MISHNAH: All are obligated to appear¹ (Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16) or walking occasions (Ex. 23:14, 34:23). The cases exempted from this biblical duty are defined in the Halakhah. except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the child, and the sexless, and the hermaphrodite, women, and unemancipated slaves, the lame, and the blind, and the sick, and the child, and anybody who cannot ascend on his feet. Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, the words of the House of Shammai. But the House of Hillel say, any who cannot hold on to his father’s hand and climb from Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, as it is said, three walking occasions². 23:14..

footnotes: ¹ To fulfill the biblical commandment to “be seen” before God on the occasion of the three festivals of pilgrimage which are called either steps ² Ex

HALAKHAH: “All are obligated to appear,” etc. The Mishnah is about the sacrifice of appearance³. 34:20., but the child is obligated in the personal appearance⁴. 34:20 cannot apply to children, who are not subject to monetary obligations. They also cannot be obligated in any other way, but their parents are obligated to instruct them to do the right things. Quoted by Rashi ad2a.. From the following, assemble the people, men, women, and toddlers⁵. 31:12.. And are not children⁶ older than toddlers?

footnotes: ³ While it is an obligation to appear in the Temple on one of the holidays of pilgrimage, it is sinful to enter there without bringing a personal sacrifice during the holiday (as specified in Mishnah 2), Ex ⁴ The obligation of Ex ⁵ Deut ⁶ The expression קטן in the Mishnah is used to designate children with a measure of understanding, in contrast to תינוק.

⁷3:4 (Notes 107–109, ס); Avot dR. Nathan A Chap. 18. As it was stated: It happened that Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa and Rebbi Eleazar Ḥasma were walking from Jabneh to Lydda when they were visiting Rebbi Joshua in Beqi`in⁸. He asked them, what was new today in the House of Study? They said to him, we all are your students and drink from your waters. He said to them, even so, it is impossible that there not be a new idea every day in the House of Study. Who stayed there over the Sabbath? They said to him, Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah. And what was his text? Assemble the people, men, women, and toddlers. He started by saying, since men come to learn and women to listen, why do the toddlers come? It must be to give a reward to those who bring them. He said to them, a generation is not orphaned which counts Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah among them.

footnotes: ⁷ The same text is in Soṭah ⁸ An unidentified place. It cannot be the place of the same name in Galilee.

It follows that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah disagrees with Ben Azzai, as we have stated there⁹3:4. R. Eleazar ben Azariah does not agree that women come to study Torah equally with the men.: “From here Ben Azzai said, a person is obligated to teach Torah to his daughter, that in case she would drink she knows that merit suspends.”

footnotes: ⁹ Mishnah Soṭah

The deaf-mute. ¹⁰1:2, Notes 94–102 (ת), Yebamot 12:5, Note 104 (י). The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So they should hear and learn¹¹. 31:12.. So far one who speaks but cannot hear; what about one who hears but cannot speak? Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: So they should learn, so they should teach¹². Rebbi Jonah said, this means that the principles of Rebbi are no principles, since we have stated¹³ 1:2.: “A ḥereš who speaks and does not hear should not give heave” and we thought that one who speaks but does not hear is ḥereš, one who hears but does not speak is [not]¹⁴ ḥereš. But we have stated:¹⁵ 12:5. “Ḥaliṣah is invalid if performed for a ḥereš man, or by a ḥereš woman, or by a woman for an underage male.” And Rebbi Joḥanan said, because they cannot say he shall say¹⁶. 25:8., she shall say¹⁷. 25:9. Without these declarations the procedure is invalid. Therefore the deaf but not mute may participate in valid ḥaliṣah. Babli Yebamot104b.. We also have stated¹³ 1:2.: “A ḥereš mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.” This supports Rebbi Jonah, for Rebbi Jonah said that the principles of Rebbi are no principles¹⁸ as a technical term is inconsistent in the Mishnah..

footnotes: ¹⁰ This text also appears in Terumot ¹¹ Deut ¹² Excluding the mute who cannot teach. Babli 3a. ¹³ Mishnah Terumot ¹⁴ To be deleted as shown by the parallel texts. ¹⁵ Mishnah Yebamot ¹⁶ Deut ¹⁷ Deut ¹³ Mishnah Terumot ¹⁸ Since the use of ḥereš

Rebbi Joḥanan asked, what about a person deaf in one ear¹⁹3a.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the disagreement between the Rabbis and Rebbi Yose. As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons make coats²⁰. 28:40.. The Rabbis said, two coats for each one²¹, in: Confrontations with Judaism, ed. Ph. Longworth; London 1967.. Rebbi Yose said, even one coat for each one. What is the Rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? For a hundred sons of Aaron make coats²². And here, read this Torah in front of all of Israel into their ears²³. 31:11.. The Rabbis are saying, two ears for each of them. Rebbi Yose is saying, even a single ear for each of them.

footnotes: ¹⁹ Is he required to appear in the Temple at Tabernacles in the Sabbatical year? Babli Ḥagigah ²⁰ Ex ²¹ Since “coats” is a plural and an otherwise undetermined plural always means 2. Cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition ²² The plural may be explained without reference to the persons involved since the coats are public property. ²³ Deut

“The insane.” Rebbi Eleazar said, you were shown to know²⁴. 4:35..

footnotes: ²⁴ Deut

“The child.” Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari were sitting. They said, we have stated: Who is a child? Any who cannot ride on his father’s shoulder.” And can a child hear and can a child speak²⁵? They turned around and said, all your males²⁶. 23:17, Deut. 16:16, description of who is required to appear in the Temple on a festival of pilgrimage. Babli 4a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)., to include the child. Or should we say, to include the deaf-mute? So they should hear and learn¹ (Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16) or walking occasions (Ex. 23:14, 34:23). The cases exempted from this biblical duty are defined in the Halakhah., to exclude (the child) [the deaf-mute. Or should we say, so they should hear and learn, to exclude the child?]²⁷ Rebbi Yose said, since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future. Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May a deaf-mute child be liable²⁸? He said to him, come and see; the permanent dweller (in Heaven) [on earth]²⁹ and the traveller in the highest Heaven? Since an adult deaf-mute is not liable, a child deaf-mute not a fortiori? Rebbi Jeremiah said, it would have been logical that a child who is no deaf-mute should be not liable³⁰. It is the decision of the verse, all your males, to include the child. I would say, but a (child) [adult]³¹ deaf-mute should be liable, not to split the practice of males. Therefore what Rebbi Yose said is necessary: since one verse excludes and one verse includes, I am including the child who will be able to come in the future, and excluding the deaf-mute who will not be able to come in the future.

footnotes: ²⁵ While a child can hear and speak, it usually will not understand (meant here by “hear”) and it cannot teach (understood by “speak”). ²⁶ Ex ¹ To fulfill the biblical commandment to “be seen” before God on the occasion of the three festivals of pilgrimage which are called either steps ²⁷ Corrector’s addition, unnecessary. ²⁸ According to the Babli, 6a, this question refers to a deaf-mute child whom the experts give a chance of recovering hearing and/or speech. ²⁹ The corrector’s change introduces the Babli’s idiom; it should be deleted. The expression means that one was seeking proof in extraneous sources when the answer is readily available intrinsically. ³⁰ In this discussion, it should be pointed out that the child is never liable, and cannot be liable before becoming an adult. The question is whether the parent is liable to bring the child to the Temple. ³¹ Corrector’s change, misunderstanding the text, to be deleted. The scribe’s text also implies that there should be no distinction made between the minor and the adult deaf-mute.

