MISHNAH: Just as the water checks her out so it checks him¹ out, as it is said, “it will come, it will come”. Just as she is forbidden to the husband so she is forbidden to her paramour as it is said, “she was impure, she was impure,” the words of Rebbi Aqiba². Rebbi Joshua said, that was the inference of Zachariah the butcher’s son³. Rebbi said, the two times it said, “she became impure, she became impure,” once for the husband and once for the paramour⁴. 5:13,14 it is stated twice “she became impure”, meaning “she became forbidden”; cf. Chapter 4, Note 75, and the Introduction..

footnotes: ¹ The wife’s paramour. It is moreover stated in Halakhah 9:9 (Babli 28a) that the procedure becomes inactive if the husband had ever misbehaved sexually. ² This will be explained in the Halakhah. ³ An early Tanna, student of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai. ⁴ In Num

HALAKHAH: “Just as the water checks her out,” etc. We stated “they came, they came”. Some Tannaïm stated “they will come, they will come”. He who said “they came, they came” is Rebbi Aqiba, he who said “they will come, they will come” is Rebbi Ismael. We stated “she became impure, she became impure”, some Tannaïm stated “and she became impure, and she became impure”. He who said “she became impure, she became impure” is Rebbi Aqiba, he who said “and she became impure, and she became impure” is Rebbi Ismael⁶ 8:1, Note 72; Nedarim 1:1; Šabbat 19:2; Babli Berakhot 31b and 18 other places). This means that any verse containing no linguistic feature noted as an exception in Gesenius-Kautzsch must be interpreted following the hermeneutical rules detailed in the introduction to Sifra. R. Ismael’s argument here is a straightforward application of his rule 3: בנין אב מכתוב אחד “meaning established by one verse”. Since both וּבָאוּ (vv. 22,27) and וְנִטְמָאָה (v. 29) [correctly in Midrash of the 32 Rules: וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה (vv. 13,14)] are well defined by the first occurrence, the second occurrence has the parallel meaning but refers to a different subject. That this second subject is the suspected adulterer is never indicated in the verse but since he is the only other person possibly being impure in this situation, the transfer of the meanings to him makes sense. R. Aqiba negates absolutely that “the Torah speaks in everyday language”. For him, any vaw prefixed to a word has a hidden meaning. [Since his co-student Aquila translated the Torah in this sense “before Rebbis Eliezer and Joshua” (Megillah 1:11 fol. 71c, Babli 3a), one may attribute this transformation of the Pentateuch into a book of codes to the tradition of their common teacher Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai.] R. Aqiba is not deterred by the fact that in וּבָאוּ the vav is both conjunctive and conversive; any vav that is translated even in the LXX by καὶ must indicate a duplication of meaning. If the duplication of subjects were not intended, then Scripture would have found a way to use only באו (or imperfect יבואו) without the vav. The Babli, 28a, takes notice only of the teachings of R. Aqiba..

footnotes: ⁶ R. Ismael holds that דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה בִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם “the Torah speaks in everyday language” (Yebamot

It was stated⁷, בוא ובה⁸ is transferred from the end of the first word to the beginning of the second to read וּבָא וּבָהּ “it will come, and into her”, implying that the water will come into somebody and into her, establishing that the presumed adulterer can also be checked out by the water. The technique of transferring letters is accepted not only by the Yerushalmi (also Nazir 5:1, 43d line 67; Horaiot 1:3, 46a, line 24) but possibly also in the Babli (Yoma 48a, Baba batra 111b, Zebaḥim 25a, Bekhorot 44b). (Such an argument is quite impossible in a paleo-Hebrew text where the words are separated by a physical divider. The technique of moving letters from the end of one word to the beginning of the following, so much in fashion in modern criticism, presupposes that a change occured at a late time when there were no longer any paleo-Hebrew texts in use.). Is that written? It follows what Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For interpretation, one removes from its beginning to its end⁹. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Even a middle word. “You have to pour oil on.” You have to pour oil on a flour offering, to subject all flour offerings to pouring¹⁰. 1:6: “You have to break it into little pieces and pour oil over it; [because] it is a flour offering”, speaking of a pan-fried offering. For some flour offerings it is only specified that oil has to be included, or that oil has to be put on it. From this verse one concludes that “putting on” or “mixing” means “pouring oil over the flour”. The argument here proposes to read וְיָצַקְתָּ שֶׁמֶן מִנְחָ֑ה instead of וְיָצַקְתָּ עָלֶיהָ שֶׁ֑מֶן מִנְחָה הִֽיא. This is based on the teaching of R. Aqiba who disregards masoretic accents in all cases (cf. H. Guggenheimer, The Scholar’s Haggadah, Northvale NJ 1995, pp. 306–307) but in the Babli (cf. Note 8) is strongly opposed by Rava who objects to applying a surgeon’s knife to a verse (cf. the explanations of R. Ḥananel in ‘Arukh, s. v. גרע and Rashbam in Baba batra 111b, s. v. אלא.).

footnotes: ⁷ In order to prove that the adulterer is punished by the bitter water just as the adulteress is. ⁸ A copyist’s error makes this expression unintelligible. It must read ובא ובה. Than means that instead of וּבָאוּ בָהּ “they will come into her” (v. 27), the final vaw ⁹ It really should be “from end to beginning”. ¹⁰ Lev

“The spell acting”. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, what is the count of¹¹ “the spell acting”? It corresponds to the 248 parts of her body and the 248 parts of his body¹² 1:8. A part is either a bone or a vital organ, such as the genitals. No talmudic source, in contrast to medieval rabbinic texts, makes a difference between the Number of parts of the male and those of the female. The implication of the sermon is that the bodies of adulterer and adulteress together bring on the evil spell..

footnotes: ¹¹ Tosaphot (27b, s. v. כשם) read correctly מנין. The reference is to the (Alexandrinian) custom of using letters as numerals. The count of ה̇מ̇א̇ר̇ר̇י̇ם̇ is 5+40+1+200+200+10+40 = 496 = 2·248. ¹² Mishnah Ahitot

