MISHNAH: All spittle¹4:5). By rabbinic usage, all Gentiles are considered to be in this category. In Jerusalem, where people are used to eat sancta the entire year according to R. Meïr, or on the holidays according to R. Yose, one may assume that impure people are careful not to contaminate their pure neighbors. This is a reconstruction by authors living two generations after the destruction of the Temple. found in Jerusalem is pure except on the Upper Market², the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, on all other days of the year, those in the middle of the road are impure, and those on the sides pure. On holidays, those in the middle of the road are pure and those on the sides impure since the minority will remove themselves to the sides. All implements which are found in Jerusalem on the road descending to the place of immersion are impure, on the way ascending they are pure since they were brought down on a way different from that on which they were brought up, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, all are pure except the bag and the rake¹⁵ set apart for graves. If a knife was found on the Fourteenth²¹ sacrifice. Even though the previous Mishnah stated that all implements found in Jerusalem are presumed to be pure, for use on sancta one is restrictive and requires immersion in a miqweh and waiting for the following sundown. The only time this requirement is waived is the 14 of Nisan, the day of mass slaughter, where it is presumed that every knife which is qualified to be used for ritual slaughter was immersed in a miqweh the previous day., one may slaughter with it immediately; on the Thirteenth one has to repeat and immerse²².. A dagger²³. in either case one has to repeat and immerse. If the Fourteenth falls on a Sabbath, one may slaughter with it immediately²⁴; on the Fifteenth one may slaughter with it immediately²⁵. If it²⁶ was tied to a knife its status is that of the knife.

footnotes: ¹ Any impurity caused by a human body itself, such as in a person afflicted by gonorrhea, is a source of severe impurity, and all his body fluids are sources of severe impurity. In any place other than Jerusalem, one must assume that spittle was ejected by an impure person whose impurity was caused by his body (cf. Mishnah Ṭahorot ² A Gentile neighborhood. ¹⁵ As the Halakhah shows, a word “the hoe” is missing here, found in B and the independent Mishnah mss. ²¹ The 14th of Nisan, the day of slaughter of the Pesaḥ ²² Since all knives are immersed on the 13th of Nisan, one has to assume that this particular knife was lost on the way to the miqweh ²³ Which is not usable for slaughter and therefore not necessarily immersed in a miqweh ²⁴ Since one may not immerse on that day, certainly the knife had been immersed on the 13th. ²⁵ Since the 15th of Nisan is a holiday where immersion is not done, and the knife was purified for the 14th, the presumption of purity extends to this case. ²⁶ The dagger.

HALAKHAH: “All spittle,” etc. Rebbi Abbin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A Gentile fortification³”. The Babli text reads קצרן “their laundry”. was there. Rebbi Ḥanina said, they were stabbing wild donkeys in Jerusalem and the feet of the pilgrims were immersed in blood up to their knee joints⁴ 11:26–28), this does not extend to their blood, which does not cause impurity. Gentile circus games have no impact on purity in Jerusalem (except for the removal of the carcasses which must be done by Gentiles.) Babli Menaḥot103b.. [They came before the Sages who did not tell them anything.]⁵ Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: A Gentile fortification was there.

footnotes: ³ Reading קצטרן, “their castra ⁴ As explained in the next paragraph, while carcasses of four-legged animals are a source of impurity (Lev. ⁵ Corrector’s addition from B, correct but unnecessary.

⁶8, Notes 51–62. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a mule of Rebbi’s household died and they declared its blood pure regarding the carcass. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Simon, how much? He did not take notice of him. He asked Rebbi Joshua ben Levi who told him, it is pure up to a quartarius. More than that is impure. Rebbi Eleazar felt badly that Rebbi Simon had not repeated the tradition to him. Rav Bevai was sitting stating this occurrence. Rebbi Isaac bar Bisna asked him, is it pure up to a quartarius; more than that impure? He was unfriendly to him. Rebbi Zeriqa asked him, because he asked you, you were unfriendly to him? He answered him, because my mind was not clear, as Rebbi Ḥanin said, ⁷. 28:66.your life will hang far from you, that is one who buys a year’s supply of wheat, you will be fearful night and day, that is one who buys from the Saracen, and you will not believe in your survival, that is one who buys from the retail store, and I am dependent on retail stores. What about it? “Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified about blood of carcasses that it is pure.⁸8:1.” What means pure? It is pure in that it does not prepare, but for impurity it makes impure. There, we have stated “The blood of a crawling animal is like its flesh, it makes impure but does not prepare. Nothing else is like this,⁹6:5.” in the amount needed for impurity but its blood makes impure like its flesh. Rav Joseph said, he who says “impure” follows Rebbi Jehudah; he who said “pure” follows Rebbi Joshua ben Bathyra. Rav Eudaimon the emigrant said to him, this is correct. Rebbi Jehudah was the instructor of the Patriarch.