“The sexless.” Everybody agrees that a sexless who was torn open and turned out to be a male³² on the first day of a holiday is liable. Where do they disagree? On the remaining days. Ḥizqiah said, he shall be seen, he shall be seen³³23:17,34:23. In both places only Passover is mentioned as going on for 7 days; Pentecost and Tabernacles appear as single holidays. Since the obligation to appear is repeated, it follows that the seven day holiday has to be treated like a one-day holiday. A person not obligated on the one day cannot become obligated later., he who is liable on the first {day} is liable on the second; he who is not liable on the first {day} is not liable on the second. Rebbi Joḥanan said, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan inferred this from the Second Pesaḥ. As Rebbi Joḥanan said there³⁴93a. Since the Second Pesaḥ is biblical institution for people not liable to bring the first of the 14th of Nisan, it proves that make-up days are also for people not liable for appearance on the first day of a holiday., the Second Pesaḥ is make-up for the first, so he says here, all seven {days} are make-up for the first. Rebbi Hoshaia said, all seven {days} are obligatory³⁵. What results between them? A proselyte who converted on one of the other days. In Ḥizqiah’s opinion he is not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions he is liable. Is it the same for the impure one³⁶? In Ḥizqiah’s opinion is he not liable; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s and Rebbi Hoshaia’s opinions is he liable? Rebbi Yose said, there he is suitable³⁷; the tearing caused it. But here the impure person himself is not suitable³⁸19:3. The entire paragraph essentially is found in Šabbat19, Notes 99–109, Yebamot8:1..

footnotes: ³² By an accident or an operation his skin was torn and it turned out that he had penis and testicles. Then he is a male and liable for all obligations of a male. Since a male is required to appear in the Temple on a holiday, but not before, now that he knows that he is a male he is liable like everybody else. ³³ Ex. ³⁴ Babli 2a, 9a, Pesaḥim ³⁵ They are independent possibilities for fulfilling the obligation of appearance, including the six days following the one-day holiday of Pentecost. ³⁶ A person impure on the first day, to become pure on a later day. ³⁷ Therefore he certainly is not liable for Ḥisqia and R. Joḥanan; the question remains open for R. Hoshaia. ³⁸ Mishnah Shabbat

“The hermaphrodite.” All your males²⁶. 23:17, Deut. 16:16, description of who is required to appear in the Temple on a festival of pilgrimage. Babli 4a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)., to exclude the hermaphrodite. There³⁸19:3. The entire paragraph essentially is found in Šabbat19, Notes 99–109, Yebamot8:1., we have stated: “One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt³⁹ {or} for a hermaphrodite; Rebbi Jehudah permits for the hermaphrodite.” What does Rebbi Jehudah say in this case⁴⁰? Let us hear from the following: Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, neither does the blind one⁴¹4b, Arakhin 2b.. Nobody says “neither” unless he agrees with the preceding statement⁴². The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rebbi Jehudah and the rabbis explain the same verse⁴³. 17:14, establishing the duty of circumcision. The verse emphasizing male is not needed to exclude female circumcision since the limb to be circumcised always is referred to as flesh, and therefore designates the only boneless limb, the penis, which characterizes males.. The rabbis explain uncircumcised. Why does the verse say, an uncircumcised male? Only if he be totally male⁴⁴. Rebbi Jehudah explains male⁴⁵ 137a. Instead of all your males, he reads your total maleness.. Why does the verse say, uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, all your males, to exclude the hermaphrodite.

footnotes: ²⁶ Ex ³⁸ Mishnah Shabbat ³⁹ Whether the baby was actually born on a Sabbath or maybe on Friday or Sunday. In the latter case he may not be circumcised on the Sabbath. ⁴⁰ Does R. Jehudah agree with the Mishnah which excludes the hermaphrodite from the duty of pilgrimage? ⁴¹ Who is excluded from the duty of pilgrimage. Tosephta 1:1, Babli 2a, Sanhedrin ⁴² That the hermaphrodite is excluded. ⁴³ Gen ⁴⁴ While the hermaphrodite can be circumcised, having a penis, and has to be circumcised since his maleness may be the dominant trait, he cannot be classified as male. ⁴⁵ Babli Šabbat

“Women”. All your males²⁶. 23:17, Deut. 16:16, description of who is required to appear in the Temple on a festival of pilgrimage. Babli 4a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)., excluding women⁴⁶. 143; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)..

footnotes: ²⁶ Ex ⁴⁶ Sifry Deut

“Slaves”. Let us hear from the following: Three times a year shall all your males be seen⁴⁷. 23:17. Babli 4a., anybody who has no master but the Holy One, praise to Him. This excludes the slave who has another master. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, from where that anybody who keeps the commandment of appearance is like one who greets the Divine Presence? From this, Three times a year shall all your males be seen before the face of the Master, the Eternal, etc⁴⁷. 23:17. Babli 4a..

footnotes: ⁴⁷ Ex ⁴⁷ Ex

“The lame”, for it is written, walking occasions¹ (Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16) or walking occasions (Ex. 23:14, 34:23). The cases exempted from this biblical duty are defined in the Halakhah..

footnotes: ¹ To fulfill the biblical commandment to “be seen” before God on the occasion of the three festivals of pilgrimage which are called either steps

“The sick”, for it is written, you shall enjoy⁴⁸. 16:14. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)..

footnotes: ⁴⁸ Deut

“The old”, for it is written, walking occasions. Rebbi Yose said, both are for leniency. If he can enjoy but not walk, I am reading for him walking occasions. If he can walk but not enjoy, I am reading for him you shall enjoy.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel explain the same verse. The House of Shammai are saying, one verse says your males²⁶. 23:17, Deut. 16:16, description of who is required to appear in the Temple on a festival of pilgrimage. Babli 4a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333)., and another verse says, walking occasions¹ (Ex. 23:17, Deut. 16:16) or walking occasions (Ex. 23:14, 34:23). The cases exempted from this biblical duty are defined in the Halakhah.. Take in between them the one able to ride on his father’s shoulder. But even a {very} small one can ride on his father’s shoulder; must he fulfill his obligation? But one who sees his father’s shoulder and runs to him⁴⁹. The House of Hillel explain: one verse says your males, and another verse says, walking occasions. Take in between them the one able to grab his father’s hand. But in matters of purity you are saying, if he grabs his father’s hand, in matters of doubt he is treated as intelligent being⁵⁰ 3:6). (The impurity of Gentiles is rabbinic, i. e., popular usage traceable to First Temple times.) Therefore a baby cannot be impure (but he cannot be pure either and as such is prevented from entering the Temple). It is now stated that as long as a parent has to grab his hand to make him walk with the parent he is considered unable to be asked in matters of purity and therefore impervious to purity. If such a child touches food prepared in purity, it remains pure. But if the child by himself takes his parent’s hand, he is treated as intelligent being and since he may be asked whether he touched certain things he is subject to impurity and if he touched pure food and does not remember what he did before this the food has to be treated as impure.. If his father grabs his hand, [in case of doubt]⁵¹ he is treated as deaf-and-dumb. But here in both cases he is liable⁵².

footnotes: ²⁶ Ex ¹ To fulfill the biblical commandment to “be seen” before God on the occasion of the three festivals of pilgrimage which are called either steps ⁴⁹ For the House of Shammai the obligation of appearance extends to all boys able to ride on their father’s shoulders without being held by their father. ⁵⁰ By Pentateuchal standards, only intelligent Jews can become impure (Mishnah Taharot ⁵¹ Corrector’s addition; correct but unnecessary in Yerushalmi style. ⁵² The rules of appearance (which refer to the parent’s obligation to bring his child) and those of impurity (which refer to the status of the child) are not comparable.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: Where does one appear⁵³. 23:15, 34:20), this is an obligation separate from that of appearance. The question is if the latter is satisfied only in the Temple district or already in the enlarged sacred district, representing the camp of the Levites in the desert (Num. 1:50).? On the Temple Mount or in the Temple courtyards? He told him, let us hear from the following⁵⁴72b, from another verse Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpatim Chap. 20 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 333). Since a sacrifice may be brought only in the Temple and the impure person may not enter, he may not bring; one concludes that he need not come.: “The impure is exempt from appearance, for it is written, you shall come there and bring there.” And one impure in the impurity of the dead may not enter the Temple Mount⁵⁵1:8. The person whose impurity originates in his body may not enter the Temple Mount; the one impure by the impurity of the dead may not enter the immediate surroundings of the Temple domain; the person not impure but not pure may not enter the Temple courtyards.. This implies that appearance is in the Temple courtyards.

footnotes: ⁵³ While the lay person is forbidden to appear in the Temple without a sacrifice (Ex ⁵⁴ Tosephta 1:1. Babli 4b, Yebamot ⁵⁵ This is not quite exact, Mishnah Kelim