Did we not state: “Just as the water checks her out so it checks him out”? ¹⁶ Chapter 10, Notes 49 ff.) appears. Just as she is forbidden to her husband, so she is forbidden to her paramour. Just as she is forbidden to her husband’s brother, so she is forbidden to her paramour’s brother. Just as the water checks her out for every single intercourse for which she receives her husband after [intercourse with] her paramour, so it checks him out. Since she in general becomes forbidden, whether by him or by another [man], she is checked out¹⁷. But when he¹⁸ makes [her] drink, he¹⁹ is checked out²⁰. If it checked him out but not her, I would say that merit suspends for her²¹. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water²² 8:5, in particular Notes 113 ff. and it²³ swelled. They should not have her¹⁵ checked out in this way but correctly²⁴! But I could say that he was in secret with other women²⁵. Did we not think to say, when he makes [her] drink, he is checked out²⁶? Explain it that he had criminal intent but she acted in error; then the water checked him out but not her²⁷. [²⁸ If the water checked her out but not him,] I would say that merit suspends for (her) [him]²⁹. That is according to him who says that merit suspends and it is not recognizable. But following him who says that merit suspends and it is recognizable? Look, she was not recognized! But I could say that she drank uncovered water and her belly swelled. They should not have her checked out in this way but correctly!²⁴ But I could say that she was in secret with other men. Then if he¹⁸ divorced her, she would be permitted to him.¹⁹ Explain it that he acted in error but she had criminal intent; then the water checked her out but not him. If he had criminal intent but she acted in error, then it is obvious that she is permitted to her house¹⁸. If he¹⁸ divorced her, would she be permitted to him¹⁹? Is it possible to say that he had criminal intent and you say so? If he acted in error but she had criminal intent, it is obvious that she is forbidden to her house. If he¹⁸ divorced her, would she be permitted to him¹⁹? Is it possible to say that she left because of him and you say so³⁰? From where do we know that all depends on her? Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Is is written³¹. 18:20.: “Do not ejaculate semen into your neighbor’s wife to be impure through her.” It depends on her; if she had criminal intent, she is forbidden, acted in error she is permitted³².

footnotes: ¹⁶ The next few sentences are copied from Chapter 1, Note 128. But see the Tosaphot text in which only one sentence from there (and Yebamot ¹⁷ Cf. Mishnah 2:5 that the husband may stipulate that the water check her out not only for adultery with the named respondent but with any man whosoever. ¹⁸ The husband. ¹⁹ The suspected adulterer. ²⁰ The water is presumed to act at a distance, to make the adulterer’s belly swell and his waist disappear. (Cf. Note 14). ²¹ Cf. Chapter 3, Halakhot 4,5. ²² Water which was left standing uncovered and unattended may contain snake poison, cf. Terumot ²³ Meaning the adulterer’s. ¹⁵ The scribe wrote מבדקונַיה. It seems that the ms. before him had מבדקוניה, “to check him out”, but the scribe recognized that the masculine was inappropriate and indicated that one should read מבדקונַהּ, “to check her out”. ²⁴ Reading כדין “correctly” with Tosaphot, against a nondescript כדון “so” in the text. It would be against all rules if water which was left unattended in a vessel were used in the Temple. ²⁵ The accused boy friend was an adulterer but not with that woman. ²⁶ The water acts at a distance only from a woman with whom he actually committed adultery; the explanation attempted in the previous sentence is impossible. ²⁷ If either it was a case similar to date rape or that the adulterer impersonated the husband. ²⁸ Added from Tosaphot, missing in the mss. ²⁹ From Tosaphot text. ²⁴ Reading כדין “correctly” with Tosaphot, against a nondescript כדון “so” in the text. It would be against all rules if water which was left unattended in a vessel were used in the Temple. ¹⁸ The husband. ¹⁹ The suspected adulterer. ¹⁸ The husband. ¹⁸ The husband. ¹⁹ The suspected adulterer. ¹⁸ The husband. ¹⁹ The suspected adulterer. ³⁰ The Yerushalmi forbids the wife even to the unintentional adulterer; e. g., if she told him that she was single. ³¹ Lev ³² Everything depends on her status; since a rape victim is permitted to her husband, the divorced rape victim is permitted to the rapist but the woman who pretended to be single is forbidden to her boyfriend after her divorce.

MISHNAH: On the same day³³ 28a), any Mishnah which starts “on the same day” was formulated on the day Rabban Gamliel was deposed. There is no proof that this ever was a Galilean tradition., Rebbi Aqiba explained: “Any clay vessel into which some of them would fall, all inside shall become impure.³⁴ 11:33, speaking of dead reptiles (which are carriers of original impurity) falling into a clay vessel. In the biblical laws of impurity, no defilement is imparted to a clay vessel touched by impurities from the outside. But if the clay vessel encloses a space that can be covered and something of original impurity enters the space (even before it touches any wall), the entire vessel becomes impure in the first degree. {Degrees of impurity are explained in the commentary to Demay, Chapter 2, Note 137.} Therefore, any food inside the vessel becomes impure in the second degree. If that food touches food susceptible to tertiary impurity, the latter becomes impure in the third degree. Which food can become impure in the third and fourth degrees is a matter of discussion in the Halakhah. The same verse states that a clay vessel can be purified only by being broken. The shards become pure writing material.” It does not say “is impure” but “shall become impure”³⁵; this teaches about the secondarily impure loaf that it defiles the tertiary. Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, since you were saying that a future generation would purify the tertiary loaf since there is nothing about it in the Torah³⁶ 7(12)., but behold, your student Aqiba supports it by a verse from the Torah, as it has been said, “everything inside shall become impure.”

footnotes: ³³ According to the Babli (Berakhot ³⁴ Lev. ³⁵ Probably he reads יְטַמֵּא “it will defile” in place of יִטְמָא “it shall become impure”. Revocalization of the consonantal text is a technique accepted by R. Aqiba, rejected by R. Ismael. ³⁶ He holds that the possibility of tertiary impurity for heave and sacrifices and quaternary for sacrifices is traditional rather than biblical.The slightly enlarged text is also in Sifra Šemini Parasha

