforce or unwittingly or mistakenly, whence is it derived that it is (nevertheless) sanctified? From which you shall call (them) in their times. \"them\" — even mistakenly; them — even perforce.",
                "4) If they sanctified it before its time or one day after its intercalation, I might think that it were sanctified; it is, therefore, written \"these are the festivals.\" And not those.",
                "5) I might think that just as they intercalate the year and the month to answer some special need, so they can sanctify the month to answer some special need. It is, therefore, written (Shemoth 12:2) \"This month is for you\" — the month is to be followed.",
                "6) I might think that if two days were needed (for intercalation of the month instead of one), they could be added; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 23:6) (\"And on the fifteenth) day of this month (is the festival of matzoth\") — only one day can be added. And whence is it derived that the Sabbath may be desecrated (by the messengers to come to beth-din and) to testify about them? From \"These are the festivals of the L–rd (which you shall call in their [proper] times.\")",
                "7) I might think that just as the Sabbath may be desecrated to testify about it (the moon), so, it may be desecrated to apprise (the exiles of it) so that they can observe (the festivals on their proper times); it is, therefore, written \"which you shall call\" — You may desecrate the Sabbath for calling (i.e., sanctifying) it, but not for apprising (the exiles of it)."
            ],
            "Chapter 11": [
                "1) (Vayikra 23:5) (\"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight, it is Pesach to the L–rd.\") I might think, when it gets dark; it is, therefore, written \"day.\" If \"day,\" I might think from the second hour (of the day); it is, therefore, written \"at twilight.\" Just as twilight marks the \"turning\" of the day (towards evening), so, \"day\" (here) marks the turning of the day, from the sixth hour on. And even though there is no proof for this, it is intimated (in Yirmiyahu 6:4) \"Woe unto us for the day is turning, for the shadows of evening have stretched forth.\"",
                "2) (Vayikra 23:6) (\"And on the fifteenth day of this month is the festival of matzoth to the L–rd. Seven days shall you eat matzoh.\") \"And on the fifteenth day of this month is the festival of matzoth\": This day requires matzoh, but the festival of Succoth does not require matzoh. For would it not follow otherwise, a fortiori, viz.: If this (Pesach), which does not require a succah (a booth) requires matzoh, then that (Succoth), which does require a succah, how much more so should it require matzoh! It is, therefore, written \"this\" (\"of this month). It is this festival of matzoth, which requires matzoh, but not the festival of Succoth.",
                "3) \"the festival of matzoth to the L–rd, seven days, etc.\" What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Devarim 16:8) \"Six days shall you eat matzoth and on the seventh day it is a cessation (atzereth) for the L–rd\" — The seventh day was included in the general (mitzvah of matzoh, viz.: [Shemoth 13:6] \"Seven days shall you eat matzoth; and it left that general category to serve as a paradigm, viz.: Just as (the eating of matzoth on) the seventh day is permitted (and not obligatory), so, all (of the days) are permitted (in this regard, and not obligatory.) I might think that (the eating of matzoth on) the first night, too, is permitted (and not obligatory); it is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:3) \"Upon it shall you eat matzoth\" — Scripture makes it mandatory.",
                "4) This tells me only of the time that the Temple existed. Whence do I derive the same for these days, when the Temple does not exist (and there is no Paschal lamb)? From (Shemoth 12:18) \"In the evening you shall eat matzoth.\"",
                "5) (Vayikra 23:8) \"And you shall present a fire-offering to the L–rd for seven days.\" Whence is it derived that if you have no bullocks, bring rams; if you have no rams, bring sheep; if you have no clean ones, bring unclean ones? From \"And you shall present a fire-offering to the L–rd\" — in any event."
            ],
            "Section 10": [
                "1) (Vayikra 23:10) (\"Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When you come to the land which I give to you and you reap its harvest, you shall bring an omer (one-tenth of an ephah) of the first of your harvest to the Cohein.\") I might think, when they came to trans-Jordan; it is, therefore, written \"the land\" — the distinctive land.",
                "2) I might think, when they came to Ammon and Moav; it is, therefore, written \"which I give to you\" — not Ammon and Moav.",
                "3) \"and you reap its harvest … the first of your harvest\": It must be the first of all that is harvested. I might think, even from parched fields requiring irrigation and from the valleys; it is, therefore, written \"the first of your harvest,\" and not the above.",
                "4) \"harvest,\" and not pulse; \"harvest,\" and not fodder corn. R. Yehudah said: If he began (harvesting) before a third (of its growth), he harvests it and feeds it to beasts, animals, and birds, and he is exempt from leket, shikchah, and peah. R. Shimon says: Even if it had grown a third, he begins to harvest and feeds it to beasts, animals, and birds, and he is exempt from leket, shikchah, and peah, and he must give the tithe. \"and you reap its harvest, you shall bring the omer of the first of your harvest to the Cohein\": There is no mitzvah of reaping for the Cohein.",
                "5) (Vayikra 23:11) (\"And he shall lift the omer before the L–rd as is acceptable to you; on the morrow of the Sabbath the Cohein shall lift it.\") \"And he shall lift the omer before the L–rd\": It has three names: \"the omer of the first,\" \"the omer of lifting\"; \"omer,\" its (basic) name. \"as is acceptable to you\": The community is not compelled (to do a mitzvah) perforce. \"on the morrow of the Sabbath\": the morrow of (the first day of) the festival (of Pesach). \"the Cohein shall lift it\": a prototype (binyan av) for all \"liftings\" to be done by the Cohein.",
                "6) (Vayikra 23:12) (\"And you shall offer, on the day that you lift the omer, an unblemished lamb in its first year as a burnt-offering to the L–rd.\") \"and you shall offer on the day … a one-year old lamb\": even if there be no omer; \"omer\": even if there be no lamb. \"on the day that you lift\": Lifting is only in the daytime. \"an unblemished lamb in its first year as a burnt-offering to the L–rd\" not in a year by calendar count.",
                "7) (Vayikra 23:13) (\"And its meal-offering, two tenths of fine flour mixed with oil, a fire-offering to the L–rd, a sweet savor; and its drink-offering, wine, a fourth of a hin.\") \"And its meal-offering, two tenths of fine flour mixed with oil, a fire-offering to the L–rd, a sweet savor\": This two-tenths (meal-offering of the lamb which accompanies the omer) is twice the normal amount.",
                "8) I might think that just as its meal is doubled, so should its wine be doubled; it is, therefore, written \"wine, a fourth of a hin\" (the normal amount). I might think that the wine is not doubled because it is not included in the meal-offering (but in the lamb offering), but that oil should be doubled because it is included in the meal-offering. It is, therefore, written and its (the meal-offerings) drink offering, a fourth of a hin — all of its drink offerings are to be a quarter (of a hin).",
                "9) (Vayikra 23:14) (\"And bread, and parched grain, and fresh ears you shall not eat until this self-same day, until you have brought the offering of your G d; a statute forever, throughout your generations, in all of your dwellings.\") If it were written (only) \"parched grain and fresh ears you shall not eat,\" I would think that pulse (which lends itself to these) were also included. It is, therefore, written \"bread.\" This tells me only of what, which is called \"bread,\" as it is written (Vayikra 23:17) \"From your dwellings shall you bring two breads of lifting.\" Whence is derived for inclusion barley, spelt, oats, and rye? From \"and parched grain and fresh ears you shall not eat until this self-same day.\"",
                "10) \"until you have brought the offering of your G d\": This is the omer. I might think it is the lamb. Go and see what is written below (Vayikra 23:15) — the bringing of the omer; here, too, the omer (is being referred to). When the omer was offered, they found the markets of Jerusalem full of parched flour — without the approbation of the sages. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: They did so with the approbation of the sages. When the omer was offered, the new (produce) was immediately permitted, and those who were far (and did not know whether the omer had already been offered) were permitted (to eat if) from mid-day on. When the Temple was destroyed, R. Yochanan b. Zakkai ordained that the entire day of lifting was forbidden (in the eating of new produce). R. Yehudah said: Is it not forbidden by the Torah, it being written \"until the self-same day\"! (including the day [the sixteenth of Nissan] itself)? Why were those at a distance permitted to eat it from mid-day on? Because they know that beth-din were not dilatory in this matter.",
                "11) (a statute forever\": For the eternal house (the Temple). \"throughout your generations\": for all of your generations (and not that of the desert alone). \"in all of your dwellings\": in Eretz Yisrael and outside of it. R. Shimon said: Three things are land-linked and obtain both in Eretz Yisrael and outside of it: chadash (the ban on the new produce before the lifting of the omer), arlah (the fruits of the trees of the first three years) and kilayim (mixed seeds of the vineyard). Chadash is forbidden by the Torah in all places. Arlah (is forbidden by) a law (to Moses on Sinai). And kilayim (is forbidden by) the words of the scribes."
            ],
            "Chapter 12": [
                "1) (Vayikra 23:15) (\"And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow of the Sabbath, from the day that you bring the omer of the lifting; seven complete Sabbaths shall they be.\"): \"And you shall count for yourselves\": Each one shall count for himself individually. \"from the morrow of the Sabbath\": from the morrow of the festival (Pesach, on the sixteenth day of Nissan). I might think, from the morrow of the (literal) Sabbath, of creation (i.e., Saturday) — R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah said: \"Until the morrow of the seventh Sabbath shall you count fifty days\" (Vayikra 23:16) indicates that the entire count (from Pesach until Shavuoth) will (always) be fifty days, (which would not be the case if the Sabbath of creation were meant).",
                "2) If I say (that the count is) from the morrow of the Sabbath of creation, then sometimes the count will be fifty-one days; sometimes, fifty-two; sometimes, fifty-three; sometimes, fifty-four; sometimes, fifty-five; sometimes, fifty-six (depending on which day Pesach begins). How, then, must I understand \"from the morrow of the Sabbath\"? As from the morrow of the festival.",
                "3) R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: \"from the morrow of the Sabbath\": from the morrow of the festival. I might think, from the morrow of the Sabbath of creation. \"Seven weeks shall you count for yourself\" (Devarim 16:9) — a count which depends upon the determination (of the advent of the festivals) by beth-din, to exclude the Sabbath of creation, which is not dependent upon (the count of beth-din, its advent being known to all men.",
                "4) R. Yossi says: \"from the morrow of the Sabbath\": from the morrow of the festival. I might think, from the morrow of the Sabbath of creation. Now is it written On the morrow of Sabbath on Pesach? Is it not written only \"from the morrow of the Sabbath\"? Isn't the entire year filled with Sabbaths? Go and figure which Sabbath is meant! And, furthermore, it is written here \"from the morrow of the Sabbath,\" and, below, (Devarim 16:11), \"from the morrow of the (seventh) Sabbath.\" Just as there, the reference is to a time period (i.e., the end of the seventh week) conjoined with the beginning of a festival (Shavuoth); here, too, the reference is to a time period (the omer) conjoined with the beginning of a festival (Pesach, which begins with the fifteenth day of Nissan).",
                "5) R. Shimon b. Elazar says: In one place (Devarim 16:8) it is written \"Six days shall you eat matzoth,\" and, in another, (Shemoth 12:15) \"Seven days shall you eat matzoth\"! How is this to be resolved? Matzoh which cannot eat seven days from the new grain, (permission to eat of the new grain [chadash] beginning with the bringing of the omer on the second day of the festival), you can eat, seven from the old grain and six from the new. How, then, must I understand \"from the morrow of the Sabbath? As from the morrow of the festival.",
                "6) \"from the day that you bring\": you shall count. I might think that he could bring (the omer) and count, and harvest whenever he wished; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:9) \"from the time you put the sickle to the standing grain you shall begin to count. If \"from the time you put the sickle,\" I might think that one could harvest and count, and bring the omer whenever he liked; it is, therefore, written \"from the day that you bring … shall you count.\" If from the day that you bring. \"If from the day that you bring,\" I might think that he must harvest and count and bring in the daytime. It is, therefore, written \"seven complete Sabbaths shall they be.\" When are they \"complete\"? When he begins at night. I might then think that he harvests and brings and counts at night. It is, therefore, written \"from the day that you bring.\" How is this realized? The harvesting and counting is at night, and the bringing in the daytime.",
                "7) (Vayikra 23:16) (\"Until the morrow of the seventh Sabbath shall you count fifty days, and you shall offer a new meal-offering to the L–rd.\")",
                "8) \"you shall count fifty days\": I might think that one should count fifty days and make the fifty-first the festival (of Shavuoth); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 23:15) \"seven complete Sabbaths shall they be.\" (In that case, I might think that he should count forty-eight days and make the forty-ninth the festival. It is, therefore, written \"shall you count fifty days.\" How is this related? Fount forty-nine days and make the fiftieth day the festival, as with the Jubilee year.",
                "9) \"and you shall offer a new meal-offering\": It must be the newest of all the meal-offerings (i.e., Meal offerings are not brought of the new grain in the Temple until the two loaves are brought on a Shavuoth.) This tells me only of wheat meal-offerings. Whence do I derive the same for a barley meal-offering (i.e., the meal-offering of a sotah, that it may not be brought of new grain before this meal-offering has been brought)? It is written (Bamidbar 28:26) \"And on the day of the first-fruits, when you offer up a new meal-offering to the L–rd in your festival of weeks.\" If this is not needed for a wheat meal-offering, (this being the import of our verse), understand it as applying to a barley meal-offering, (that it, too, may not precede it). "
            ],
            "Chapter 13": [
                "1) (Vayikra 23:17) (\"From your dwellings shall you bring two breads of lifting. Two tenths of fine flour shall they be. Of leaven shall they be baked, first fruits to the L–rd.\") \"From your dwellings\": and not from outside Eretz Yisrael. \"From your dwellings\": even from the attic (i.e., even from old grain if no new grain is available). \"shall you bring\": What you bring elsewhere (the thanksgiving loaves) should be (of the same measure) as this. Just as this is one-tenth to a loaf, so, what you bring elsewhere must be one-tenth to a loaf.",
                "2) \"breads of lifting two\": They should look alike. \"Two tenths\": in sum total. \"of fine flour shall they be; of leaven shall they be baked\": He extracts it (the leaven) from themselves (the two loaves to be baked) and from their leaven. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: This, too, is not \"select.\" Rather he brings leaven (from elsewhere) and he places it into the (one-tenth) measure and fills it up (with fine flour). R. Meir: That, too, would be lacking (of the exact measure) or more (than it).",
                "3) \"first-fruits (bikkurim) to the L–rd\": R. Shimon says: I might think this is an individual offering, but (this is negated by) its being written (Vayikra 23:14): \"And you shall bring the omer the first grain of your harvest, to the Cohein.\" If you say that this is an individual offering, and that is a communal offering, this cannot be. For if this is bikkurim to the L–rd,\" then that is not the first of the harvest; and if that is the first of the harvest, then this is not \"bikkurim\" to the L–rd.\" (Note:) Things omitted there (in connection with the omer offering [e.g., \"lifting\" and the permitting of chadash (the new crop)] are written here. (See Dibbura d'Nedavah Chapter 15:2)",
                "4) (Vayikra 23:18) (\"And you shall present with the bread seven unblemished one-year old lambs, and one young bullock, and two rams. They shall be a burnt-offering to the L–rd, with their meal-offering and their drink-offerings, a fire-offering, a sweet savor to the L–rd.)\" \"and you shall present with the bread\": They are required for the bread. \"And you shall present with the bread seven unblemished one-year old lambs\": lambs, even if there is no bread. These are the words of R. Tarfon. If so, why is \"bread\" stated? We are hereby taught that the lambs were not ordained until the bread was ordained.",
                "5) \"and their drink offerings, a fire-offering, a sweet savor to the L–rd\": Scripture (here) speaks in short (without detailing specific measurements).",
                "6) (Vayikra 23:19) (\"And you shall offer one kid of the goats as a sin-offering and two one-year old lambs as a sacrifice of peace-offerings.\") \"And you shall offer one kid of the goats as a sin-offering\": I might think that the seven lambs and the kid of the goats mentioned in Bamidbar (Bamidbar 28:27, Bamidbar 28:29) are the same as those mentioned here. But when you come to bullocks and rams, you find that they are not so. (For here it is written \"one year bullock and two rams,\" and there (Bamidbar 28:27) \"two young bullocks\" and \"one ram.\") But these are sacrificed because of the bread, and the others, because of the (festival) day.",
                "7) \"and two one-year old lambs as a sacrifice of peace-offerings\": They must be sacrificed expressly as peace-offerings. \"and the one-year old lambs as a sacrifice of peace-offerings\": R. Shimon said: For what do the two Shavuoth lambs atone? For defilement of the sanctuary and its holy things. If the first atoned, why was the second needed? — For defilement that may have occurred between the (sprinkling of the blood of the) first and the (sacrifice of the) second. — If so, Israel would have to sacrifice every moment! (True,) but the Torah was \"solicitous\" of Israel.",
                "8) (Vayikra 23:20) (\"And the Cohein shall lift them on the bread of the first fruits, a lifting before the L–rd, on the two lambs. Holy shall they be to the L–rd, to the Cohein.\") \"And the Cohein shall lift them on the bread of the first fruits\": I might think that the bread is to be beneath them; it is, therefore, written \"on the two lambs.\" If \"on the two lambs,\" I might think that the bread is to be on top of the lambs; it is, therefore, written \"on the bread of the first fruits.\" The matter, then, must be weighed. What do we find elsewhere? (Vayikra 8:26) That the bread is on top. Here, too, the bread is on top. R. Yossi b. Mushulam says: The lambs are (placed) on top of the bread. And how am I to understand \"on the two lambs\"? To exclude the seven (mentioned above from \"lifting.\" Chanina b. Achinas says: He places the two breads between the thighs of the lambs and lifts, thereby satisfying both of these verses — the bread on the lambs and the lambs on the bread. Rebbi said: We would not do so before a king of flesh and blood. Should we do so before the Holy One Blessed be He? Rather, he places one beside the other and lifts, (the word \"on\" in Hebrew being susceptible to the signification \"with.\")",
                "9) \"Holy shall they be to the L–rd to the L–rd to the Cohein\": Bread (is to be offered) even if there are no lambs. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Shimon b. Naness says: No, lambs (are to be offered) even if there is no bread. Rebbi said: It can go both ways. Who will decide? Ben Naness: I will decide. For we find that for forty years in the desert they sacrificed lambs without bread. Here, too, without bread.",
                "10) R. Shimon said: The halachah is according to Ben Naness, but not the rationale. For everything mentioned in Bamidbar was offered in the desert, and what is mentioned in Vayikra was not offered in the desert. And when they come to Eretz Yisrael, both were offered, as it is written (Vayikra 22:10) \"When you come to the land … then you shall bring.\" Why do I say that lambs are to be offered (even) without bread? Because the lambs \"permit\" themselves (with the sprinkling of their blood and the offering of their devoted portions). And there is no bread without lambs, for there is no one to permit them, (it being forbidden to eat the bread until the lambs are offered up).",
                "11) (Vayikra 23:21-22) \"And you shall call out on this self-same day a holy calling … And when you harvest the harvest of your land, do not end off the corner of your field in your reaping and the gleaning of your harvest you shall not gather.\" R. Avardimos b. R. Yossi said: Why did Scripture see fit to insert this (peah and leket) in the midst of the festivals — Pesach and Shavuoth on one side, and Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur on the other? To teach that one who gives leket, shikchah, peah, and the poor tithe — it is accounted to him as if the Temple existed and he offered up his sacrifices therein. And one who does not give it — it is accounted to him as if the Temple existed and he did not offer up his sacrifices therein. "
            ],
            "Section 11": [
                "1) (Vayikra 23:24) (\"Speak to the children of Israel, saying: On the seventh month, on the first day of the month, there shall be for you a Sabbath, a remembrance of teruah, a holy calling.\") \"the children of Israel … a holy calling,\" and not gentiles, (even though they, too, are judged on Rosh Hashanah.) If \"the children of Israel,\" I would know only \"the children of Israel\" per se. Whence would I derive (for inclusion) proselytes and bondsmen? From (the superfluous) \"for you.\" \"a Sabbath (Shabbathon) a remembrance of teruah, a holy calling\": \"a Sabbath\": R. Eliezer says: \"a Sabbath\": This is (the blessing over) the holiness of the day. \"a remembrance\": This is (the section of) zichronoth. \"teruah\": This is shofaroth. \"a holy calling\": Sanctify (the day) by abstaining from labor. R. Akiva (to R. Eliezer): Why should we not say that \"Shabbathon\" refers to abstention from labor, for this is the prime thrust of the verse? \"Remembrance\" is zichronoth.\" teruah\": This is shofaroth. \"a holy calling\": This is the holiness of the day. And whence do we derive that (the section of) malchuyoth (Kingship) is included with them? From (Vayikra 23:22) \"I am the L–rd your G d\" (i.e., your King) … (Vayikra 23:24) \"on the seventh month, etc.\" (i.e., on Rosh Hashanah). R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: This (the above derivation) is not necessary. It is written (Bamidbar 10:10) \"Let this be a remembrance before your G d. (I am the L–rd your G d.\") Let this (the seemingly) superfluous \"I am the L–rd your G d\") not be written. It must serve, then, as a prototype (binyan av) to teach that whenever \"remembrances\" are mentioned, \"Kingships\" are to be juxtaposed with it.",
                "3) (What is) the order of the blessings (in Mussaf)? Patriarchs (Shield of Abraham), Strengths (You are strong), and Holiness of the Name (You are holy). And he includes Kingships with them, but does not blow (the shofar). (Then) the Holiness of the day, and he blows; Remembrances, and he blows; Shofaroth, and he blows. Then, he recites the (sacrificial) service, and thanksgiving, and the priestly blessing. These are the words of R. Yochanan b. Nuri.",
                "4) R. Akiva said to him: If he does not blow for Kingships, why mention it? Rather, he says Patriarchs, Strengths, and Holiness of the Name, and he includes Kingships in the Holiness of the day, and he blows; Shofaroth, and he blows, and then the service, thanksgiving, and the priestly blessing.",
                "5) Rebbi says: With Kingships he recites the Holiness of the day. What do we find on all days (i.e., on other festivals)? (It is recited in the fourth (blessing); here, too, in the fourth. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: He recites it with Remembrances. R. Shimon b. Gamliel said: What do we find on all days? (It is recited) in the middle (blessing). Here, too, in the middle. And when they (beth-din) sanctified the year in Usha, on the first day R. Shimon, the son of R. Yochanan b. Beroka arose and declared in accordance with R. Yochanan b. Nuri. R. Shimon b. Gamliel said: We did not follow this practice in Yavneh. On the second day, Chanania the son of R. Yossi Haglili arose and declared in accordance with R. Akiva, whereupon R. Shimon b. Gamliel said: This was our practice in Yavneh.",
                "6) And whence is it derived that it (the blowing) is with a shofar? From (Vayikra 25:9) \"And you shall cause to pass a shofar of teruah in the seventh month on the tenth day of the month. On Yom Kippur, etc.\" Let \"in the seventh month\" not be written (i.e., it is well known). Why is it written? (To teach that) the teruah of the seventh month (i.e., that of Rosh Hashanah) is like this one. Just as this is with a shofar, so, the teruah of Rosh Hashanah.",
                "7) And whence is it derived that there is a plain blast (i.e., a single, uninterrupted blast [tekiah]) before it? (i.e., before the teruah (\"broken\" blasts)? From: \"And you shall cause to pass (connoting a single \"passing\") a shofar of teruah.\" And whence is it derived that there is a plain blast after it? From (the repetition, Vayikra 25:9) \"shall you cause to pass a shofar.\" This tells me only of (the blowing of the shofar on) the Jubilee year (see Vayikra 25:10) Whence do I derive the same for Rosh Hashanah? From \"And you shall cause to pass a shofar of teruah in the seventh month on the tenth day of the month. On Yom Kippur, etc. Let \"in the seventh month\" not be written (i.e., it is well known). Why is it written? (To teach that the teruah of the seventh month (i.e., that of Rosh Hashanah) is like this one. Just as this one — a plain blast before and a plain blast after — so, Rosh Hashanah, a plain blast before and a plain blast after.",
                "8) Whence is derive three of three and three (i.e., that he blows three teruoth, each of which is accompanied by a plain blast before and a plain blast after)? From (Vayikra 25:9) \"And you shall cause to pass a shofar of teruah,\" (Vayikra 23:14) \"a remembrance of teruah, a holy calling,\" (Bamidbar 29:1) \"A day of teruah shall there be for you.\"",
                "9) And whence is it derived that what applies to Yovel (vis-à-vis shofar) applies to Rosh Hashanah, and that what applies to Rosh Hashanah applies to Yovel? From the identity (gezeirah shavah) of \"in the seventh month\" (stated in respect to each).",
                "10) What is the order of the tekioth? Tekiah-teruah-tekiah, tekiah-teruah-tekiah, three times that are nine (i.e., process is repeated three times). The length of a tekiah is that of the teruah, and that of the teruah is that of three shevarim (broken blasts. The size of the shofar — so that it can be held in the hand and blown."