From where does one measure⁵⁶? from the wall or from the houses? Samuel stated, from the Siloam. And the Siloam was in the middle of the capital⁵⁷.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ This refers to the statement of the Mishnah that the minor must be brought to the Temple if he is able to walk from Jerusalem to the Temple. ⁵⁷ The pond is rather close to the Temple but at the foot of a steep hill. No indications are given how differences in level are to be commuted into distances.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: May one send one’s appearance sacrifice⁵⁸ by another person? He said to him, let us hear from the following: “Those afflicted by scabies or polyps⁵⁹ are exempt from appearance, since it is written you shall come there and bring there⁶⁰. 12:5–6. You shall come is in singular form, to be interpreted as collective. You shall bring is in the plural, addressed to every pilgrim separately. This version exempts everybody unable to join a group, in this case because of his unbearable body smell (Babli 4b).. The impure is exempt from appearance since it is written, when all of Israel comes⁶¹. 31:12., etc. The one able to come with all of Israel brings; the one unable to come with all of Israel does not bring.” Could he not send his appearance sacrifice by another person? Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he may not send his appearance sacrifice by another person. Rebbi Shammai asked, or maybe the other way. Those afflicted by scabies or polyps (are exempt from appearance, since it is written when all of Israel comes. Rebbi Shammai turned around and said, Those afflicted by scabies or polyps) even though they cannot come with all of Israel, they can come by themselves⁶² and bringing are mentioned in separate verses, they are separate obligations. The person who smells bad is exempt from joining a group but still obligated to appear in the Temple.. The impure one is unable to come by himself and with all of Israel⁶³.

footnotes: ⁵⁸ Which is required (Note 53) and its minimal value determined in Mishnah 2. May one satisfy the obligation of appearance by paying another person to present the sacrifice in the payor’s name? ⁵⁹ Greek πολύπους “multipede”, according to the commentators of the Babli a putrid growth on the nose which is extremely bad smelling. ⁶⁰ Deut ⁶¹ Deut ⁶² Since coming ⁶³ He is prohibited from bringing a sacrifice and exempt from joining a group which he would contaminate by his touch.

If he separated⁶⁵ 1:7 states that a promise to Heaven is to be enforced like delivery to a person. his festival offering and died, do the heirs have to bring it? Rebbi Ila said, shall be seen, has to be seen⁶⁶. He who can come brings, he who cannot come does not bring. Rebbi Ze`ira said, following Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Jonathan who both said, you have to redeem any first born of your sons, even after death, and here, they shall not appear before My Presence empty-handed, even after death⁶⁷. 34:20. There seems to be no reason why the redemption of the first-born is mentioned in the same verse as the prohibition to appear in the Temple empty-handed. It is explained that just as the redemption of the first born is an obligation not eliminated by the absence of a father, so the obligation of the sacrifice of appearance is not eliminated by the death of the votary.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, there is a disagreement between Samuel and Rebbi Joḥanan, regarding what we have stated there⁶⁸2:5., “A woman⁶⁹. 12:1–8.) who brought her purification sacrifice and died, the heirs have to bring her elevation sacrifice. Her elevation sacrifice and she died, the heirs shall not bring her purification sacrifice⁶⁹. 12:1–8.).” Samuel said, if it was separated⁷⁰. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if it was not separated. Where do we hold? If they inherited real estate⁷¹ 1:7 creates a lien on the estate only if it contains real estate. Since the woman’s obligation was created at the moment of childbirth, there seems to be no reason why Samuel could limit the obligation., does Samuel say if it was separated? If they inherited movables⁷², does Rebbi Joḥanan say, even if it was not separated? What is the difference between them? If they inherited real estate, in Samuel’s opinion one does neither claim it nor taking pledges for it⁷³. 23:22) require prompt payment of all vows. By rabbinic interpretation this means before the passing of the next three festivals of pilgrimage. Since there is a time limit, the officers of the Temple are required to ask for the prompt fulfillment of the vow and are entitled to take pledges from the votary to enforce their demand. But since the heirs did not make any vow, the time limit cannot be applied to them and the powers of the Temple officials are limited; for Samuel they are eliminated but not for R. Joḥanan.; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one even takes pledges. If they inherited movables, in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion one claims it (and is) [but is not]⁷⁴ 1:7 declares that a promise to Heaven is the equivalent of a civil contract; if the contract would become unenforceable, so is the obligation to Heaven. According to R. Joḥanan the obligation can be enforced since the equivalent of the sacrifice was Heaven’s property and as such could not be part of the estate. taking pledges for it. In Samuel’s opinion one does not claim it.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ He designated an animal from his herd as his sacrifice for the coming pilgrimage. Since it does not say “he dedicated”, the designation is not a formal dedication. Nevertheless, Mishnah Qiddušin ⁶⁶ Since the deceased is buried, the designation becomes void. ⁶⁷ Ex ⁶⁸ Mishnah Qinnim ⁶⁹ After childbirth, which obligates here for a purification and an elevation sacrifice (Lev ⁶⁹ After childbirth, which obligates here for a purification and an elevation sacrifice (Lev ⁷⁰ Since a purification sacrifice in all cases is a personal obligation, at the death of the person any purification sacrifice already dedicated as such can neither be sacrificed nor redeemed. If it is not yet dedicated it cannot be dedicated. Therefore it is technically impossible for the heirs to bring her purification sacrifice. ⁷¹ By strict talmudic rules only real estate is subject to claims by creditors. The extension of liens to movables is Gaonic, not relevant here. The rule of Mishnah Qiddušin ⁷² In the absence of real estate, according to the rule explained in the preceding Note the obligation should be unenforceable even for R. Joḥanan. ⁷³ The Temple authorities are required to insist on prompt liquidation of all dues to the Temple. The verse (Deut ⁷⁴ There seems to be no justification for the corrector’s addition. According to Samuel, Qiddušin

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, the sacrifice of appearance is two silver coins, and the festival sacrifice one obolus⁷⁵. But the House of Hillel say, the sacrifice of appearance is one silver obolus, and the festival sacrifice two silver coins.

footnotes: ⁷⁵ The sacrifice of appearance is an elevation sacrifice, not for human consumption. The festival sacrifice is a family well-being sacrifice providing the meat to the festival meal to be consumed in purity as part of the commandment to enjoy the holiday. The obolus in the Augustean system is the smallest silver coin, 1/6 of a silver denar, about 0.6g of silver.

HALAKHAH: The sacrifice of appearance is elevation offerings, but the festival sacrifice is well-being offerings. The House of Shammai are saying, one increases elevation offerings and diminishes well-being offerings. The House of Hillel are saying, one diminishes elevation offerings and increases well-being offerings. Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The House of Shammai infer from the sacrifices [of Pentecost⁷⁶. 23:18–19).; the House of Hillel infer from the sacrifices] of the princes⁷⁷. 7). Babli 6a.. The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, is it not better to be instructed from a private offering about private offerings and not to be instructed from public offerings about a private offering? The House of Shammai said to them, it is better to be instructed by something applicable to the future; do not refer to the sacrifice of the princes which is not applicable to the future.

footnotes: ⁷⁶ The only holiday offering by the public including well-being sacrifices. The presentation of bread from the new wheat harvest is accompanied by elevation sacrifices of one bull, 2 rams, and 7 sheep, as well as a well-being sacrifice of 2 sheep (Lev ⁷⁷ All of the tribal leaders brought the same sacrifice for the inauguration of the Tent of Meeting, 1 bull, 1 ram, 1 sheep as elevation offering but 2 bulls, 5 rams, 5 goats, 5 sheep as well-being sacrifice (Num