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained,” etc. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav and Samuel. One said, Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food, but the other referred to heave but not to profane food³⁷. But one does not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Jonah, they said, Rav in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: The tertiary comes because of the reptile³⁸ Chapter 2, Note 137). If a piece of “grandfather of impurity” falls into the clay vessel, the vessel becomes “father of impurity” and the loaf lying in it becomes impure in the first degree. In that case, one has ample biblical references that the loaf is still active in transmitting impurity, generating secondary impurity; the tertiary impurity mentioned by R. Aqiba is not addressed. Therefore, it is important to state that Lev. 11:33 is written in a paragraph dealing with the impurity of dead reptiles which are only “fathers of impurity”, inducing impurities that can be washed off by immersion in water. In the entire paragraph, no mention is made of sanctified food. Therefore, the impurity of dead reptiles implies the existence of tertiary impurity of profane food.. This implies that he said that Rebbi Aqiba referred to both heave and profane food³⁹. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: ⁴⁰ 4:1.“If tithe food was prepared [for impurity] by a fluid⁴¹ Chapter 2, Note 141. and a ṭevul yom⁴²22:6–7 that impurity is removed by immersion in water during daytime “and when the sun disappears he will be pure; afterwards, he may eat sanctified food.” (The Babli, Berakhot2a/b, discusses whether וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ means “the sun disappears” or “the sun rises”). The ṭevul yom therefore is no longer impure but before sundown he is not pure for sanctified food; cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 138; Terumot Chapter 2, Note 51. Since he is forbidden only sanctified food, one may assume that he is pure for profane food. In rabbinical terms, the ṭevul yom after immersion but before sundown is treated as impure in the second degree. or unclean hands⁴³ (135 cl) of water; cf. Bikkurim Chapter 2, Note 4; Demay Chapter 2, Note 160. touched it, one may take from it the heave of the tithe in purity because it is tertiary⁴⁴ it is not sanctified and any impurity, even secondary, would eliminate the tithe as a source of heave (cf. Ḥallah, Chapter 3, Notes 43–44). If the ṭevul yom may touch tithe from which no heave was given it proves that tertiary impurity does not apply to profane food., and the tertiary is pure for profane food.” He explains that it is a leniency about hands [whose impurity] is rabbinical. But did we not state: “A ṭevul yom”? Explain it by a ṭevul yom from [the impurity] of a broken field⁴⁵. Rebbi Zeïra said, you may even say a biblical tevul yom. There is a difference since it is written “pure, impure”⁴⁶ 11:32 has expressions of purity and impurity: “It shall be immersed in water, be impure until evening, and be pure”. This implies that a ṭevul yom vessel is both impure and pure; it is according to tradition that one decides in which domain it is pure and in which impure. In 22:6–7, the ṭevul yom person is only forbidden sanctified food in his intermediary state.. Pure for profane food during daytime and for heave when it gets dark. Rebbi Ḥaggai objected before Rebbi Yose: May we not say: Pure for touch and impure for eating⁴⁷ on profane or sanctified food is one of interpretation, could one not understand from the verses that the ṭevul yom contaminates any food but is free to touch?? He answered him, vessels are mentioned in the paragraph! Can you say about vessels that they are pure for touch and impure for eating⁴⁸11:32) deal with vessels, which are inedible.?

footnotes: ³⁷ The question is whether profane pure food touched by something impure in the second degree remains pure or becomes impure in the third degree. ³⁸ See Note 34. An additional argument, mentioned in Babli 29b, is needed to clarify the statement of R. Aqiba. An original source of impurity is either a “father of impurity” which in touching a pure vessel, person, or food induces primary impurity, or a “grandfather of impurity” creating a “father of impurity” by contact (cf. Demay, ³⁹ The Babli, 29a, knows only that Rav holds that tertiary impurity does not exist for profane food. It does not mention any contrary opinion. ⁴⁰ Mishnah Ṭevul Yom ⁴¹ Solid food can become impure only if it was in contact with either water or human body fluids under certain circumstances; cf. Demay ⁴² A person who was impure and cleansed himself by immersion in water during daytime. It is explained in Lev. ⁴³ Unwashed hands, of an otherwise pure person, are always rabbinically impure in the second degree until washed with at least a revi‘it ⁴⁴ Tithe food in the hand of a Levite is totally profane. The Levite is required to give 10% of the tithe to the Cohen as heave of the tithe, which is sanctified food. While the tithe before the separation of the heave is forbidden as ṭevel, ⁴⁵ A “broken field” is agricultural property of which it is known that it once contained a grave. The position of the grave is unknown; also it is unknown whether bones from the grave have been dispersed on the field by ploughing. Since there are doubts whether any impurity still exists or where it might be, and it is an open field (where a doubt of impurity is inactive, cf. Chapter 1, Notes 87–96), a person walking over the field is only rabbinically impure. ⁴⁶ Lev. ⁴⁷ Since the distinction of the influence of a ṭevul yom ⁴⁸ The rules of purification in stages by immersion in water (Lev.

A Mishnah⁴⁹ 2:3. supports Rav: “Profane food which is impure primarily is impure and defiles, secondarily it invalidates⁵⁰ but does not defile, but the tertiary can be eaten in heave broth.⁵¹” This implies that it is forbidden to turn it into heave⁵². And it is said⁵³ after that⁵⁴ 2:4. The Babli, 30a, quotes Mishnah Tahorot 2:2 in which R. Joshua disagrees.: “Heave which is impure primarily or secondarily is impure and defiles, tertiarily impure it invalidates but does not defile, but the fourth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say that it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, you would find that Rav’s statements are contradictory since Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but the fourth degree can be turned into sacrificial food, because they spoke about fourth degree [of impurity] for sacrifices only for dedicated sacrifices of the Temple⁵⁵ knows of a status of invalid sacrificial food induced by touching impurity since v. 7:19 requires that sacrificial meat which touched impurity must be burned but is not labelled “impure”. In Chapter 11, vessels which touched a dead reptile are called “impure”. Therefore, it is established that for sacrifices, anything declared impure in v. 11:33 invalidates sacrifices by its touch. This means that for R. Aqiba in Rav’s interpretation, the fourth degree of impurity in the Temple is biblical, but for the rabbis (and for R. Aqiba in Samuel’s interpretation) only tertiary invalidity is biblical. (Babli 29b).! Rebbi Ḥuna said, are we not talking about heave? But it is forbidden to turn heave into sacrificial food in order to avoid accidents⁵⁶ 18:11). Therefore, it is forbidden to expose heave to situations where it could no longer be consumed. But sacrificial food can become invalidated in many ways (such as leaving the Temple precinct, being left overnight, etc.) that would not invalidate heave. Therefore, mixing heave with sacrificial food exposes the Cohen to sinning.! And it was said after that⁵⁷ 2:5.: “Sacrifices which are impure primarily, secondarily, or tertiarily are impure and defile, impurity in the fourth degree invalidates but does not defile, but the fifth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say, it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, is there any impurity of the fifth degree in sacrifices⁵⁸? But you say there is not. So here also, there is not.