footnotes: ⁶ The text was copied more or less in Chapter 3:2, Notes 40 ff. The full explanation is given in Šabbat ⁷ Deut ⁸ Mishnah Idiut ⁹ Mishnah Makhširin

Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, they did not decide about spittle in Jerusalem¹⁰ be considered potentially impure because they touched spittle of unknown provenience, in contrast to all places in the Holy Land outside of Jerusalem (Mishnah Ṭahorot4:5), since the number of people whose impurity is caused by their own body is minuscule. Then why is the Upper Market in Jerusalem excluded? Babli Pesaḥim19b.? [Was it not said]¹¹ about this, Rebbi Abbin in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: A Gentile fortification³”. The Babli text reads קצרן “their laundry”. was there¹²? In the remainder of the days of a year the impure ones are walking on the path¹³ and the pure ones are walking on the shoulder. The pure ones walk without saying anything, the impure ones tell them, keep apart. During a holiday¹⁴ the pure ones are walking on the path and the impure ones are walking on the shoulder. The impure ones walk without saying anything, the pure ones tell them, keep apart.

footnotes: ¹⁰ Nobody required that heave and other sancta ¹¹ Corrector’s addition from B, in Babli terminology. ³ Reading קצטרן, “their castra ¹² One must assume that the spittle is a Gentile’s, automatically impure by rabbinic standards. ¹³ A form of שביל “path”, not “ear of grain”. ¹⁴ When practically everybody was pure as long as the Temple existed.

But did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of¹⁶ Rebbi Joḥanan, they did not decide about vessels in Jerusalem¹⁷? Since they were found on the road descending to the place of immersion, it is proof¹⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁶ Missing in B. ¹⁷ In contrast to all other places in the Holy Land, one does not have to presume that vessels found in Jerusalem be impure. Then why does R. Meïr declare some vessels impure? ¹⁸ These must be presumed impure unless the opposite is proven.

Abba Shaul used to call it¹⁹ and according to the second opinion used exclusively for the gravedigger’s (or burial cave excavator’s) hoe. “fingernail” since it is shaped like a fingernail. He who said מְרִיצָה because it quickly dispatches the stone [to the cemetery.]²⁰

footnotes: ¹⁹ The word for “hoe” missing in the Mishnah. The word מְרִיצָה is a hapax ²⁰ Corrector’s addition from B; questionable since the text seems to refer to excavating burial caves (impossible in the Iraqi plain.)

It was stated: If he knife was tied to it²⁶ its status is that of the knife²⁷; cf. Note 43..

footnotes: ²⁶ The dagger. ²⁷ It seems that the last sentence in the Mishnah was missing in the original Yerushalmi Mishnah; therefore it is quoted as a baraita

MISHNAH: If a gobelin²⁸ became impure by derivative impurity²⁹, one immersed it inside and brought it back immediately. But if by original impurity, one immersed it outside and spread it out in the ante-court³⁰ because it requires sundown. If it was new, one spreads it out on the roof of the stoa³¹ so the people could see its workmanship, which was beautiful. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rebbi Simeon, the son of the Executive Officer of the Temple³²: The thickness of a gobelin was a hand-width. It was woven on 72 strings³³ and each string was composed of 24 threads³⁴ 26:31), and each kind was twined of six threads.. Its length 40 cubits and its width 20 cubits; it was made for 820’000 {denar}. Two were made every year³⁵ and 300 Cohanim were immersing it³⁶.

footnotes: ²⁸ In the Temple, separating the Holiest of Holies from the Temple Hall. Since it is an implement, not a fixed part of the building, it may become impure. ²⁹ A rabbinic impurity. By biblical standards, implements may become impure only by contact with original impurity. ³⁰ The enclosed plaza in front of the entrance to the Temple courtyard. ³¹ The double stoa built by Herod as enclosure of the Temple district. ³² Who credibly could inform about details of the Temple some 80 years after its destruction. ³³ Of the warp. ³⁴ Since the gobelin had to be made from blue, purple, and crimson wool, and byssus (Ex. ³⁵ According to the Tosephta (3:15), one was hung new on the Eve of the Day of Atonement and the other kept in reserve if some impurity should occur on one of the two which were in use. ³⁶ For purification; see end of Halakhah 4.