It was stated⁷⁸: “There is about the sacrifice of appearance what does not apply to the festival sacrifice, and about the festival sacrifice what does not apply to the sacrifice of appearance. For the sacrifice of appearance is totally for the High⁷⁹; this does not apply to the festival sacrifice. The festival sacrifice was in use before the Word⁸⁰ and after the Word; this does not apply to the sacrifice of appearance.” Was the festival sacrifice in use before the Word⁸¹? The language of festival sacrifice was in use before the Word⁸². 5:1.: send My people that they present Me with festival sacrifices in the desert.“⁷⁸ And joy applies to matters which are his property and matters which are others’ property; whether matters usually used for the purpose or matters not usually used for the purpose⁸³. But those apply only to his own property and matters usually used for the purpose.” Rebbi Yose said, and why do we not say, anybody liable for a sacrifice of appearance is liable for joy but there are those liable for joy but not liable for a sacrifice of appearance: “Women are liable for joy but not liable for a sacrifice of appearance⁸⁴ text.”? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, and you shall enjoy⁸⁵. 12:12, and as a requirement of the holidays in Deut. 16:11,14,15., even from a butcher shop⁸⁶. According to his argument, the duty to eat meat on holidays is biblical also after the destruction of the Temple when sacrificial meat is not available.. Rebbi Eleazar said, joy is mentioned here and joy in mentioned there. Since the joy mentioned there refers to well-being sacrifices so also joy mentioned here refers to well-being sacrifices⁸⁷. Rav Ḥuna ate (deflated things) [simply]⁸⁸ all seven days⁸⁹.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ Tosephta 1:4; cf. Babli 6a/b. ⁷⁹ Everything is burned on the altar; there is no part even for the Cohanim. ⁸⁰ The theophany of Sinai. ⁸¹ Before the Giving of the Torah there could be no commandments and no commanded sacrifices. ⁸² Ex ⁷⁸ Tosephta 1:4; cf. Babli 6a/b. ⁸³ One may enjoy the holiday being invited to somebody else’s well-being sacrifice, and even with meat from an animal not admissible as sacrifice. ⁸⁴ Tosephta 1:4; obviously not part of R. Yose’s baraita ⁸⁵ “Enjoyment” of the meat of well-being sacrifices is mentioned without any reference to holidays in Deut ⁸⁶ Latin macellum ⁸⁷ The comparison of the verses quoted in Note 85 shows that the biblical requirement is intrinsically connected with well-being sacrifices and therefore became moot with the destruction of the Temple. ⁸⁸ The corrector considered the scribe’s otherwise unknown פשש as scribal error and replaced it with a known word with similar letters. The scribe may have intended a word like Arabic פסּ “to deflate”. ⁸⁹ Following R. Eleazar he did not accept the duty to eat meat on a holiday as scriptural and ate simple fare during the holiday week.

⁹⁰1:1 (Notes 37–57); in places the Rome ms. of Zeraim has a more complete text. Rebbi Joḥanan said: “One silver obolus and two silver coins⁹¹ are words of the Torah.” Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The appearance is with anything⁹²; the Sages only said: “One silver obolus, two silver coins.” He said to him: Is there anything like that? Rebbi Jonah said, are not all measures determined by the Sages⁹³? They said: The volume of an olive from a corpse⁹⁴, the volume of an olive from a cadaver⁹⁵, the volume of a lentil from a dead reptile⁹⁶. The question here is only what Rebbi Hoshaia stated: They should not be seen before Me empty-handed⁹⁷. 23:15, 34:20., with anything; the Sages only said: “A silver obolus, two silver coins.” The difficulty is that this⁹⁸.) insist that one may not appear empty-handed; this must mean that a negligible amount is counted as nothing and, therefore, is forbidden by the Torah. is support for the opinion that it is based on words of the Torah. He said that only the Sages instituted: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion and Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said that all measures are practice taught by Moses at Sinai; he says that “one obolus and two silver coins are the word of the Torah.” Rebbi Hoshaia follows his own opinion; Rebbi Hoshaia is the one who said: he who eats forbidden food in the present time has to study the quantities⁹⁹ 80a the interpretation is that not the rule of “volume of an olive” might change but rather its interpretation. Not only are antique measures never defined to exact standards, also modern interpretations of “volume of an olive” vary on a scale of 1 to 30. Hence, once the Temple is rebuilt an authoritative re-interpretation is needed even according to R. Joḥanan.; maybe a new court will arise and change the measures for him; then he will know what measure he ate. Therefore he is the one who said, the appearance is with anything; the Sages only said: “one silver obolus, two silver coins.” They said, Rebbi Joḥanan changed his mind about this. Rebbis Jonah and Jonathan¹⁰⁰ text: R. Yose. said, he did not change his mind; additionally, Rebbi La said in the name of Rebbi Ammi: Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Joḥanan disagreed. Ḥizqiah said, a man may split his obligation for two animals¹⁰¹ offerings but one may not add the money of Second Tithes to profane money to buy one large animal for any of the two obligations.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, nobody may split his obligation for two animals, but for each one he has to have two silver coins in his hand. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Ḥizqiah: A person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money¹⁰².). Rebbi Joḥanan said, a person may adjoin money to money but no person may adjoin animals to an animal. What may be done? There were before him ten animals, he sacrificed five of them on the first holiday. May the remainder push aside the last holiday¹⁰³, they may be sacrificed on the last day of Pesaḥ or Sukkot which are also full holidays. If, however, they have only the status of sacrifices in fulfillment of a vow (since any dedication as sacrifice is a vow to bring the animal to the Temple), then they may be slaughtered only during the intermediate days of the holiday or after its conclusion, and they do not push aside holiday prohibitions. (Babli 8b.)? Rebbi Crispus said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, they push; the other one said, they do not push. We do not know who said what. Rebbi Ze`ira said, we may explain the words of the rabbis by their own words. Rebbi Joḥanan said: a person may adjoin coins to coins but not animals to an animal; he must say, they push¹⁰⁴, they all have the status of Ḥagigah.. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, a person adjoins an animal to an animal but no person may adjoin money to money; he must say, they do not push¹⁰⁵, the rest are not and cannot be used on a full holiday.. Simeon bar Abba came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He adds¹⁰⁶ and pushes the holiday further until he says: I do not intend to add further.

footnotes: ⁹⁰ This text is parallel to a somewhat defective text in Peah ⁹¹ The amounts stated in Mishnah 2 have biblical status. ⁹² One may appear in the Temple with one sacrifice for the appearance and one for the family holiday; no minimal expenditure is required. The monetary minimum is purely a rabbinic one. Babli 7a. ⁹³ There are many biblical precepts that are applied only to some minimal amount and volume. None of these are spelled out in the Torah; they are all customary or rabbinic formulations. ⁹⁴ All rules of defilement by parts of a corpse apply only if a minimum size of the volume of one olive is present. Hence, somebody in a house in which less than that volume of a corpse is present may go to the Temple without the purification procedure of the ashes of the Red Cow even though going there in impurity is a strict biblical prohibition. ⁹⁵ To bring a sin offering for having eaten meat from a cadaver needs this minimum amount; the same minimum applies to the impurity caused by touching or carrying pieces of the cadaver of an otherwise kosher animal. ⁹⁶ The minimum volume from a carcass that causes the severe impurity incurred by touching dead reptiles. ⁹⁷ Ex ⁹⁸ These verses (and an additional one in Deut ⁹⁹ Since one is required and permitted to bring a sin-offering only if he ate more than the volume of an olive, he is forbidden to bring one if he ate less than that volume. Hence, the determination of that volume is essential. In the Babli Yoma ¹⁰⁰ Instead of this totally impossible reading (R. Jonathan precedes R. Joḥanan) read with the Peah ¹⁰¹ In the Babli 8a it is explained that the obligation to spend an obolus and two silver coins must be satisfied by unencumbered money. Now four years out of seven there is a second tithe on agricultural produce of the Land of Israel. That second tithe is the property of the farmer but it must be consumed in Jerusalem; it also may be redeemed by money and the money taken to Jerusalem and there spent on food to be consumed in Jerusalem. So one may assume that many people on their pilgrimage for the holiday have money and, in case they are priests, animals of the tithe that they want to eat in Jerusalem to absolve themselves at the same time of the obligations of pilgrimage and Second Tithe. According to Ḥizqiah, on the first day of the holiday one may bring small and cheap animals as obligatory sacrifices and then use the money of tithes for additional Ḥagigah ¹⁰² R. Joḥanan holds that one may add money (if only the basic amount is profane) but not animals (since no animal worth less than two pieces of silver is acceptable as Ḥagigah ¹⁰³ If these animals retain the status of Ḥagigah ¹⁰⁴ Since each animal was bought with money dedicated for Ḥagigah ¹⁰⁵ Since one may not adjoin money, only the first animal was Ḥagigah ¹⁰⁶ Even during the intermediate days of the holiday, when one’s biblical obligation of appearing in the Temple with a sacrifice has already been satisfied, he can add money to the original money and still the animals bought will fall under the category of Ḥagigah. But when he declares that it is enough, the next money spent will no longer buy Ḥagigah sacrifices. This extension of R. Joḥanan’s statement is not a logical consequence of his earlier one.