footnotes: ⁴⁹ Ṭahorot ⁵⁰ Food whose impurity is contagious is called טמא “impure"; if it cannot be used for any purpose but is not contagious it is called פסול “invalid”. Secondarily impure profane food invalidates heave by its touch. ⁵¹ The Cohen who eats heave can cook his meal with profane spices that have touched secondarily impure food since secondarily impure profane food is inactive if it touches other profane food. ⁵² Since it is only permitted to spice heave broth with spices that have touched secondarily impure food, it is implied that the potentially tertiary cannot itself be dedicated as heave. ⁵³ In parallel with the later text, אסור is read as a misspelling for אמור, following all commentators. ⁵⁴ Ṭahorot ⁵⁵ Cf. Note 38. It is clear that Lev. ⁵⁶ It is a positive commandment for the Cohen to consume his heave (Num. ⁵⁷ Ṭahorot ⁵⁸ Since sacrificial food touching invalid food of the fourth degree remains pure by the definition of invalidity, there can be no reason why profane food prepared by the standards of sacrificial purity could not be dedicated as a valid sacrifice. Therefore, the argument that the Mishnah permits only the addition of profane food one step removed from invalidity to heave but not turning it into heave has no basis in the text and the Mishnah does not support Rav’s position.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: The tertiary comes because of the reptile³⁸ Chapter 2, Note 137). If a piece of “grandfather of impurity” falls into the clay vessel, the vessel becomes “father of impurity” and the loaf lying in it becomes impure in the first degree. In that case, one has ample biblical references that the loaf is still active in transmitting impurity, generating secondary impurity; the tertiary impurity mentioned by R. Aqiba is not addressed. Therefore, it is important to state that Lev. 11:33 is written in a paragraph dealing with the impurity of dead reptiles which are only “fathers of impurity”, inducing impurities that can be washed off by immersion in water. In the entire paragraph, no mention is made of sanctified food. Therefore, the impurity of dead reptiles implies the existence of tertiary impurity of profane food. but it is (forbidden) [permitted]³⁹ to turn it into heave. They asked before him: Even for Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Even following Rebbi Aqiba. And why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Just as the ṭevul yom does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave⁴²22:6–7 that impurity is removed by immersion in water during daytime “and when the sun disappears he will be pure; afterwards, he may eat sanctified food.” (The Babli, Berakhot2a/b, discusses whether וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ means “the sun disappears” or “the sun rises”). The ṭevul yom therefore is no longer impure but before sundown he is not pure for sanctified food; cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 138; Terumot Chapter 2, Note 51. Since he is forbidden only sanctified food, one may assume that he is pure for profane food. In rabbinical terms, the ṭevul yom after immersion but before sundown is treated as impure in the second degree., so secondary impurity does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The tertiary comes because of the reptile³⁸ Chapter 2, Note 137). If a piece of “grandfather of impurity” falls into the clay vessel, the vessel becomes “father of impurity” and the loaf lying in it becomes impure in the first degree. In that case, one has ample biblical references that the loaf is still active in transmitting impurity, generating secondary impurity; the tertiary impurity mentioned by R. Aqiba is not addressed. Therefore, it is important to state that Lev. 11:33 is written in a paragraph dealing with the impurity of dead reptiles which are only “fathers of impurity”, inducing impurities that can be washed off by immersion in water. In the entire paragraph, no mention is made of sanctified food. Therefore, the impurity of dead reptiles implies the existence of tertiary impurity of profane food., and it is (forbidden) [permitted]⁵⁹ to turn it into heave but (permitted) [forbidden]⁶⁰ to turn it into sacrificial food. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: It defiles sacrifices and you say so⁶¹? He said to him, because of the distinction⁶². Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Isaac said, the source of its impurity is the distinction⁶³. Rebbi Yose said, why does it defile sacrifices? Because of the distinction. Rebbi Yudan said, even for the rabbis who say that there is no tertiary in profane food, why is it forbidden? It defiles sacrifices because of the distinction. Rebbi Yose said to him, do we not need to hear this from a great personality⁶⁴ 22a/b.?

footnotes: ³⁸ See Note 34. An additional argument, mentioned in Babli 29b, is needed to clarify the statement of R. Aqiba. An original source of impurity is either a “father of impurity” which in touching a pure vessel, person, or food induces primary impurity, or a “grandfather of impurity” creating a “father of impurity” by contact (cf. Demay, ³⁹ The Babli, 29a, knows only that Rav holds that tertiary impurity does not exist for profane food. It does not mention any contrary opinion. ⁴² A person who was impure and cleansed himself by immersion in water during daytime. It is explained in Lev. ³⁸ See Note 34. An additional argument, mentioned in Babli 29b, is needed to clarify the statement of R. Aqiba. An original source of impurity is either a “father of impurity” which in touching a pure vessel, person, or food induces primary impurity, or a “grandfather of impurity” creating a “father of impurity” by contact (cf. Demay, ⁵⁹ While both mss. read אסור, the following argument shows that it must read מותר. ⁶⁰ If the first term reads “permitted”, this one must read “prohibited”, against the testimony of both mss. While a point could be made here to read “permitted”, it would involve some twisting of the following argument. ⁶¹ Since tertiary impurity induces one of the fourth degree, what is the point in stating that one may not turn tertiary food into sacrifices? It is implied that vegetable sacrifices (flour, wine, oil, and incense) must be prepared by the standards of sacrificial food from the moment they become susceptible to impurity. ⁶² Except for R. Aqiba in the interpretation of Rav, invalidity of sacrifices of fourth degree impurity is purely rabbinic, to elevate sacrifices one step over heave which has no connection with the Temple; cf. Note 55. ⁶³ This student of Rav and Rav Huna agrees with R. Yasa (Assi), student of Samuel and R. Joḥanan, that impurity of the fourth degree is purely rabbinical. ⁶⁴ That two fifth-generation Amoraïm have to confirm the consensus of the third generation shows that this purely theoretical statement, almost 300 years after the destruction of the Temple, failed to be accepted popularly. It is defended at length in the Babli, Ḥagigah