            ],
            "Chapter 14": [
                "1) (Vayikra 23:27) (\"Only on the tenth day of this seventh month it is the day of atonement. A holy calling shall it be for you. And you shall afflict your souls and you shall present a fire-offering to the L–rd.\") \"the day of atonement, a holy calling,\" \"the day of atonement and you shall afflict your souls,\" (Vayikra 23:28) \"And all work you shall not do for it is a day of atonement.\" (Why three times?) For I might think that Yom Kippur does not atone unless he made it a holy calling (in the blessings of the day), and afflicted himself, and abstained from labor. Whence do I derive that even if he did not do these, the day atones? From \"It is the day of atonement.\" I might think that Yom Kippur atoned only with the offerings and with the he-goats. Whence do I derive that the day atones even without them? From \"It is the day of atonement.\" I might think that it atones both for those who repent and those who do not. — No would this follow? A sin-offering and a guilt-offering atone. Just as they atone only for penitents (viz. Bamidbar 5:7), so, Yom Kippur should atone only for penitents!",
                "2) — No, this may be so for a guilt-offering and a sin-offering, which do not atone for witting sin as for unwitting sin. Would you say the same for Yom Kippur, which does atone for witting as for unwitting sin? And since it does, we would say that it atones both for those who do repent and for those who do not. It is, therefore, written \"Only\" (a term of exclusion). To teach that it atones only for those who repent.",
                "3) (Vayikra 23:28) (\"And all work you shall not do on this self-same day; for it is a day of atonement to atone for you before the L–rd your G d.\") \"And all work you shall not do on this self-same day\": This is the exhortation against labor (on Yom Kippur). (Vayikra 23:30) \"And every soul that shall do any labor on this self-same day, I shall make that soul go lost from the midst of its people.\": This is the punishment against labor.",
                "4) (Vayikra 23:29) \"For every soul which will not be afflicted on this self-same day will be cut off from its people.\" This is the punishment for (non-) application. (Vayikra 23:30) \"I shall make that soul go lost\": What is the intent of this? (i.e., What do we learn from this equivalence between kareth [\"cutting-off\"] and \"aveidah\" [\"going lost\"]?) Because \"kareth\" is mentioned in every place and I do not know what it is, \"I shall make that soul go lost\" indicates that \"kareth\" refers to complete destruction (and not merely to the cutting off of the soul from the body.) And whence is it derived that eating, drinking, washing, anointing, cohabitation, and shodding are forbidden on Yom Kippur? From (Vayikra 23:32) \"A Sabbath of resting … and you shall afflict\" (The connotation is extension of affliction). I might then think that all of these are forbidden on the Sabbath of creation (i.e., Saturday, which is also referred to as \"a Sabbath of resting\"); it is, therefore, written \"A Sabbath of resting it (Yom Kippur) shall be for you and you shall afflict, etc.\" \"It\" is forbidden in all (of these things), and not the Sabbath of creation.",
                "5) (Vayikra 23:32) (\"and you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the month in the evening; from evening until evening shall you rest your resting.\") I might think that he should fast on the ninth day itself; it is, therefore, written \"in the evening.\" If \"in the evening,\" I might think when it became dark; it is, therefore, written \"and you shall afflict your souls \"on the ninth.\" How is this to be resolved? He begins fasting (on the ninth) when it is still light, adding \"from the profane to the holy.\" This tells me (that we add) only before. Whence do we derive the same (\"adding\") for after? From \"from evening until evening.\" ",
                "6) This tells me only of (adding on) Yom Kippur. Whence do I derive (the same for) the Sabbath of creation? From (the redundant) \"shall you rest.\" Whence do we derive (the same for) the festivals? From \"your resting.\" Wherever there is \"resting\" you add from the profane to the holy, both before and after.",
                "7) I might think that there is (kareth) liability for (labor on) the \"addition\" (above). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 23:30) \"And every soul that should do any labor on this self-same day, I shall make go lost\" — (for labor on) the self-same day there is kareth, but not for labor on the \"addition.\"",
                "8) I might think that there is no kareth liability for labor (on the addition), but that there is such liability for (non-) affliction on the addition; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 23:29) \"For every soul which will not be afflicted on this self-same day will be cut off.\" For (non-) affliction on the self-same day there is kareth liability, but not for (non-) affliction on the addition. I might think that he is not subject to the punishment, but that he is subject to (transgression of) the exhortation. It is, therefore, written \"All work you shall not do on this self-same day.\" There is exhortation against (labor on) this self-same day, but not against labor on the addition.",
                "9) I might think that (though) there is no exhortation against labor on the addition, there is exhortation against (non-) affliction on the addition. But it follows a fortiori (that this is not so, viz.: If (the ban against) labor, which obtains on festivals and Sabbaths, is not exhorted against (vis-à-vis labor on the addition), then (non-) affliction, (the ban against which does not obtain on festivals and Sabbaths — how much more so is it not exhorted against (on the addition)! But we have not heard any exhortation against (non-) affliction on the day (Yom Kippur) itself! (It is derived, however, as follows:) Let the punishment against labor not be stated, for it may be derived a fortiori, viz.: If (non-) affliction, (the ban against which) does not obtain on festivals and Sabbaths, is (on Yom Kippur) punishable by kareth, then labor (the ban against which) does obtain on festivals and Sabbaths, how much more so should it be punishable (by kareth!) Why, then, is the punishment for labor (on Yom Kippur) stated? To derive from it the exhortation against (non-) affliction (on Yom Kippur), viz.: Just as the punishment for labor follows a (written) exhortation, so, the punishment for (non-) affliction follows an (understood) exhortation. "
            ],
            "Section 12": [
                "1) (Vayikra 23:33-34) \"And the L–rd spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel, saying: On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the festival of Succoth, seven days to the L–rd.\" What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is essentially stated in verse 39). Because it is written (Vayikra 23 verse 42) \"In Succoth shall you sit seven days, and I do not know if the first seven days or seven other days, \"On the fifteenth day of this seventh month is the festival of Succoth, seven days to the L–rd,\" I see that the first seven days are referred to, and not seven others.",
                "2) \"this is the festival of Succoth\": This (festival) requires a succah, but the festival of matzoth (Pesach) does not require a succah. Now would it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If this (festival), which does not require matzoh, requires a succah, then the festival of matzoth, which does require matzoh, how much more so should it require a succah! It is, therefore, written \"this is the festival of Succoth\" — This, the festival of Succoth, requires a succah, but not the festival of matzoth.",
                "3) \"the festival of Succoth, seven days to the L–rd\": I might think that the chagigah (the festival offering) and the succah should be for the L–rd; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:13) \"The festival of Succoth should you make for yourselves seven days.\" If (only) the latter (were written), I would think that both the chagigah and the succah reverted to the man; it is, therefore, written \"the festival of Succoth, seven days to the L–rd.\" How is this to be reconciled? The chagigah, to the L–rd; the succah, to the man.",
                "4) (Vayikra 23:35) \"On the first day is a holy calling\" — Sanctify it and (Vayikra 23:36) \"On the eighth day is a holy calling\" — Sanctify it. How do you sanctify it? With (special) food and drink and with fresh clothing.",
                "5) (Vayikra 23:35) \"And \"all manner of work you shall not do. (Vayikra 23:36) Seven days, etc.\": We are hereby (by the juxtaposition) taught that labor is forbidden on the intermediate days of the festival.",
                "6) I might think that crucial work is also forbidden on them; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 23:36) \"It (the eighth day) (is a select day\"). Crucial work is forbidden on it, and not on the intermediate days of the festival. These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili.",
                "7) R. Akiva says: What is the intent of (Vayikra 23:37) \"These are the festivals of the L–rd which you shall call them holy callings\"? If to the days of the festival (proper), these are already mentioned, viz. (Vayikra 23:39) \"on the first day, a resting, and on the eight day, a resting. If so, what is the intent of \"which you shall call them holy callings\"? These are the intermediate days of the festival, on which (non crucial) labor is forbidden.",
                "8) I might think that crucial work is also forbidden on them; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 23:36) \"It\" — \"It (the eighth day) (is a select day\"). Crucial work is forbidden on it, and not on the intermediate days of the festival.",
                "9) (\"These are the festivals of the L–rd, which you shall call holy callings to present a fire-offering to the L–rd, a burnt-offering and a meal-offering, a sacrifice and drink-offerings, the object of the day on its day.\") \"to present a fire-offering to the L–rd, a burnt-offering and a meal-offering\": If there is no burnt-offering, there is no meal-offering. The burnt-offering must precede the meal-offering, and if the meal-offering preceded the burnt-offering, it (the burnt-offering) is invalid. \"a sacrifice and drink-offerings\": If there is no sacrifice, there are no drink-offerings. The sacrifice must precede the drink-offerings, and if drink-offerings preceded sacrifices, they (the sacrifices) are invalid. \"the object of the day\": We are hereby taught that the entire day is valid for the additional offerings (mussafin). \"in its day\": If its time passed (and he did not offer them), he is not required to make restitution. I might think that they are not required to make restitution for their (omitted) drink-offerings (though he presented the sacrifice itself); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 23:18) \"with their meal-offering and their drink-offerings\" — even at night; \"with their meal-offering and their drink-offerings\" — even on the morrow.",
                "10) Whence is it derived that the additional offerings of the Sabbath are presented together with the devoted portions of the festival (when the Sabbath falls out on a festival)? From (Vayikra 23:38) \"Aside from the Sabbaths of the L–rd.\" (Vayikra 23:38) \"aside from your gifts and aside from all your vows, and aside from all your free-will offerings that you give to the L–rd\": What is the intent of this? I might think that only the offerings of the festival itself are to be presented on the festival. Whence is it derived that individual offerings and communal offerings consecrated on the festival are presented on the festival? From \"aside from your gifts and aside from all your vows, and aside from all your free-will offerings.\" \"that you give to the L–rd\": These are birds and meal-offerings (which are entirely consumed by fire, and, thus, entirely \"to the L–rd\") — to include all of them as fit for presentation on the festival."
            ],
            "Chapter 15": [
                "1) I might think that (the above) are permitted (to be brought on the festival, but are not mandatory); it is, therefore, written (of the same) (Bamidbar 29:39) \"These you shall offer to the L–rd on your festivals.\" If to permit, they have already been permitted (according to our assumption). If so, why is the latter stated? To make them mandatory — that all of them must be brought on the festival.",
                "2) I might think (that he could bring them) on any festival that he desired. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 12:5-6) \"And you shall come there (to the Temple) and you shall bring there\" (the same). If to permit, it had already been permitted. If to make mandatory, it has already been made mandatory. If so, why is it written? (To make it mandatory for him to bring them) on the first festival (of the three festivals) that arrives (after they were due).",
                "3) I might think that if one festival passed and he did not bring them, he transgresses (Devarim 23:22) \"You shall not delay (to pay it.\") It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 29:29) \"These shall you offer to the L–rd on your festivals.\" He does not transgress \"You shall not delay\" until all the (three) festivals of the year have passed. R. Shimon says: Three consecutive festivals, with the festival of matzoth first.",
                "4) How so? It he vowed before Pesach, (he does not transgress) until Pesach, Shavuoth, and Succoth have passed. If he vowed before Shavuoth, (he does transgress) with Shavuoth, Succoth, Pesach, Shavuoth, and Succoth have passed. If he vowed before Succoth, he does not transgress until Succoth, Pesach, Shavuoth, and Succoth have passed.",
                "5) (Vayikra 23:39) (\"But on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you gather the produce of the land, you shall calibrate the festival of the L–rd seven days; on the first day a resting and on the eighth day a resting.\") Beth Shammai say: I might think that the chagigah (olath re'iah [burnt-offering of \"visitation\"]) could be offered on the festival (itself); it is, therefore, written \"But\" (a term of exclusion). On the moed (the intermediate days of the festival) you offer the chagigah, but not on the festival (itself). Beth Hillel say: I might think that the chagigah could be offered on the Sabbath; it is, therefore, written \"But.\" On the festival you may offer the chagigah, but not on the Sabbath. ",
                "6) \"when you gather the produce of the land\": Intercalate the year (if necessary) so that the festival occur when you gather the fruits. ",
                "7) I might think, when all the fruits are gathered. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 16:13) \"from your threshing floor and from your winepress.\" \"From your threshing floor,\" and not all of your threshing floor; \"from your winepress,\" and not all of your winepress. If \"from your threshing floor and from your winepress, I would think (even the lesser) part of them; it is, therefore, written \"when you gather the produce of the land.\" How so? Exert yourselves to intercalate the year in such a manner that the festival falls out with most of the gathering of all of the fruits.",
                "8) \"you shall celebrate the festival of the L–rd seven days\": seven days for \"making up\" (omission of the chagigah offering on the first day [see beginning of Chapter 17]). \"on the first day, a resting\": from labor. \"and on the eighth day, a resting\": from labor. "
            ],
            "Chapter 16": [
                "1) (Vayikra 23:40) (\"And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a tree that is hadar, branches of date-palms, and a branch of a plaited tree, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the L–rd your G d seven days.\") \"And you shall take for yourselves\": R. Yehudah says: \"taking\" is written here and elsewhere (Shemoth 12:22 \"And take a bunch of hyssop\") Just as there, a bunch, here, too, bunched together. And the sages say even without bunching it is kasher.",
                "2) \"And you shall take for yourselves\": each one of you. \"for yourselves\": and not what is borrowed or stolen — whence it was ruled: One does not fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with his neighbor's lulav. But if he wishes, he may give it as a gift to his neighbor, and his neighbor to his neighbor, even if there be a hundred. Once, R. Gamliel and the elders were coming in a boat and no one but R. Gamliel had a lulav, whereupon he gave it as a gift to R. Yehoshua, R. Yehoshua to R. Elazar b. Azaryah, and R. Elazar b. Azaryah to R. Akiva, and all of them fulfilled their obligation thereby.",
                "3) \"on the first day\": and not on the first night. \"on the first day\": and even on the Sabbath. \"on the first day\": The Sabbath is overridden only for the first day of the festival alone.",
                "4) \"the fruit of a tree\": the taste of whose trunk and whose fruit is the same — an ethrog. Ben Azzai says \"hadar\" — \"hadar\" (\"that lives\"), something that lives on its tree (i.e., that is produced) from year to year.",
                "5) \"and branches (kapoth) of date-palms\": R. Tarfon says \"kafuth\" (\"pressed together\"). If they are separated they are to be pressed together.",
                "6) \"and a branch of a plaited tree\": (the connotation is) one whose leaves cover its wood — a hadas. \"and willows of the brook\": This tells me only of (willows) of the brook. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) those of the mountains and of naturally watered fields? From \"and willows of the brook.\" Abba Shaul says: \"willows of the brook\" — two, one for the lulav (to be tied together with it) and one for the Temple (with which to circle the altar).",
                "7) R. Yishmael says: \"the fruit of a tree that is hadar\" — one; branches of date-palms\" — one; \"a branch of a plaited tree\" — three; \"willows of the brook\" — two; and even two (lopped off) hadas branches with one that is not lopped off. R. Tarfon says: even three lopped off ones. R. Akiva says: \"the fruit of a tree that is hadar — one; \"branches of date-palms\" — one; \"a branch of a plaited tree\" — one; \"willows of the brook\" — one. Just as the lulav is one and the ethrog one, so is the hadas one and the willow (aravah) one. I might think that the ethrog is with them in the bunch, but is it written \"the frit of a tree that is hadar and branches, etc.\"? How is that to be understood then? The ethrog by itself; the others in a bunch by themselves.",
                "8) And whence is it derived that they are mutually indispensable? From \"And you shall take (\"ulekachtem\") for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a tree that is hadar, branches of date-palms, and a branch of a plaited tree, and willows of the brook. (\"ulekachtem\") equals \"lekichah tamah,\" whereby we are taught that they (all of them) are mutually indispensable.",
                "9) \"and you shall rejoice before the L–rd your G d seven days\": and not in the borders (i.e., outside of Jerusalem) all seven days (but only on the first). And after the destruction of the Temple, R. Yochanan b. Zakkai instituted that the lulav be taken in the country (i.e., outside of Jerusalem seven days, in commemoration of the Temple, and that the entire day of lifting (the omer) be forbidden (See Section 10:11-12)."
            ],
            "Chapter 17": [
                "1)1(Vayikra 23:41) (\"And you shall celebrate it at a festival to the L–rd, seven days a year, a statute forever throughout your generations; on the seventh month you shall celebrate it.\") \"And you shall celebrate it as a festival to the L–rd seven days\": Because it is written \"And you shall celebrate it as a festival to the L–rd seven days,\" I might think that one must bring a festive offering (chagigah) all seven days; it is, therefore, written you shall celebrate it\" — one day alone.",
                "2) If so, why is \"seven days\" written? Restitution (for omission of the offering) may be made all seven days.",
                "3) And whence is it derived that if one did not offer the festival offering on the first day of the festival, he may do so on all the remaining days and on the last festival days? From \"on the seventh month shall you celebrate\" (i.e., offer). I might think that if he did not offer it on the festival he could offer it after the festival\"; it is, therefore, written \"shall you celebrate it\" (the festival) — On the festival you celebrate, and you do not celebrate outside of it.",
                "4) (Vayikra 23:42) (\"In succoth shall you sit seven days; every citizen in Israel shall sit in succoth.\") \"In succoth\": and not in a succah under a house, and not in a succah under a tree, and not in a succah under a succah. R. Yehudah said: If the upper succah is not fit for tenancy, the lower succah is kasher.",
                "5) \"shall you sit\": similar to \"shall you dwell\" — whence it was ruled: He eats in the succah and drinks in the succah and walks in the succah and brings his vessels to the succah. (\"seven) days\": This tells me only of days. Whence do I derive nights (for inclusion)? It follows thus: \"seven\" is written here, and also in respect to the tent of meeting (Vayikra 8:35 \"And at the door of the tent of meeting you shall sit day and night\"). Just as there nights were equated with days, so, here.",
                "6) But why not go in this direction? \"seven\" is written here, and \"seven\" is written in respect to lulav. Just as with lulav, nights were not equated with days, here, too, nights should not be equated with days!",
                "7) Let us see where there is (greater) similarity. We derive seven which are constant, the entire day (i.e., succah) from seven which are constant, the entire day (the tent of meeting), and this is not to be refuted by lulav, which is not constant, the entire day, (but only for the time of his fulfilling the mitzvah).",
                "8) — But perhaps we should go in this direction: We derive \"seven\" which obtain in all generations (succah) from seven which obtain in all generations (lulav), and this is not to be refuted by the \"seven\" of the tent of meeting, which does not obtain in all generations! It is, therefore, written (of) both the tent of meeting and of succah) \"you shall sit seven days,\" for a gezeirah shavah (identity). Just as with the \"you shall sit seven days\" of the tent of meeting, nights were equated with days, so with the \"you shall sit seven days\" of succah, nights are to be equated with days.",
                "9) \"citizen\": as stated; \"the citizen\" — to exclude women; \"every citizen\" — to include minors (amenable to such training); \"in Israel\" — (I would think this) to include proselytes and freed bondsmen.",
                "10) \"shall sit in succoth\": in a succah of any kind (and not just of the four species mentioned above). For R. Yehudah was wont to say — and it would follow — that a succah must be of the four species, viz.: If lulav, which does not obtain in the nights as in the daytime, is of the four species, then succah, which does obtain in the nights as in the daytime, how much more so must it be of the four species! They said to R. Yehudah: Every hermeneutical rule, whose initial thrust is for stringency and its end result, for leniency, is not a (valid rule). For (according to the above) if he did not find (material) of the four species, he would sit without a succah! And Scripture states (categorically) \"they shall sit in succoth\" — (meaning, of necessity) in succoth of all kinds.",
                "11) And thus does Ezra say (Nechemiah 8:15) \"and that they must announce and proclaim throughout all their cities and Jerusalem, saying: Go out to the mountains and bring olive leaves, and olive-tree leaves and hadas leaves, and date-palm leaves, and plaited-tree leaves to make succoth, as it is written\" (Vayikra 23:43) \"So that your generations know that I caused the children of Israel to dwell in succoth when I took them out of the land of Egypt.\" R. Eliezer says that they were booths, literally; R. Akiva says that they were clouds of glory. \"when I took them out of the land of Egypt.\" We are hereby taught that even the succah is a reminder of the exodus from Egypt.",
                "12) (Vayikra 23:44) \"And Moses declared the festivals of the L–rd to the children of Israel\": We re hereby apprised that Moses related to Israel the laws of Pesach on Pesach, the laws of Shavuoth on Shavuoth, and the laws of Succoth on Succoth. In the language that he heard it (from the L–rd), he related it to Israel, (after which he imparted to them the oral law upon it. And all of the sections of the Torah were related in the same manner. R. Yossi Haglili says: The festivals of the L–rd were declared, but not the Sabbath of creation along with them. Ben Azzai says: The festivals of the L–rd were stated, but not the section of vows along with them.",
                "13) Rebbi says: What is the intent of \"And Moses declared the festivals of the L–rd to the children of Israel\"? Because we learned only that the daily burnt-offering and the Paschal lamb override the Sabbath, it being written concerning them \"in its appointed season,\" whence do we derive that the other communal offering also overrides the Sabbath? From \"These shall you offer to the L–rd in your appointed seasons.\" But we did not hear (the same for) the omer and what is offered along with it and the two loaves and what is offered along with them. Therefore, in \"And Moses declared the festivals of the L–rd to the children of Israel\" Scripture established a set time (\"festival\" [\"moadim\"] = appointed times) for all of the offerings (even if the Sabbath must be overridden). "
            ],
            "Section 13": [
                "1) (Vayikra 24:2) (\"Command (tzav) the children of Israel that they bring to you pure (zach) olive oil, crushed (katish) for the light, to raise a flame always.\") \"tzav\": \"tzav\" connotes \"impelling,\" immediately and for future generations. R. Shimon said: Especially where monetary loss is involved. \"that they bring to you\": You are appointed over this. \"olive oil\": and not sesame oil, and not radish oil, but olive oil which flows of itself (before pressing) — whence they ruled: There are three (periods in a year for picking the) olives, and from each of them come three kinds of oil. The first picking of the olives is from the top of the olive tree, and he gathers them into the olive press, and grinds them in the mill and places them in baskets and he presses them under the beam. What issues from them first is removed and ground a second time. What issues from them the second time is ground again, and so, a third time. The first (oil) is for the menorah and the rest for meal-offerings.",
                "2) The second (gathering of) the olives — they are picked at roof-level and he gathers them into the olive press and grinds them in the mill and places them in baskets and he presses them under the beam. What issues from them first is removed and ground a second time. What issues from them a second time is ground again, and so, a third time. The first (oil) is for the menorah and the rest for meal-offerings.",
                "3) The third (gathering of) the olives — he packs it into the house until it begins to rot. Then he takes it up to the roof, until it forms a date-like excrescence, after which he gathers them into the house and grinds them in the mill and places them in baskets and presses them under the beam. What issues from them first is removed and ground a second time. What issues from them a second time is ground again, and so, a third time. The first (oil) is for the menorah and the rest for meal-offerings.",
                "4) R. Yehudah says: He did not grind them in a mill, but he pounded them in a mortar. And he did not press them under a beam but under stones. And he did not place them in a basket, but around the basket and he bored (into them) from the midst of the basket, (into which the oil flowed).",
                "5) The first (oil) of the first (mode of extraction) — there is nothing finer than it. The second of the first (mode) and the first of the second are alike. The third of the first and the second of the second and the first of the third are alike. The third of the second and the second of the third are alike. The third of the third — there is nothing inferior to it.",
                "6) \"zach\": It must be pure. \"katish\" (\"crushed\") R. Yehudah says: There are no \"crushed\" olives except those pounded (in a mortar). \"katish\": (It must be) \"crushed\" for the light (of the menorah) but not for the meal-offerings.",
                "7) \"to raise a flame always\": so that the flame rise (of itself). \"to raise a flame\": so that the western light burn continuously; he (the kindler) would begin with it and end with it. And when his brother Cohanim entered to bow down, he would precede them. How so? He would enter and find the two eastern lights burning. He would clean the eastern (lamp) and leave the western burning, from which the menorah was lit at twilight. If he found it to have dimmed, he cleans it and kindles it from the altar of the burnt-offering. \"always\": even on the Sabbath;",
                "8) (Vayikra 24:3) (\"Outside the veil (parocheth) of the testimony, in the tent of meeting, shall Aaron order it, from evening until morning, before the L–rd always, an everlasting statute throughout your generations.\") \"outside the veil (parocheth) of the testimony\": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is already written) From (Shemoth 40:24) \"And he put the menorah in the tent of meeting opposite the table, \"I do not know if close to the parocheth or close to the entrance. \"Outside the parocheth of the testimony in the tent of meeting tells us that it was closer to the parocheth than to the entrance. ",
                "9) \"Outside the parocheth of the testimony\": Now was the light of the menorah required? Was it not with His light (i.e., that of the Shechinah) by which the Jews traveled all forty years in the desert? Rather (it is to be understood as meaning that) it served as testimony to the inhabitants of the world that the Shechinah resided in Israel. What is the testimony? Rava said: It is the western lamp, into which he would place as much oil as in all the other lamps, and yet would commence (lighting all the other lamps) with it and conclude (servicing the lamps) with it.",
                "10) (Shemoth 27:21) \"Aaron and his sons shall order it\" (as opposed to \"Aaron shall order it.\") What is the intent of this? (i.e., How are the verses to be reconciled?) Because it is written (Bamidbar 8:2) \"The seven lamps shall give light towards the face of the menorah,\" I might think that one Cohein (Aaron) enters with seven lamps; it is, therefore, written \"to raise a flame always.\" I might then think that one Cohein does not enter with seven lamps, but that seven Cohanim enter with seven lamps; it is, therefore, written \"Aaron and his sons shall order it,\" — Aaron and his sons order it only one by one (i.e., one after the other).",
                "11) \"from evening until morning\": Give them their measure (of oil) so that they burn from evening until morning, and that they be the only service from evening until morning; \"always\": even on the Sabbath; \"always\": even in a state of uncleanliness."