MISHNAH: Elevation sacrifices on a holiday come from profane money¹⁰⁷ and well-being offerings from tithe money¹⁰⁸. 12:6.. On the first day of any holiday¹⁰⁹, the House of Shammai are saying from profane money¹¹⁰ but the House of Hillel are saying from tithe money.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ Since nothing of the sacrifice is permitted to humans, and Second Tithe money must be spent on food for the farmer’s family, tithe money may never be used for elevation sacrifices, holiday or no holiday. ¹⁰⁸ Even though a small part of any well-being sacrifice is burned on the altar, it is explicitly permitted by a verse to use tithe money; Deut ¹⁰⁹ This is the meaning of the word here, not “Tabernacles.” ¹¹⁰ The House of Shammai permit slaughter of sacrifices on a full holiday only if they are an obligation of the holiday. Therefore they permit on the full holiday only the holiday sacrifice which for them must have the value of one (profane) obolus, and forbid to add money of Second Tithe to this profane amount. But the House of Hillel, for whom the basic obligation is 2 profane oboloi, permit to add tithe money to buy a large animal for the family celebration.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Tanhum bar Ilai in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: So answer the House of Shammai to the House of Hillel: May any obligatory sacrifice come from tithe¹¹¹? They said to them, if it were a weekday, could he not bring one from profane money and add the tithe money? And here he brings one from profane money and adds tithe money¹¹². From where that one may add [tithe money]? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it is said here measure¹¹³. 16:10, referring to the holiday of Pentecost which has no intermediary days. The root of the word is taken (with many moderns) to be נשׂא., and it is said there, for you cannot carry it¹¹⁴. 14:24, referring to Second Tithe; same root.. Since carrying mentioned there refers to tithe, so also here tithe. Rebbi Eleazar said, it mentions joy here and it mentions joy there¹¹⁵. 16, and referring to Second Tithe in Deut. 14:26.. Since joy mentioned there refers to tithe, so also joy mentioned here refers to tithe. Could not all of them be brought from tithe money? Ulla bar Ismael said, it is said here measure and it is said there, the gift for Benjamin exceeded¹¹⁶. 43:34, same root.. Since gift which is mentioned there refers to one as principal¹¹⁷ and the remainder addition, so also here one is principal and the remainder addition. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, are not the voluntary well-being offerings like the well-being offerings of the holiday? Why does he add those verses?¹¹⁸ To tell you that for them one pushes aside the holiday¹¹⁹.

footnotes: ¹¹¹ It is implied in Halakhah 2 that the 1 and 2 oboloi required in Mishnah 2 must be profane money. ¹¹² Also on the holiday. ¹¹³ Deut ¹¹⁴ Deut ¹¹⁵ “Joy” as commandment to enjoy meat is repeatedly mentioned for holidays in Deut ¹¹⁶ Gen ¹¹⁷ The gift to every brother. ¹¹⁸ Why are those somewhat shaky derivations needed at all? ¹¹⁹ To justify the House of Hillel who in matters of well-being sacrifices treat full holidays on the same level as the intermediate days.

MISHNAH: Israel fulfill their obligation with vows¹²⁰, and voluntary gifts¹²¹ and animal tithe¹²², and the Cohanim with purification sacrifices, and reparation sacrifices¹²³, and breast and thigh¹²⁵, and firstlings¹²⁴, but not with birds¹²⁶ or cereal sacrifices.

footnotes: ¹²⁰ An animal brought to fulfill a vow that the votary takes upon himself the obligation to bring a certain kind of sacrifice. ¹²¹ A voluntary gift is a vow to bring a designated animal as sacrifice. If this animal dies or becomes disqualified for the altar the votary has no obligation to offer a replacement. ¹²² From the rancher’s herd every tenth calf has to be brought to the Temple as sacrifice and is to be consumed by the rancher’s family in purity; no part is given to the Cohanim. All these sacrifices have no connection with the holiday but since the pilgrimage is the natural occasion to liquidate all obligations towards the Temple, they are recommended as means to fulfill the obligation to celebrate the joy of holiday by the consumption of meat. ¹²³ These are most holy sacrifices and the parts not burned on the altar have to be consumed by the adult male Cohanim in the Temple domain. ¹²⁵ The parts given to the Cohen from well- being sacrifices, to be consumed by the Cohen’s family in purity within the walls of the city. ¹²⁴ They are brought as sacrifice and consumed by the Cohen’s family in purity within the walls of the city. ¹²⁶ Which according to biblical standards do not qualify as “meat”.

HALAKHAH: ¹²⁷5:4, explained there in Notes 73–82. Rebbi Zeira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: With pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage¹²⁸. Rebbi Abba objected, was it not stated: With the pilgrimage offering of the Fourteenth one fulfills the obligation of joy but one does not fulfill the one of well-being offerings? Rebbi Zeira said, explain it that he slaughtered it on the holiday. Rebbi Abba said, if he slaughtered it on the holiday it is not a festival offering of the Fourteenth. What about it? Rebbi Zeira said, when we still were there, we heard stated Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar. When we came up to here we heard stated, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: *only be joyful*¹²⁹. 16:15., to add the night of the las festival day for joy. Or maybe also the nights of the firs day of the festival? Or inverse? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: *and you shall be joyous on your festival of pilgrimage*¹³⁰. 16:14.. When you are obligated for a sacrifice of pilgrimage you are obligated for joy. They objected, did we not state, “*hallel* and joy eight”¹³¹4:1.? Think of it, if the first day of the holiday falls on a Sabbath! He cannot slaughter on the eve of the holiday since Rebbi Zeira, Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, with pilgrimage well-being offerings which were slaughtered on the eve of a festival one does not satisfy his obligation for the pilgrimage. He cannot slaughter on the holiday since we already have learned that the pilgrimage offering does not push aside the Sabbath. When did they say, Hallel and joy eight? Rebbi Yose said, Rav Eudaimon the emigrant explained it for Cohanim and the goat¹³² 71a holds that eating raw meat is no joy..

footnotes: ¹²⁷ This paragraph also is Sukkah ¹²⁸ As regards the obligation to bring well-being sacrifices for the consumption of meat. ¹²⁹ Deut ¹³⁰ Deut ¹³¹ Mishnah Sukkah ¹³² If the first day is a Sabbath, all required holiday sacrifices are brought on the altar. They all are holocausts except for the goat as purification offering whose meat is eaten by the Cohanim. But since it is a Sabbath, it may not be cooked or roasted for private use and the meat must be eaten raw. The Babli Pesaḥim

“But not with birds or cereal sacrifices.” For it is written slaughter¹³³. 27:7. Different verses are quoted to the same effect in Sifry Deut. 141,142..

footnotes: ¹³³ “Joy” is connected with bloody sacrifice in Deut

MISHNAH: He who has many eaters and a small budget brings many well-being offerings and few elevation offerings. Few eaters and a large budget, he brings many elevation offerings and few well-being offerings¹³⁴. Both few, for this one it was said “one obolus, two silver coins.” Both ample, for this one it was said¹³⁵. 16:17., each man according to his means, corresponding to the blessing by the Eternal, your God, which He gave you.

footnotes: ¹³⁴ The meat of a well-being offering has to be consumed by the end of the following day. One has to avoid letting sacral meat become disqualified. ¹³⁵ Deut

HALAKHAH: If he is poor but generous, I am reading for him, each man according to his means, rich but stingy, I am reading for him, corresponding to the blessing by the Eternal, your God, which He gave you. If he is poor and stingy, on this one it was said, not less than two silver coins¹³⁶, rich but with a small family, I am reading for him, corresponding to the blessing by the Eternal, your God, which He gave you. If he is poor with a small family, on this one it was said, no less than two silver coins.” In this version the Mishnah is prescriptive. The poor person has to provide meat for his entire family but it may be done as cheaply as possible, subject to the lower limit of 2 oboloi. The rich man who has no use for many well-being offerings has to bring many elevation offerings..

footnotes: ¹³⁶ In this interpretation, the Mishnah is read to explain moral, not prescribed, behavior. However it also is possible to read the text differently: “If he is poor with a large family, I am reading for him, each man according to his means

“Each man”, to exclude the minor¹³⁷. 16:17 does not apply to him.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, if he said, it is on me to bring a festival offering worth five tetradrachmas, but he brought for two; did he fulfill his obligation or is he already fixed¹³⁸ Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? If somebody said, it is on me to bring a reparation sacrifice for five tetradrachmas¹³⁹. 5:15). Nevertheless, if he vows to increase the value, his sacrifice is accepted by the Temple only if he spends at least 5 tetradrachmas. This shows that even for obligatory sacrifices a prior vow raises the biblical or rabbinic minimum to the level of the vow., is he not fixed? And here he is fixed.