There, they say, because Rebbi Joshua praised Rebbi Aqiba, it implies that practice follows his argument. The rabbis of Caesarea say, he praised him for his ingenuity, but in fact practice does not follow his argument, since Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha, in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for tertiary [impurity] for tithes⁶⁶ 26:14; Bikkurim 2:2). This implies that Second Tithe becomes desecrated by impurity and must be redeemed. The question is whether eating Second Tithe in any state of impurity is a criminal offense, for which the punishment is whipping. The thesis advanced here is that Second Tithe has a status equal to heave, so that tertiary impurity makes that tithe unusable. The Babli certainly agrees that the statement of R. Joshua is not an endorsement of the practice since it quotes Mishnah Tahorot 2:2 in which R. Joshua disagrees with R. Eliezer whom R. Aqiba follows. It is always held that first tithe after separation of the heave of the tithe is totally profane in the hand of the Levite, even if consumption is restricted to Levites of good standing., even⁶⁷ according to Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Yudan in the name of Rebbi Hilai: Even according to Rebbi Aqiba one does not whip. Why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Since the ṭevul yom has no touch for profane food⁶⁸ is totally irrelevant., also secondary impurity has no touch for profane food⁶⁹. Rebbi Eleazar said, as the count for profane food so is the count of tithes⁷⁰. This corresponds to what Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Immi, said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: We deal with somebody who ate⁷¹ profane food, and that Chapter deals with tithe⁷² which was quoted in the previous paragraph and which details the stages of impurity, mentions only profane, heave, and sacrificial foods. Since the tithes are not mentioned and First Tithe is profane, it is clear that tithes are classified with profane food.. Rebbi Yose said, even its primary [impurity] is not clear. Not “I will not eat” is written, but “I did not eat.”⁷³ 26:14. It is clear that if the farmer ate some Second Tithe in impurity, he cannot make the declaration in the Temple. But this does not imply that eating in impurity is forbidden as a criminal act. Rebbi Abba Mari said, since it is written “following all Your commandments which You commanded me,” is it as if it were not clear⁷⁴?

footnotes: ⁶⁶ This refers to the Second Tithe, food that the farmer retains for himself and his family, to be eaten in purity in Jerusalem. On that occasion, he has to declare in the Temple that he “did not separate it while impure” (Deut. ⁶⁷ he meaning of this word is unclear; possibly this is a reflection from “even” in the next sentence. ⁶⁸ This means that as far as the status of purity is concerned, the touch of a ṭevul yom ⁶⁹ Since Second Tithe is eaten by the farmer’s family, without anything being given to Cohanim or Levites, it cannot have the status of sanctified food. ⁷⁰ Since for profane food one has only primary and secondary impurity, not tertiary, the same holds for tithes. This contradicts the statement quoted earlier in the name of R. Eleazar. ⁷¹ Reading בָּכַל as contraction of בְּאָכַל. ⁷² Chapter 2 of Ṭahorot, ⁷³ Deut. ⁷⁴ Since the verse classifies all that is mentioned there as God’s commandments, necessarily the infractions which bar the farmer from making the declaration are criminal acts.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Mana⁷⁶: Why did they say that secondarily impure profane food defiles profane fluids⁷⁷ 8:7, Berakhot Chapter 5, Note 46; Demay Chapter 2, Note 137). This implies that fluids are never just invalid; if they were in contact with impurity, they are always active polluters. This is a rabbinic rule. The sources are discussed in detail in the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah (Northvale 1995), pp. 230–231.? Because of the hands. Since hands, [whose impurity] is rabbinical, defile profane fluids, secondarily impure food, [whose impurity] is biblical, not so much more⁷⁸? Also, since hands, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity, so also secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, impart impurity⁷⁹ 4:2 declares the food that might have been touched by secondarily impure food as pure. This is a sure sign that the argument here follows R. Aqiba.. Rebbi Ḥanina objected before Rebbi Mana: Look, if somebody eats secondarily impure food and drinks secondarily impure fluids, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, they impart impurity. But secondarily impure foods by biblical standards, in a case of doubt whether they defiled, leave it pure⁸⁰! Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana⁸¹: Do we not deal with heave? He said to him, even if you say that we deal with heave; is the one who argues “is impure”, “shall become impure”³⁵ as word of the Torah not Rebbi Aqiba⁸²?

footnotes: ⁷⁶ R. Mana I. ⁷⁷ It is a general principle that impure fluids are always primarily impure (cf. Mishnah Parah ⁷⁸ By rabbinic rule, unwashed hands are always secondarily impure. Washed hands remain pure as long as one does not forget about them. The argument here is that the rabbinic institution of impure hands would be incomplete and inconsistent if biblically impure foods did not have the same effect. There is no claim that secondarily impure food defiles fluids to be primarily impure by biblical standards. ⁷⁹ This statement parallels the formulation everywhere in the Babli that impure fluids of any degree act as if impure in the first degree.The entire argument is not relevant for practice, as noted at the end of the paragraph, since Mishnah Tahorot ⁸⁰ Profane food cannot become impure by secondary impurity. Heave can become impure, but in a public place a doubtful impurity is inactive. ⁸¹ He seems to be R. Ḥanania of Sepphoris arguing before R. Mana II. ³⁵ Probably he reads יְטַמֵּא “it will defile” in place of יִטְמָא “it shall become impure”. Revocalization of the consonantal text is a technique accepted by R. Aqiba, rejected by R. Ismael. ⁸² If secondary impurity is active, it must follow R. Aqiba who equates profane and heave foods in their stages of impurity. For everybody else, the arguments are irrelevant.

There⁸³ 17a, only one verse is discussed and Rav thinks that the question was about fourth degree impurity and the Cohen’s answer was wrong but Samuel thinks that the question was about fifth degree and the answer was correct. Modern commentaries on Ḥaggai 2:12–13 do not contribute to the understanding of the verses., they say: The prophet Haggai asked two questions; one they answered correctly and one incorrectly. ⁸⁴ 2:12. In the verse, the question is הֲיִקְדָּשׁ “is it going to be forbidden as sanctified food?”; cf. Introduction to Tractate Kilaim. Sanctified food can be forbidden only if it is either impure or out of its proper place or time. Since the second type of prohibition is not applicable here, the question must be one of impurity.“Assume a man carries holy meat in the corner of his garment.” The corner is of primary impurity, the holy meat of second degree, bread and soup of third degree, wine, oil, and food of the fourth. Does there exist a fourth degree of impurity for sanctified food? “The Cohanim answered, and said: No.” They did not answer correctly, since there is a fourth degree of impurity for sanctified food⁸⁵. “Ḥaggai said, if a person impure by the impurity of the dead would touch all of these, would they be impure?” If the corner would be impure by the impurity of the dead⁸⁶ and touched these. Would it be impure? “The Cohanim answered and said, it would be impure.” They answered correctly. But Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He asked them before they decided about fourth degree [impurity] for sanctified food⁸⁷. Then why did he curse them⁸⁸? As a person who looks for a pretext against his neighbor. What difference does it make for the House? Is that not what he said: “What they are sacrificing there is impure⁸⁹ 2:14.”? That is what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said, they found the skull of Oman the Jebusite⁹⁰ Chapter 2, Note 163. under the altar.