            ],
            "Chapter 18": [
                "1) (Vayikra 24:5) (\"And you shall take fine flour and you shall bake it (into) twelve chaloth; two-tenths (of an ephah) shall the one chalah be.\") Whence is it derived that even wheat may be brought (from which flour is later taken)? From (the superfluous) \"And you shall take (fine flour\"). I might think that wheat could be brought for meal-offerings; it is, therefore, written \"it\" — It may be brought as wheat, but not other meal-offerings.",
                "2) \"twelve chaloth\": they must be alike; \"two-tenths\": each one must be two-tenths (of fine flour). \"the one chalah. They must be kneaded and arranged one by one. Whence do we derive the same for the two loaves (of Shavuoth)? From \"the one chalah shall be.\" (Vayikra 24:6) (\"And you shall place them in two rows, six in a row, upon the pure table before the L–rd.\") And whence is it derived that they are baked two by two? From \"And you shall place them.\" I might think that the two loaves also are baked together; it is, therefore, written \"them\" — They are baked two by two, but the two loaves one by one. \"And you shall place them\": into a mould. There were three moulds: one into which the dough was put, one (in which they were baked) in one oven, and one in which they were taken from the oven so that they not come apart.",
                "3) \"two rows\": (Why mention this?) Because it is written \"twelve (chaloth\"), I might think, three rows of four (each); it is, therefore, written \"two rows.\" If \"two rows,\" (why say \"six in a row? It is understood.) For I might think (one row of) eight and one row of four; it is, therefore, written \"two rows.\" If two rows and six in the row (let it not be written \"twelve chaloth,\" (for it would be understood). (No, for then I might think, two rows of six (each). It must, therefore, be written twelve chaloth. The three verses are, therefore, needed; otherwise, we would not know.",
                "4) \"upon the pure table\": on the surface of the table; the props did not lift the bread from the table. Concerning this they said: There were four props of gold there with projections on their tops on which they (the chaloth) were supported — two (props) for one arrangement and two for the other. And there were twenty-eight rods, (each like half a hollow reed), fourteen for one arrangement and fourteen for the other.",
                "5) (Vayikra 24:7) (\"And you shall place near the two pure frankincense; and it shall be a memorial for the bread, a fire-offering to the L–rd.\") I might think that one row is intended. (But this is not so, for) it is written here \"row,\" and above \"two rows.\" Just as there, two rows are indicated, so, here.",
                "6) \"pure frankincense\": it should be clear. \"and it shall be for the bread\": It is indispensable to the bread. \"and it shall be for the bread\": We are hereby taught that (piggul thoughts [thoughts effecting rejection of the offering] in respect to) the frankincense — hold back, render piggul, and invalidate the bread. \"and it shall be for the bread\": It is not placed on top of the bread, but into the censers with bottoms, which are placed on the table so as not to crack the bread.",
                "7) \"as a memorial\": \"memorial\" is written here, and elsewhere (Vayikra 5:12, in respect to a meal-offering.) Just as there a fistful, here, too, a fistful — whereby we are taught two fistfuls are needed: one, for one row, and another for the other.",
                "8) (Vayikra 24:8) (\"On the day of Sabbath, on the day of Sabbath, he shall place it before the L–rd always; from the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant.\") \"On the day of Sabbath\": On the day of Sabbath he arranges the new (incense vessel), and on the day of Sabbath he smokes the previous one. He does not set up the props on the Sabbath, but enters before the Sabbath and removes them and places them along the length of the table. Al the objects in the Temple (were set) lengthwise (east to west) parallel with the length of the Temple, except the ark, (whose length was parallel with the breadth of the Temple).",
                "9) After the Sabbath he enters and places three (rods) under each (loaf) and two under the top (loaf) because there is no weight on top of it. \"from the children of Israel\": by their will. \"an everlasting covenant\": by the Master of the covenant.",
                "10) (Vayikra 24:9) (\"And it shall be for Aaron and for his sons. And they shall eat it in a holy place; for holy of holies it is to him, of the fire-offerings of the L–rd, an everlasting statute.\") \"And it shall be for Aaron and for his sons. And they shall eat it in a holy place\": This tells me why that its eating must be in a holy place. Whence do I derive the same for its kneading and its arrangement? From \"And it shall be\" (connoting extension of application). Whence do I derive that the kneading and arrangement of the two loaves must also be in a holy place? From \"for holy of holies\" (which is also the status of the two loaves). R. Yehudah says: All of their operations must be performed within. R. Shimon says: Always be accustomed to say: \"The two loaves and the showbread are kasher in the azarah (the Temple court and are kasher in Beth Pagel (i.e., even outside the walls of Jerusalem).",
                "11) (\"for holy of holies) it (is to him\"): If one of the loaves crumbles, they are all invalidated, (\"it\" connoting \"in its complete state\"). \"to him\": I might think, to him alone; it is, therefore, written \"and for his sons.\" If \"and for his sons,\" I might think, for his sons and not for him. It is, therefore, written \"for Aaron and for his sons.\" If \"for Aaron and for his sons,\" I would think, for all of them (equally). How is this to be resolved? For Aaron, without sharing (i.e., he selects his own half); and for his sons, with sharing (the half that is left). Just as Aaron eats without sharing, so, his sons (i.e., his descendants), the high-priests, eat without sharing. \"of the fire-offerings of the L–rd\": hey may not (eat it until after the fistful of frankincense has been burned. \"an everlasting statute\": for the eternal house (the Temple, and not for a bamah [a temporary altar], there being no meal-offering on a bamah.) "
            ],
            "Section 14": [
                "1) (Vayikra 24:10) (\"And the son of an Israelite woman went out; and he was the son of an Egyptian man in the midst of the children of Israel. And they strove within the camp, the son of the Israelite woman and the Israelite man.\") \"And the son of an Israelite woman went out\": Whence did he go out From the beth-din of Moses. For he came to pitch his tent in the midst of the camp of Dan — whereupon they said to him: \"Who are you that you would pitch your tent in the midst of the camp of Dan?\" He: \"My mother was of the tribe of Dan.\" They: \"Scripture states (Bamidbar 2:2) 'The Israelites shall encamp; each with his standard by signs according to their fathers' house shall the children of Israel encamp'\" — at which he entered the beth-din of Moses, emerged unvindicated, arose, and blasphemed. \"and he was the son of an Egyptian man\": Even though there were not mamzerim (\"bastards\") at that time, he was regarded as a mamzer. \"in the midst of the children of Israel\": We are hereby taught that he became a proselyte. \"And they strove within the camp\": over the affair of the encampment. \"the son of the Israelite woman and the Israelite man\": his antagonist. (Vayikra 24:11) (\"And the son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name and he cursed. And they brought him to Moses. And the name of his mother was Shlomith the daughter of Divri of the tribe of Dan.\") ",
                "2) \"and the son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name\": the ineffable Name that he heard at Sinai. \"and he cursed\": It is not written \"And he 'blessed,'\" as in (I Kings 21:13) \"Navoth has 'blessed' (a euphemism for the opposite) G d and king,\" but \"and he cursed\" — to teach that there is no death penalty for (cursing) with an epithet.",
                "3) R. Yehoshua b. Karchah said: The entire day )of deliberation) they would examine the witnesses (to blaspheming) with an epithet — \"May Yossah smite Yossah.\" When the judgment was concluded (and beth-din came to pronounce him liable), they could not execute him (on the basis of the testimony that they had heard, for the had heard from their mouths only a curse) by epithet. But everyone is sent out, (it being demeaning to utter a \"blessing of the Name\" in public), and they ask the senior witness (what he heard) and say to him: \"Repeat what you heard explicitly,\" and he does so. And the judges stand upon their feet, and they rend (their garments) and do not resew them. And the second witness says: \"I, too, heard as he did.\" And the third witness says: \"I, too, heard as he did.\" And the witnesses need not rend (their garments), for they already did so upon hearing it originally.",
                "4) \"And they brought him to Moses\": But they did not bring the wood-gatherer (mekoshesh) with him (see Bamidbar 15:32). \"And the name of his mother was Shlomith the daughter of Divri, of the tribe of Dan.\" a blemish to himself, a blemish to his mother, a blemish to his family, and a blemish to his tribe whence he came.",
                "5) (Vayikra 24:12) (\"And they put him in confinement, to be explained to them at the mouth of the L–rd.\") But they did not place the mekoshesh with him, though their situations were concurrent. And they knew that the mekoshesh was liable to the death penalty, viz. (Shemoth 21:14) \"Those who desecrate it (the Sabbath) shall die, but they did not know which death penalty, viz. (Bamidbar 15:34) \"for it was not clear what should be done to him,\" but here it is written \"to be explained to them at the mouth of the L–rd\" — whereby we are taught that they did not know whether he was liable to the death penalty or not. "
            ],
            "Chapter 19": [
                "1) (Vayikra 24:13-14) (\"And the L–rd spoke to Moses, saying: Take the curser outside of the camp, and let all who heard place their hands on his head; and let all the congregation stone him.\") \"Take the curser outside of the camp\": We are hereby taught that beth-din was within, and the stoning site outside of it. \"and let \"who heard\": These are the witnesses. \"all who heard\": These are the judges. \"their hands\": the hands of each, individually.",
                "2) \"their hands on his head\": They place their hands upon him and say to him: \"Your blood is on your head for you brought yourself to this.\"",
                "3) \"and they shall stone him\": and not his garment (i.e., he is stoned naked). \"all the congregation\": Now does all the congregation stone him? The meaning is, rather, that the witnesses (stone him) in the presence of the entire congregation. (Vayikra 24:15) (\"And to the children of Israel, you shall speak, saying: A man, a man, if he curse his G d, then he shall bear his sin.\") I might think that this (i.e., the stoning of the man in our instance) was (only) \"a teacher for the time\" (hora'ath sha'ah); it is, therefore, written \"And to the children of Israel speak, saying \"Let it obtain in all generations.\"",
                "4) \"A man, a man\": What is the intent of this (redundancy)? To include gentiles as being killed for blessing the Name as well as Jews. But they are killed only by the sword, for it is only this type of execution that obtains for the sons of Noach.",
                "5) \"if he curse his G d\": What is the intent of this? I might think, because it is written (Vayikra 24:16) \"And he who blasphemes the name of the L–rd shall die,\" that he is killed only (if he curses) the ineffable Name (i.e., the tetragrammaton). Whence is the same derived for all of the epithets (for His Name): It is, therefore, written \"if he curse his G d\" (an epithet for His Name). These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: Cursing the Name itself is punishable by death, (whereas cursing through) an epithet is a transgression of an exhortation.",
                "6) \"then he shall bear his sin\": R. Yehudah said \"bearing sin\" is mentioned here, and elsewhere (Bamidbar 9:13). Just as there, the referent is kareth; here, too, it is kareth.",
                "7) (Vayikra 24:16) (\"And he who blasphemes the Name of the L–rd shall die. All the congregation shall stone him. Proselyte, as born Jew — if he blasphemes the Name, he shall die.\") \"All the congregation\": All the congregation shall act as if they were his accusers. \"Proselyte (ger)\": This is the proselyte himself. \"as the proselyte\" (ka get) — to include the wives of proselytes. \"born Jew\" — this is the male. \"as born Jew\" — to include the wives of born Jews. \"if he blasphemes the Name he shall die\": R. Menacheh b. R. Yossi says: To include one who curses his father and mother, that he is not liable (for the death penalty) until he curses them by name. "
            ],
            "Chapter 20": [
                "1) (Vayikra 24:17) (\"And a man if he smite all the soul of a man shall be put to death.\") \"And a man if he smite\": This tells me only of a man who smites. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman who smites? From (Shemoth 21:12) \"If one strikes a man (and he dies, then he shall be put to death\") — anyone, whether a man or a woman. If \"If one strikes a man,\" I would know only of one who struck a man. When would I derive (the same for) one who struck a woman or a minor? It is, therefore, written \"if he smite the soul\" — whether man, woman, or minor. I might think that he would be liable even if he smote a nefel (a child that is certain to die); it is, therefore, written \"if he smite a man.\" Just as a man is a \"survivor,\" (so all [of the victims] must inherently be \"survivors\") — to exclude a nefel, who is not a \"survivor.\" \"if he smite all the soul\": to include an instance in which one was smitten and would die (as a result), and another came and gave him the death blow, he (the last) is liable.",
                "2) (Vayikra 24:18) \"And one that smites a beast shall pay for it — a life for a life.\": If it were written \"And one who smites a soul a beast he shall pay,\" I would take it to mean: One who smites a man shall pay a beast. Now that it is written \"shall pay for it,\" (I see that) the referent is the beast, (and the reading is [lit.,] \"And one that smites the soul of a beast must pay for it.\")",
                "3) (Vayikra 24:19) (\"And a man, if he inflicts an injury upon his neighbor; as he did, so shall it be done to him.\") \"And a man, if he inflicts an injury upon his neighbor\": This tells me only of an (actual) injury). Whence do I derive (that the same halachah applies) if he screamed in one's ear, tore one's hair, spat at someone and hit him with his spittle, pulled off someone's garment, or uncovered a woman's head in the market place? From \"as he did\" (though no actual injury was inflicted), so shall it be done to him.\"",
                "4) And whence is it derived (that the same applies) if he hit him with the back of his hand, with a tablet, with a board, or with a roll of papers in his hand? From \"as he did, etc.\"",
                "5) Whence is it derived that if he took hold of him and placed him in the sun, so that he was overcome by heat, or in the cold so that he was chilled, or if he held a dog or a snake to bite him? From \"as he did, etc.\"",
                "6) I might think (that the same applied) even if he said to him: Wait for me here in the sun and he was overcome by heat, or in the cold, and he was chilled, or if he \"sicked\" a dog or a snake on to him? It is, therefore, written \"blemish.\" Why do you see fit to include the former (as liable) and to exclude the latter? After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include those which his hand is (directly) involved in, and exclude those which his hand is not involved in.",
                "7) (Vayikra 24:21) (\"And one who strikes a beast shall pay, and one who strikes a man shall be put to death.\") I might think that if one blinded another's eye, his eye should be blinded; that if he cut off his hand, his hand should be cut off; that if he broke his leg, his leg should be broken; it is, therefore, written \"one who strikes a beast,\" \"one who strikes a man\" — Just as one who strikes a beast pays, so, one who strikes a man pays. And if you would object: (But it is written [Bamidbar 35:31]) \"You shall not take kofer (monetary payment) for the life of a murderer\" — for a murderer you do not take kofer, but you do take kofer for (injury to) the limbs.",
                "8) \"one who strikes a man\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Shemoth 21:15) \"And one who strikes his father and mother (shall be put to death\"), I might think that he is not liable until he strikes both of them together; it is, therefore, written \"and one who strikes a man shall be put to death\" — even one of them. I might think that even if he struck them and did not cause an injury he is liable; it is, therefore, written \"And one who strikes a beast … and one who strikes a man.\" Just as one who strikes a beast (is not liable) until he causes an injury, so, he who strikes a man. I might think that even if he struck them (his father or his mother) after (their) death, he is liable, (just as he is if he curses them after their death); it is, therefore, written \"one who strikes a beast\" and \"one who strikes a man\" — Just as the first, while it is living, so, the second, while he is living.",
                "9) (Vayikra 24:22) \"One judgment shall there be for you\": As the judgment of capital cases, so, the judgment of monetary litigations. Jut as capital cases require thorough cross-examination (of the witnesses), so, monetary litigations. If so, (why not say:) Just as capital cases require twenty-three (judges), so, monetary litigations? It is, therefore, written \"en eye for an eye,\" to include (monetary litigations as requiring only three judges).",
                "10) (Vayikra 24:23) (\"And Moses spoke to the children of Israel, and they took the curser outside the camp, and they stoned him with a stone; and the children of Israel did as the L–rd commanded Moses.\") \"And Moses spoke to the children of Israel, and they took the curser outside the camp. As mentioned earlier (Chapter 19:1), we are hereby taught that beth-din was within, and beth-din, outside of it. \"and they stoned him,\" and not his garment (viz. Chapter 19:3). \"a stone\": We are hereby taught that if he died with one stone, it is sufficient. \"and the children of Israel did as the L–rd commanded Moses\": both in respect to semichah (placing of the hands, viz. Vayikra 24:14), in respect to dechiyah (casting him from the stoning platform, viz. Shemoth 19:13), in respect to hanging (his body on a tree) (viz. Devarim 21:22), and in respect to (Devarim 21:23) \"His corpse shall not remain on the tree.\" "
            ]
        },
        "Behar": {
            "Section 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 25:1) \"And the L–rd spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, saying\": Why is shemitah (the section on the Sabbatical year) juxtaposed with Mount Sinai? Were not all the mitzvoth given at Sinai? (The purpose of the juxtaposition is to indicate that) just as the general rules and specific ordinances of shemitah were enunciated at Sinai, so, with all the mitzvoth.",
                "2) (Vayikra 25:2) (\"Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When you come to the land that I give to you, the land shall rest a Sabbath to the L–rd.\") \"When you come\": I might think (that this phrase subsumes) coming to Trans-Jordan; it is, therefore, written \"to the land\" — the specific land (i.e., Eretz Yisrael). I might think that it subsumes) coming to Ammon and Moav; it is, therefore, written \"that I give to you,\" and not to Ammon and Moav. Whence do we derive that if they conquered (the land) but did not yet divide it (among themselves), or if they divided it by families, but not by fathers' houses, and no one recognizes his (specific) portion — I might think that shemitah is (still) binding on them. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 25:3) \"your field\" — each one must recognize his field; \"your vineyard\" — each one must recognize his vineyard.",
                "3) We find, then, that when Israel crossed the Jordan, they became subject to (the ordinance of) challah, orlah, and chadash. On the sixteenth of Nissan they became subject to the omer. After fifty days, they became subject to the two loaves. After fourteen years, they became subject to the tithes. When they began to count for shemitah (after fourteen years of conquest and apportionment), on the twenty-first year (after entering [i.e., seven years after the apportionment]), they observed shemitah. On the sixty-third year (i.e., fifty years after the fourteen of conquest and apportionment), they observed Yovel.",
                "4) (\"And on the seventh year, a Sabbath of resting shall there be for the land, a Sabbath to the L–rd; your field you shall not sow, and your vineyard you shall not prune.\") \"and the land shall rest\": I might think, from digging holes, pits, and caves and from repairing mikvaoth; it is, therefore, written \"your field you shall not sow and your vineyard you shall not prune.\" This tells me only of sowing and pruning. Whence do I derive the same for plowing, hoeing, weeding, trimming, and notching? From (the inverted order) \"your field not\" and \"your vineyard not\" — every labor in your field and in your vineyard.",
                "5) And whence is it derived that (on shemitah) it is forbidden to manure or to \"release\" (mounds of leaves) or to smoke leaves (to kill worms) or to powder (plants for fertilizing)? From \"your field not.\" And whence is it derived that it is forbidden to trim or to cut or to hew trees? From \"your field not.\"",
                "6) Or \"your field you shall not sow, and your vineyard you shall not prune\": I might think that it is forbidden to hoe under the olive trees or to fill up cavities under the olive trees or to make ruts between one tree and another; it is, therefore, written \"your field you shall not sow and your vineyard you shall not prune.\" Sowing and pruning were in the general category (of forbidden labor on shemitah). And why were they singled out (for distinct mention)? To have them serve as a parameter, viz.: Just as sowing and pruning are distinct in being labors for (both) field and trees, (so, all such labors are forbidden on shemitah — to exclude the above, which are not thus characterized). I might think that the year of Yovel itself is reckoned in the years of shemitah (i.e., that the fiftieth year, Yovel, is counted as the first year of the next shemitah period). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 25:4) \"Six years shall you sow your field and six years shall you prune your vineyard\" — Years of sowing are reckoned in the years of shemitah (i.e., the six years preceding the seventh year must be all years of sowing), but the year of Yovel, (which is not a year of sowing) is not reckoned in the years of shemitah.",
                "7) Whence is it derived that rice and millet and poppy and sesame which took root before Rosh Hashanah may be gathered in the seventh year? From \"and you shall collect its produce. And (i.e., including) in the seventh year\" (as in the above instance).",
                "8) I might think, even if it did not take root; it is, therefore, written \"Six years shall you sow your field … and you shall collect.\" (The plain meaning is) six for sowing and six for collecting, and not six for sowing and seven for collecting. (The first, then, must refer to what has not taken root before Rosh Hashanah, and the second, to what has.)",
                "9) R. Yonasan b. Yosef says: Whence is it derived that produce which was of one-third growth before Rosh Hashanah (of the seventh year) may be gathered in the seventh year, (even if it brought forth only a third of its normal growth, it thus being considered a growth of the sixth year)? From \"and you shall collect is produce\" — even if it brought forth (only) a third (of its normal growth)."
            ],
            "Chapter 1": [
                "1) And whence is it derived that the thirty day period before Rosh Hashanah is regarded as the entire year? From \"And on the seventh year a Sabbath of resting shall there be for the land\" (the month of Rosh Hashanah being regarded as a year in itself) — whence they ruled: The shevi'ith year of benoth shuach (a type of fig) is the second year (after the shevi'ith in which it matured) because it matures every three years. R. Yehudah says: The shevi'ith year of the Persian figs is the end of Shevi'ith, for they mature every two years. They said to him: They stated it only about benoth shuach.",
                "2) \"a Sabbath to the L–rd\": Just as the seventh day of creation is called \"Sabbath to the L–rd,\" so, the seventh year. \"your field you shall not sow, and your vineyard you shall not prune\": (See Section 1:4 above)",
                "3) (Vayikra 25:5) (\"The after-growth of your harvest you shall not reap, and the grapes of your guarded vine you shall not glean; a year of rest shall there be for the land.\") This is the source for the sages' ban on the after-growths of the seventh year. \"and the grapes of your guarded vine you shall not glean\": From what is guarded in the land you may not glean, but you may glean from hefker (what you relinquished ownership of.) \"you shall not glean\": in the (usual) way of the gleaners — whence they ruled: Figs of shevi'ith are not to be cut with a muktzeh (the usual tool), but with a knife. Grapes are not to be trod in a vat, but n a kneading trough. Olives are not to be processed in a (bad) (an olive-press) or in a kotiv (a smaller press), but may be crushed and put into a bedidah (a small press). R. Shimon says: They may also be ground in a bad and put into a bedidah.",
                "4) \"a Sabbath of resting shall there be for the land\": At the end of shevi'ith, even though its fruits are of shemitah status, it is permitted to do work with the body of the tree; but its fruits are forbidden.",
                "5) (Vayikra 25:6) (\"And the resting of the land shall be for you to eat; for you and your man-servant and your maid-servant, and your hired man, and your sojourner who dwell with you.\") \"And the resting of the land shall be for you\": From \"the resting\" (i.e., fruit from a field which \"rested\" from work on the seventh year) you may eat, but you may not eat from the \"guarded.\" (see halachah 3 above). From here they ruled: A field which was improved (beyond what is permitted) — Beth Shammai say: Its fruits may not be eaten on shevi'ith (even if its fruits were made hefker), and Beth Hillel say: They may be eaten. Beth Shammai say: The fruits of shevi'ith (even if made hefker) are not to be eaten as a favor (to someone). Beth Hillel say: They may be eaten either way, (as a favor or not). R. Yehudah said: Reverse it — This is one of the lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and the (more) stringent rulings of Beth Hillel.",
                "6) \"for you\": and not for others. \"to eat\": and not to bring therefrom meal-offerings and libations, (which are not eaten but consumed by fire). \"for you and your man-servant and your maid-servant\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Shemoth 23:11) \"but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow that the poor of your people may eat,\" I might think that the fruits of shevi'ith may be eaten only by the poor alone. Whence do I derive that the rich, too, may eat? From \"for you and your man-servant and your maid-servant.\" The owners, who are rich, are mentioned (i.e., \"for you\") and the man-servants and maid-servants are mentioned. Why, then, is it written \"that the poor of your people may eat\"? The poor may eat after the biur (the removal from the house of fruits of the shemitah period), but not the rich. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Yossi says: Both the poor and the rich may eat after the biur.",
                "7) Variantly: \"that the poor of your people may eat\": What is fit for a man (is given) to a man (On shevi'ith food for men is not given to beasts, for this would be \"wasting\" it), and what is fit for a beast is given to a beast. \"and your hired man and your sojourner\": (even) gentiles, \"who dwell with you\": to include boarders.",
                "8) (Vayikra 25:7) (\"And to your beast and to the animal which is in your land shall be all its produce to eat.\") What is the intent of this (\"your beast\")? If an animal, which is not yours, may eat, how much more so a beast, which is yours! If so, I would say: Let him bring the beast (into the house) and let him eat always! And how would I satisfy the removal of fruit (from the house) on shevi'ith? With the fruits of man. And a beast would eat always. Now that it is written \"and to your beast and to the animal,\" the beast is being compared to the animal, viz.: So long as the animal eats in the field, the beast eats in the house; if it has ended for the animal in the field, \"end it\" (i.e., remove it) from your beast in the house.",
                "9) \"which is in your land\": What is in your land may be eaten, and not what Akilas sent to his servants and to Pontos (outside of Eretz Yisrael). R. Shimon said: I heard it explicitly stated that they (the fruits of shevi'ith) may be sent to Suria, but not outside Eretz Yisrael.",
                "10) \"shall be (all its produce\"): also to serve as fuel for kindling and as an agent for dyeing. We are hereby taught that only what is called \"produce\" may be eaten (i.e., when it has reached at least one-third of its normal growth) — whence they ruled: When may the fruits of the tree be eaten on shevi'ith? Small figs, if they are red (half-ripe) may be eaten with his bread in the field; if they have ripened, he may take them into his house.",
                "11) And so, in the other years of the seven-year cycle, they are subject to tithes. Unripe grapes (in the Sabbatical year), when they produce drops, may be eaten with his bread in the field. When they become ripe, he may take them into his house. And so, in the other years of the seven-year cycle, they are subject to tithes. Olives — when they yield three logs to a sa'ah. If they yield a quarter of a log to a sa'ah, he may press them and eat them in the field. If they yield half a log, he may press them and anoint himself in the field. If they produce a log, he may press them in the field and bring them into his house. And so, in the other years of the seven-year cycle, they are subject to tithes. And all other fruits of the tree — you are not permitted to press them, boil them, or eat them unripe. But as their season for tithes, so is their season for shevi'ith — to eat them: and not to make from them sprays or poultices, or plaster, or emetics."
            ],
            "Section 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 25:8) (\"And you shall count for yourself seven Sabbaths of years, seven years, seven times; and they shall be for you, the days of the seven Sabbaths of years, forty-nine years.\") \"And you shall count for yourself\": in beth-din\": I might think seven Sabbaths of days, i.e., seven weeks; it is, therefore, written \"seven Sabbaths of years.\" If \"seven Sabbaths of years\" (alone were written), I might think that he counts seven shemitoth one after the other and then declares Yovel. It is, therefore, written \"seven years, seven times.\" (i.e., in forty-nine years, seven shemitoth seven times.) Both verses, then, are needed; if not, we would not know (the halachah.)",
                "2) And whence is it derived that we count the years of the seven (shemitoth, e.g., Today marks the first year to shemitah\")? From \"the days of the seven Sabbaths of years.\" Whence is it derived that we count the years of Yovel? From \"forty-nine years.\" Whence do we derive that shemitah is observed even if Yovel is not observed, (as when the ten tribes were exiled)? From \"seven Sabbaths of years.\" And whence is it derived that Yovel is observed even if shemitah is not observed, (as in the instance of their returning to Eretz Yisrael at the end of fifty years)? From \"forty-nine years.\" These are the words of R. Yehudah. And the sages say: Shevi'ith is observed even if Yovel is not observed; but Yovel is not observed unless accompanied by Shevi'ith.",
                "3) (Vayikra 25:9) (\"And you shall cause to pass a shofar of teruah in the seventh month on the tenth day of the month. On the day of atonement shall you cause to pass a shofar through all of your land.\") \"And you shall cause to pass\": And whence is it derived that a shofar is required? From: \"And you shall cause to pass a shofar.\" This tells me only of Yovel. Whence do I derive (the same for) Rosh Hashanah? From \"And you shall cause to pass a shofar of teruah in the seventh month on the tenth day of the month. On the day of atonement.\" Let it not be stated \"in the seventh month\" (i.e., everyone knows that Yom Kippur is in the seventh month). Why is it stated? (To teach that) the teruah of the seventh month is like this. Just as this is with a shofar, so, the teruah of Rosh Hashanah, (which also falls in the seventh month) is like this (i.e., with a shofar).",
                "4) And whence is it derived that there is a plain blast (i.e., a single uninterrupted blast [tekiah]) before it (the teruah [\"broken\" blasts])? From \"And you shall cause to pass (connoting a single \"passing\") a shofar of teruah.\" And whence is it derived that there is a plain blast after it? From (the continuation of the verse) \"shall you cause to pass a shofar.\" This tells me only of Yovel. Whence do I derive (the same for) Rosh Hashanah? From \"and you shall cause to pass a shofar of teruah in the seventh month on the tenth day of the month. On the day of atonement.\" Let it not be stated in the seventh month. Why is it stated? (To teach that) the teruah of the seventh month is like this. Just as this teruah is preceded by a plain blast and followed by a plain blast, so, the teruah of Rosh Hashanah is preceded by a plain blast and followed by a plain blast.",
                "5) \"on the day (of atonement\"): on the day, and not at night. \"on the day of atonement\": even on the Sabbath. \"shall you (plural) cause to pass a shofar through all of your land\": We are hereby taught that each and every individual is obliged (to blow). I might think that even the teruah of Rosh Hashanah overrides the Sabbath in all of your land; it is, therefore, written \"And you shall cause to pass a shofar of teruah in the seventh month on the tenth day of the month.\" From \"on the day of atonement\" do I not know that it is the tenth day of the month? Why, then, need it be stated? (To teach that) the tenth day of the month overrides the Sabbath in all of your land, but the teruah of Rosh Hashanah does not override the Sabbath in all of your land, (but only in the Temple and in Jerusalem) — except by enactment of beth-din alone."