HALAKHAH: If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “twisted”, three, “entwined”, six³⁷ used in the biblical text for all woven textiles used in the Temple (except the garments of the simple priests) means a multiply twisted string. Since there are other words available for small numbers of threads, entwined must designate heavy strings.. There are four kinds, this makes 24. It was stated 32. If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “twisted”, four, “entwined”, eight. There are four kinds, this makes 32. It was stated 48. If it had said “thread”, one, “double”, two, “plaited” three, “twisted”, six, “entwined”, twelve. There are four kinds, this makes 48.

footnotes: ³⁷ One tries to explain why the expression entwined

³⁸72b.“One verse says embroidered work³⁹ 26:36., and one verse says, intelligent work⁴⁰ 26:31.. Embroidered work, one face⁴¹, intelligent work, two faces.” Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Nehemiah, one said embroidered work, a lion on each side, intelligent work, a lion on one side and nothing on the other side. The other one said, embroidered work, a lion on one side and nothing on the other side, intelligent work, a lion on one side and an eagle on the other side.

footnotes: ³⁸ Tosephta 3:14; explained differently in Babli Yoma ³⁹ Ex. ⁴⁰ Ex. ⁴¹ Greek προσώπον, τό. The scribe originally wrote correctly פרוסיף.

(It was stated:)⁴³ 5, p. 261) also sees here a sign that the statement was not part of the original Galilean Mishnah. “It was made for 820’000 {denar}.” Rebbi Isaac bar Bisna in the name of Samuel: exaggerated⁴⁴. There, we have stated⁴⁵2:2, describing the amount of ashes accumulated on the altar at the end of a night. B quotes the entire Mishnah.: “Sometimes there was on it about 300 kor⁴⁶29a, Ḥulin90b..” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Samuel: exaggerated.

footnotes: ⁴³ This was written by the scribe but then deleted. S. Liebermann (Tarbiz ⁴⁴ In the Babli, as also in B, always the noun “exaggeration” is used. ⁴⁵ Mishnah Tamid ⁴⁶ About 114m3, a volume impossible for the surface area of 174.5m2 of the fire on the altar. Babli Tamid

MISHNAH: Flesh of most holy sacrifices⁴⁷ which became impure either by original impurity or by derivative impurity⁴⁸, whether inside or outside, the House of Shammai are saying that everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity⁴⁹. The House of Hillel are saying that everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity⁵⁰. Rebbi Eliezer says, what became impure by original impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned outside. But what became impure by derivative impurity, whether inside or outside, shall be burned inside⁵¹. Rebbi Aqiba said, the place of its impurity is the place of its burning⁵² 6:23, as explained in Sifra Saw Pereq8(5–6), where also additional opinions of RR. Meïr and Jehudah are reported..

footnotes: ⁴⁷ Elevation, purification, and reparation sacrifices, whose flesh never should leave the sacred precinct. ⁴⁸ Derivative impurity is rabbinic impurity; according to biblical standards the flesh could be eaten. ⁴⁹ Since most holy sacrifices may not leave the sacred precinct, flesh disqualified for the altar must be burned in the courtyard. Only if the flesh was taken outside and became biblically impure can it not be returned and must be disposed of by being burnt outside. ⁵⁰ They hold that flesh impure by biblical standards has to be removed as quickly as possible from the sacred precinct; then it can be burned outside in leisurely fashion. Flesh inside which is considered impure only by common usage, not biblical decree, may be burned in the courtyard. No flesh impure in any way may be introduced into the sacred precinct. ⁵¹ In the matter of burning, he considers rabbinic impurity as nonexistent. ⁵² This is his interpretation of the hidden meaning of Lev.