footnotes: ¹³⁷ Even though the minor is obligated to appear in the Temple, Deut ¹³⁸ The festival offering is an obligation whose minimal value is set at ⅓ of a denar, 1/12 of a tetradrachma. If he made a vow for a voluntary offering, it would be clear that the vow is fulfilled only if all its terms are fulfilled. The question is whether the private stipulation overrides the general rule. ¹³⁹ Nobody can make a vow for a reparation offering if he is not obligated to bring one. By biblical decree the value of the offering is 2 tetradrachmas (Lev

MISHNAH: Someone who did not bring his holiday sacrifice on the first day of the holiday may bring it during the entire festival including the last day of the festival¹⁴⁰. Once the festival has passed he is not liable for its warranty¹⁴¹. On that it was said¹⁴². 1:15., the distorted cannot be repaired and the deficient cannot be made whole.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ Even though the last day is a full holiday with all the restrictions imposed on such a day; the only day not suitable for the holiday sacrifice is the Sabbath. ¹⁴¹ While in general the Temple has the power to force people to perform the sacrifices due, this does not extend to the holiday sacrifice even though it becomes a fixed obligation with the votary’s entry into the Temple domain. The neglect of the duty cannot be made up by a later sacrifice. On Pentecost which is one day only the festival sacrifice may also be brought during the six days following. ¹⁴² Eccl

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: It is said fifteenth regarding Passover and it is said fifteenth regarding Tabernacles¹⁴³, and the festival of booths both start on the 15th of their respective months. Since the particular source is not identified, the argument is informal and not binding as “equal cut”.. Since for the fifteenth which was said regarding Passover the last day is a make-up for the first¹⁴⁴, also for the fifteenth which was said regarding Tabernacles the last day is a make-up for the first. Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days¹⁴⁵. 23:41.. Are they seven? Are they not eight¹⁴⁶. 23:36 that the seven days of Tabernacles are immediately followed by a separate holiday on the eighth day, in Num. 29:35 the holiday appears as the Eighth Day of Tabernacles. This Eighth Day therefore has a double role, as last day of Tabernacles and as separate festival.? But remove Sabbath from them, there remain seven. Rebbi Yose said, do we infer from here that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside? Was it not from another place¹⁴⁷? Rebbi Joḥanan the brother of Rav Safra objected, was it not stated, the same holds for Passover? Then remove Sabbath from them, there remain six¹⁴⁸. Think of it, if the first and the last holiday fall on the Sabbath, then remove two days from them and there remain six! There came Rebbi Ḥanania¹⁴⁹, Jehudah bar Safra in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: You shall bring a holiday sacrifice for the Eternal seven days. Are they seven? Are they not eight? But remove Sabbath from them, since we already infer that the holiday sacrifice does not push the Sabbath aside; why does the verse say, bring on it a holiday sacrifice¹⁵⁰. 12:14 for the last word in Lev. 23:41, תָּחֹ֥גּוּ אֹתֽוֹ; bring it as holiday sacrifice. Since the sacrifice is mentioned in the singular it is shown that there is a single required sacrifice for the eight-day festival of which up to seven are days of sacrifice. Sifra Emor Pereq 17.? But it teaches that the last day of the festival is make-up for the first.

footnotes: ¹⁴³ It is mentioned several times in the Pentateuch that the first day of the festival of unleavened bread, rabbinically called Peṣah ¹⁴⁴ Since the Seventh Day of Passover has the same public sacrifices as the first. ¹⁴⁵ Lev ¹⁴⁶ While it is noted in Lev ¹⁴⁷ Since the holiday offerings are private sacrifices they automatically are excluded on the Sabbath. ¹⁴⁸ The argument of R. Hoshaia cannot be correct. ¹⁴⁹ He shows that the previous discussion was based on a faulty version of R. Hoshaia’s argument. ¹⁵⁰ This is a misquote of Ex

¹⁵¹ 5:7, Notes 131–135*. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated so that the eighth day was a separate holiday, a separate lottery, a separate benediction, a separate sacrifice¹⁵² 4:17.. Holiday, as Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, for all of them is written and on day, but here is written on day, to teach you that it is a separate holiday¹⁵³. 29:17,20,23,26,29,32, but the listing for the eighth day starts on the eighth day without connective (Num. 29:35).. Lottery, Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this, “on the eighth day they returned to the lottery as on holidays.” Benediction, Rebbi La said, time¹⁵⁴. Sacrifice, one bull and one ram¹⁵⁵ 9b..

footnotes: ¹⁵¹ This is copied from Sukkah ¹⁵² Tosephta Sukkah ¹⁵³ In the list of sacrifices for days 2–7 of Tabernacles the first words always are and on day, Num ¹⁵⁴ “Who let us live, and supported us, and let us reach this time.” ¹⁵⁵ In particular, religious obligations of a personal nature, which cannot be delegated, have precedence over study. Babli Moed Qatan

MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says, who is distorted cannot be repaired? This is one committing incest or adultery and producing a bastard. If you would say a thief or robber, that one may repent and repair. Rebbi Simeon ben Menassia¹³⁶ says, one calls distorted only what was correct before and became distorted. Who is that? This is a scholar who separated from the Torah.

footnotes: ¹³⁶ In all other sources: R. Simeon ben Yohai.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: When you see towns in the Land of Israel uprooted from their place, know that they did not contribute to the wages of Bible and Mishnah teachers¹³⁷(2).. What is the reason? Why is the land ruined, torn down like an uninhabited wilderness? The Eternal said, because they abandoned My Torah¹³⁸. 9:11-12..

footnotes: ¹³⁷ Since at least since the time of the High Priest Joshua ben Gamla providing for elementary schooling is a communal responsibility. Petihta Thr. rabbati ¹³⁸ Jer

Rebbi Judah the Prince¹³⁹ sent Rebbi Ḥiyya¹⁴⁰, Rebbi Assi¹⁴¹, and Rebbi Immi to tour the towns of the Land of Israel in order to give them Bible and Mishnah teachers. They came to one place where they found neither Bible nor Mishnah teacher. They said to them, bring us the watchmen of the town. They brought them the stewards¹⁴², administrator of an agricultural domain. of the town. They told them, these are not the watchmen of the town, they are the destroyers of the town¹⁴³. They asked them, and who would be the watchmen of the town? They told them, the Bible and Mishnah teachers. That is what is written, if the Eternal would not build the house¹⁴⁴. 127:1., etc.

footnotes: ¹³⁹ R. Judah II, the grandson of Rebbi. ¹⁴⁰ R. Hiyya bar Abba. ¹⁴¹ His Babylonian name. In the Yerushalmi he usually appears as R. Yasa. ¹⁴² Identified by S. Liebermann as Latin saltuarius ¹⁴³ Since they did not include the wages of elementary school teachers in the communal budget. ¹⁴⁴ Ps

Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: We find that the Holy One, praise to Him, did forego¹⁴⁵ for Israel about idol worship, incest and adultery, and bloodshed¹⁴⁶. But for their rejection of the Torah he did not forego. What is the reason? It is not written here “The Eternal said, because they committed idol worship, incest and adultery, and bloodshed,” but the Eternal said, because they abandoned My Torah. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, that they abandoned Me I could forego, maybe they would keep My Torah¹⁴⁷. 32:23., since if they abandoned Me but kept My Torah, the leavening in it would bring them close to Me. Rav Ḥuna said, study Torah even not for its own merit, since through {studying} not for its own merit you come to {study} for its own¹⁴⁸50b, Sotah22b,47a, Nazir23b, Sanhedrin105a, Horaiot10b,. Arakhin16b..

footnotes: ¹⁴⁵ He did forego meting out punishment. ¹⁴⁶ The three cardinal sins. ¹⁴⁷ A sermon on Jer ¹⁴⁸ Babli Pesahim

¹⁴⁹29a. When Rebbi Jehudah saw a funeral procession or the acclamation of a bride he looked at the students and said, deed precedes study.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ This is the introduction to the next paragraph, about the relative merits of Torah study and good deeds. Babli Megillah