            ],
            "Chapter 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 25:10) (\"And you shall make holy the fiftieth year, and you shall call out freedom (dror) in the land to all of its inhabitants. It is a Jubilee year (Yovel); it shall be for you. And you shall return a man to his possession, and a man to his family you shall return.\") \"And you shall make holy (lit.,) the fiftieth year, year\": What is the intent of this (seemingly superfluous) \"year\"? Because it is written (Vayikra 25:9) \"on the tenth of the month,\" I might think that the year is sanctified from the tenth of the month (Yom Kippur); it is, therefore, written \"the fiftieth year, year,\" whereby we are apprised that it is sanctified from the beginning of the year (Rosh Hashanah). R. Yochanan b. Berokah said: (From Rosh Hashanah until Yom Kippur) bondsmen would neither be bound to their masters nor free (to return) to their homes, nor would fields revert to their (ancestral) owners. But they would eat and drink and rejoice with their crowns on their heads until Yom Kippur arrived. When Yom Kippur arrived, they (beth-din) would blow the shofar — whereupon fields would revert to their owners and bondsmen would be free (to return) to their homes.",
                "2) \"and you shall call out dror in the land\": \"dror\" is nothing other than freedom. R. Yehudah said: It is cognate with \"dayar,\" one who is free to hawk his goods throughout the land.",
                "3) (\"to all of) its inhabitants\": when they dwell upon it, but not if they were exiled from it. If they were upon it, but were intermixed, the tribe of Yehudah with Binyamin, and Binyamin with Yehudah, I might think that Yovel would obtain; it is, therefore, written \"its inhabitants\" — when they dwell as prescribed and not when they are intermixed. \"to all of its inhabitants\": when all of its inhabitants are upon it — whence it follows: With the exile of the tribes of Reuven and Gad and the half-tribe of Menasheh the Jubilee years ceased.",
                "4) (\"It is) Yovel\": even if they did not \"release\" (the land, i.e., shemitah), even if they did not blow the shofar. I might think, even if they did not free the bondsmen; it is, therefore, written \"It\" (to exclude that). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Yossi says: \"Yovel\" — even if they did not release, even if they did not free the bondsmen. I might think, even if they did not blow the shofar; it is, therefore, written \"It\" (to exclude that). R. Yossi said: After one verse includes (something as being Yovel even in the absence of the factor it adduces), and another verse excludes it (from being Yovel in the absence of the factor it adduces), why do I say that it is Yovel even if the bondsmen were not released, but it is not Yovel unless they blew the shofar? For Yovel is possible without the freeing of the bondsmen, but Yovel is not possible without the blowing of the shofar, whereas the freeing of the bondsmen is in the hands of individuals, (and, naturally, the institution of Yovel would not be made dependent upon the latter).",
                "5) \"And you shall return a man to his possession, and a man to his family you shall return.\": R. Eliezer b. Yaakov said; Of whom is this stated? If of one who sold himself (into servitude), this has already been stated. If of one who was sold by beth-din, this has already been stated; and if of one who was sold by beth-din, the law in respect to this has also been stated. It must be speaking, then, of one who impressed himself into perpetual servitude by having his ear bored (as a sign of submission three or four years) before Yovel, (Scripture telling us) that Yovel releases him from his bondage. \"and a man to his family you shall return\": to the office that he held in his family. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: To his holding and to his family he returns, but he does not return to the office that he held in his family. And the same applies to one who was exiled (to the cities of refuge, viz. Bamidbar 35:28). \"you shall return\" (superfluous): to include a woman (sold by her father as a maid-servant in the emancipation of Yovel)."
            ],
            "Chapter 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 25:11) (\"It is Yovel; the fiftieth year shall be for you. You shall not sow, and you shall not reap its aftergrowth, and you shall not glean (the grapes of) its guarded vine.\") \"the fiftieth year\": What is the intent of this? I might think that just as in its beginning it is sanctified on Rosh Hashanah, so, in its expiration it should extend until Yom Kippur (of the fifty-first year), for \"we add from the holy to the profane\"; it is, therefore, written: \"It is Yovel; the year of the fiftieth year shall be to you\" — its sanctity extends only until Rosh Hashanah.",
                "2) \"You shall not sow, and you shall not reap its aftergrowth, and you shall not glean its guarded vine\": Whatever applies to shemitah (with respect to the tillage of the land) applies to Yovel.",
                "3) (Vayikra 25:12) (\"For it is Yovel; holy shall it be to you. From the field shall you eat its produce\") \"For it is Yovel; holy\": Just as (the holiness of) what is holy attaches itself to its money (i.e., the money with which it was redeemed), so, (the prohibition of) shevi'ith attaches itself to its money. But (in that case, let us say that) just as with what is holy the money is attached but the object loses its holiness, so, with shevi'ith (i.e., let the fruit itself be permitted)! It is, therefore, written \"shall it be\" — it (Yovel) retains its sanctity. So that \"shevi'ith\" attaches to the very last (object) and the (original) fruit is forbidden. How so? If he took meat in exchange for the fruits of shevi'ith, both are removed on shevi'ith. If he exchanged the meat for fish, the meat leaves (the category of \"shevi'ith\") and the fish enters. (If he exchanged) the fish for oil, the fish leaves and the oil is attached. The very last is attached and the (original) fruit remains forbidden.",
                "4) \"From the field shall you eat its produce\": So long as you eat it (i.e., so long as it is found) in the field, you may eat it in the house. If it has \"ended\" from the field, end it (i.e., remove it) from the house. And from what you eat in the field, you may eat in the house.",
                "5) From here they ruled: If one puts three sorts of pressed vegetables into one vessel — R. Eliezer says: If one of them ended from the field, he must remove the entire vessel (from the house). R. Yehoshua says: He keeps on eating until the last (of the three kinds to ripen) ends from the field. R. Gamliel sys: A variety whose kind has ended from the field must be removed from the vessel, and the halachah is in accordance with him. R. Shimon says: Every vegetable is alike vis-à-vis removal (i.e., any kind of vegetable in the house may be eaten so long as any kind of vegetable remains in the field.) Portulacea may be eaten (in the house) until the tares come to an end in the valley of Beth Netopha.",
                "6) (Vayikra 25:13) \"In the year of this Yovel you shall return a man to his possession.\" \"This\" (i.e., Yovel) grants bondsmen their freedom, but not shevi'ith. (For without this verse) it would follow otherwise, a fortiori, viz.: If Yovel, which does not release money (i.e., debts), releases bondsmen, then shevi'ith, which does release money, how much more so should it release bondsmen! It must, therefore, be written \"In the year of this Yovel, etc.\" — This (Yovel) releases bondsmen, but not shevi'ith. — But let it follow a fortiori that Yovel releases money, viz.: If shevi'ith, which does not release bondsmen, releases money, then Yovel, which does release bondsmen, how much more so should it release money! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:2): \"And this is the word of the shemitah, every creditor shall release, etc.\" — Shevi'ith releases money, but Yovel does not release money. \"you shall return a man to his possession\": to include a field dedicated to the sanctuary, which was redeemed by his son, as returning to his father on Yovel."
            ],
            "Section 3": [
                "acquire from the hand of your fellow, you shall not wrong, one man, his brother.\") Whence is it derived that when you sell, you shall sell only to your fellow (Jew) (i.e., giving him first choice)? From \"And if you sell a selling to your fellow.\" And whence is it derived that when you buy, you shall buy only from your fellow? From \"or acquire from the hand of your fellow.\" This tells me only of land, of which Scripture is speaking (viz. Devarim 15:13). Whence do I derive (the same [\"your fellow\"] for) a movable object? From (the superfluous) \"a selling\" — to include a movable object. Whence is it derived that (the law of) ona'ah (\"wronging\") does not apply to land? From \"or acquire from the hand … you shall not wrong\" — ona'ah applies to a movable object, (which is transferred from hand to hand), but not to land.",
                "2) And whence is it derived that ona'ah does not apply to bondsmen? From (Devarim 15:46) \"And you shall hold them (bondsmen) for your sons after you as an inheritance of holding\" — Just as ona'ah does not apply to a \"holding\" (land), so, it does not apply to bondsmen.",
                "3) Whence is it derived that ona'ah does not apply to sacred property (hekdesh)? From (\"you shall not wrong, one man,) his brother\" (and not hekdesh). Whence is it derived that ona'ah does not apply to writs (of indebtedness)? From \"selling,\" connoting something whose substance is bought and sold — to exclude writs, whose substance is not bought and sold, but which only serve as corroboration thereof — wherefore ona'ah does apply to writs which are sold as (wrapping) for spices.",
                "4) \"you shall not wrong, one man, his brother\": This refers to wronging with money. — But perhaps it refers to wronging with words? \"And you shall not wrong, one man, his fellow\" (Devarim 25:17) already speaks of wronging with words. How, then, am I to understand \"you shall not wrong, one man, his brother\"? As wronging with money.",
                "5) What constitutes ona'ah? (A discrepancy of) four silver (maos) out of the twenty-four silver (maos) that make a sela, a sixth of the purchase. Until when is it permitted to revoke the sale? Until he can show it (the purchase) to a merchant or to an expert (for an assessment). R. Tarfon ruled in Lod: Ona'ah is eight silver (maos) that make a sela, a third of the purchase — at which the merchants of Lod rejoiced! R. Tarfon said to them: It is permitted to withdraw (from the sale) the entire day — at which they said (to R. Tarfon): Let R. Tarfon leave us in our place! (i.e., with the sages' ruling), and they returned to (follow) the words of the sages.",
                "6) Both the buyer and the seller can claim ona'ah. He who claims ona'ah has the upper hand; for he can say: Return my money to me or return the overcharge to me.",
                "7) How much may the sela (coin) be lacking (in metal) and this (lack) not be considered ona'ah? R. Meir says: Four issaroth of an issar to a dinar. R. Yehudah says: Four pondionoth of a pondion to a dinar. R. Shimon says: Eight pondionoth of two pondionim to a dinar.",
                "8) Until when is it permitted to return (a sela) in the cities, (where money-changers are found)? Until he can show it to a money-changer. And in the villages (where there are no money-changers)? Until the eves of Sabbath, there being a market in the villages from one Sabbath eve to the next. And if he (the giver of the sela) recognizes it after twelve months he must take it back from him; and he has no claim against him but ill-feeling alone. And it may be given for (redemption of) second-tithe without qualms. For only the mean-tempered (make issues of slight erosions of coins).",
                "9) \"you shall not wrong, one man, his brother\": This tells me only of a man vis-à-vis a man. Whence do I derive (the same for) a man vis-à-vis a woman or a woman vis-à-vis a man? From \"his brother\" — in any event. R. Yehudah says: (In the instance of) a merchant (selling) to a hedyot (a non-merchant) there is (room for a claim of) ona'ah; (in the instance of) a hedyot (selling) to a merchant, there is no (room for a claim of) ona'ah. This \"you shall not wrong, etc.\" tells me only of a merchant vis-à-vis a merchant. Whence do I derive (the same for) a merchant vis-à-vis a hedyot, or a hedyot vis-à-vis a merchant, or a hedyot vis-à-vis a hedyot? From \"his brother\" — in any event.",
                "10) (Vayikra 25:15) (\"According to the number of years after the Yovel shall you buy from your fellow; according to the number of years of the crops shall he sell to you.\") Whence is it derived that one who sells his field when Yovel is in force may not redeem it before two years have passed? From \"years (\"years\" = a minimum of two) shall you buy from your fellow.\" \"after the Yovel\": close to the Yovel (that has passed). Whence do I derive (the same for) far from the Yovel? From (Vayikra 25:16) \"According to the numerousness of years (until the next Yovel) shall you increase its price and according to the fewness of the years shall you diminish its price.\" \"the years of the crops\": A year of wind-blast or yellowing or shevi'ith do not enter into the (two-year) count. If he (the buyer) plowed it (for a season) or let it lie fallow (for a season), it does enter into the count. R. Eliezer says: If he sold it to him before Rosh Hashanah and it was full of fruit, I might think that he (the seller) could tell him: Hand it over to me full, as I handed it to you; it is, therefore, written \"according to the number of the years of the crops shall he sell to you\" — Sometimes you eat three yields in two years (as in the above instance)."
            ],
            "Chapter 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 25:17) (\"And you shall not wrong, one man his fellow, and you shall fear your G d; for I am the L–rd your G d.\") This refers to wronging with words. I might think that it refers to wronging with money but \"you shall not wrong, one man, his fellow\" (Vayikra 25:14) already refers to wronging with money. How, then, am I to understand \"And you shall not wrong, one man his fellow\"? As referring to wronging with words.",
                "2) How so? If he were a penitent, he should not be told \"Remember what your former deeds were like.\" If he was the descendent of proselytes, he should not be told \"Remember what the deeds of your ancestors were like.\" If he were beset with illnesses or afflictions or buried his children, he should not be told, as Iyyov was told by his friends (Iyyov 4:6-7) \"Is not your piety your foolishness — your hope and the innocence of your ways? Remember, now, which innocent man ever went lost, and where have the upright been destroyed?\" If one saw ass drivers seeking grain or wine, he should not tell them \"Go to so and so,\" knowing that he never sold grain in his life. R. Yehudah says: He should also not eye merchandise and ask (the seller) what the price is when he has no intention of buying. And if you would say: \"I am giving him good advice, such things are relegated to the heart, and concerning this it is written \"and you shall fear your G d\" — Whatever is relegated to the heart, of such things it is written \"and you shall fear your G-d\" (who probes the heart).",
                "3) (Vayikra 25:18) \"And you shall do My statues, and My judgments you shall heed and you shall do them\": This assigns heeding and doing to statutes, and heeding and doing to judgments. (Vayikra 25:18) \"And you shall dwell on the land\": and not be exiled. \"securely\": without fear.",
                "4) (Vayikra 25:19) \"And the land will give its fruit and you will eat to satiety\": One will eat (as much as needed) to be sated (and will not be anxious about the next day). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: This, too, is not a sign of blessing, (for why should he have to eat much?) If so, why is it stated? (The intent is that) he will eat and not feel bloated. Variantly: \"and you will eat to satiety\": There will be nothing that he desires lacking from his table. \"and you will dwell securely\": and not scattered and not afraid. \"upon it\": and not in exile.",
                "5) \"And when you say\" — You are destined to say this — \"What shall we eat in the seventh year if we cannot sow nor gather in our crops!\" — If we do not sow, what can we gather in? (i.e., the last phrase is superfluous). R. Akiva said: From here the sages supported (their view) that the after-growths (of the previous crop) are forbidden on shevi'ith. And the sages say: The after-growths are forbidden not by the words of Torah but by the words of the scribes. If so, what is the intent of \"we cannot sow nor gather in our crops\"? You said to us \"You shall not sow,\" and what we gather in and bring in (to our houses) we cannot leave there permanently, for You said to us \"Remove it\" (when its like is \"ended\" in the field). What, then, can we eat from the removal on?",
                "6) (Vayikra 25:21) (\"I shall command My blessing for you in the sixth year, and it shall produce its crop for three years.\") (so that you will have a surplus to store away). This tells me (that there will be a surplus) only in the sixth year. Whence do I derive (the same for) the fifth, the fourth, the third, and the second? (that they will provide a surplus for the succeeding year?) From (the superfluous) \"the (sixth) year\" \"and it shall produce its crop for three years\": for the sixth, (i.e., for the time from Pesach [when the harvest begins]), for the seventh (shevi'ith), and for the end of the seventh year (until the new harvest on Pesach, on the eighth year). Variantly: \"for three years\": for the seventh, and Yovel, and the end of Yovel.",
                "7) (Vayikra 25:22) (\"And you shall sow the eighth year, and you shall eat of the crop 'old.' Until the ninth year, until its crop comes, shall you eat 'old.'\") \"And you shall sow the eighth year\": This is the eighth year after shemitah. \"the (eighth) year.\" This (i.e., the superfluous \"year\") is the ninth year after the Yovel after shemitah. \"and you shall eat of the crop 'old'\": without preservatives. \"Until the ninth year\": This is the ninth year after the eighth year after shemitah. \"the (superfluous) year\": This is the tenth year after the ninth year after the Yovel after shemitah. \"shall you eat 'old.'\": This is the tenth year after the shemitah, which is the eleventh year after Yovel after shemitah.",
                "8) (Vayikra 25:23) (\"And the land shall not be sold litzmituth, for Mine is the land; for strangers and settlers are you with Me.\") \"litzmituth\": in perpetuity. \"for Mine is the land\": Do not take it amiss, then, (that I forbid this to you). \"for strangers and settlers are you\": Do not make yourselves foremost. And thus is it written (I Chronicles 29:15) \"For we are strangers with You and sojourners, as all of our fathers.\" And thus did David say (Tehillim 39:13) \"For a stranger am I with You, a sojourner, as all of my fathers.\" \"are you with Me\": It suffices the servant that he emulate his master. \"When you are Mine, it (Eretz Yisrael) will be yours.",
                "9) (Vayikra 25:24) (\"And in all the land of your holding, redemption shall you grant to the land.\") (If it were written \"And in all, redemption shall you grant,\" I would think (he could redeem even [Canaanite] bondsmen and writs and movable objects; it is, therefore, written \"the land of your holding.\" If so, why is it written \"And in all\"? To include (the redemption of) houses and Hebrew bondsmen."
            ],
            "Chapter 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 25:25) (\"If your brother grows poor and he sells of his holding, then shall come his redeemer who is near to him, and he shall redeem what his brother has sold.\") And whence is it derived that one is not allowed to sell his field and to place (the proceeds) in his money-bag to buy an animal or vessels or a house, unless he has become impoverished? From \"If your brother grows poor and he sells.\" — He may not sell unless he becomes poor. I might think that (in that instance) he may give up all of his possessions; it is, therefore, written \"of his holding,\" and not \"all of his holding.\" R. Elazar b. Azaryah said: If one may not dedicate all of his possessions to the Deity, how much more so must he be solicitous of his possessions for himself! \"then shall come his redeemer who is near to him\": We are hereby taught that the nearest of kin takes precedence. \"and he shall redeem what his brother has sold\": to include what he has given as a gift.",
                "2) (Vayikra 25:26) (\"And a man, if there be for him no redeemer, and his hand attain, and he find what suffices for its redemption,\") \"And a man, if there be for him no redeemer\": Now is there a man in Israel who has no redeemers? (\"no redeemer\" here means) no one who has the means to redeem. \"and his hand attain\": his own hand, that he not borrow and redeem. \"and he find\": that he not sell a distant field to redeem one that is close or an inferior one to redeem one that is superior. \"what suffices for its redemption\": that he not redeem by parts.",
                "3) (Vayikra 25:27) (\"And he shall reckon the years of its sale and he shall return the balance to the man to whom he sold it, and he shall return to his holding.\") \"And he shall reckon the years of its sale\": He reckons years and not months. Whence is it derived that if he (the seller) wishes to convert months to years he may do so? From \"And he shall reckon.\" \"and he shall return the balance to the man to whom he sold it\": Whence is it derived that if he sold it to the first for one hundred, and the first sold it to the second for two hundred, that he reckons only with the first? From \"to (the man) to whom he sold it.\" If he sold it to the first for two hundred, and the first sold it to the second for one hundred, whence is it derived that he reckons only with the last? From \"to the man\" (who is holding it). These are the words of Rebbi.",
                "4) R. Dostai b. Yehudah says: Whence is it derived that if he sold it for one hundred a year and it appreciated in value to two hundred a year, it is assessed at only one hundred? From (\"and he [the seller] shall return) the balance\" — in his hand (from the original transaction, i.e., one hundred per year). If he sold it for two hundred a year and it depreciated in value to one hundred a year, whence is it derived that it is assessed at only one hundred a year? From \"and he shall return the balance\" — the balance remaining in the land (at present). \"and he shall return to his holding\": I (the L–rd) have spoken only of one who will return to his holding, and not of one who sells to another (for profit).",
                "5) (Vayikra 25:28) (\"And if his hand does not find what suffices to restore it to himself, then his selling shall remain in the hand of its buyer until the year of Yovel, and it shall go out on the Yovel, and he shall return to his holding.\") \"And if his hand does not find\": What is the intent of this? If it does not apply to the owner of the field, (this already having been stated [28:26, etc.]), learn it as applying to the redeemer, that he redeem in this order: If his hand does not find, etc., he shall not sell a distant field to redeem one that is close, what is inferior to redeem what is superior. \"his hand\": He shall not borrow and redeem. \"what suffices to restore it\": that he not redeem by parts.",
                "6) \"then his selling shall remain in the hand of its buyer until the year of Yovel\": The foregoing does not apply to a field which was consecrated (by the buyer) until Yovel. (In that instance) he may sell what is distant to redeem what is close and what is inferior to redeem what is superior, and he may borrow to redeem, and he may redeem in parts.",
                "7) R. Shimon said: Why is this (the above) so? Because with mundane (property), if Yovel arrived and it had not been redeemed, it returns (to the original owner), but with sacred property, if Yovel arrived and it had not been redeemed, it remains in perpetuity to the owners (i.e., the Cohanim, and the original owner loses it). \"until the year of Yovel\": (immediately at the end of the year) that it (Yovel) not enter at all. In sum: Fields (of holding on Yovel) and money (on shemitah) are released as one (on the very end of the seventh year); Yovel releases at its beginning, and shevi'ith, at its end; and it (the field) goes out (to the original owner) on Yovel — even that which was redeemed. \"and he shall return to his holding\": (anyone who has a holding,) including a woman."