HALAKHAH: ⁵³3:8 (Note 103) and Pesaḥim1:7, Notes 166,167. Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are words of the Torah⁵⁴ 7:19 one reads: Any meat which touches anything impure may not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. Since it is not stated “touches any impure person”, one has to conclude that anything impure refers to implements or similar things which became impure from the touch of an impure person. Therefore it is clear that by biblical standards there exist derivative impurities. Bar Qappara holds that anything which makes something else impure is called original impurity. Since the verse does not refer to the meat as impure, he will hold that it is disqualified but its touch will not make the implement touched impure. He restricts the term “impure” to matter able to transmit impurity; matter disqualified is classifioed as “derivative impurity”. R. Joḥanan will hold that the meat, two touches distant from original impurity, still is impure by biblical standards (even though it is not called so in the text.) Everybody will agree that further impurities, 3 and 4 touches separated from original impurity, are rabbinic (or customary) categories of impurity.. ⁵⁵3:8 (Note 103) and Pesaḥim 1:7, Notes 166,167. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original]⁵⁶ impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion⁵⁷. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.⁵⁸ 6:23; this explains their position without reference to Bar Qappara’s statement.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps⁵⁹. 5:2–4 (Sifry Num. 1) that there were three encampments in the desert, the holy precinct of the Tent of Meeting, the encampment of the Levites, and that of the Israelites. These are represented by the Temple enclosure, the Temple Mount, and Jerusalem (or any walled city in the Holy Land). Then it is stated that from the categories of people excluded from the holy sites, people impure in the impurity of the dead are excluded from the Temple precinct, those suffering from gonorrhea (or anybody whose impurity is caused by his own body) is excluded from the Temple Mount, and the sufferer from skin disease is excluded from the city. R. Simeon explains that the sufferers from skin disease under no circumstance can enter the city; this is a paradigm for the statement that anything impure never may be brought into a place from which it is excluded..

footnotes: ⁵³ The same statement is found in Maaser Šeni ⁵⁴ In Lev. ⁵⁵ Similar discussions, referring to other Mishnaiot, are in Maaser Šeni ⁵⁶ Correct addition by the corrector. (The clause is missing in B.) ⁵⁷ Since the objections to R. Joḥanan’s opinion cannot be answered, his statement cannot be valid in rabbinic tradition. ⁵⁸ The House of Shammai will accept R. Aqiba’s interpretation of Lev. ⁵⁹ This is a complicated formulation of the simple statement of Note 50. It is inferred from Num

MISHNAH: The limbs of the daily sacrifice are deposited on the lower part of the ramp to the West⁶⁰ Chapter 2, the sacrifices were slaughtered and cut into pieces which immediately were carried to the ramp leading up to the altar, but then were taken up one by one to be burned on the relatively small area of the fire on the altar., those of the musaf sacrifices⁶¹ on the lower part of the altar. Those of the days of the New Moon on the rim⁶² on the top of the altar. Sheqalim and First Fruits⁶³ are dedicated for the Temple service; if there is no Temple there are no sheqalim. Of First Fruits it says (Ex. 23:19): Bring the First Fruits of your land to the Eternal’s House; if there is no House they cannot be brought (Tosephta 3:24). apply only if there is a Temple, but tithes of grain, and tithes of animals, and firstlings⁶⁴. 18:12–19) says that these are given to the Eternal; therefore they are obligations independent of the Temple., apply whether there is a Temple or there is no Temple. If somebody dedicates sheqalim or First Fruits⁶⁵, they are sanctified. Rebbi Simeon says, even if somebody designates First Fruits as holy, they are not holy.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ As explained in Yoma ⁶¹ Of the Sabbaths and holidays. ⁶² As explained in the Halakhah, on top of the altar, between its horns, on the place usually reserved for the Cohanim serving at the altar. ⁶³ Sheqalim ⁶⁴ Of all these, the verse (Num ⁶⁵ Today, in the absence of a Temple. R. Simeon holds that a dedication as First Fruits is a vow in error which does not need annulment.