footnotes: ⁸³ In Babylonia. However, in the Babli, Pesaḥim ⁸⁴ Ḥag. ⁸⁵ This argument gives biblical status to impurity of the fourth degree but rabbinical to the primary impurity of all impure fluids. Therefore, it belongs to the tradition of R. Aqiba. ⁸⁶ In that case, the garment of the mourner would have original impurity and the sacrificial meat would be impure in the first degree. ⁸⁷ In that case, both answers were correct. ⁸⁸ He really did not curse them but needed the answer “impure” as a starting point of his sermon. ⁸⁹ Ḥag. ⁹⁰ A person with gonorrhea imparts impurity to anything he moves, even if he never touched it and it was lying on a platform that could never become impure (such as a flat wooden plank.) Cf. Demay

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: They were expert in pushings⁹⁰ Chapter 2, Note 163. but not expert in slight impurities. ⁸⁴ 2:12. In the verse, the question is הֲיִקְדָּשׁ “is it going to be forbidden as sanctified food?”; cf. Introduction to Tractate Kilaim. Sanctified food can be forbidden only if it is either impure or out of its proper place or time. Since the second type of prohibition is not applicable here, the question must be one of impurity.“Assume a man carries holy meat,” he asked them whether someone impure by the impurity of the dead imparts impurity by pushing. “The Cohanim answered, and said: No;” they answered him correctly. He asked them whether someone impure by the impurity of the dead imparts slight impurity⁹¹ 4:6, Demay Chapter 2, Note 162 and J. Levy’s long explanation in his Dictionary, vol. 3, s. v. מדף, with H. L. Fleischer’s long etymological note, p. 305.. “The Cohanim answered and said: It will be impure.” They did not answer correctly, for the impurity of the dead does not impart slight impurity⁹².

footnotes: ⁹⁰ A person with gonorrhea imparts impurity to anything he moves, even if he never touched it and it was lying on a platform that could never become impure (such as a flat wooden plank.) Cf. Demay ⁸⁴ Ḥag. ⁹¹ A person with gonorrhea imparts original impurity to anything he sits on (Lev. 15:10) directly or indirectly. Anything which is above the person becomes impure rabbinically in a “slight impurity”; cf. Mishnah Zavim ⁹² Both kinds of impurity are restricted to persons whose own body is the source of the impurity.

Rebbi Tanḥuma, Rebbi Phineas, in the name of Rebbi Levi: He asked them about the fifth degree of sanctified food. ⁸⁴ 2:12. In the verse, the question is הֲיִקְדָּשׁ “is it going to be forbidden as sanctified food?”; cf. Introduction to Tractate Kilaim. Sanctified food can be forbidden only if it is either impure or out of its proper place or time. Since the second type of prohibition is not applicable here, the question must be one of impurity.“Assume a man carries holy meat in the corner of his garment.” The corner is of primary impurity, the holy meat of second degree, bread and soup third, wine and oil fourth, and the food of the fifth degree. Does there exist fifth degree impurity for sanctified food? “The Cohanim answered, and said: No.” They did answer correctly, since there is no fifth degree impurity for sanctified food⁸⁵. Then why did he curse them⁸⁸? As a person who looks for a pretext against his neighbor. What difference does it make for the House? Is that not what Rebbi Simon bar Zavdi said, they found the skull of Ornan the Jebusite⁹⁰ Chapter 2, Note 163. under the altar.

footnotes: ⁸⁴ Ḥag. ⁸⁵ This argument gives biblical status to impurity of the fourth degree but rabbinical to the primary impurity of all impure fluids. Therefore, it belongs to the tradition of R. Aqiba. ⁸⁸ He really did not curse them but needed the answer “impure” as a starting point of his sermon. ⁹⁰ A person with gonorrhea imparts impurity to anything he moves, even if he never touched it and it was lying on a platform that could never become impure (such as a flat wooden plank.) Cf. Demay

It was stated⁹⁴ 9:2, quoted in Ḥagigah 3:2, fol. 79b; Babli 29b, Pesaḥim 18b/19a, Ḥagigah 24a.: “Rebbi Yose said, from where that the fourth degree is disabled in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation⁹⁵ 14:32; for the persons healed from genital discharges 15:14–15, 29–30; for the woman after childbirth 12:6–8). After immersion in water, the person is totally pure at any place other than the Sanctuary. is not disabled for heave⁹⁶ 3:17. but disabled for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disable for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse⁹⁷ and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a ṭevul yom is a counterexample, because it is disabled in the case of heave but not disabled in the case of sanctified food⁹⁸ 3:16; Sifra Emor Pereq 4(8). It is proved that sanctified food is not in all respects more restrictive than sacrificial meat. It is remarkable that the Babli does not argue against the thesis of R. Yose since it clearly violates the rule דַּיּוֹ לָבוֹא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כְּנָדוּן “it is enough if inference drawn from an argument be equal to the premiss” (Baba Qama 25a). According to this rule, a passive impurity in the minor cannot become an active one in the major. The Yerushalmi knows no such rule; it needs the counter-example of R. Joḥanan. The difference between the Talmudim is that for the Yerushalmi, de minore ad majus is a rhetorical device but for the Babli it is part of a meta-logical system (cf. the author’s Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966; pp. 171–196.). Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says “it will be impure”, it makes impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says “it will be impure”, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse⁹⁹ in the Babli, cf. Note 94. The authorship of the baraita is not indicated in the Babli. The verse quoted is Lev. 7:19, the subject of Sifra Ṣaw Parasha 9.: “Any meat which would touch”, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; “anything impure”, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; “shall not be eaten”, the endstage of impurity cannot be eaten.