            ],
            "Section 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 25:31) (\"And the houses of courtyards, which have no wall roundabout; with the field of the land shall it be reckoned. Redemption shall there be for it, and on the Yovel it shall go out.\") \"which have no wall roundabout\": What is the intent of this? Why need it be written \"And the houses of courtyards\"? (i.e., Let it simply be stated \"And houses which have no wall roundabout.\") (To teach us) that even if they have a wall, they are perceived as if they do not. And how many are they? Two courtyards of two houses each. If there were three courtyards of two houses each (surrounded by a wall), they are regarded as houses of a walled city.",
                "2) \"with the field of the land shall it be reckoned\": Just as a field of the land (i.e., a field of holing) is released by Yovel and by deducting money (towards its redemption), so, this too. (In that case) I might think that just as a field of the land may not be redeemed in less than two years, so, this. It is, therefore, written \"Redemption shall there be for it\" — immediately.",
                "3) I might think that since they were given the advantages of both houses, (which are released immediately on Yovel) and of fields, (which are released by deduction of money) then (in certain instances) they are not released on Yovel; it is, therefore, written \"and on the Yovel it shall go out.\"",
                "4) (Vayikra 25:32) (\"And the cities of the Levites, the houses of the cities of their holding, a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites.\") \"And the cities of the Levites, the houses of the cities of their holding\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written \"a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites,\" I might think (that the same applies to) bondsmen, writs, and movables; it is, therefore, written \"And the cities of the Levites, the houses of the cities of their holding.\" \"a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 25:15) (a minimum of two) \"years shall you buy from your fellow,\" I might think (that this restriction applies) even to the Levites; it is, therefore, written \"a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites\" (i.e., they may redeem it even immediately after the sale).",
                "5) (another answer:) Because it is written (Vayikra 25:30) \"And if it (the house) is not redeemed until its fulfillment of a complete year, etc.\", I might think (that this restriction applies) even to the Levites, it is, therefore, written \"a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites.\" (another answer):) Because it is written (Vayikra 27:20-21) \"And if he does not redeem the field, and if he sells the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed again. And the field shall be, when it goes out on the Yovel, holy to the L–rd, as a devoted field; to the Cohanim shall be his holding\" — I might think that the same applies to the Levites; it is, therefore, written \"a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites.\"",
                "6) (Vayikra 25:33) (\"And one who redeems from the Levites, then the selling of the house or the city of his holding shall go out on the Yovel; for the houses of the cities of the Levites are their holding in the midst of the children of Israel.\") What is the intent of this? I might think that a Levite may redeem from an Israelite with all of the aforementioned \"advantages,\" the former being granted advantages and the latter not. It is, therefore, written \"and one who redeems from the Levites,\" intimating that one Levite redeems from another.",
                "7) \"from the Levites\": and not all of the Levites, to exclude (from the privilege of redemption) the son of a Levite by a Nathinite (a descendant of the Giveonites) or by a mamzereth (a bastard). \"then the selling shall go out\": I might think that (even) bondsmen, writs, and movables go out; it is, therefore, written \"the house or the city of his holding.\" If so, why \"selling\"? His selling goes out (without indemnification) on Yovel, but what he dedicated to the Temple, does not go out thus on Yovel, but only with redemption.",
                "8) \"for the houses of the cities of the Levites are their holding\": What is the intent of this? I might think that if an Israelite inherited his mother's father, a Levite, he redeems as the Levites do; it is, therefore, written \"and one who redeems, of the Levites.\" If so, I might think that if a Levite inherited his mother's father, an Israelite, he redeems as the Levites do; it is, therefore, written \"for the houses of the cities of the Levites.\" (Both factors must obtain:) He must be a Levite and (the house must be) in the cities of the Levites. These are the words of Rebbi. The sages say: The only criterion is \"the cities of the Levites\" (and not his being a Levite). \"for the houses of the cities of the Levites are their holding in the midst of the children of Israel\": wherefore the Levites were accorded these \"advantages\" of redemption.",
                "9) (Vayikra 25:34) (\"But the field of the open place of their cities shall not be sold, for it is a perpetual holding for them.\") Whence is it derived that a field may not be made an open place, nor an open place a field; that an open place may not be made a city, nor a city an open place? From \"the field of the open place of their cities.\" R. Elazar said: Whereof is this said? Of the cities of the Levites; but in the cities of the Israelites a field may be made an open space, an open space may be made a field; an open space may be made a city, but a city may not be made an open space, so that the cities of Israel not be destroyed. \"shall not be sold\": \"shall not be sold\" by the Temple treasurer, or \"shall not be sold\" at all (vis-à-vis returning on Yovel and being redeemable even within the first two years)? ",
                "10) It is, therefore, written \"for it is a perpetual holding for them.\" How, then, am I to understand \"shall not be sold\"? As \"shall not be sold\" by the Temple treasurer. \"it is … for them.\" (See end of 8 above) "
            ],
            "Chapter 6": [
                "1) (Vayikra 25:31) (\"And the houses of courtyards, which have no wall roundabout; with the field of the land shall it be reckoned. Redemption shall there be for it, and on the Yovel it shall go out.\") \"which have no wall roundabout\": What is the intent of this? Why need it be written \"And the houses of courtyards\"? (i.e., Let it simply be stated \"And houses which have no wall roundabout.\") (To teach us) that even if they have a wall, they are perceived as if they do not. And how many are they? Two courtyards of two houses each. If there were three courtyards of two houses each (surrounded by a wall), they are regarded as houses of a walled city.",
                "2) \"with the field of the land shall it be reckoned\": Just as a field of the land (i.e., a field of holing) is released by Yovel and by deducting money (towards its redemption), so, this too. (In that case) I might think that just as a field of the land may not be redeemed in less than two years, so, this. It is, therefore, written \"Redemption shall there be for it\" — immediately.",
                "3) I might think that since they were given the advantages of both houses, (which are released immediately on Yovel) and of fields, (which are released by deduction of money) then (in certain instances) they are not released on Yovel; it is, therefore, written \"and on the Yovel it shall go out.\"",
                "4) (Vayikra 25:32) (\"And the cities of the Levites, the houses of the cities of their holding, a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites.\") \"And the cities of the Levites, the houses of the cities of their holding\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written \"a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites,\" I might think (that the same applies to) bondsmen, writs, and movables; it is, therefore, written \"And the cities of the Levites, the houses of the cities of their holding.\" \"a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 25:15) (a minimum of two) \"years shall you buy from your fellow,\" I might think (that this restriction applies) even to the Levites; it is, therefore, written \"a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites\" (i.e., they may redeem it even immediately after the sale).",
                "5) (another answer:) Because it is written (Vayikra 25:30) \"And if it (the house) is not redeemed until its fulfillment of a complete year, etc.\", I might think (that this restriction applies) even to the Levites, it is, therefore, written \"a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites.\" (another answer):) Because it is written (Vayikra 27:20-21) \"And if he does not redeem the field, and if he sells the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed again. And the field shall be, when it goes out on the Yovel, holy to the L–rd, as a devoted field; to the Cohanim shall be his holding\" — I might think that the same applies to the Levites; it is, therefore, written \"a perpetual redemption shall there be for the Levites.\"",
                "6) (Vayikra 25:33) (\"And one who redeems from the Levites, then the selling of the house or the city of his holding shall go out on the Yovel; for the houses of the cities of the Levites are their holding in the midst of the children of Israel.\") What is the intent of this? I might think that a Levite may redeem from an Israelite with all of the aforementioned \"advantages,\" the former being granted advantages and the latter not. It is, therefore, written \"and one who redeems from the Levites,\" intimating that one Levite redeems from another.",
                "7) \"from the Levites\": and not all of the Levites, to exclude (from the privilege of redemption) the son of a Levite by a Nathinite (a descendant of the Giveonites) or by a mamzereth (a bastard). \"then the selling shall go out\": I might think that (even) bondsmen, writs, and movables go out; it is, therefore, written \"the house or the city of his holding.\" If so, why \"selling\"? His selling goes out (without indemnification) on Yovel, but what he dedicated to the Temple, does not go out thus on Yovel, but only with redemption.",
                "8) \"for the houses of the cities of the Levites are their holding\": What is the intent of this? I might think that if an Israelite inherited his mother's father, a Levite, he redeems as the Levites do; it is, therefore, written \"and one who redeems, of the Levites.\" If so, I might think that if a Levite inherited his mother's father, an Israelite, he redeems as the Levites do; it is, therefore, written \"for the houses of the cities of the Levites.\" (Both factors must obtain:) He must be a Levite and (the house must be) in the cities of the Levites. These are the words of Rebbi. The sages say: The only criterion is \"the cities of the Levites\" (and not his being a Levite). \"for the houses of the cities of the Levites are their holding in the midst of the children of Israel\": wherefore the Levites were accorded these \"advantages\" of redemption.",
                "9) (Vayikra 25:34) (\"But the field of the open place of their cities shall not be sold, for it is a perpetual holding for them.\") Whence is it derived that a field may not be made an open place, nor an open place a field; that an open place may not be made a city, nor a city an open place? From \"the field of the open place of their cities.\" R. Elazar said: Whereof is this said? Of the cities of the Levites; but in the cities of the Israelites a field may be made an open space, an open space may be made a field; an open space may be made a city, but a city may not be made an open space, so that the cities of Israel not be destroyed. \"shall not be sold\": \"shall not be sold\" by the Temple treasurer, or \"shall not be sold\" at all (vis-à-vis returning on Yovel and being redeemable even within the first two years)? It is, therefore, written \"for it is a perpetual holding for them.\" How, then, am I to understand \"shall not be sold\"? As \"shall not be sold\" by the Temple treasurer. \"it is … for them.\" (See end of 8 above)"
            ],
            "Section 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 25:35) (\"And if your brother grows poor, and his hand falls with you, then you shall uphold him, as a convert and as a sojourner; and he shall live with you.\") \"If your brother grows poor, and his hand falls with you\": Do not allow him to drop. To what may this be compared? To a (slipping) burden upon an ass. So long as it is still in its place, you can grab onto it and set it aright. Once it has fallen to the ground, not even five can get it back again. And whence is it derived that even if you upheld him even four or five times you must, if necessary, continue doing so? From \"then you shall uphold him\" (connoting continuity) … and he shall live.\" I might think (that you must do so) even if you thereby assist him in some evil end; it is, therefore, written \"with you,\" only if he is \"with you\" (imach) in Torah and mitzvoth, as in (Vayikra 19:17) \"amitecha\" — one who is \"with you (itach)\" in Torah and mitzvoth. \"convert\" (ger) — this is a ger tzedek (a righteous convert, one who accepts all the mitzvoth); \"sojourner\" (toshav) — this is a convert who eats carrion (but abstains from idolatry).",
                "2) (\"Do not take from him interest or increase, and you shall fear your G d, and your brother shall live with you.\") \"Do not take from him\": \"Do not take from him,\" but you may act as his guarantor (for a loan on interest that he took from a gentile). \"interest or increase\": Which is \"interest (neshech)\"? Lending a sela for five dinars, (which are more than a sela); two sa'ah of grain for three — (Interest is called \"neshech\") because he (the giver) \"bites\" (noshech, the taker). Which is \"increase\" (tarbith)? Increasing (one's assets) by (trading) produce. How so? One bought wheat from another (without taking possession) at one gold dinar per kor, this being the market price. Wheat rises to thirty (silver) dinars. The buyer then says to the seller: Give me my wheat; I want to sell it and buy wine. The seller: Your wheat is assumed by me as (a debt of) thirty (silver) dinars, and you have a claim on me for wine (worth thirty dinars) — and he has no wine. If he dos have wine he must give it to him.",
                "3) \"and your brother shall live with you\": This was expounded by Ben Patori: If two men were walking along the road and one of them had only a kiton of water — If one of them drinks it, he will reach the settlement; if both of them drink it, they will both die — Ben Patori expounded: Let them both drink it and die, it being written \"and your brother shall live with you\" (i.e., \"as you do\"). R. Akiva said to him \"and your brother shall live with you\" — your life comes before that of your neighbor. (Vayikra 25:37) (\"Your money you shall not give him on interest, and on increase you shall not give your food.\") \"your money\": and not the money of others (i.e., gentiles); \"and your food\": and not that of others. — But perhaps (the meaning is) \"your money,\" but not the money of ma'aser; \"your food,\" but not animal food! (This cannot be maintained, for it is written [Devarim 23:20]) \"interest of money\" — to include the money of ma'aser; \"interest of food\" — to include animal food. \"and on increase you shall not give your food. (Devarim 23:38) I am the L–rd\" — whence they stated: One who takes upon himself the yoke of (shunning) interest takes upon himself the yoke of Heaven, and one who divests himself of the yoke of (shunning) interest divests himself of the yoke of Heaven. (Vayikra 25:38) (\"I am the L–rd your G d, who took you out of the land of Egypt to give to you the land of Canaan, to be a G d to you.\") \"I am the L–rd your G d, who took you out\": It is on this condition that I took you out of the land of Egypt — that you take upon yourselves the mitzvah of (shunning) interest. For all who acknowledge the mitzvah of (shunning) interest acknowledge the exodus from Egypt, and all who deny the mitzvah of (shunning) interest, it is as if they would deny the exodus from Egypt.",
                "4) \"to give to you the land of Canaan, to be a G d to you\": From here they stated \"If one lives in Eretz Yisrael, he takes upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and if he goes outside of Eretz Yisrael, it is as if he serves idolatry. And David says (I Samuel 26:19) \"Accursed are they before the L–rd, for they have driven me out today not to have a share in the L–rd's inheritance, saying, Go and serve other gods.\" Now would it enter our mind that King David would serve idolatry? But (the meaning is that) he expounded \"If one lives in Eretz Yisrael, he takes upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and if he goes outside of Eretz Yisrael, it is as if he serves idolatry."
            ],
            "Chapter 7": [
                "1) (Vayikra 25:39) (\"And if your brother grows poor with you, and he is sold to you, do not work with him the work of a servant.\") Whence is it derived that one is not permitted to sell himself and place (the proceeds) in his money-bag to buy animals, vessels, or a house unless he became impoverished? From \"And if your brother grows poor and he is sold\" — He may not sell himself unless he becomes poor. And whence is it derived that when he is sold, he shall be sold only to you (and not to a gentile)? From \"and he is sold to you.\" And whence is it derived that if beth-din sell him they sell him only to you? From (Devarim 15:12) \"If there be sold to you.\" \"your brother\": You shall treat him as a brother. I might think that he should conduct himself as a brother; it is, therefore, written \"a servant.\" I might think that you shall also conduct yourself to him as a servant; it is, therefore, written \"your brother.\" How so? You conduct yourself to him with brotherhood (i.e., you call him \"brother\"); he conducts himself to you with servitude (he calls you \"master\").",
                "2) \"do not work with him the work of a servant\": He shall not carry you in a sedan-chair, and he shall not carry your things after you to the bath-house. Variantly: \"do not work with him the work of a servant\": \"with him\" do not work the work of a servant, but with a free man you may work the work of a servant, (for he does so of his free will).",
                "3) (Vayikra 25:40) (\"As a hired man and as a sojourner shall he be with you; until the Yovel year shall he work with you.\") \"As a hired man\": Just as a hired man (Devarim 24:15) \"On his day shall you give him his hire,\" so, this one, \"On his day shall you give him his hire.\" \"as a sojourner\": Just as a sojourner (Devarim 23:17) \"… what is good for him; you shall not oppress him,\" so, this one \"… what is good for him; you shall not oppress him.\" \"shall he be with you\": \"with you\" in eating, \"with you\" in drinking, \"with you\" in covering — that you not eat a clean loaf and he eat a coarse loaf; that you (not) drink old wine and he drink new wine; that you (not) sleep on cotton and he sleep on straw. \"shall he work with you\": that he (the master) should not engage him for his craft to another. So that if he (the servant) were formerly a public bath-house attendant, a barber to the public, or a baker to the public, he should not do this (as a servant). R. Yossi says: If this were his trade (before he became a servant) he should do it; but his master should not bid him to do so ab initio. But the sages said: He cuts his (the master's) hair, and washes his garment, and bakes his dough. (Vayikra 25:41) (\"Then he shall go out from you; and his children with him. And he shall return to his family, and to the holding of his fathers shall he return.\") \"Then he shall go out from you\": (From this we may infer) that you (the servant) should not be in the village and he in the city, or you in the city and he in the village. \"he and his children with him\": (from which we may infer) Just as his master is obligated to feed him, so is he obligated to feed his wife and children. I might think, even if he married a woman without the knowledge of his master; it is, therefore, written \"he (and his wife) and his children\" — Just as he, with the knowledge of his master, so, his wife and children with the knowledge of his master.",
                "4) \"And he shall return to his family, and to the holding of his fathers shall he return.\" R. Eliezer b. R. Yaakov said: Of whom is Scripture speaking? If of a nirtza (one who elected life-long servitude), this has already been mentioned. If of one who sold himself, this has (also) been mentioned. It must be speaking, then, of one who was sold by beth-din one or two years before the Yovel, as subject to release by the Yovel. Variantly: \"And he shall return to his family and to the holding of his fathers shall he return\": He returns to the office that he held in his family. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: To his holding and to his family he returns, but he does not return to the office that he held in his family. And the same applies to one who was exiled (to the cities of refuge, viz. Bamidbar 35:28). \"shall he return\": to include a murderer (in the emancipation of Yovel.)"
            ],
            "Section 6": [
                "1) (Vayikra 25:42) (\"For they are My servants, whom I took out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves are sold.\") \"For they are My servants\": My deed (of servitude) came first. (Therefore, they may serve you only as I permit you.) \"whom I took out of the land of Egypt\": on condition that they not be sold as slaves are sold. \"as slaves are sold\": that they not be stood up in public and sold on the auction block.",
                "2) (Vayikra 25:43) (\"You shall not rule over him oppressively, and you shall fear your G d.\") \"You shall not rule over him oppressively\": Do not tell him \"Heat up this cup for me\" if you do not need it, \"Cool this cup for me,\" if you do not need it, \"Dig under this grape-vine until I come.\" And lest you say \"I really do need it,\" such things are relegated to the heart, (i.e., to the truth that one knows in his heart). And of all things that are relegated to the heart it is written \"and you shall fear your G d,\" (who probes the heart).",
                "3) (Vayikra 25:44) (\"And your man-servant and your maid-servant, which will be to you, from the nations, which are around you; of them shall you buy a man-servant and a maid-servant.\") Lest you say: If You forbade all of these to us, who shall serve us? It is, therefore, written \"And your man-servant and your maid-servant, which will be to you from the nations.\" What is the intent of this? Whence is it derived that if a Jew lived with his maid-servant and begot a son by her you are permitted to make him your servant? From \"which will be to you.\" \"from the nations which are around you\": and not from the Canaanites in the land, (whom it is a mitzvah to destroy). \"from them shall you buy a man-servant and a maid-servant\": \"a man-servant and a maid-servant\": man-servant is being compared to maid-servant. Just as there is no kiddushin (betrothal) for a maid-servant (with a Jew) (viz. Shemoth 21:4), so, there is no kiddushin for a man-servant (with a Jewess).",
                "4) (Vayikra 25:45) (\"And also of the sons of the sojourners, who sojourn among you, of them may you buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begot in your land; and they shall be to you for a holding.\") \"And also of the sons of the sojourners\": This tells me only (that you may buy) their children. Whence do I derive (that you may buy) them themselves? From \"of them may you buy.\" Whence is it derived that if one from all the families of the earth lived with one of the Canaanite women and she bore a son to him, you may buy him as a servant? From \"and of their families that are with you.\" Or, (when is it derived) that if one of the Canaanites lived with a woman from all the families of the earth and she bore a son to him, you may buy him as a servant? From \"which they begot in your land.\" \"and they shall be to you for a holding\": They are like a holding. Just as a holding is acquired by money, deed, or (manifesting) possession (chazakah), so servants are acquired by money, deed, or (manifesting) possession.",
                "5) (Vayikra 25:46) (\"And you shall hold them as an inheritance for your sons after you to inherit as a holding. Forever shall you have them serve you. And in your brothers, the children of Israel, one man in his brother, you shall not rule over him oppressively.\") \"And you shall hold them as an inheritance (for your sons). \"them\" (the servants) for your sons and not your daughters for your sons — whence we are taught that a father does not pass on his (rights in his) daughters to his sons. And whence is it derived that one who is regarded de facto as one's son is considered his son (for all purposes)? From (\"your sons) after you,\" (\"after you\" connoting \"who are regarded as yours.\") \"as a holding\": Just as (the halachah of) ona'ah (\"wronging\") does not obtain with a (field of) holding (viz. Vayikra 25:14), so, it does not obtain with servants.",
                "6) \"Forever shall you have them serve you.\": You have in them only (rights of) service, (but not \"rights\" of oppression). \"And in your brothers, the children of Israel, one man in his brother\": This tells me only of a man vis-à-vis a man. Whence do I derive the same for a man vis-à-vis a woman, a woman vis-à-vis a man, a woman vis-à-vis a woman? From \"one man in his brother\" — in any event (of \"brotherhood). \"you shall not rule over him oppressively\": \"you shall not rule over him oppressively,\" but you may rule over a free man, (who hires himself out for hard labor) \"oppressively.\""
            ],
            "Chapter 8": [
                "1) (Vayikra 25:47) (\"And if the hand of a stranger and sojourner attain with you, and your brother grow poor with him, and he be sold to the stranger sojourning with you or to the uprooted of the family of a stranger,\") \"And if the hand of a stranger and sojourner attain with you\": What caused him to grow rich? His attachment to you. \"and your brother grow poor with him.\" What caused him to grow poor? His attachment to him. \"and he be sold to the stranger\": This is a righteous convert. \"sojourner\": This is a convert who eats carcass. \"the family of a stranger\": This is a gentile. \"or to the uprooted\": To include one who is sold to idolatry itself. (Vayikra 25:48) (\"After he is sold, redemption shall there be for him; one of his brothers shall redeem him.\") If one came and said to him (his kin): \"I will sell myself\" (if you do not help me), I might think that he must help him; it is, therefore, written \"After he is sold\" — he is to be helped only after he is sold. \"redemption shall there be for him\": immediately — do not allow him to become assimilated. Whence is it derived that his paternal brother takes precedence to his maternal brother (vis-à-vis redemption)? From \"one of his brothers shall redeem him.\"",
                "2) (Vayikra 25:49) (\"Or his uncle, or his uncle's son shall redeem him; or those of his near of kin of his family shall redeem him; or if his hand attain, he shall be redeemed.\") \"his uncle\": This is his father's brother; \"his uncle's son\": This is the son of his father's brother. \"or those of his near of kin of his family\": This teaches that the nearest of kin takes precedence.",
                "3) \"or if his hand attain\": his own hand. \"and he shall be redeemed\": by all men. Why is \"shall redeem him\" mentioned three times? To include all redemptions (in addition to his own, i.e., those of houses in open cities and of fields of holding) in this order (of precedence).",
                "4) (Vayikra 25:50) (\"And he shall reckon with his buyer from the year that he was sold to him until the Yovel year. And the money of his selling shall be according to the number of years. According to the days of a hired man shall he be with him.\") \"And he shall reckon with his buyer\": and not with the heirs (of his buyer). \"from the year that he was sold until the Yovel year\": He does not go out in the sixth year. \"And the money of his selling shall be according to the number of years. According to the days of a hired man shall he be with him.\": He is acquired with money, and not with grain or vessels.",
                "5) (Vayikra 25:51) (\"If there are yet many in the years, according to them shall he return his redemption from the money of his acquisition.\") And whence is it derived that he goes out by deduction of money (i.e., by deducting the value of the years that he worked from that of the years until Yovel and giving that as redemption)? From \"If there are yet many in the years, according to them shall he return his redemption from the money of his acquisition.\" Whence is it derived that if he were sold to him for one hundred a year and he increased in value and is now worth two hundred a year — whence is it derived that (for purposes of redemption) he is reckoned at one hundred a year? From \"he shall return his redemption from the money of his acquisition.\" (Vayikra 25:52) (\"And if few are left in the years until the Yovel year, then he shall reckon with him. According to his years shall he return his redemption.\") If he were sold to him for two hundred a year and he is now worth only one hundred a year, whence is it derived that he is reckoned at one hundred a year? From \"According to his years shall he return his redemption.\"",
                "6) — whence we derive that one who was sold to a gentile has the upper hand (in the reckoning). Whence is it derived that when he is sold to a Jew, when he is redeemed he has the upper hand? From \"hired man\" (here) - \"hired man\" (Devarim 15:18, with respect to one who is sold by beth-din) — a gezeirah shavah (identity) — Just as with \"hired man\" mentioned in respect to (his being sold to) a gentile, he (the servant) has the upper hand (in his redemption), so, with \"hired man\" mentioned in respect to (his being sold to) a Jew, he (the servant) has the upper hand in his redemption.",
                "7) (Vayikra 25:53) (\"As a hired man, year by year, shall he be with him; he shall not rule over him oppressively before your eyes.\") — What he (the master) eats, he (the servant) eats; what he drinks, he drinks.",
                "8) \"He shall not rule over him oppressively\": I might think that one should enter his (the gentile's) house to discover what is being done to him (the servant); it is, therefore, written \"before your eyes\" — You are commanded only in respect to what you see before your eyes."
            ],
            "Chapter 9": [
                "1) (Vayikra 25:54) (\"And if he not be redeemed with these, then he shall go out on the Yovel year; he and his children with him.\") \"And if he not be redeemed with these\": R. Yossi Haglili says: \"with these\" (i.e., if he is redeemed by his kin, he goes out) to freedom, and with other men, to servitude (i.e., he serves them for the years he was to serve the gentile). R. Akiva says: \"with these\" (i.e., if he is redeemed by his kin, he goes out) to servitude, and with other men, to freedom.",
                "2) R. Shimon says: Whence is it derived that theft of a gentile is \"theft\" (and forbidden)? From (Vayikra 25:48) \"After he is sold, (monetary) redemption shall there be for him\" — he shall not be seized (from the gentile without payment). I might think that he may fool him (the gentile into letting him go for a token payment); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 25:50) \"And he shall reckon with his buyer\" — with exactitude.",
                "3) — But perhaps Scripture is speaking of a gentile that is not subject to you, and what can you do to him (to force him? — and for that reason you must be exact with him, and not because theft of a gentile is permitted). — (This is not so, for) \"then he shall go out on the Yovel year, he and his children with him\" indicates Scripture to be speaking of a gentile who is subject to you. If Scripture speaks thus of a gentile who is subject to you, how much more so of one who is not subject to you! If Scripture is so stringent with theft of a gentile, how much more so, with theft of a Jew!",
                "4) (Vayikra 25:55) \"For to Me are the children of Israel servants. They are My servants, whom I took out of the land of Egypt\": so that they not subject them to servitude. \"I am the L–rd your G d\": What is the intent of this (in this context)? We are hereby taught that all who subject them to servitude below are regarded as doing so (to Him) above.",
                "5) (\"Do not make for yourselves idols (elilim), and a graven image or a pillar you shall not upraise for yourselves, and a covering stone you shall not place in your land to bow down upon it, for I am the L–rd your G d.\") \"Do not make for yourselves elilim\": This is one of the pejorative names assigned to the gentiles re their rites. \"and a graven image or a pillar\": Just as a graven image, if you made it, you must void it, so, a pillar, if you made it, you must void it. Just as a pillar comes under \"You shall not upraise,\" so a graven image comes under \"You shall not upraise.\" \"You shall not upraise\": This refers to (a statue of) Mercury on the ways. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: These are the solar columns on the roof tops. \"and a covering stone you shall not place in your land to bow down upon it.\" In your land you do not prostrate yourselves upon the stones, but you do prostrate yourselves upon the stones in the Temple.",
                "6) \"for I am the L–rd your G d, (Vayikra 26:2) My Sabbaths shall you keep and My sanctuary shall you fear.\" Scripture speaks of one who has been sold to a gentile — that he not say: Since my master serves idolatry, I, too, will serve idolatry; since my master desecrates Sabbaths, I, too, will desecrate the Sabbaths. In this regard it is written \"Do not make for yourselves idols,\" My Sabbaths shall you keep and My sanctuary shall you fear\": Scripture hereby exhorts (the servant) to (the fulfillment of) all the mitzvoth. \"I am the L–rd\" — trusted to reward."
            ]
        },
        "Bechukotai": {
            "Section 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 26:3) (\"If in My statutes you walk, and My mitzvoth you keep to do them,\") \"If in My statutes you walk … (Vayikra 26:4) then I shall give your rains in their proper times, etc.\": We are hereby taught that the Holy One Blessed be He yearns that Israel toil in Torah. And thus is it written (Tehillim 81:14-15) \"Would that My people heeded Me, that Israel walked in My ways! In an instant I would humble their foes and against their oppressors turn My hand!\" (Isaiah 18:19) \"Would that you heeded My mitzvoth — then your peace would be like a river and your righteousness like the waves of the sea. And your seed would be like the sand and the issue of your loins like its innards. Its name would not be cut off and blotted out before Me!\" And (Devarim 5:26) \"Who would grant that this their heart would be in them to fear Me and to keep all My mitzvoth all the days, so that it be good for them and for their children forever\" — whence we learn that the Holy One Blessed be He yearns that they toil in Torah.",
                "2) \"If in My statutes you walk\": I would think that these are the mitzvoth. But in \"and My mitzvoth you keep, to do them,\" mitzvoth are already stated. How, then, am I to understand \"If in My statutes you walk\"? — that you toil in Torah. And thus is it written (Vayikra 26:14) \"And if you do not hearken to Me.\" I might think that these (words) are (spoken of) the mitzvoth. But in (Vayikra 26:14) \"and do not do all of these mitzvoth,\" mitzvoth are already stated. How, then, am I to understand \"If you do not hearken to Me\"? — to toil.",
                "3) Similarly, it is written (Shemoth 20:8) \"Remember the day of Sabbath to sanctify it.\" I might think, (\"remember\") in your heart. But in (Devarim 5:12) \"Observe (the Sabbath day to keep it holy\") observance in the heart is already stated. How, then, am I to understand \"Remember\"? That you repeat it with your mouth. Similarly, (Devarim 9:7) \"Remember, do not forget, your having angered the L–rd in the desert.\" I might think (\"remember\") in your heart. But in \"do not forget,\" heart-forgetfulness is already stated. How, then, am I to understand \"Remember\"? That you repeat it with your mouth. Similarly, (Devarim 24:9) \"Remember what the L–rd your G d did to Miriam.\" I might think, (\"remember\") in your heart. But in (Devarim 24:8) \"Be heedful of the plague-spot of leprosy to heed it exceedingly and to do,\" heart-forgetfulness is already stated. How, then, am I to understand \"Remember\"? That you repeat it with your mouth. Similarly, (Devarim 25:17) \"Remember what Amalek did to you.\" I might think, (\"remember\") in your heart. But in (Devarim 25:19) \"Do not forget,\" heart-forgetfulness is already stated. How, then, am I to understand \"Remember\"? That you repeat it with your mouth.",
                "4) Similarly, (Vayikra 26:32) \"And I will make desolate the land.\" I might think, (\"desolate\") of man. But in (Vayikra 26:31) \"And I will lay waste your cities,\" man is already stated. How, then, am I to understand \"And I will make desolate the land\"? Of passersby. Similarly, \"and I will make desolate your sanctuaries.\" I might think (\"desolate\") of offerings. But in (Vayikra 26:31) \"and I will not smell your sweet savors,\" offerings are already stated. How, then, am I to understand \"and I will make desolate your sanctuaries\"? Of troops (of festival pilgrims).",
                "5) \"If in My statutes you walk, and My mitzvoth you keep, to do them\": (Scripture speaks of) one who learns in order to do, and not of one who learns in order not to do. For if one learns in order not to do, it is better had he not been created."