¹⁵⁰3:7, Notes 142-148.They voted in the upper floor of the house of Arius that study precedes action¹⁵¹40b, this was an early Tannaitic decision following R. Aqiba against R. Tarphon. Hagigah1:7.. Rebbi Abbahu dwelt in Caesarea. He sent his son Rebbi Ḥanina to acquire merit in Tiberias. They sent and said to him, he does works of charity¹⁵². He wrote to him, are there no graves in Caesarea¹⁵³. 14:11. that I sent you to Tiberias? For they already voted in the upper floor of the house of Arius in Lydda that study precedes action¹⁵⁴. The rabbis of Caesaria say, that is, if there is somebody there who will do it. But if nobody is there who will do it, the action has precedence¹⁵⁵9b.. Example. Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Immi, were late in coming to Rebbi Eleazar. He asked them, where have you been? They told him, performing an act of charity. He asked them, where there no others? They answered him, it was a neighbor¹⁵⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ This text essentially is from Pesahim ¹⁵¹ According to the Babli, Qiddušin ¹⁵² Burying the dead. ¹⁵³ A reference to Ex ¹⁵⁴ Therefore he has to spend his time studying in the Academy there. ¹⁵⁵ In particular, religious obligations of a personal nature, which cannot be delegated, have precedence over study. Babli Moed Qatan ¹⁵⁶ It was an obligation irrespective of the number of attendees at the funeral.

MISHNAH: The dissolution of vows¹⁵⁷ flies in the air and has no support. The rules of the Sabbath, holiday sacrifices, and larceny on sancta¹⁵⁸. 5:14–15. The exact definition of what constitutes larceny on sancta is not found in the Biblical text. are like mountains hanging on a hair, few verses and many rules. Civil law, Temple service, purity and impurity, and forbidden sexual relations have support. All of them¹⁵⁹ 3:1 as an unjustified corrector’s addition taken from here. Also the attribution there of R. Eliezer’s statement to Ḥananiah the nephew of R. Joshua is unjustified; Ḥananiah refers to the next paragraph. The authorship of R. Eliezer of a similar statement is confirmed in the Babli 10a. are the body of the Torah.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁷ The power of a rabbi to annul the vow of a person is based on the questionable interpretation, rejected by Sadducees and Karaites, of a single verse. ¹⁵⁸ As mentioned in Lev ¹⁵⁹ This text essentially appears in the Venice edition of the Yerushalmi in Nedarim

HALAKHAH: ¹⁵⁹ 3:1 as an unjustified corrector’s addition taken from here. Also the attribution there of R. Eliezer’s statement to Ḥananiah the nephew of R. Joshua is unjustified; Ḥananiah refers to the next paragraph. The authorship of R. Eliezer of a similar statement is confirmed in the Babli 10a. It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer says, they have support. I swore and shall keep it¹⁶⁰. 119:106.. Sometimes I do not keep it. Rebbi Joshua says, they have support. Which I swore in My anger¹⁶¹. 95:11.. I swore in My anger, I am changing My opinion.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁹ This text essentially appears in the Venice edition of the Yerushalmi in Nedarim ¹⁶⁰ Ps ¹⁶¹ Ps

¹⁶² 3:1, Notes 6–7. There, we have stated¹⁶³ 3:1.: “Four kinds of vows did the Sages dissolve.” Do not the Sages permit all kinds of vows? It is written¹⁶⁴. 30:2.: Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the Children of Israel. He referred the paragraph to the heads of the tribes that they should dissolve their vows. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: He shall not profane his word¹⁶⁵. 30:3.. He cannot profane his word; this implies that others can profane his words. Who is that? That is the Sage who dissolves the vow.

footnotes: ¹⁶² Text copied from Nedarim ¹⁶³ Mishnah Nedarim ¹⁶⁴ Num ¹⁶⁵ Num

¹⁶⁶ 10:10 (Notes 112–128). The first paragraph is complete here and slightly defective there; the end of the second paragraph here is lacunary in the ms. and badly augmented by the corrector. The last paragraph is added from there without any reasonable connection to the topics of Ḥagigah. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Jehudah, Jeremiah bar Abba in the name of Samuel: Three who know how to find an opening¹⁶⁷ 78a, Bekhorot 36b, any three lay persons are empowered to form a court to invalidate vows. may permit like an Elder. They thought, at a place where no Elder was available. The rabbis of Caesarea are saying: Even at a place where there is an Elder¹⁶⁸ 78a).. They said before Rebbi Yasa: Is Rav Ḥuna “head of tribes”¹⁶⁹? He answered them, if Rav Ḥuna is not head of tribes, who are the heads of tribes? Rav Ḥuna is head of the heads of tribes¹⁷⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁶ This and the following paragraphs are copied from Nedarim ¹⁶⁷ They know the rules of invalidating vows In the Babli, Nedarim ¹⁶⁸ Invalidation of a vow by three laymen is not infringing on the privileges of the rabbinate. The ordained rabbi has the privilege to invalidate a vow alone (Babli, Nedarim ¹⁶⁹ He was the undisputed head of the Babylonian rabbinate and was of the family of the davidic Head of the Diaspora. He certainly had the right to invalidate vows, being of the “heads of the tribes”. ¹⁷⁰ He is the head of all ordained rabbis, even though his Babylonian ordination is not complete as explained in the next paragraph.

May one appoint Elders for selected topics¹⁷¹? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi appointed Rav to invalidate vows and to see stains¹⁷². After his death, he¹⁷³ asked his¹⁷⁴ son for {permission to judge} defects of firstlings. He said to him, I shall not add to what my father gave you. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he gave him everything: To sit in judgment alone, to invalidate vows, to see stains, and to see outside blemishes¹⁷⁵5a, Rav received full rabbinic powers except the right to decide anything in matters of firstlings. (A firstling of cattle, sheep, or goats must be sacrificed unless it has a blemish which disqualifies it as a sacrifice. In the absence of a Temple, the firstling must graze until it develops a blemish; Deut. 15:19–23.) The full ordination was refused to him since his intent was to return to Babylonia and Rebbi disapproved of that. After him, all rabbis with the limited diaspora ordination received the title of Rav.. After his death, he asked his son for {permission to judge} hidden defects. He said to him, I shall not add to what my father gave you. Even though you say, one appoints Elders for selected topics, only if he is competent for everything. As the following: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi ordained all his students, but he was sorry about one who (had a defect in his) [had a running] eye¹⁷⁶. 13–14) must be seen with both eyes, a one-eyed or blind person could not be ordained to decide on their ritual purity. {The meaning of the corrector’s change is questionable.} and he could not ordain him; could he not have ordained him for selected topics? That implies (that one who is competent in one thing has to be competent in everything, even for one thing he is not competent) [one who is competent in everything is competent in one thing but one who is not competent in everything cannot be declared competent in one thing.]¹⁷⁷: In order to be competent in one thing he has to be competent in everything; one who is not competent in everything cannot be declared competent in one thing.

footnotes: ¹⁷¹ Is it possible to give ordination without conferring all rabbinical powers on the candidate? ¹⁷² To decide whether a female genital discharge was menstrual blood or not; i. e., whether the woman would be permitted to her husband or not. This is taken as example of his power to decide in matters of ritual prohibitions and includes permission to judge in all matters of such prohibitions. ¹⁷³ Rav. ¹⁷⁴ Rebbi’s. ¹⁷⁵ Blemishes of firstlings. In the tradition of the Babli, Sanhedrin ¹⁷⁶ Since skin lesions (wrongly translated as “leprosy”, Lev ¹⁷⁷ The scribe’s text is lacunary, the corrector’s wrong. One has to adopt the text from Nedarim

May one appoint Elders for a fixed time? Let us hear from the following: Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba went to Rebbi Eleazar and asked him to intervene with the Patriarch Rebbi Jehudah, that the latter should write him a letter of recommendation for seeking a livelihood in a foreign country. He intervened, and {the Patriarch} wrote for him: Here we are sending you as our representative a great personality with all our powers until he shall return to us. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Dositheus, Rebbi Abba bar Zamina, and they report in the name of the old Rebbi Dositheus: He wrote him the following. Here we are sending you a great personality. What is his greatness? He will not be ashamed to say “I did not learn this”¹⁷⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁸ In the first version the ordination was valid only as long as R. Ḥiyya served outside the Land of Israel. In the second, it was unconditional. The question is not resolved.