footnotes: ⁹⁴ Sifra Ṣaw Parasha ⁹⁵ If a person whose body was an original source of impurity is healed, he needs immersion in water to be pure and also a ceremony of expiation to be admitted to the Sanctuary and sacrifices (for the person afflicted with skin disease, Lev, ⁹⁶ Tosephta Ḥagigah ⁹⁷ In the Mishnah, following R. Aqiba. ⁹⁸ Tosephta Ḥagigah ⁹⁹ A similar interpretation is given as an additional baraita

So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel³⁴ 11:33, speaking of dead reptiles (which are carriers of original impurity) falling into a clay vessel. In the biblical laws of impurity, no defilement is imparted to a clay vessel touched by impurities from the outside. But if the clay vessel encloses a space that can be covered and something of original impurity enters the space (even before it touches any wall), the entire vessel becomes impure in the first degree. {Degrees of impurity are explained in the commentary to Demay, Chapter 2, Note 137.} Therefore, any food inside the vessel becomes impure in the second degree. If that food touches food susceptible to tertiary impurity, the latter becomes impure in the third degree. Which food can become impure in the third and fourth degrees is a matter of discussion in the Halakhah. The same verse states that a clay vessel can be purified only by being broken. The shards become pure writing material. which had become impure by a reptile¹⁰¹ 11:29–30.. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile¹⁰² 1:7, fol. 27d, R. Ismael is quoted to the effect that Lev. 11:33 also applies to vessels. It may be a veiled reference to the argument presented here.) to defile solid food, [is it not logical that solid food, which becomes impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food.] So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: ¹⁰³ 7:19.“Any meat which would touch anything impure”, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, “shall not be eaten”, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a ṭevul yom who is not disabled for profane food disables heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation⁹⁵ 14:32; for the persons healed from genital discharges 15:14–15, 29–30; for the woman after childbirth 12:6–8). After immersion in water, the person is totally pure at any place other than the Sanctuary. who does not disable heave disables sanctified food⁹⁶ 3:17., it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disables¹⁰⁴ heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument¹⁰⁵ 8:1, Note 19. A detailed table of legal and illegal combinations, derived from Babli Zebaḥim Chapter 5, appears in the author’s paper Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, pp. 150–164.? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices¹⁰⁶ 3:8. “Practice” here corresponds to “Practice of Moses from Mount Sinai” in the Babli, generally accepted practice whose roots can no longer be ascertained. The status of such practice is more than rabbinic and less than biblical..

footnotes: ³⁴ Lev. ¹⁰¹ A dead reptile from the 8 kinds enumerated in Lev. ¹⁰² Vessels can become impure only from original impurity (a “father” or “grandfather” of impurity, never from derivative impurity.) There is no verse which would indicate otherwise (but in Pesaḥim ¹⁰³ Lev. ⁹⁵ If a person whose body was an original source of impurity is healed, he needs immersion in water to be pure and also a ceremony of expiation to be admitted to the Sanctuary and sacrifices (for the person afflicted with skin disease, Lev, ⁹⁶ Tosephta Ḥagigah ¹⁰⁴ Everywhere here, פוסל “disables” should read פסול “is disabled”, except the second occurrence (which infringes on the rules of דַּיּוֹ, Note 98). ¹⁰⁵ It is a principle accepted in both Talmudim that at least for any rules of sacrifices and connected matters, most hermeneutical rules cannot be used one after the other; cf. Yebamot ¹⁰⁶ Tosephta Ḥagigah

MISHNAH: On the same day³³ 28a), any Mishnah which starts “on the same day” was formulated on the day Rabban Gamliel was deposed. There is no proof that this ever was a Galilean tradition., Rebbi Aqiba explained: ¹⁰⁷ 35:5, speaking of the cities to be given to the Levites.“You shall measure outside the city 2000 cubits to the East,” but in another verse it says ¹⁰⁸ 35:4.“outside the city wall, one thousand cubits all around.” It is impossible to say 1000 cubits because already it was said 2000 cubits and it is impossible to say 2000 cubits because already it was said 1000 cubits. Why was 1000 said, and why 2000? But 1000 cubits open space¹⁰⁹ and 2000 cubits Sabbath domain¹¹⁰ 16:29), it is implied that on the Sabbath a city dweller may walk in a belt 2000 cubits wide around the city.. Rebbi Eliezer, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, said: 1000 cubits open space and two thousand fields and vineyards¹¹¹.

footnotes: ³³ According to the Babli (Berakhot ¹⁰⁷ Num. ¹⁰⁸ Num. ¹⁰⁹ Not for living and not for agriculture. ¹¹⁰ To say that not only for levitic cities but for all cities a belt 2000 cubits wide belongs to the city. Therefore, when it says “Nobody shall leave his place of the Seventh Day” (Ex. ¹¹¹ He holds that the determination of the Sabbath domain as 2000 cubits outside the city wall is rabbinic, but that the belt 2000 cubits wide was given to the Levites and that the outer 1000 cubits were used for agriculture. {Sadducee practice limited walking on the Sabbath to 1000 cubits outside the city, agreeing with R. Eliezer; CD X:21.}

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained: “You shall measure outside the city”, etc. Rebbi Eliezer, the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean, said, 2000 cubits the domain of the levitic cities. Deduct from them 1000 cubits open space, there results one quarter open space and the remainder fields¹¹², Huntington NY 1977.) Given an oval (a plane convex figure) of area A and perimeter L, the area of the parallel figure in distance h, obtained by adding to the figure every exterior point of distance ≤ h is A(h)= A+hL+ πh². The excess area of the parallel figure over the original oval is E(h) = hL + πh². However, if the city has rectangular shape, in tractate Erubin the Sabbath domain is determined as the rectangle whose sides are 2000 cubits from the (straight) walls of the city. In that case, the rectangle defined by lines in distance h has surface area A(h) = A + hL + 4h² with excess E(h) = hL + 4h2. Let the unit of h be 1000 cubits. In both cases, the condition E(2) = 4E(1) yields 2L = 0. It follows that L = 0: the original oval was a point. The open space is one quarter of the area of the fields only if there is no town; it is a limit case. The parallel text of the entire Halakhah is in Erubin 5, fol. 22d; Makkot 2:7, fol. 32a. The Babli, Eruvin 56b, explains the problem away by replacing the condition E(2) = 4E(1) by A(2) = 4E(1), computing A(2) by the second formula and E(1) by the first, and assuming π = 3; clearly recognizing the impossibility of the original statement.. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac in the name of Rav: A quarter of 1000113. Rebbi Isaac said, even if you say a quarter from every side, it is a quarter. He who wants to make a square from four amphoras needs sixteen¹¹⁴ defines a square of area n². For the problem at hand, the remark is irrelevant.. Rebbi Mana estimated it from a brick, Rebbi Abin estimated it from a strip, Rebbi Oshaiah estimated it from a dish¹¹⁵. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, 50 by 50 form a bet se’ah¹¹⁶ 23b.; 100 by 100 are four bet se’ah¹¹⁷. As it happened to the Resh Galuta when it was imposed on him¹¹⁸ to fill a hall of 40 by 40 cubits with wheat. He came to Rav Huna who said to him, negotiate that they should take from you 20 by 20 now and 20 by 20 later; you will earn half¹¹⁹.