HALAKHAH: “What is ‘the rim of the altar⁶⁶ in the Bible, Ex. 27:5. The explanation is intended also as applicable to the biblical word. Tosephta 3:19; Babli Zevaḥim 62a.’? A cubit between two horns, on the place reserved for the feet of the Cohanim walking.”

footnotes: ⁶⁶ The word is a hapax

⁶⁷5:6 (Note 124). Which of the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Moon has precedence⁶⁸? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, between the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Month, the musaf sacrifices of the New Month have precedence. The strength of Rebbi Jeremiah is from the following: Between the song of the Sabbath and the song of the New Month⁶⁹54b., the song of the New Month has precedence. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference there since Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To make a proclamation to publicize that it is the start of a new month. How does one do it? One slaughters the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and says for them the song of the New Month. But here, between the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Month, the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath have precedence, under the category: what is more frequent than another precedes the other⁷⁰2:3 (Note 127), Ta`anit4:5 (68b l.30), Babli Berakhot51b, Pesaḥim114a, Zevaḥim91a..

footnotes: ⁶⁷ This paragraph is copied in Sukkah ⁶⁸ The question may be asked here since the limbs of the sacrifices of the New Month are stored much closer to the fire on the altar than those of the Sabbath sacrifices. ⁶⁹ Babli Sukkah ⁷⁰ A general principle, Yoma

Did sheqalim therefore⁷¹. become holy⁷² dedicated today reserved for use in the Temple; in absence of a Temple any use of it would be larceny of sacra.? Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both these and those⁷³. did not become holy. It was stated:⁷⁴31b (in the name of R. Simeon ben Eleazar), Keritut9a. Sifry zuta Šelaḥ explains the sacrifice as necessary before the proselyte will be permitted to partake of sancta, since every person whose body was the cause of his impurity, once he is pure he needs such a sacrifice to be admitted to sancta(cf. Note 1). A proselyte today has to bring for his nest a quarter of a silver {denar}. Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap. What is “because of the mishap”? As was stated, today one does neither dedicate as sacrifice, nor dedicate one’s value, nor dedicate as ḥerem, nor does one collect [heave and tithes]⁷⁵ for use in the Temple. Therefore, this “lifting” is dedication as sheqalim.. If somebody dedicates as sacrifice, or dedicated one’s value, or dedicated as ḥerem, or collected, cloth must be burned, an animal castrated. [How? One locks it in and it dies by itself.]⁷⁶ Monies shall go to the Dead Sea⁷⁷66a, Bekhorot23a, Avodah zarah13a.. If he⁷⁸ does not sanctify his money according to R. Simeon; a proselyte dedicating money for his sacrifice in case the Temple will be rebuilt does sanctify the money set apart. transgressed and dedicated, since Rebbi Simeon said, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai already disestablished this because of the mishap, this implies if he transgressed and dedicated, it became sanctified. Rebbi Yudan from Antodria asked before Rebbi Yose: here you are saying it became sanctified, and there you are saying, it did not become sanctified⁷⁸ does not sanctify his money according to R. Simeon; a proselyte dedicating money for his sacrifice in case the Temple will be rebuilt does sanctify the money set apart.. He said to him, there ⁷⁹[because of the following one may not dedicate from the start because it is an obligation to bring from the new contribution, and this would be from the old one. Here, what can you say? That one is old. But in respect to other dedications, the proselyte’s nest does not have to be from new money; if he dedicated it is holy;] maybe the Temple will be built like earlier and the heave of the lodge will be lifted on time on the first of Nisan⁸⁰; dedicating them before the Temple was rebuilt would be a self-defeating act.. But here, what do you have? Rav Ada and Rav Hamnuna, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Simeon⁸¹9a. The ruling refers to all of R. Simeon’s statements in this paragraph..

footnotes: ⁷¹ Since in the Mishnah R. Simon only states that dedications of First Fruits are ineffective; he is silent about sheqalim ⁷² Is a sheqel ⁷³ First fruits and sheqalim ⁷⁴ Cf. Tosephta 3:22; Babli Roš Haššanah ⁷⁵ Corrector’s addtion from B, totally erroneous since heave and tithes are applicable today. Probably the addition “and tithes” is a scribal error in the ms. underlying B, since “heave and tithes” is a common expression. If “and tithes” is deleted, then the reference is not to heave from agricultural produce but to the money taken from the depository of sheqalim ⁷⁶ Corrector’s addtion from B, inappropriate here. It is possible to be careful not to use an animal, but it must be prevented from producing offspring (even though castrating is sinful.) ⁷⁷ Babli Yoma ⁷⁸ A person dedicating sheqalim ⁷⁸ A person dedicating sheqalim ⁷⁹ Corrector’s addition from B, best deleted as a wordy paraphrase of the text obtained by deletion. ⁸⁰ Then any moneys set apart before the First of Adar are not admissible as new sheqalim ⁸¹ Babli Keritut