May one permit wearing a coat¹⁷⁹, Greek φαινόλης, παινόλης.? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One permits wearing a coat. Rebbi permitted wearing a coat. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi permitted wearing a coat. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: At a place where one does not wear a toga. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, for easy vows¹⁸⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁹ May a vow be removed informally or only in a court proceeding with the rabbi sitting as judge? “Robe” is Latin paenula ¹⁸⁰ Those which can be permitted unquestionably, for which no argument is needed.

“The rules of the Sabbath.” Rebbi Jonah said that Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba asked, is it not written only but a spring, or a cystern, a water pool shall be pure¹⁸¹. 11:36., and you infer from this many rules¹⁸² 9..

footnotes: ¹⁸¹ Lev ¹⁸² He objects to the distinction made between the rules of the Sabbath and those of purity. While there are many more verses dealing with purity than those dealing with the Sabbath, there are many rules of purity derived from as slim a scriptural basis than those of the Sabbath. Cf. Sifra Shemini Parashah

¹⁸³ 2:6, Notes 98–120 (פ). This first paragraph is intelligible only in the framework of Tractate Peah. Rebbi Ze`ira said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you come to notice a practice of which you do not know the reason, do not push it aside as something alien since many practices were said as from Moses on Sinai¹⁸⁴ text, including Mishnah 2:6: to Moses on Sinai. The formulation here only asserts that these practices were accepted as traditional and valid interpretations of the Law by the time of Ezra’s organization of Judaism. and all of them were absorbed into the Mishnah. Rebbi Abun said, that is correct! If Naḥum had not come and explained it to us about the two kinds of wheat, could we have known¹⁸⁵ 2:6 where Naḥum the Scribe asserts a tradition from Moses on Sinai that a farmer harvesting two different strains of wheat has to give only one peah.?

footnotes: ¹⁸³ From here to the last paragraph of the Chapter the text is Halakhah Peah ¹⁸⁴ In the Peah ¹⁸⁵ Referring to Mishnah Peah

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: I wrote down for him most of My teaching¹⁸⁶. 8:12.. But was most of the Torah written down? Rather, more things are derived from what is written than what is derived from oral tradition. Is that so? But things derived from what is supported by a verse are preferred over those supported by oral tradition. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said: I wrote down for him most of My teaching, these are the admonitions. Nevertheless, is it not that they were considered foreign? Rebbi Abun said: If I had written down for you most of my teaching, would it not be considered Gentile¹⁸⁷? What would be the difference between us and the Gentiles? These produce their books and those produce their books. These produce their parchments¹⁸⁸ and those produce their parchments.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁶ Hos ¹⁸⁷ Since only Jews have oral tradition as main source of a codified system of laws. ¹⁸⁸ Greek διφθέρα.

¹⁸⁹4:1, Notes 16 ff. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Things have been said orally and things have been said in writing, and we do not know which ones are preferred. From what is written¹⁹⁰. 34:27.: by the mouth of these words I concluded a covenant with you and Israel, it follows that the oral traditions are preferred. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Simeon. One said that if you kept what is oral tradition and kept what is written I will conclude a covenant with you, otherwise I shall not conclude a covenant with you. The other one said, if you watched all that is oral tradition and kept all that is written you will receive your reward, otherwise you will not receive any reward. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: On them, and on them; all, like all; words, the words; Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, practices and Aggadah. Even what a competent student will discover before his teacher was said to Moses on Sinai. What is the reason? There is something about which one would say, look, this is new! His colleague will answer, it already has been forever¹⁹¹. 1:10..

footnotes: ¹⁸⁹ This paragraph also is from Megillah ¹⁹⁰ Ex ¹⁹¹ Eccl

Rebbi Zeira in the name of Samuel: One makes inferences neither from practices¹⁹² 130b., nor from homiletics¹⁹³, nor from extraneous sources¹⁹⁴, but only from study¹⁹⁵. Did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state: The case of two kinds of wheat is the same as the case of two kinds of barley¹⁹⁶? Rebbi Zeira said, that was part of the original practice and it was forgotten: The case of two kinds of wheat is the same as the case of two kinds of barley. But did we not state¹⁹⁷ 3:3. “He who strips moist onions for the market and stores dry ones¹⁹⁸ two times; this rule cannot be deduced from the stated practice regarding two kinds of wheat since one deals here with only one kind of onion. Since this Mishnah cannot be a consequence of the original Halakhah, neither may one assert that the ruling of R. Ḥalaphta ben Shaul was part of the original Ḥalakhah. Hence, neither the statement of R. Ḥalaphta nor the Mishnah are exempt from logical scrutiny on the basis of accepted general principles.;” can you say about market and storage that this was of the original practice and was forgotten?

footnotes: ¹⁹² Rules of practice declared in the Mishnah; these may be overridden by arguments in the Talmud. The interpretation of this paragraph follows R. Samuel ben Meïr (Rashbam) to Babli Bava batra ¹⁹³ Homiletics, whether incorporated in the Talmud or given in separate Midrashim. Since the sixteenth century this principle has been violated in favor of practices mentioned in the pseudepigraphic Midrash Zohar. ¹⁹⁴ The “additional sources” are tannaitic materials not given in the Mishnah, either as single traditions or as part of a collection. ¹⁹⁵ From study which finds the reasons for each ruling. ¹⁹⁶ If R. Ḥalaphta ben Shaul makes the inference that the rules for barley are identical with those for wheat, does he not violate Samuel's statement that one does not draw inferences from stated practices but only from an argument about the underlying principles? ¹⁹⁷ Mishnah Peah ¹⁹⁸ He has to give peah

Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Samuel: One makes no inferences from a ruling¹⁹⁹. Everybody agrees that one makes no inferences from an action²⁰⁰. Rebbi Mana said to him, that means somebody who does not understand²⁰¹, but he who understands may act. He said to him, whether one understands or one does not understand, if there is a disagreement²⁰². But if there is no disagreement, whether one understands or one does not understand one acts²⁰³..

footnotes: ¹⁹⁹ If a rabbi was asked about a practical problem and he gave a certain decision, a third party may make no practical applications of that decision unless he understands the reasoning behind the decision and agrees with it. ²⁰⁰ If one saw a rabbinic authority act in a certain way, one may not act in the same way or make inferences from this action unless one knows both the background of and the reasoning for the particular action. ²⁰¹ The reasoning of the rabbinic authority. ²⁰² If in the Mishnah or another source there is mention of a disagreement between rabbis about the correct course, action is permitted only if there is an explicit understanding of and agreement with the reasoning behind the ruling. ²⁰³ In this case, one may act on the decision or imitate the action of a competent rabbinic authority even without a detailed inquiry into the arguments leading to decision or action.Here ends the text from Peah

²⁰⁴ 5:9 (Notes 112–115). Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All forbidden things²⁰⁵, if one added to them in error it is permitted, intentionally it is forbidden. Is that not the Mishnah²⁰⁶ 5:9., “if it was in error it is permitted, if intentional it is forbidden”? The Mishnah is about addition to heave, he comes to tell you about other things. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Just as one has a duty to instruct about actions that should be done so one has a duty to instruct negatively about actions that should not be done. Rebbi Eleazar said, just as it is forbidden to declare the impure as pure, so it is forbidden to declare the pure as impure. Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a practical case comes before you and you do not know whether to suspend or to burn²⁰⁷., one must leave it to rot until it is no longer food and, therefore, pure according to all standards., always try to burn rather than to suspend since there is nothing in the Torah more distinguished than burned bulls and burned rams²⁰⁸, and they are burned. Rebbi Yose asked, is it possible to infer from something whose commandment is thus for something whose commandment is not so²⁰⁹?

footnotes: ²⁰⁴ This paragraph is copied (somewhat lacunary, completed by the corrector) in Terumot ²⁰⁵ Which can become insignificant in an appropriate plurality of permitted food (60, 100, 200 times, as the case may be). ²⁰⁶ Mishnah Terumot ²⁰⁷ The rule is that heave impure by biblical standards must be burned but heave impure only by rabbinic standards must be “suspended”, viz ²⁰⁸ The expiatory sacrifices whose blood was brought into the Sanctuary. ²⁰⁹ The argument of R. Abba bar Jacob contradicts our principle that homiletics cannot be the base of practical decisions.