            ],
            "Chapter 1": [
                "1) (Vayikra 26:4) (\"Then I shall give your rains in their proper times, and the earth shall yield its produce, and the tree of the field shall yield its fruit.\") \"Then I shall give your rains in their proper times\": in the nights. But perhaps (the meaning is) on the eves of Sabbath (This cannot be, for) they said: Even if the years were like those of Eliyahu and the rains descended on the eves of Sabbath, it is nothing but a sign of cursing. How, then, am I to understand \"Then I shall give your rains in their proper times\"? In the nights. It happened in the days of Herod that the rains descended in the nights. In the morning the sun shone and the wind blew and the earth dried, and the workers went out to their work, knowing that their deeds were for the sake of Heaven. \"Then I shall give your rains in their proper times\": on Wednesday nights and on Sabbath nights. It happened in the days of Shimon b. Shetach and in the days of Queen Shlamtzah that the rains descended from the nights of Sabbath to the nights of Sabbath until the wheat became like kidneys, and the barley like olive-stones, and the lentils like golden dinars. And the sages tied up some of them and left them for future generations to apprise them (by contrast) what were the fruits of sin. As it is written (Jeremiah 59:2) \"Your transgressions have diverted these (blessings)\", (Isaiah 5:25) \"And your sins have hidden (His) face from you against hearing\", (Jeremiah, Ibid.) \"They (your sins) have withheld the good from you.\"",
                "2) \"Then I shall give your rains in their proper times\": (but) not the rains of all the lands. How, then, am I to understand (Bereshith 28:14) \"And all the families of the earth will bless themselves in you and in your seed\"? That there will be plenty in Eretz Yisrael and famine in all the lands. And they will come and buy from you and enrich you with money, as it is written (Bereshith 47:14) \"And Yosef gathered in all the money that was found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan for the food that they bought.\" And (Devarim 33:25) \"As your days, your flow\" — All of the lands will \"flow\" money and bring it to Eretz Yisrael.",
                "3) \"and the earth shall yield its produce\": Not as it does now, but as it did in the days of Adam. And whence is it derived that the earth is destined to be sown and to give fruit on the same day? From (Tehillim 111:4) \"A portent (in the days of Adam) He made for His (future) wonders,\" and (Bereshith 1:11) \"Let the earth sprout vegetation, grass, etc.\" — whereby we are taught that on the same day that it was sown, it gave forth fruit.",
                "4) \"and the tree of the field shall yield its fruit\": Not as it does now, but as it did in the days of Adam. And whence is it derived that a tree is destined to be planted and to bear fruit on the same day? From \"A portent (in the days of Adam) He made for His (future) wonders,\" and (Bereshith, Ibid.) \"a fruit-tree, making fruit of its kind\" — whereby we are taught that on the same day that it was planted, it bore fruit.",
                "5) Whence is it derived that the tree (itself) is destined to be eaten? From \"fruit-tree.\" If to teach that it produces fruit, is it not written (Ibid.) \"producing fruit after its kind\"? If so, what is the intent of \"fruit-tree\"? Just as the fruit was eaten, so, the tree was eaten.",
                "6) And whence is it derived that non fruit-producing trees are also destined to bear fruit? From \"and the tree of the field shall yield its fruit.\"",
                "7) (Vayikra 26:5) (\"And your threshing will reach the vintage, and the vintage will reach the sowing, and you will eat your bread in satiety, and you will dwell securely in your land.\") \"And your threshing will reach the vintage\": (The crops will be so abundant) that you will be engaged in threshing when the vintage (season) arrives. \"and the vintage will reach the sowing\": You will be engaged in harvesting the vintage when the sowing (season) arrives. \"and you will eat your bread in satiety\": It need not be said that a man will eat much and be sated, but (the meaning is that) he will eat little and be blessed in his innards, as it is written (Shemoth 22:25) \"And you will serve the L–rd your G d, and He will bless your bread and your water.\" \"and you will dwell securely in your land\": In your land you will dwell securely, but not outside of it.",
                "8) Lest you say \"There is food and there is drink, but without peace there is nothing!\" It is, therefore written (Shemoth 22:26) \"And I will put peace in the land\" — whence we are apprised that peace is over and against all. And thus is it written (Isaiah 45:7) (\"I) form light and create darkness. (I) make pace and create 'all.'\" — whence we are apprised that peace is over and against all."
            ],
            "Chapter 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 26:6) \"and you will lie down and not tremble\": without fear of any animal. \"and I will eliminate vicious beasts from the land.\" R. Yehudah says: He will eliminate them from the world. And thus is it written (Tehillim 92:1) \"A psalm, a song for the day of Shabbath\": for the cessation (mashbith [like \"Shabbath\"]) of harmful agents from the world. R. Shimon says: He will prevent them from causing harm. R. Shimon said: What redounds more to the praise of the L–rd, the absence of harmful agents or their existing but not causing harm? Certainly, the second.",
                "2) And thus is it written (Isaiah 11:6-8) \"And the wolf will live with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, and a calf, a lion whelp and a fatling (will walk) together, and a young child will lead them. A cow and a bear will graze, and their young will lie down together; and a lion, like cattle, will eat hay. A suckling will play by a viper's hole, and a newly weaned child (will stretch) his hand to the 'lightener' of an adder.\" (\"gemul yado hadah\") We are hereby taught that a Jewish child is destined to stretch his hand into the ocular orb (thus, \"lightener\") of an adder and to extract bile from its mouth. And this (the italicized phrase) is the intent of \"gemul yado hadah.\" This (\"hadah\") is a man-killing animal.",
                "3) \"and a sword will not pass through your land\": Not only will they not come against you for war, but the passers (for war) will not (even) pass from one land (Eretz Yisrael) to the other, as they did in the days of Yoshiyahu (viz. II Chronicles 35:21)",
                "4) (Vayikra 26:8) (\"And there will pursue of you, five, one hundred; and one hundred of you will pursue ten thousand, and your enemies will fall before you by the sword.\") \"And there will pursue of you, five, one hundred; and one hundred of you will pursue ten thousand\": of the weaker among you, and not of the stronger. \"and one hundred of you will pursue ten thousand\": Now is this the count? (If five pursue one hundred,) should it not be that one hundred will pursue two thousand? But there is no comparison between many who observe the Torah and few who observe it, (the many having disproportionately far more power). \"and your enemies will fall before you by the sword.\": Not in the usual manner, (but in abject surrender).",
                "5) (Vayikra 26:9) (\"And I shall turn to you, and I shall make you fruitful, and I shall expand you, and I shall establish My covenant with you.\") \"And I shall turn to you\": To what may this be compared? A king hired many workers, and there was one among them who worked with him for many days. The workers came to claim their wage and he among them. The king says to the worker: \"My son, I shall turn to you. These many did little work for me and I will give them a small wage. But, as for you, there is a great reckoning that I am destined to make with you.\" So, Israel in this world claim their wage before the Holy One Blessed be He, as do the nations of the world. And the Holy One Blessed be He says to Israel: My sons, I will turn to you. These nations of the world did little work for Me, and I will pay them a small wage; but you — there is a great reckoning that I am destined to make with you\" — thus, \"And I shall turn to you\": with good. \"and I shall make you fruitful\": with children. \"and I shall expand you\": with an upright stature. \"and I shall establish My covenant with you\": not as the first covenant, which you broke, as it is written (Jeremiah 31:31) \"'They broke My covenant, and I mastered them,' says the L–rd,\" — but a new covenant, which will not be broken, as it is written (Jeremiah 31:30) \"Behold, days are coming, says the L–rd, when I will seal with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant\" — which will not be broken."
            ],
            "Chapter 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 26:10) (\"And you will eat the old grown old; and you will remove the old in the face of the new.\") What is the intent of this? We are hereby taught that whatever is older is better than its neighbor. \"grown old\": This tells me only of wine, which is wont to become old. Whence do I derive (the same) for all things that grow old? From \"the old grown old.\" \"and you will remove the old in the face of the new\": The granaries will be full of the new, and the store-houses will be full of the old. And you will ponder \"How can we remove the old to make room for the new?\"",
                "2) (Vayikra 26:11) \"And I will place My tabernacle in your midst\": the Temple. \"and My soul will not abhor you\": When I redeem you (in the end of days), I will not (again) despise you (to remove My Shechinah from you).",
                "3) (Vayikra 26:12) (\"And I will walk in your midst, and I will be, unto you, a G d, and you will be unto Me, a people.\") To what may this be compared? A king went out to walk with his tenant-farmer in his orchard. The tenant-farmer (sees him) and hides from him. The king says to him: \"Why do you hide from me? I am like you\" (i.e., I planned the orchard and you are tending it.) (And the Holy One Blessed be He speaks (in this wise) to the righteous ones.) Thus is the Holy One Blessed be He destined to walk with the righteous in the Garden of Eden in time to come. They will see Him and recoil before Him, (and He will say to them) \"I am like you.\"",
                "4) I might think (this implies that) My awe will not be upon you; it is, therefore, written \"and I will be unto you, a G d, and you will be unto Me, a people.\" If you do not trust Me in all of these things (remember that) (Vayikra 26:13) \"I am the L–rd your G d, who took you out of the land of Egypt, etc.\" I am the one who wrought miracles for you in Egypt and I am the one who is destined to perform all of these miracles for you.",
                "5) \"so that you not be slaves to them\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Devarim 7:8) \"And he rescued you from the house of bondage,\" I might think that they were slaves to slaves; it is, therefore, written \"slaves to them\" — They were slaves to kings, and they were not slaves to slaves.",
                "6) \"and I will break the bars of your yoke\": To what may this be compared? One has a cow that he plows with and he lends it to another to plow with. That man has ten sons. This one comes and plows with it and leaves, and that one comes and plows with it and leaves — until the cow is exhausted and buckles under. All the cows (i.e., all the nations) enter and that cow (Israel) does not enter. It does not wait to be freed (of its yoke) by that man; but He comes immediately and breaks the yoke and cuts the yoke thongs. So, Israel in this world. One power comes and subjugates her and leaves, and another power comes and subjugates her and leaves. And the furrow is long, as it is written (Tehillim 128:3) \"Plowmen have plowed on my back; they have lengthened their furrow.\" Tomorrow, when the end arrives, the Holy One Blessed be He will not tell the nations: \"This and this is what you have done to My children.\" But immediately He will come and break the yoke and cut the yoke thongs, as it is written \"And I will break the bars of your yoke.\" And thus is it written (Tehillim, Ibid. 4) \"He has cut the cords of the wicked.\"",
                "7) \"and I will make you walk upright\": R. Shimon says: Two hundred ells. R. Yehudah says: One hundred ells as (the height of) Adam. This tells me only of men. Whence do I derive (the same for) women? From (Tehillim 144:12) \"our daughters as corner-stones, fashioned as the form of the sanctuary.\" And how (high) were the walls of the sanctuary? One hundred ells. Variantly: \"And I will make you walk upright\": With a straight stature, afraid of no one."
            ],
            "Section 2": [
                "1) (Vayikra 26:14) (\"And if you do not hearken to Me, and do not do all of these mitzvoth,\") \"And if you do not hearken to Me\": if you do not hearken to the midrash (exposition) of the sages. I might think (that the intent is to what is written [in the Torah]) But in \"these mitzvoth\" what is written in the Torah is already stated. How, then, am I to understand \"if you do not hearken\"? (As referring) to the midrash of the sages.",
                "2) \"And if you do not hearken to Me\": What is the intent of this (\"to Me\"). (The reference is to) one who knows his Master, but wilfully rebels against Him. Similarly, (Bereshith 13:13) \"And the people of Sodom were evil and sinful to the L–rd exceedingly.\" Why need \"to the L–rd\" be stated? (The intent is) They knew their Master, and wilfully rebelled against Him.",
                "3) \"and you do not do\": Is there a man who does not learn and does (the mitzvoth)? It is, therefore, written \"if you do not hearken and you do not do\" — Whoever does not learn does not do. Or is there a man who does not learn and does not do, but does not despise others (who do the mitzvoth)? It is, therefore, written (Bereshith 13:15) \"and if My statutes you despise.\" Whoever does not learn and does not do, will despise others (who do the mitzvoth). Or is there a man who does not learn and does not do and despises others (who do the mitzvoth), but does not hate the sages? It is, therefore, written \"and if My judgments, your souls abhor\" — Whoever does not learn and does not do and despises others, in the end will hate the sages. Or is there a man who does not learn and does not do and despises others and hates the sages, but allows others to do? It is, therefore, written \"not to do (all of My mitzvoth.\") — Whoever does not learn and does not do and despises others and hates the sages, in the end, will not allow others to do. Or is there a man who does not learn and does not do and despises others and hates the sages and does not allow others to do, but acknowledges the mitzvoth pronounced from Sinai? It is, therefore, written \"all of My mitzvoth.\" — Whoever does not learn and does not do and despises others and hates the sages and does not allow others to do, in the end will deny the mitzvoth pronounced from Sinai. Or is there a man who possesses all of these traits but does not deny his faith? It is, therefore, written \"to break My covenant.\" — Whoever possesses all of these traits, in the end will break the faith."
            ],
            "Chapter 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 26:16) (\"I, too, will do this to you, and I shall visit terror upon you: consumption and fever, dimming the eyes and plaguing the soul; and you shall sow your seed in vain, for your foes shall eat it.\") \"I, too\" (\"af ani\"): \"I\" shall speak only with \"af\" (wrath). It is \"I\" who built; \"I\" will destroy. \"I\" who planted; \"I\" will uproot. And thus is it written (Jeremiah 45:4) \"What I have built, I shall destroy. What I have planted, I will uproot.\" \"I will do this\": This is more grievous to you than all, for My great name (\"I\" [one of the names of the L–rd]) is engraved upon you as a debtor. \"to you\": This came to you by your own hands, (for) evil never proceeds from Me. And thus is it written (Eichah 3:38) \"From the mouth of the Most High there shall not go forth the evils, but the good.\"",
                "2) \"and I shall visit upon you\": The plagues will visit you from one to the other. While the first is still with you, I will bring another upon its heels. \"terror\" (\"behalah\") — a plague which confounds (mevaheleth) the populace. Which is that? Pestilence.",
                "3) \"consumption\" (shachefeth): Sometimes a person is sick in bed, yet his flesh is preserved; it is, therefore, written \"shachefeth\" — he (i.e., his flesh) is consumed. Sometimes he is consumed, but he is comfortable and not feverish; it is, therefore, written \"and fever\" — he is feverish. Sometimes he is feverish, but he has hope of living; it is, therefore, written \"dimming the eyes\" (of hope). Sometimes he does not expect to live, but others expect him to live; it is, therefore, written \"and plaguing the soul\" (of the onlookers). \"and you shall sow your seed in vain\": sowing and not sprouting. If \"sowing and not sprouting,\" how are we to understand \"for your foes shall eat it.\" Rather, he sows it the fist year and it does not sprout; the second year, and it sprouts — and foes come and eat it, as it is written \"and you shall sow your seed in vain, for your foes shall eat it.\" Variantly: Scripture speaks re sons and daughters — that you shall labor and raise them, and sin come and consume them. And thus is it written (Eichah 2:22) \"Those I fondled and raised, my foes destroyed.\"",
                "4) (Vayikra 26:17) (\"And I shall turn My face against you, and you will be smitten before your foes, and your foes shall rule within you; and you shall flee when none pursue you.\") Just as it is written in respect to the good (Vayikra 26:9) \"And I shall turn to you,\" so is it written in respect to the evil \"And I shall turn My face against you.\" To what may this be compared? To a king who says to his servants \"I shall turn away from all my affairs and deal with you with evil.\"",
                "5) \"and you will be smitten before your foes\": The pestilence will kill you from within and informers will surround you from without. \"and your foes shall rule within you\": I will place over you (foes) from you (i.e., from your midst) and against you. For when the nations rise against Israel they seek only what is in the open, as it is written (Shoftim 6:3) \"And it was, whenever Israel would sow, that Midian and Amalek and the people of the east would rise against him. And they would encamp against them and destroy the produce of the land until you come to Azzah. And they would not leave sustenance in Israel, nor sheep nor ox nor ass.\" But when I place over you (foes) from you, they will seek out your hidden things, as it is written (Michah 3:3) \"But you ('heads of Yaakov') have eaten the flesh of My people.\" \"and you shall flee\": out of fear; \"with none pursuing you\": (your) lacking power (to resist)."
            ],
            "Chapter 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 26:18) (\"And if with these you do not hearken to Me, then I shall chastise you even more, seven-fold for your sins.\") \"with these\" (\"ad eileh\"). R. Eliezer says: The Holy One does not bring calamity to Israel until he testifies (\"me'id\" [similar to\" ad]) against them first, as it is written \"And if ad eileh.\" R. Yehoshua says: Let Israel not say \"The plagues have ended and He has no other to bring upon us\"; it is, therefore, written \"And if ad eileh\" — still (\"od [similar to \"ad\"]) I have others of these and like these to bring. Then I shall chastise you even more, seven-fold for your sins.\": You transgressed seven transgressions (\"not learning, not doing, etc.,\" viz. Section 2:3 above) — come and take upon yourselves seven calamities, (which follow).",
                "2) (Vayikra 26:19) (\"And I shall break the pride of your strength, and I shall make your sky as iron and your earth as brass.\") \"And I shall break the pride of your strength\": This is the Temple. And thus is it written (Ezekiel 25:21) \"Behold, I am destroying My sanctuary, the pride of your strength.\" R. Akiva says: \"And I shall break the pride of your strength\": These are the heroes of Israel, such as Yoav ben Tzeruyah and his company. Others say: These are the proud ones (the martyrs), who are the pride of Israel, such as Papppus ben Yehudah and Lulianus Alexandri and their company.",
                "3) \"and I shall make your sky as iron and your earth as brass\": This is worse for them than the later (imprecation). For in the later what is written? (Devarim 28:23) \"And your skies over your heads shall be as brass,\" that the skies will \"sweat,\" as brass \"sweats,\" and the earth will not \"sweat,\" as iron does not sweat — and this will guard its fruit (against rotting.) But here what is written? \"and I shall make your sky as iron and your earth as brass,\" that the skies will not \"sweat,\" as iron does not \"sweat,\" and the earth will \"sweat\" as brass \"sweats,\" and it will lose its fruit. (Vayikra 26:20) (\"And your power shall be spent in vain, and your land will not yield its produce, and the tree of the field will not yield its fruit.\") \"And your power shall be spent in vain\": Rebbi says: This is the vineyard, (which requires much labor). Others say: This is flax. Others say: This is their strength (itself). Variantly: This refers to one who married off his daughter with a great dowry, but before the seven days of rejoicing are completed his daughter dies — so that he buries his daughter and loses his wealth.",
                "4) \"and your power shall be spent in vain\": If a man did not toil and did not plow and did not sow and did not weed and did not clear and did not hoe, and at harvest time there came blast, and mildew, and (the field) were smitten, it is of no import. But if a man toiled and plowed and sowed and weeded and hoed and cleared, and at harvest time there came blast and (the field) were smitten, his teeth are \"dulled.\" \"and your land will not yield its produce (yevulah).\" \"yevulah\": what you bring to it. \"and the tree of the field will not yield its fruit\": The tree will not form its fruits, and when it blooms it will shed its fruit (prematurely).",
                "5) (Vayikra 26:21) (\"And if you walk with Me laxly and do not desire to listen to Me, then I shall smite you even more, seven-fold according to your sins.\") \"And if you walk with Me laxly and do not desire to listen to Me\": You made My Torah \"incidental\" in the world — I, too, will make you \"incidental\" in the world. \"then I shall smite you, even more, seven-fold according to your sins\": You transgressed seven transgressions — come and accept seven calamities.",
                "6) (Vayikra 26:22) \"And I will send against you the beast of the field\": This tells me only of a beast of prey. Whence do I derive (the same for) an animal that is not a beast of prey? From (Devarim 32:24) \"And the tooth of beasts I will send against them.\" I might think that they will bite but not kill; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 32:24) \"with the venom of the crawlers in the dust.\" Just as these bite and kill, so, those (Vayikra, Ibid.) ",
                "7) \"and it will bereave you\": of your children. \"and it will cut off your cattle\": outside. \"and it will diminish you\": inside. \"and your ways will be desolate\": \"ways\" — plural, to include (all) paths, big and small. [In sum: seven calamities] "
            ],
            "Chapter 6": [
                "1) (Vayikra 26:25) \"And I will bring upon you a sword, avenging the vengeance of the covenant\": What is \"vengeance of the covenant\"? Such as the blinding of the eyes of Tzidkiyahu king of Judah, (who broke his covenant with Nevuchadnezzar). \"And you will be gathered together into your cities\": because of the siege. \"and I will send a plague in your midst\": The pestilence will devour you from within, and informers will surround you from outside. \"and you will be delivered into the hand of the foe\": Halachah: It is not permitted to allow the dead to lie over in Jerusalem, and when they took him out to bury him they were seized by the foe.",
                "2) (Vayikra 26:26) \"When I break your staff of bread\": to include all that comes with the bread. \"ten women shall bake your bread in one oven: for lack of wood, \"and they shall dole out your bread by weight\": For the wheat will be rotten (and the loaf will crumble) and they will sit and weigh it at the oven. (\"and you will eat and not be sated\") R. Yossi b. Dormaskith says: As people say: (If he had) an issar and a perutah (coins), he would sit and \"weigh\" (in his mind) and say \"I will buy a loaf. (Maybe) I will eat it (and be sated\") — but he is not sated. \"I will buy dates. Maybe I will eat them and be sated.\" But still, he eats them and is not sated, viz.: \"and you will eat and not be sated.\" Variantly: \"You will eat and not be sated\": This is the famine of (intestinal) commotion (i.e., malfunction).",
                "3) (Vayikra 26:29) \"And you will eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters will you eat\": They say of Doeg ben Yosef, who died and left a young child to his mother, that each year she would measure him by hand-breadth and give his weight in gold to the Temple. When they surrounded the citadel of Jerusalem, she slaughtered him with her own hand and ate him. And it is over her that Jeremiah keens (Eichah 2:20) \"Shall women eat their fruit, their fondled ones (\"measured by hand-breadth\" and dedicated to the Temple)? And the Holy Spirit answers her (Eichah 2:20) \"Shall there be killed in the Temple of the L–rd, Cohein and prophet!\" — Zechariah ben Yehoyada the Cohein. \"And you will eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters will you eat\": What is the intent of this (seemingly redundant \"will you eat\")? This tells me only that fathers will eat the flesh of sons and daughters. Whence is it derived that sons will eat the flesh of fathers? From \"will you eat.\" And thus is it written (Ezekiel 5:10) \"Therefore, fathers will eat children in your midst, and children will eat their fathers.\"",
                "4) (Vayikra 26:30) \"And I will destroy your high places\": as implied. \"And I will cut down chamaneichem\": These are the diviners and charmers in Israel. \"and I will cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols\": What do the carcasses have to do with the idols: They said: (At the destruction of Jerusalem) Eliyahu made the rounds of all those swollen with hunger. Finding one so smitten, he said to him: \"My son, from which family are you\"? The boy: \"From such and such.\" Eliyahu: \"How many were you?\" The boy: \"Three thousand.\" Eliyahu: \"And how many are left of you?\" The boy: \"I.\" Eliyahu: \"Would you like to say something that will keep you alive?\" The boy: \"Yes.\" Eliyahu: \"Say, hear O Israel, the L–rd, our G d, the L–rd is One.\" Immediately he screamed and said: \"Hush! Do not mention the name of the L–rd; my father never taught me thus!\" — saying which, he took his idol, placed it on his heart, and embraced it and kissed it until his belly burst, and he and his idol fell to the ground. And of this it is written \"and I will cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols.\" \"and My soul shall abhor you\": This is exile. Others say: This is the removal of the Shechinah. (Vayikra 26:31) \"And I will lay waste your cities\" (\"areichem\") \"ir,\" \"arei,\" \"areichem\" (all being implicit in the word \"areichem\") — to include large towns and provinces. \"and I will make desolate your sanctuaries (\"mikdesheichem\"): \"mikdash,\" \"mikdeshei,\" \"mikdesheichem\" — to include synagogues and houses of study. \"and I will not smell your sweet savors\" (as stated).",
                "5) (Vayikra 26:32) \"and I will make desolate the land\": These are propitious tidings — that Israel will now say: \"Since we have been exiled from our land, now the foe will come and find solace therein.\" For it is written \"and your foes who dwell upon it will be awe-struck by it\" — even the foe that comes afterwards will find no solace therein.",
                "6) (Vayikra 26:33) \"And you will I scatter among the nations\": These are bad tidings for Israel. For when all the inhabitants of a country are exiled into one place, they see each other and are (somewhat) consoled thereby. But it shall not be so with you. I am destined to scatter you among all of the nations, as one scatters barley with a winnowing fan, no (kernel) adhering to the other, as it is written (Jeremiah 15:7) \"I will scatter them with a winnowing fan through the gates of the earth. I have bereaved, I have destroyed My people, for they have not turned back from their ways.\"",
                "7) \"and I will draw out the sword after you\": The sword drawn out after you will not soon return (to its sheath), as spilled out water, which does not return to its vessel."
            ],
            "Chapter 7": [
                "1) \"and your land will be desolate, and your cities will be waste\": These are bad tidings for Israel. For if a man is exiled from his vineyard and from his house and (he knows that) he is destined to return, it is as if his vineyard and his house are not laid waste. But it shall not be so with you, for \"your land will be desolate and your cities will be waste\" — because you are not destined to return.",
                "2) (Vayikra 26:34) \"Then shall the land requite its Sabbaths\": I told you to sow six (years) and to leave one unsown for Me, so that you should know that the land is Mine. But you did not do so — Arise and be exiled from it, and it will lie waste of itself, all the shemitah years that it owes Me. As it is written: \"Then shall the land requite its Sabbaths. All the days of its (unrequited) Sabbaths … shall it rest.\"",
                "3) (Vayikra 26:36) \"And those who are left of you, I shall bring terror into their hearts\": It is not written \"I shall bring terror into them,\" but I shall bring terror into their hearts.\" And which is that? Awe, fright, worry, trembling, and fear.",
                "4) (Vayikra 26:37) \"and they will be chased by the sound of a driven leaf\": R. Yehoshua ben Karchah said: Once we were sitting between the trees and the wind started blowing and dashed the leaves against each other — whereupon we arose and ran, saying (to ourselves): \"Woe unto us if we are overtaken by the horsemen!\" After some time we turned around and found no one there — whereupon we sat down and cried, saying \"Woe unto us, upon whom has been fulfilled the verse \"and they will be chased by the sound of a driven leaf, and they will flee as one flees the sword\" — from fright — \"and they will fall though none pursue\" — from powerlessness.",
                "5) (Vayikra 26:37) \"And they will stumble, one man by his brother\": It is not written \"one man because of his brother\" (i.e., in running), but \"one man by his brother,\" the sin of his brother — whereby we are taught that all of Israel are responsible, one for the other.",
                "6) \"and you will not arise before your foes\": This is the hour of the taking of Jerusalem."
            ],
            "Chapter 8": [
                "1) (Vayikra 26:38) \"And you will go lost among the nations\": R. Akiva says: These are the ten tribes that were exiled to Medea. Others say: \"And you will go lost among the nations\": By \"lost,\" \"exiled\" is meant. I might think \"lost,\" literally. (This is not possible, for) in (Vayikra 26:38) \"and the land of your foes will devour you,\" (literal) \"loss\" is mentioned. How, then, am I to understand \"And you will go lost among the nations\"? As \"exiled.\"",
                "2) (Vayikra 26:39) \"And those that are left of you will melt away (\"yimaku\") in their sins\": (\"yimaku\" is to be understood as \"yimasu\" [\"melt away\"]) It is not written that they will melt away because of their sins, but that they will melt away in their sins (i.e., their sins themselves will afflict them). \"and also with the sins of their fathers with them they will melt away\": But has the Holy One Blessed be He not assured Israel that fathers will not punish fathers because of the children nor children because of the fathers? (viz. Devarim 24:16) \"Fathers shall not be put to death by cause of sons, and sons shall not be put to death because of fathers\"? If so, what is the intent of \"also with the sins of their fathers with them will they melt away\"? When they hold onto the sins of their fathers (thus \"with them\") generation after generation, they are punished for them.",
                "3) (Vayikra 26:40) \"And they will confess their sins and the sin of their father\": This is in respect to repentance. As soon as they confess their sins, I shall return and pity them \"for their faithlessness wherein they betrayed Me.\"",
                "4) (Vayikra 26:41) \"Then I, too, will walk with them in 'laxity.'\": They made My laws \"incidental\" in the world; I, likewise, will make them \"incidental\" in the world. \"and I will bring them into the land of their foes\": These are glad tidings for Israel — that they not say: Since we have been exiled among the nations, we can do as they do. I will not allow them (to do this), but I will set up My prophets over them and return them to the good under My wings. Whence is this derived? From (Ezekiel 20:32) \"And what you have in mind shall not come to pass, your saying 'We shall be as the nations and as the families of the earth,' but (Ezekiel 20:33) 'As I live, says the L–rd G d, I will reign over you with a strong hand and with an outstretched arm and with spilled-out wrath!'\" — Perforce, against your will, I will impose My kingdom upon you.",
                "5) (Vayikra 26:41) \"Then their uncircumcised heart will be humbled\": This is stated in respect to repentance. Immediately, they will humble their hearts in repentance. Immediately, I will return and pity them, viz.: \"Then their uncircumcised heart will be humbled, and then their sin will be expiated.\"",
                "6) \"Then I will remember My covenant with Yaakov\": Why are the patriarchs mentioned in reverse order? (To teach that) if the deeds of Yaakov do not suffice, the deeds of Yitzchak will suffice. And if the deeds of Yitzchak will not suffice, the deeds of Avraham will suffice. The (merit of) each suffices (in itself) to suspend the (punishment of) the world.",
                "7) And why is \"remembering\" stated in respect to Avraham and Yaakov, but not in respect to Yitzchak? Because G d (more than \"remembering,\" constantly) sees his ashes as heaped upon the altar, (which he ascended as a willing sacrifice). And why in respect to Avraham and Yitzchak is it written \"af\" (\"also\"), but not in respect to Yaakov? Because the \"bed\" of our father Yaakov was \"whole\" (i.e., all of his sons were virtuous).",
                "8) This tells me only of the patriarchs. Whence do I derive (the same for) the matriarchs? From (the triple) eth, eth, eth, \"eth\" signifying the matriarchs, viz. (Bereshith 49:31), \"There they buried Avraham and ('ve'eth') Sarah his wife.\" And whence is it derived that a covenant has been made with the land? From \"and the land will I remember\" (as I remember the covenant with the patriarchs.)",
                "9) \"And the land will be abandoned of them, and it will requite its Sabbaths\": I told them to sow for Me six (years) and to let it lie fallow for Me for one year, so that they should know that the land is Mine, and they did not do so — Arise and be exiled from it, and it will lie fallow of itself, all the shemitah years that it owes Me, viz.: \"And the land will be abandoned of them, and it will requite its Sabbaths in being desolate of them.\" \"And they will requite their sins for the certain cause ('ya'an uveya'an')\": Now did I punish Israel \"head for head\"? Did I not exact only one hundredth of what they sinned before Me? Why, then, is it written \"ya'an uveya'an\"? They will be smitten \"measure for measure\" in the manner that they sinned against Him. \"They despised My judgments\": These are the (written) laws. \"and My statutes were abhorred by their souls\": These are the midrashoth (the oral laws).",
                "10) (Vayikra 26:44) \"And notwithstanding also this\": \"this\": This is the sin of the desert, (e.g., the golden calf); \"also this\": This is the sin (in the incident) of Ba'al Peor; \"and even also this\": This is the sin (of their desire to emulate) the Emorite kings. \"I did not despise them and I did not abhor them to destroy them\": Now what remained to them that they were not despised and not abhorred! Were not all the goodly gifts that had been given to them taken from them? And if not for the Torah scroll that remained to them, they would not differ from the nations at all! (The meaning is rather;) I did not despise them (to allow them to be destroyed) in the days of Vespasian, and I did not abhor them in the days of Greece. \"to destroy them\": in the days of Haman. \"to break My covenant with them\": in the days of the Kasdim. \"for I am the L–rd their G d\": in the days of Gog and Magog, when no nation or tongue will prevail over them. And whence is it derived that the covenant (that Israel will not be destroyed) was (also) made with the (twelve) tribes? From (Vayikra 26:45) \"And I will remember for them the covenant with their ancestors, whom I took out of the land of Egypt.\" (Vayikra 26:46) \"These are the statutes and the judgments and the teachings\": \"the statutes\": These are the midrashoth; \"and the judgments\": These are the laws; \"and the Toroth\": This teaches us that two Toroth were given to Israel, one written, and one, oral. R. Akiva said: Did Israel have only two Torahs? Were not many Torahs given to them? (viz.) \"This is the Torah of the burnt-offerings,\" \"This is the Torah of the meal-offerings,\" \"This is the Torah of the guilt-offerings,\" \"This is the Torah of the sacrifice of peace-offerings,\" \"This is the Torah — a man if he die in the tent.\" \"which the L–rd set forth between Himself and the children of Israel\": Moses merited becoming the messenger between Israel and their Father in heaven, (viz.) \"on Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses\": We are hereby taught that the (entire) Torah — its halachoth, inferences, and interpretations — was given by Moses at Sinai."
            ],
            "Section 3": [
                "1) (Vayikra 27:2) (\"Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: A man if he utter a vow in your valuation of souls to the L–rd,\"): The children of Israel assess, but gentiles do not assess. I might think, then, that they are (also) not assessed; it is, therefore, written \"A man.\" These are the words of R. Meir. R. Meir said: If one verse includes, and the other excludes, why do I say they are assessed but do not assess? Because the power of the assessed is greater than that of the assessors. For a deaf-mute and a half-wit and a minor are assessed, but do not assess.",
                "2) R. Yehudah says: The children of Israel are assessed, but gentiles are not assessed. I might think that they (also) do not assess; it is, therefore, written \"A man.\" R. Yehudah said: If one verse includes, and the other excludes, why do I say they assess but are not assessed? Because the power of the assessors is greater than that of the assessed. For a tumtum (one of unknown sex) and a hermaphrodite assess, but are not assessed.",
                "3) If \"the children of Israel,\" I might think, only the children of Israel. Whence do I derive for inclusion proselytes and bondsmen? From \"and say to them.\" I might think that (also) excluded is a minor (from twelve years and a day) who is able to utter (a vow distinctly). It is, therefore, written \"if he utter a vow.\" It is written here \"a vow,\" and elsewhere (Devarim 23:22) \"a vow.\" Just as \"a vow\" here is subject to \"if he utter,\" so, \"a vow\" there is subject to \"if he utter.\" And just as \"a vow\" there is subject to \"do not delay (to pay it\"), so, \"a vow\" here is subject to \"do not delay.\"",
                "4) \"a vow in your valuation\": Vows are likened to valuations. Just as vows are subject to \"Do not delay to pay it,\" so, valuations.",
                "5) \"in your valuation\": to include an unspecified valuation. Variantly: He gives his entire value and not the value of individual limbs.",
                "6) I might think that I (also) exclude (from valuation even) an organ that one's life is dependent upon; it is, therefore, written \"souls\" (i.e., if he dedicates such an organ, he pays the value of his entire \"soul.\") \"souls\": and not (if he dedicates the value of) a dead body. I would then exclude a dead body, but I would not exclude one who is at the point of death. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 27:8) \"then he shall be stood … and the Cohein shall valuate him.\" One who can be \"stood\" is subject to valuation; one who cannot be \"stood\" is not subject to valuation.",
                "7) Variantly: What is the intent of \"souls\"? I might think (that the valuation takes effect) only if one (pronounced the formula of) valuation for one. Whence do I derive the same for one who valuated for one hundred? From \"souls.\" Variantly: What is the intent of \"souls\"? I might think (that the valuation is valid) only if a man valuated either a man or a woman. Whence do I derive (the same for) a woman who valuated a man or a woman? From \"souls.\" Variantly: What is the intent of \"souls\"? I might think that all who are included in money (value) are included in valuations, but those who are (physically) repulsive or covered with boils, and not included in money (value), are not included in valuations. It is, therefore, written \"souls.\"",
                "8) (Vayikra 27:3) \"Then your valuation shall be\": What is the intent of this? I might think that all who are included in valuations are included in money (vows), and a tumtum (one of undetermined sex) and a hermaphrodite and one less than one month old, since they are not included in valuations are not included in money (vows); it is, therefore, written \"shall be.\"",
                "9) \"For the male\": and not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. I might think they are not included in the category of \"man,\" but they are included in the category of \"woman\"; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 27:4) \"And if she be a female\" — either a definite male or a definite female, but not a tumtum or a hermaphrodite. And whence is it derived that the sixtieth year (itself) is regarded as below it? From (Vayikra 27:7) \"And if from sixty years and above\" — which teaches that the sixtieth year itself is (regarded) as below it.",
                "10) This tells me only of the sixtieth year. Whence do I derive (the same [i.e., \"below it\"]) for the fifth year and the twentieth year? It follows (inductively). There is liability for the sixtieth year and there is liability for the fifth year and for the twentieth year. Just as the sixtieth year is regarded as \"below it,\" so, the fifth year and the twentieth year.",
                "11) Now if you make the sixtieth year \"below it\" for stringency (of liability) would you make the fifth year as the twentieth year \"below it\" for leniency (of liability)! It is, therefore, written \"year\" - \"year\" for a gezeirah shavah (identity) — Just as \"year\" written in respect to the sixtieth year is \"below it,\" so \"year\" written in respect to the fifth year and the twentieth year is \"below it\" — whether for leniency or for stringency. R. Eliezer says; Whence is it derived that one month and one day (above the sixtieth year) is regarded as the sixtieth year? From (Vayikra 27:7) (\"And if from sixty years) and above.\" It is written here \"and above,\" and elsewhere (Bamidbar 3:15) \"and above.\" Just as \"and above\" elsewhere is one month and one day after the month, so, here, one day and one month after the month is regarded as the sixtieth year.",
                "12) This tells me only of after sixty years. Whence do I derive the same for after five and after twenty? It follows (inductively). There is liability after the sixtieth year and there is liability after the fifth year and after the twentieth year. Just as after the sixtieth year, one month and one day afterwards are regarded as the sixtieth year, so, after the fifth year and after the twentieth year, one month and one day afterwards are regarded as the respective year.",
                "13) (Vayikra 27:8) \"And if he be too poor from your valuation\": If he is too poor to assign a valuation, \"then he shall be stood before the Cohein.\" What is the intent of this? Because it is written \"souls,\" to exclude the dead, I would exclude the dead, but not the dying; it is, therefore, written \"then he shall be stood … and the Cohein shall valuate him\" — Where there is \"standing,\" there is valuation; where there is no \"standing,\" there is no valuation.",
                "14) I might think that even if he said \"The valuation of that man is upon me (to give)\" and he (that man) died, he would be exempt (from payment); it is, therefore, written \"the Cohein shall valuate him\" — even if he died. \"and the Cohein shall valuate him\": He gives only according to (his age) at the time of the valuation (i.e., when he said \"My valuation is upon me to give.\") \"According to the means of the vower (shall the Cohein valuate him\"), and not according to the means of the one bevowed, whether man or woman or minor — whence they ruled: The \"means\" relate to the vower; the \"years\" (of the valuation) relate to the one bevowed; the \"valuations\" relate to the one evaluated (i.e., male or female); the \"evaluation\" relates to (his age at the time of the valuation [see above])."
            ],
            "Chapter 9": [
                "1) (Vayikra 27:9) (\"And if it be a beast, of which men present an offering to the L–rd, all that he gives of it to the L–rd shall be holy.\") If one said \"The leg of this animal is a burnt-offering,\" I might think that the entire animal becomes a burnt-offering; it is, therefore, written \"all that he gives of it to the L–rd shall be holy\" — but all of it is not holy. I might then think that the animal becomes chullin (non-sacred); it is, therefore, written \"shall be\" — it retains its holiness. What shall he do? He sells it to those who must bring a burnt-offering, and its monies become chullin, except for (the monies for) that foot. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah, R. Yossi, and R. Shimon say: Whence is it derived that even if he said \"Its foot is a burnt-offering,\" all of it becomes a burnt-offering? From \"all that he gives of it to the L–rd shall be holy\" — \"shall be holy,\" to include all of it.",
                "2) I might think that dedications to Temple maintenance (bedek habayith) are (also) susceptible of substitution (viz. Vayikra 27:10) it is, therefore, written \"offering\" — to exclude dedications to Temple maintenance, which are not offerings.",
                "3) I would then exclude dedications to Temple maintenance, which are not offerings, but I would not exclude communal dedications (of offerings); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 27:10) \"He shall not exchange it.\" I would then exclude communal offerings, but I would not exclude offerings in partnership; it is, therefore, written (again) \"and he shall not substitute for it\" — An individual can make a substitution, but not the community or partners.",
                "4) R. Shimon said: Was not ma'aser (a tithe) was in the category (of all consecrated animals in respect to substitution). Why, then, was it singled out for special mention? (viz. Vayikra 27:33) To teach: Just as ma'aser is an individual (as opposed to a communal) offering, so all (such animals) are included (in respect to substitution), and just as ma'aser is an altar offering, so all (such animals are included).",
                "5) (Vayikra 27:10) \"and he shall not substitute for it.\" The consecrated animal is susceptible of substitution, but not its substitute. R. Yehudah said: And the offspring (consecrated animals) are not susceptible of substitution.",
                "6) \"good by bad or bad by good\": Whole animals by blemished ones, or blemished ones by whole ones. Whence is it derived that \"bad\" signifies \"blemished\"? From (Devarim 17:1) \"You shall not sacrifice to the L–rd your G d an ox or a sheep in which there is a blemish, any bad thing.\" \"and if he substitutes substitutes\": to include women (in the laws of substitution). \"and if he substitutes, substitutes\": to include the heir. \"beast for beast\": one (non-sacred beast) for two (sacred ones), or two (non-sacred ones) for one (sacred one), one for a hundred or a hundred for one. R. Shimon says: (One) beast for (one) beast, and not (one) beast for (many) beasts. They said to him: (One) beast is called a beast, and many beasts are called a beast, as it is written (Yonah 4:11) \"and many beast.\"",
                "7) \"beast for beast\": not beast for birds and not birds for beast, and not beast for meal-offerings and not meal-offerings for beast, and not beast for them.",
                "8) \"beast for beast\": and not beast for fetuses, and not fetuses for beast, and not limbs for fetuses, and not fetuses for limbs, and not limbs for whole animals and not whole animals for them.",
                "9) R. Yossi says: Limbs are substituted for whole animals, but whole animals are not substituted for them. R. Yossi said: Is it not true of consecration that if one said: Let the foot of this beast be a burnt-offering, that the whole beast becomes a burnt-offering? In the same way, if he said: Let the foot of this (beast) be in place of that, then the whole beast becomes a substitute for it. ",
                "10) \"then it and its substitute shall be holy\": Where does the holiness \"take\"? In the house of the owner, (but once it has been given to the Cohein, he cannot substitute for it). So it is with the substitute.",
                "11) (From this verse we learn that) a bechor can be substituted for in the house of the owner, but not in the house of the Cohein. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yochanan asked: Why can (the Cohanim) not make a substitute for the bechor? R. Akiva answered: A sin-offering and a guilt-offering are a gift to the Cohein, and a bechor is a gift to the Cohein. Just as there is no substitution for a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, so, there is no substitution for a bechor. R. Yochanan b. Nuri: Why can he not substitute for a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? Because he does not own them while they are alive — as opposed to a bechor, which he does own while it is alive! R. Akiva: You refuted the rationale, but how will you refute the verse, \"then it and its substitute will be holy\"? Just as the holiness \"takes\" in the house of the owner, so, substitution takes place in the house of the owner, (and not in the house of the Cohein).",
                "12) And once it (bechor, or sin-offering, or guilt-offering) has been given to the Cohein, it is not susceptible of substitution.",
                "13) \"then it and its substitute shall be holy\": The sacred (animal) is susceptible of substitution, but not its substitute.",
                "14) (The verse is needed,) for (without it) would it not follow otherwise, viz.: If a consecrated animal, where consecrations does not \"take\" (ab initio) in an animal with a fixed blemish, is susceptible of substitution, then a substituted animal, where consecration does \"take\" in an animal with a fixed blemish, how much more so should it be susceptible of substitution! It must, therefore, be written \"then it … shall be holy\" — the holy is susceptible of substitution, but the substitute is not susceptible of substitution.",
                "15) \"shall be holy\": We are hereby taught that holiness \"takes\" upon it (the substitute even) with a fixed blemish. (And the verse is needed,) for (without it) would it not follow otherwise, viz.: If in a holy (animal), which is susceptible of substitution, consecration does not \"take\" (ab initio) in an animal with a fixed blemish, then a substitute, which is not susceptible of substitution, how much more so should consecration not \"take\" in an animal with a fixed blemish! It must, therefore, be written \"shall be holy.\" We are hereby taught that holiness \"takes\" upon it (the substitute) even with a fixed blemish.",
                "16) R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: \"shall be holy\": to equate unwitting (consecration) to witting. "
            ],
            "Section 4": [
                "1) (Vayikra 27:11) (\"And if any unclean beast, which may not be presented of it as an offering to the L–rd, then the beast shall be stood before the Cohein.\") I might think that Scripture is speaking of a beast which is (ritually) unclean. But (Vayikra 27:27) \"And if among the unclean beasts, then he shall redeem it with your valuation\" already speaks of a (ritually) unclean beast. Our verse, then, must be referring to the redemption of consecrated animals which became blemished. I might think that it must be redeemed even if it contracted a passing blemish; it is, therefore, written \"which may not be presented of it as an offering to the L–rd\" — to exclude a (beast with a) passing blemish, which is kasher (for sacrifice) when the blemish passes.",
                "2) \"unclean\": to include (in redemption) a dead (literally unclean) beast which he consecrated (for its money value). I might think that (it is redeemed) even if he said \"This beast is consecrated\" and (then) it died; it is, therefore, written \"then the beast shall be stood … (Vayikra 27:12) and the Cohein shall valuate it.\" Where there is \"standing,\" there is valuation; where there is no standing, there is no valuation.",
                "3) Why do you see fit to include (his consecrating) a dead beast, and exclude his saying \"This beast is consecrated\" and its dying (thereafter)? — After Scripture includes, it excludes. We derive it from an unclean (i.e., blemished) beast. Just as with an unclean beast, the time of its redemption is equivalent to the time of consecration (i.e., at both times the beast is not fit for sacrifice), so, I include (his consecrating) a dead beast, whose time of redemption is equivalent to its time of consecration, and I exclude his saying \"This beast is consecrated\" and its dying (thereafter), where the time of its redemption is not equivalent to its time of consecration.",
                "4) — But something that you learn in one way, you should learn in all the ways that appertain to it, viz.: Just as with the \"unclean beast\" (mentioned here), its beginning is consecration, (but not its end [i.e., it is unfit as an offering]), and it is subject to me'ilah (defilement of sacred property), and it belongs entirely to Heaven (i.e., before it is redeemed, neither Cohanim not non-Cohanim have any rights in it) — so, I will include (for valuation and redemption) what is like it. And what is that? The bullocks for burning and the he-goats for burning, (which have now become blemished). Whence do I derive (for inclusion) holy of holies, and lower order offerings, both communal and individual? From \"and if any unclean beast,\" instead of (merely) \"unclean beast.\"",
                "5) \"then the beast shall be stood before the Cohein\": A beast can be redeemed, but birds, wood, frankincense, and serving vessels (which became defiled) cannot be redeemed.",
                "6) (Vayikra 27:12) (\"And the Cohein shall valuate it, good or bad. As the Cohein valuates it for you, so shall it be.\") \"And the Cohein shall valuate it, good or bad.\": Consecrated animals are not redeemed by approximation, (but there must be an exact estimate). \"As the Cohein valuates it for you, so shall it be\": If one said: I will take it for ten selaim; another: for twenty; another: for thirty; another: for forty; another: for fifty — If the \"fifty\" backed out, his property is attached for ten selaim; if the \"forty,\" his property is attached for ten; if the \"thirty,\" his property is attached for ten; if the \"twenty,\" his property is attached for ten; if the \"ten,\" the animal is sold for its (market) worth, and the balance is made up by the \"ten.\"",
                "7) (Vayikra 27:13) \"And if he would redeem, redeem it\": to include one's heir. \"then he shall add its fifth to your valuations\": There are two (valuations) here (Vayikra 27 verse 12 and Vayikra 27 verse 13), one that adds a fifth (Vayikra 27 verse 13) and one that does not add a fifth (Vayikra 27 verse 12), and it is not known whether the owner or other men are being referred to. Just as we find in the \"redemptions\" mentioned below, the owner adds a fifth, but not other men (who wish to purchase it), so, in the \"redemptions\" mentioned here, the owner adds a fifth, and not other men.",
                "8) (Vayikra 27:14) (\"And a man, if he consecrate his house, holy to the L–rd, then the Cohein shall valuate it, good or bad. As the Cohein shall valuate it, so shall it stand.\") \"And a man, if he consecrate his house\": I might think that Scripture speaks only of a dwelling, (but not of other property). But (Vayikra 27:15) \"And if the consecrator would redeem his house\" already speaks of a dwelling. How, then, am I to understand \"And a man, if he consecrate his house\"? As referring to his property.",
                "9) \"holy to the L–rd\": We are hereby apprised that \"consecrations,\" unspecified (as to purpose) are for Temple maintenance."
            ],
            "Chapter 10": [
                "1) (Vayikra 27:14) \"then the Cohein shall valuate it, good or bad\": Consecrations are not redeemed by approximation. \"As the Cohein valuates it, so shall it stand\": If the owner says (I redeem it) for twenty, and another: for twenty, the owner takes precedence, for he adds a fifth. If one said: It is mine for twenty-one, the owner gives twenty-six; (If he said) twenty-two, the owner gives twenty-seven; twenty-three, the owner gives twenty-eight; twenty-four, the owner gives twenty-nine; twenty-five, the owner gives thirty, for a fifth is not added to the other's \"raising.\" If he (the other) said: It is mine for twenty-six — If the owner wishes to give thirty-one plus a dinar, he takes precedence; if not, he (the other) is told \"It is yours.\"",
                "2) \"the consecrator would redeem\": to include his wife. \"And if the consecrator would redeem\": to include his heir. \"then he shall add a fifth of the money of your valuation upon it, and it shall be his\": If he gives the money, it is his; if not, it is not his.",
                "3) (Vayikra 27:16) \"And if from the field of his holding a man shall consecrate to the L–rd, then your valuation will be according to its sowing; the sowing of a chomer of barley for fifty silver shekels.\" \"from the field of his holding\": This tells me only of a field of holding from his father. Whence do I derive (the same for) a field of holding from his mother? From \"a man shall consecrate\" — in any event. \"then your valuation will be according to its sowing\": according to its sowing and not according to its growing. \"the sowing of a chomer of barley for fifty silver shekels\": This is the decree of the King — Both he who consecrates in the sands of Machoz and he who consecrates in the orchards of Sebaste gives the sowing of a chomer of barley for fifty silver shekels.",
                "4) (Vayikra 27:17) \"If from the Yovel year he shall consecrate his field, according to your valuation shall it stand.\" Whence is it derived that one is not permitted to consecrate his field at the time of Yovel and that if he does, it is not consecrated? From \"If from the Yovel year he shall consecrate his field.\" \"his field\": What is the intent of this (apparent redundancy)? Where is it derived that if there were in it clefts ten tefachim deep or rocks ten tefachim high they are not measured together with it? From \"his field.\"",
                "5) \"according to your valuation shall it stand\": He gives forty-nine selaim and forty-nine pondionoth. What is the nature (i.e., the purpose) of this pondion? It is the premium (for exchange of currency).",
                "6) (Vayikra 27:18) (\"And if after the Yovel year he shall consecrate his field, then the Cohein shall reckon for him the money remaining until the Yovel year, and it shall be deducted from your valuation.\") \"after the Yovel\": (This implies) next to the Yovel (i.e., the first year after the Yovel). Whence do we derive (the same for a year) removed from the Yovel (i.e., the second year, the third year, etc.)? From \"And (connoting inclusion) if after the Yovel year he shall consecrate his field.\" \"his field\": (See 4 above).",
                "7) Whence is it derived that there are no consecrations fewer than two years before the Yovel and no redemptions less than one year after the Yovel? From \"And the Cohein shall reckon for him the money (to be returned to the Temple) according to the 'years' (a minimum of two) remaining until the Yovel year.\"",
                "",
                "9) And whence is it derived that if he said: I would like to pay in yearly installments, he is not heeded, but must give the entire amount (until the next Yovel) in one sum? From \"according to (all) the years remaining.",
                "10) \"the years remaining\": He reckons the years remaining and not the months. And whence is it derived that if he (the Temple treasurer) wishes to reckon months as a year he may do so? From \"then he shall reckon.\" \"until the Yovel year\": It (the reckoning) is not to enter into the Yovel year at all. \"and it shall be deducted from your valuation\": Even from the Temple, so that if the Temple consumed (the field's produce) for a year or two before the Yovel year, or (even if) it did not do so, but it was in its domain, a sela and a pondion is deducted for each year.",
                "11) (Vayikra 27:19) (\"And if redeem, will redeem the field, he who consecrates it, then he shall add one fifth of the money of your valuation upon it, and it shall be his.\") \"redeem, will redeem\": to include his (the consecrator's) wife. \"And if redeem, will redeem\": to include his heir. \"the field\": What is the intent of this (\"the field,\" instead of simply \"it\")? (Because it is written (Vayikra 27:16) \"the sowing of a chomer of barley for fifty silver shekels,\") I might think that this applied only if he consecrated a beth-kor. Whence would I derive (that the same applied for smaller fields, such as) beth lethach, bath sa'ah, and beth kav? From \"the field\" (— in any event). \"then he shall add one fifth of the money of your valuation upon it, and it shall be his\": If he gives the money, it is his; if not, it is not his.",
                "12) (Vayikra 27:20) (\"And if he does not redeem the field, and if he sells the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed again.\") \"And if he does not redeem\" — the owner, \"and if he sells\" — the (Temple) treasurer; \"to another\" — and not to his son. — But perhaps (the meaning is) to another, and not to his brother. (This cannot be, for \"another) man\" includes his brother. Why do you see fit to include (with the owner) his son and to exclude his brother? After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include the son, who is in place of his father vis-à-vis yiud (betrothal to a Hebrew handmaid) and vis-à-vis (inheritance of) his Hebrew manservant, and I exclude his brother, who is not in his place for these things.",
                "13) \"It shall not be redeemed again\": I might think that he cannot (even) buy it from the treasurer as a \"field of acquisition,\" (which returns to the Temple on the Yovel year [as opposed to a field of holding\" (a patrimony), which returns to him on the Yovel year]); it is, therefore, written \"it shall not be redeemed again,\" i.e., it does not revert to its prior status (a field of holding); but he may buy it from the treasurer as a field of acquisition."
            ],
            "Chapter 11": [
                "1) (Vayikra 27:21) (\"And the field shall be, when it goes out on the Yovel year, holy to the L–rd, as a devoted field; to the Cohein shall be his holding.\") \"And the field shall be, when it (masculine) goes out\": This indicates that \"field\" is masculine. \"holy\": Just as with \"holy\" there (Vayikra 27:14) the release is only through redemption, so with \"holy\" here, the release is only through redemption.",
                "2) We are hereby taught that the Cohanim (of the Yovel watch) enter it and pay its value (as indicated). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: They enter, but do not pay. R. Elazar says: They neither enter nor pay, but it is called \"an abandoned field\" until the second Yovel. If the second Yovel arrived and it had not been redeemed, it is called \"doubly abandoned\" until the third Yovel. The Cohanim may not enter it until another redeems it.",
                "3) \"as a devoted field, to the Cohein shall be his holding\": What is the intent of this? A field that went out to the Cohanim on Yovel, and one of the Cohanim redeemed it, and it is under his hand — I might think that he can say that since it was released to all of his brother Cohanim on Yovel and now it is under his hand (— I might think that he could say) \"Now it is mine.\" It is, therefore, written \"as a devoted field, to the Cohein shall be his holding\" — the field of holding of the Cohein is his, but this is not his, but is released to all of his brother Cohanim (of that Yovel watch).",
                "4) (Vayikra 27:22) (\"And if the field of his acquisition [from another], which is not of the field of his [family] holding, he shall consecrate to the L–rd, [and he comes to redeem it],\") What is the intent of this? If one acquired a field from his father, and his father died, and then he consecrated it, I might think that it is reckoned as a field of acquisition; it is, therefore, written \"which is not of the field of his (family) holding\" — a field which is not a field of holding, to exclude this, which is a field of holding. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah and R. Shimon say: If one acquired a field from his father, and he consecrated it and then his father died, I might think that it is reckoned as a field of acquisition; it is, therefore, written \"which is not of the field of his holding\" — a field which was not fit to be a field of holding, to exclude this, which was fit to be a field of holding. A field of acquisition (which was consecrated and not redeemed) does not revert to the Cohanim on Yovel, for one cannot consecrate something that is not his. (Vayikra 27:23) (\"Then the Cohein shall reckon for him michsath your valuation until the Jubilee year, and he shall give your valuation on that day; it is holy to the L–rd.\") \"Then the Cohein shall reckon for him 'michsath'\": michsath connotes \"amount of money,\" i.e., he gives what it is worth.",
                "5) R. Elazar said: It is written here \"Then he shall reckon\" and elsewhere (Vayikra 27:18) \"Then he shall reckon.\" Just as there, he gives the sowing of a chomer of barley for fifty silver shekels, so, here.",
                "6) \"and he shall give your valuation on that day\": He should not delay (in expectation of a higher valuation later). For even if the poorest of men has a precious jewel, (which might fetch a very high price elsewhere), he is valuated only according to his present place and time.",
                "7) (Vayikra 27:24) \"In the Yovel year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought\": I might think, to the Temple treasurer, from whom it was bought (by the last purchaser); it is, therefore, written \"to the one who has the holding in the land (i.e., the original owner). (In that case let it be written [only] \"to the one who has the holding in the land.\" Why state \"to the one from whom it was bought'? (For I might think that) a field which went out to the Cohanim on the Yovel and was sold by the Cohein (who acquired it), and was consecrated by the buyer — I might think that when the second Yovel arrived, it reverted to the original owner (whose field of holding it was before he consecrated it); it is, therefore, written \"to the one from whom it was bought\" (namely, the Cohein who sold it, [as opposed to the original owner, who consecrated it]). (Vayikra 27:25) (\"And all of your valuations (concerning which it is written \"shekalim\") shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary; twenty gerah shall the shekel be.\") \"And all of your shekels shall be according to the shekel of the sanctuary\": There is no valuation less than a sela (the same as a shekel). \"according to the shekel of the sanctuary\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 27:27) \"and he shall redeem,\" I might think, with servants, deeds, and land; it is, therefore written \"with the shekel of the sanctuary.\" This tells me only of the shekel of selaim of the sanctuary. Whence do I derive for inclusion anything that is (of monetary value and is) movable? From \"and he shall redeem.\" If so, why is it written \"with the shekel of the sanctuary\"? To exclude servants, deeds, and land.",
                "8) \"twenty gerah shall the shekel be\": Whence is it derived that if he wishes to increase (the value of the shekel), he may do so? From \"shall be\" (connoting the possibility of a change). I might then think that if he wishes to decrease (the value) he may do so. It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 20:6) \"It is (twenty gerah\"), (i.e., at least twenty gerah)."
            ],
            "Section 5": [
                "1) (Vayikra 27:26) (\"But a first-born [\"<i>bechor</i>\"] which is a firstling [\"<i>asher yevukar</i>\"] to the L-rd among the beasts, a man shall not consecrate it [as a different offering]. Whether ox or lamb, it is the L-rd's.\") If it were just written \"a first-born … shall not consecrate,\" I might understand it as: a human first-born shall not make consecrations; it is, therefore, written (\"a <i>man</i> shall not consecrate) <i>it</i>\" (a first-born beast) — \"<i>it</i>\" you shall not consecrate, but a human first-born may make consecrations. But I still might understand it as: he (a human first-born) shall not consecrate it, but others may; it is, therefore, written \"among the beasts\" — It is a first-born <i>beast</i> that is being referred to (and not a first-born human being).",
                "2) I might think that he may not consecrate it (for a sanctity other than that of \"<i>bechor</i>\") while it is still in the womb; it is, therefore, written \"<i>asher yevukar</i> to the L-rd, a man shall not consecrate\" — when it emerges (from the uterus) as a <i>bechor</i> you may not consecrate it, but you may consecrate it (for a different sanctity) in the womb — whence they derived: a man may use an artifice with a (potential) <i>bechor</i> (to keep from giving it to the Cohein, [e.g., \"If what is in her womb is a male, let it be a burnt-offering\"]) R. Yishmael said: Whence is it derived that a man may not consecrate a <i>bechor</i> (for a different offering)? From \"a <i>bechor</i> … a man may not consecrate <i>it</i>.\" I might think that he may not consecrate it as <i>hekdesh ilui</i> (\"value sanctity,\" i.e., \"Whatever this <i>bechor</i> [of another] is <i>worth</i> to me I consecrate to Temple maintenance\"), it is, therefore, written (<i>Devarim</i> 15:19) \"Every <i>bechor</i> (which is born among your cattle and among your sheep) you shall consecrate [<i>hekdesh ilui</i>].\" Why did you see fit to <i>in</i>clude (for consecration) <i>hekdesh ilui</i> and to <i>ex</i>clude <i>altar</i> (i.e., offering) consecration? After Scripture <i>in</i>cludes (in <i>Devarim</i>), it <i>ex</i>cludes here. Why do I include it for <i>hekdesh ilui</i> (towards Temple maintenance)? Because it (<i>hekdesh ilui</i>) \"takes\" with all (objects); and I exclude it from altar consecration, which does not \"take\" with all, (but only with beasts.)",
                "3) This tells me only of a <i>bechor</i>. Whence is it derived that with all consecrated animals there is no transferring from one type of consecration to another? From \"from the beasts, a man shall not consecrate it\" (as a different offering).",
                "4)\tSee 2) above.",
                "5) R. Akiva says: Whence is it derived that one may not consecrate a <i>bechor</i> (as a different offering)? From \"a <i>bechor</i> … a man shall not consecrate it.\"",
                "6) I might think that he may not consecrate it as <i>hekdesh ilui</i>; it is, therefore, written \"<i>But</i> (a first-born, etc.\"), (\"but\" connoting exclusion). And why did you see fit to include <i>hekdesh ilui</i> and to exclude altar consecration? After Scripture <i>in</i>cludes, it <i>ex</i>cludes. Why does it include <i>hekdesh ilui</i>? Because it \"takes\" with all (objects), and it excludes altar consecration, which does not \"take\" with all.",
                "7) This tells me only of a <i>bechor</i>. Whence is it derived that with all consecrated animals there is no transferring from one type of consecration to another? From \"he shall not consecrate … whether ox or lamb.\"",
                "8) I might think that he may not consecrate them as <i>hekdesh ilui</i>; it is, therefore, written \"<i>But</i>, etc.\" Why did you see fit to <i>in</i>clude <i>hekdesh ilui</i>, etc.",
                "9) \"Whether ox or lamb, it is the L-rd's\": <i>It</i> (an animal originally designated as an offering) is sacrificed, but its substitute is not sacrificed, (but is allowed to graze until it sustains a blemish disqualifying it as an offering).\n"
            ],
            "Chapter 12": [
                "1) (Vayikra 27:27) (\"And if [he wishes to redeem] an unclean beast [that he dedicated to Temple maintenance], then he shall redeem it according to your valuation, and he shall add its fifth upon it. And if it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold by your valuation.\") \"And if an unclean beast, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation.\" What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 27:25) \"according to the shekel of the sanctuary,\" I might think (that he can redeem) only with that. Whence do I derive for inclusion any movable object? From \"then he shall redeem\"; but on condition that he assesses (the object) monetarily (to coincide with the worth of the animal), e.g., if he said: \"This garment for this ass,\" the latter becomes chullin (non-consecrated) and he must cover any arrears (between the worth of the animal and the worth of the garment).",
                "2) \"and he shall add its fifth upon it\": So that it and the fifth make five (equal parts [as opposed to a fifth of the principal], i.e., he divides the principal by four and adds a fifth part [e.g., if the principal were twenty, he pays twenty-five]).",
                "3) (Vayikra 27:28) (\"But every 'devotion' (cherem) which a man shall devote to the L–rd, of all that he has, of man and beast, and of field of his holding, shall not be sold and shall not be redeemed; every devotion, holy of holies is it to the L–rd.\") \"of all that he has\": and not all that he has. \"of man\": to include his Canaanite man-servant and maid-servant. — But perhaps, to include his Hebrew man-servant and maid-servant! It is, therefore, written \"of\" man\" and not \"every man.\" \"of beast,\" and not \"every beast.\" \"and of field of his holding,\" and not a field of acquisition. I might think that if a man devoted all of them (to the Temple) they would remain devoted; it is, therefore, written \"But\" (to exclude this). R. Elazar b. Azaryah said: If a man is not permitted to devote (all) of his possessions (to the Temple), how much, then, must he be solicitous of his possessions!",
                "4) \"shall not be sold\": to others. \"and shall not be redeemed\": by the owner. What shall he do with it? (Vayikra 27:21) \"To the Cohein (of that watch) shall be his holding.\" I might think (that this is so) even if he stipulated \"to the L–rd.\" It is, therefore, written \"every devotion, holy of holies is it to the L–rd\" (i.e., if he stipulates \"to the L–rd\" it reverts not to the Cohein but to Temple maintenance).",
                "5) R. Yehudah b. Betheirah says: Whence is it derived that unspecified \"devotions\" go to Temple maintenance? From \"every devotion, holy of holies is it to the L–rd.\" I might think, even if he specified \"to the Cohein\"; it is, therefore, written \"it ([i.e., unspecified] to the L–rd\").",
                "6) Whence is it derived that one can \"devote\" his consecrations (i.e., that (the term) \"cherem\" can \"take\" upon his consecrations to the Cohein)? From \"cherem holy.\" Whence is it derived that \"cherem\" can \"take\" upon his consecration of holy of holies? From \"every cherem holy of holies.\" I might think that Cohanim and Levites can make \"devotions\"; it is, therefore, written \"But\" (to exclude this). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: Cohanim do not \"devote,\" for devotions revert to them. Levites can \"devote,\" for devotions do not revert to them. Rebbi says: The words of R. Yehudah (that Cohanim and Levites cannot \"devote\") seem correct in respect to land, it being written (Vayikra 25:34) \"for it (i.e., their land) is a perpetual holding for them\" (and cannot be consecrated). And the words of R. Shimon (that Levites can \"devote\") seem correct in respect to movable objects, for devotions do not revert to them.",
                "7) (Vayikra 27:29) \"Every cherem which is devoted of man shall not be redeemed, (for) he is to die.\" Whence is it derived that if one awaiting execution said: \"My value upon me\" (to give to the Temple), he has said nothing? From (He is) \"cherem ['condemned'] … he shall not be redeemed.\" This tells me only of (those who are guilty) of severe capital offenses, (where unwitting perpetration is not susceptible of atonement.) Whence do I derive (the same for) lesser capital offenses (where unwitting perpetration is susceptible of atonement)? From \"Every cherem … shall not be redeemed.\" I might think that this is so (even) before his verdict has been pronounced. It is, therefore, written \"which is devoted 'of man' (connoting one whose verdict has been pronounced) shall not be redeemed,\" and not one whose verdict has not been pronounced.",
                "8) R. Chananiah b. Akavya said: He is valuated (ne'erach) because his worth (i.e., the worth of one who is valuated) is fixed (by Scripture), but he cannot be made the subject of a vow (nidar) because his worth is not fixed by Scripture. R. Yossi says: He can vow and valuate and consecrate, and if he damages, he is liable for payment.",
                "9) (Vayikra 27:30) (\"And all the ma'aser [tithes] of the earth, of the seed of the earth, or the fruit of the tree, it is the L–rd's; it is holy to the L–rd.\") \"the seed of the earth\": to include (the seed of) garlic, onycha, and berries. I might think to include the seed of turnips, radishes, and other garden seeds which are not eaten; it is, therefore, written \"of the seed of the earth,\" and not all of the seed of the earth. \"of the fruit of the tree\": to include all the fruit of the tree. I might (also) think to include the carobs of Shikmah and Tzalmonah and those of Giridah, (which are of inferior quality); it is, therefore, written \"of the fruit of the tree,\" and not all the fruit of the tree. Whence do we derive the inclusion of vegetables for ma'aser? From \"And all the ma'aser.\" I might think that Scripture is speaking of two tithes (ma'aser rishon and ma'aser sheni); it is, therefore, written \"it (is the L–rd's\"). What is mentioned there (in the section of ma'aser (Devarim 14:22-23), (namely, ma'aser sheni), is the same as \"it\" mentioned here. What is missing here is mentioned there.",
                "10) (Vayikra 27:31) (\"And if redeem, will redeem, a man of his ma'aser, its fifth shall he add upon it.\") \"redeem, will redeem\": to include his wife. \"and if redeem will redeem\": to include his heir. \"a man\": to exclude a minor. I might think to include one who is nine years and one day (and above); it is, therefore, written \"and if redeem will redeem, a man.\" \"of his ma'aser\": and not all of his ma'aser — to exclude (from redemption) ma'aser which was brought into Jerusalem and then taken out. (Once it was in Jerusalem, the mitzvah of eating it in Jerusalem devolved upon it, and it can no longer be redeemed), and to exclude (from redemption, ma'aser) which does not have (in itself or in the fifth) the value of a perutah. \"shall he add upon it\": so that it and its fifth are five (equal parts. See 2) above).",
                "11) (Vayikra 27:32) (\"And all ma'aser of cattle and sheep, all that shall pass under the staff, the tenth shall be holy to the L–rd.\") Whence is it derived that one does not tithe from cattle for sheep, and not from sheep for cattle? From \"And all the ma'aser of cattle and sheep.\"",
                "12) I might think that one may not tithe from lambs for goats; and it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If new (animals, those born before Elul) and old (those born after Elul), which are not kilayim (\"a forbidden admixture\") one with the other, may not be tithed one for the other, then lambs and goats, which are kilayim one with the other — how much more so should they not be tithed one for the other! It is, therefore, written \"and sheep,\" implying that all sheep-like animals are one (for purposes of tithing).",
                "13) A kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) that new and old may be tithed one for the other: If lambs and goats, which are kilayim one with the other, may be tithed one for the other, then new and old, which are not kilayim one with the other — how much more so may they be tithed one for the other! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 14:22) \"Tithe shall you tithe … year by year\" — It is forbidden to tithe from one year for the other."
            ],
            "Chapter 13": [
                "1) \"all that shall pass under the staff\": to exclude a treifah (an animal with an organic defect), which does not pass. This tells me only of his counting them with the staff. If he did not count them with the staff, or if he counted them lying down or standing, whence do I derive (that it is valid)? From \"shall be holy\" (in any event). This tells me only of his calling it \"the tenth.\" Whence do I derive (that it is valid) even if he did not call it \"the tenth\"? From \"the tenth shall be holy.\" I might think that even if he had one hundred and took ten (at random), or ten and took one (that it is valid); it is, therefore, written \"the tenth,\" and this is not ma'aser (lit., the tenth). R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: It is ma'aser.",
                "2) Whence is it derived that if he (erroneously) called the ninth the tenth; the tenth, the ninth; and the eleventh, the tenth, that all three are considered (as ma'aser)? From \"the tenth shall be holy to the L–rd.\" I might think to include the eighth and the twelfth (that he called the tenth). Would you? No. Since it is consecrated and its \"error\" is consecrated, just as only what is closest to it (i.e., it itself) is consecrated, so only the \"error\" closest to it (i.e., the ninth and the eleventh) is consecrated (and not the eighth and the twelfth).",
                "3) In sum: If he called the ninth the tenth and the tenth the ninth and the eleventh the tenth, all three are consecrated. The ninth is eaten when it sustains a blemish, the tenth is ma'aser, and the eleventh is sacrificed as peace-offerings and makes a substitute. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah said: Can a substitute make a substitute? They said in the name of R. Meir: If it were a substitute, it would not be sacrificed. If he called the ninth the tenth, and the tenth the tenth, and the eleventh the tenth, the eleventh is not consecrated. If he called the ninth the tenth, and the tenth the eleventh, and the eleventh the tenth — Rebbi says that it (the eleventh) is not consecrated and R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says that it is consecrated. This is the rule: R. Meir was wont to say: Whatever the name \"the tenth\" was not uprooted from, what comes before it is consecrated; what comes after it is not consecrated.",
                "4) (Vayikra 27:33) (\"He shall not discriminate between good and bad, and he shall not substitute for it; and if he did substitute for it, then it and its substitute shall be holy. It shall not be redeemed.\") Because it is written (Devarim 12:11) \"and all the choicest of your vows,\" I might think that he should \"spy out\" (his flock) and pick out the choicest (for ma'aser); it is, therefore, written \"he shall not discriminate between good and bad.\" \"and he shall not substitute for it\": If he did, he receives forty lashes. \"if substitute he shall substitute\": to include his wife. \"and if substitute he shall substitute\": to include his heir. \"then it and its substitute shall be holy. It shall not be redeemed\": About a bechor it is written (Bamidbar 18:17) \"you shall not redeem,\" (but) it is sold, when whole, alive. And when blemished, (it is sold) alive or slaughtered; but (it is) not (sold) slaughtered when whole. And about ma'aser it is written (here) \"It shall not be redeemed.\" And it is not to be sold neither alive nor slaughtered; nor whole nor blemished.",
                "5) And whence is it derived that it is a mitzvah to tithe a beast? From \"shall be holy.\" R. Yossi Haglili says: It is written here \"ya'avor\" (\"that shall pass\"), and, elsewhere (Shemoth 13:12) \"veha'avarta\" (\"And you shall set apart [every firstling of the womb\"]) — whereby we are apprised that it is a mitzvah to tithe a beast.",
                "6) R. Akiva says (Devarim 14:22) \"Tithe shall you tithe\" — two tithes. We are hereby apprised that it is a mitzvah to tithe a beast.",
                "7) Rebbi says (Vayikra 27:34) \"These are the mitzvoth\" [(in juxtaposition with the beast tithe (Vayikra 27:33)] apprises us that it is a mitzvah to tithe a beast.",
                "8) \"These are the mitzvoth which the L–rd commanded Moses to the children of Israel on Mount Sinai.\" \"which the L–rd commanded Moses\": Worthy is the messenger of his Sender. \"Moses to the children of Israel\": Worthy is the messenger of those to whom he was sent, and worthy are those to whom he was sent of their messenger. \"to the children of Israel\": It is the merit of Israel that caused (them to receive the Torah). \"on Mount Sinai\": All of them (the mitzvoth) were stated on Sinai."
            ]
        }
    },
    "versions": [
        [
            "Sifra by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein",
            "http://www.sefaria.org/shraga-silverstein"
        ]
    ],
    "heTitle": "ספרא",
    "categories": [
        "Midrash",
        "Halakhah"
    ],
    "schema": {
        "heTitle": "ספרא",
        "enTitle": "Sifra",
        "key": "Sifra",
        "nodes": [
            {
                "heTitle": "ברייתא דרבי ישמעאל",
                "enTitle": "Braita d'Rabbi Yishmael"
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "ויקרא דבורא דנדבה",
                "enTitle": "Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק א",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ב",
                        "enTitle": "Section 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ג",
                        "enTitle": "Section 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ד",
                        "enTitle": "Section 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ה",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ו",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ה",
                        "enTitle": "Section 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ו",
                        "enTitle": "Section 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ח",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ז",
                        "enTitle": "Section 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ט",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 9"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ח",
                        "enTitle": "Section 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק י",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 10"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ט",
                        "enTitle": "Section 9"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יא",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 11"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה י",
                        "enTitle": "Section 10"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 12"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה יא",
                        "enTitle": "Section 11"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 13"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה יב",
                        "enTitle": "Section 12"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 14"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה יג",
                        "enTitle": "Section 13"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק טו",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 15"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק טז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 16"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 17"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה יד",
                        "enTitle": "Section 14"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יח",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 18"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יט",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 19"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק כ",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 20"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "ויקרא דבורא דחובה",
                "enTitle": "Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה א",
                        "enTitle": "Section 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק א",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ב",
                        "enTitle": "Section 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ג",
                        "enTitle": "Section 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ה",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ד",
                        "enTitle": "Section 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ו",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ה",
                        "enTitle": "Section 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ו",
                        "enTitle": "Section 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ח",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ט",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 9"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ז",
                        "enTitle": "Section 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק י",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 10"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יא",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 11"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ח",
                        "enTitle": "Section 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 12"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 13"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ט",
                        "enTitle": "Section 9"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 14"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק טו",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 15"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק טז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 16"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 17"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה י",
                        "enTitle": "Section 10"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יח",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 18"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יט",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 19"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה יא",
                        "enTitle": "Section 11"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק כ",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 20"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה יב",
                        "enTitle": "Section 12"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק כא",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 21"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק כב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 22"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה יג",
                        "enTitle": "Section 13"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק כג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 23"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "צו",
                "enTitle": "Tzav",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק א",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ב",
                        "enTitle": "Section 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ג",
                        "enTitle": "Section 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ה",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ד",
                        "enTitle": "Section 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ו",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ח",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ה",
                        "enTitle": "Section 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ט",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 9"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק י",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 10"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ו",
                        "enTitle": "Section 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יא",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 11"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ז",
                        "enTitle": "Section 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 12"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ח",
                        "enTitle": "Section 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 13"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ט",
                        "enTitle": "Section 9"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 14"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק טו",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 15"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה י",
                        "enTitle": "Section 10"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה יא",
                        "enTitle": "Section 11"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק טז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 16"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 17"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יח",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 18"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "מכילתא דמילואים א",
                        "enTitle": "Mechilta d'Miluim 1"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "שמיני",
                "enTitle": "Shemini",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "מכילתא דמילואים ב",
                        "enTitle": "Mechilta d'Miluim 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה א",
                        "enTitle": "Section 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק א",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ב",
                        "enTitle": "Section 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ג",
                        "enTitle": "Section 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ה",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ד",
                        "enTitle": "Section 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ו",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ה",
                        "enTitle": "Section 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ו",
                        "enTitle": "Section 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ח",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ז",
                        "enTitle": "Section 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ט",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 9"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ח",
                        "enTitle": "Section 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק י",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 10"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ט",
                        "enTitle": "Section 9"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יא",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 11"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה י",
                        "enTitle": "Section 10"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 12"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "תזריע פרשת יולדת",
                "enTitle": "Tazria Parashat Yoledet",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה א",
                        "enTitle": "Section 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק א",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 4"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "תזריע פרשת נגעים",
                "enTitle": "Tazria Parashat Nega'im",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק א",
                        "enTitle": "Section 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ב",
                        "enTitle": "Section 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ב*",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 2*"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ג",
                        "enTitle": "Section 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ה",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ו",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ד",
                        "enTitle": "Section 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ה",
                        "enTitle": "Section 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ח",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ט",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 9"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק י",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 10"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יא",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 11"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 12"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 13"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 14"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק טו",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 15"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק טז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 16"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "מצורע",
                "enTitle": "Metzora",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה א",
                        "enTitle": "Section 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק א",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ב",
                        "enTitle": "Section 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ג",
                        "enTitle": "Section 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ד",
                        "enTitle": "Section 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ה",
                        "enTitle": "Section 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ו",
                        "enTitle": "Section 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ז",
                        "enTitle": "Section 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ה",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 5"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "מצורע פרשת זבים",
                "enTitle": "Metzora Parashat Zavim",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה א",
                        "enTitle": "Section 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק א",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ב",
                        "enTitle": "Section 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ג",
                        "enTitle": "Section 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ה",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ו",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ד",
                        "enTitle": "Section 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ה",
                        "enTitle": "Section 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ח",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ט",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 9"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "אחרי מות",
                "enTitle": "Acharei Mot",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה א",
                        "enTitle": "Section 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק א",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ב",
                        "enTitle": "Section 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ג",
                        "enTitle": "Section 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ד",
                        "enTitle": "Section 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ה",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ו",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ה",
                        "enTitle": "Section 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ח",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ו",
                        "enTitle": "Section 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ט",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 9"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק י",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 10"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ז",
                        "enTitle": "Section 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יא",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 11"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 12"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ח",
                        "enTitle": "Section 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 13"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "קדושים",
                "enTitle": "Kedoshim",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה א",
                        "enTitle": "Section 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק א",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ב",
                        "enTitle": "Section 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ה",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ג",
                        "enTitle": "Section 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ו",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ח",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ד",
                        "enTitle": "Section 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ט",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 9"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק י",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 10"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יא",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 11"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 12"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "אמור",
                "enTitle": "Emor",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה א",
                        "enTitle": "Section 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק א",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ב",
                        "enTitle": "Section 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ג",
                        "enTitle": "Section 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ד",
                        "enTitle": "Section 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ה",
                        "enTitle": "Section 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ו",
                        "enTitle": "Section 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ה",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ו",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ז",
                        "enTitle": "Section 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ח",
                        "enTitle": "Section 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ח",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ט",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 9"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ט",
                        "enTitle": "Section 9"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק י",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 10"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יא",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 11"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה י",
                        "enTitle": "Section 10"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 12"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 13"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה יא",
                        "enTitle": "Section 11"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 14"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה יב",
                        "enTitle": "Section 12"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק טו",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 15"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק טז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 16"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 17"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה יג",
                        "enTitle": "Section 13"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יח",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 18"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה יד",
                        "enTitle": "Section 14"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יט",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 19"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק כ",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 20"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "בהר",
                "enTitle": "Behar",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה א",
                        "enTitle": "Section 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק א",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ב",
                        "enTitle": "Section 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ג",
                        "enTitle": "Section 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ה",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ד",
                        "enTitle": "Section 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ו",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ה",
                        "enTitle": "Section 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ו",
                        "enTitle": "Section 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ח",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ט",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 9"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "heTitle": "בחוקתי",
                "enTitle": "Bechukotai",
                "nodes": [
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה א",
                        "enTitle": "Section 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק א",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 1"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ב",
                        "enTitle": "Section 2"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ד",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ה",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ו",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 6"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ז",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 7"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ח",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 8"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ג",
                        "enTitle": "Section 3"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק ט",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 9"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ד",
                        "enTitle": "Section 4"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק י",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 10"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יא",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 11"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרשה ה",
                        "enTitle": "Section 5"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יב",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 12"
                    },
                    {
                        "heTitle": "פרק יג",
                        "enTitle": "Chapter 13"
                    }
                ]
            }
        ]
    }
}