footnotes: ¹¹² This is difficult to understand. A little geometry is needed here (cf. H. Guggenheimer, Applicable Geometry ¹¹⁴ A row of length n ¹¹⁵ Rebbis Mana and Abin derived the second formula of Note 112 by supposing the town walls to form a rectangle; Rebbi Oshaia supposed the town to be of circular shape and derived the first formula. Neither of them accepted the 1:4 ratio. ¹¹⁶ An equivalent statement in Babli Eruvin ¹¹⁷ Since 22 = 4. ¹¹⁸ By the government, Parthian or Persan. ¹¹⁹ If the government officials are so ignorant of geometry that they do not realize that only half the surface area will be covered.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Uqba: One strip-measures¹²⁰ 5:4 states that “one measures only with a rope of 50 cubits, no less and no more”. The Babli, Erubin 58b, disagrees with the Yerushalmi and notes that once one has to strip-measure, i. e. that the rope has to be held horizontally, away from the ground, a rope of 4 cubits is required. From a practical point of view, this seems to be the superior way of measuring. For מקדדין (cf. Arabic قدّ “to make strips”), the Babli has מקדרין. only with a rope of 50 cubits. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: One strip-measures neither for the levitic cities nor from the distance for breaking the neck in the wadi¹¹²². This is acceptable for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of Sabbath domain. But for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of fields and vineyards, did they not learn the Sabbath domain from the levitic cities¹²³ 5:4, requires that Sabbath domains be measured as one would do on a map, it seems impossible that R. Eliezer ben R. Yose the Galilean accept R. Aqiba’s opinion that the extent of the Sabbath domain is fixed in the Torah by the extent of the levitic cities, since the methods of measurement are different in both cases. The Babli, Note 122, gives as reason that for levitic cities and the breaking of the calf’s neck one has to measure on the ground, that these are measurements prescribed by the Torah. The obvious inference is that the distance indicated for the Sabbath domain is rabbinic. (The opponents of R. Aqiba hold that the biblical Sabbath distance is the diameter of the encampment of the Israelites in the plains of Jericho, which in both Talmudim is described as 12 mīl, 24 000 cubits; cf. Šebi‘it 6:1, Note 28). Therefore, it is permissible to extend the Sabbath domain even of a levitic city further than its political boundaries.? For the main thing one does not strip-measure; does one strip-measure for the derivative?

footnotes: ¹²⁰ One determines the distance not on the ground but as if from a plane map of the domain. This means that on an incline one keeps the measuring rope horizontal.Mishnah Erubin ¹ Breaking a calf's neck in a wild place to atone for an unsolved murder, Deut. 21:1:9. ¹²² In the Babli Erubin 58b this is a statement by Rav Nahman in the name of Rav Abba bar Abuh. ¹²³ Since the Mishnah, Erubin

From where that one does not bury in a levitic city? Rebbi Abbahu¹²³ 5:4, requires that Sabbath domains be measured as one would do on a map, it seems impossible that R. Eliezer ben R. Yose the Galilean accept R. Aqiba’s opinion that the extent of the Sabbath domain is fixed in the Torah by the extent of the levitic cities, since the methods of measurement are different in both cases. The Babli, Note 122, gives as reason that for levitic cities and the breaking of the calf’s neck one has to measure on the ground, that these are measurements prescribed by the Torah. The obvious inference is that the distance indicated for the Sabbath domain is rabbinic. (The opponents of R. Aqiba hold that the biblical Sabbath distance is the diameter of the encampment of the Israelites in the plains of Jericho, which in both Talmudim is described as 12 mīl, 24 000 cubits; cf. Šebi‘it 6:1, Note 28). Therefore, it is permissible to extend the Sabbath domain even of a levitic city further than its political boundaries. in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: “Their open spaces shall be for their animals, their property, and their lives.”¹²⁴. 35:3. They were given for their animals and their lives; the were not given for burial¹²⁵.

footnotes: ¹²³ Since the Mishnah, Erubin ¹²⁴ Num ¹²⁵ The cemetery of the Levites has to be on the territory of the surrounding tribe.

MISHNAH: On the same day³³ 28a), any Mishnah which starts “on the same day” was formulated on the day Rabban Gamliel was deposed. There is no proof that this ever was a Galilean tradition., Rebbi Aqiba explained: “¹²⁶. 15:1. Then would Moses and the Children of Israel sing the following song to the Eternal to tell.” The verse should not have said “to tell”; why does the verse say “to tell”? It was that Israel were repeating after Moses every word, as one reads the Hallel¹²⁷. 113–118, the holiday songs. The way of recital is described in the Tosephta/Halakhah.: “I shall sing to the Eternal for He is very highly high;” therefore “saying” was said. Rebbi Neḥemiah said, they were reciting it as one recites the Šema‘¹²⁸ Chapter 1, Note 1., not as one reads the Hallel.

footnotes: ³³ According to the Babli (Berakhot ¹²⁶ Ex ¹²⁷ Ps ¹²⁸ The entire recital which starts with “Hear, o Israel,” cf. Berakhot

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Rebbi Aqiba explained: “Then would Moses sing,” etc. ¹²⁹ 6:2–4; Babli 30b/31a. A small part of the text is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Shirah, Parashah1 (Mekhilta dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai, p. 72, cf. Note 137). Like a minor who recites the Hallel in school and all repeat every word after him¹³⁰ by heart.. Moses said, “I shall sing¹³¹. 15:1.”, and they repeat after him: “I shall sing”. Moses said: “Strength”, and they say: “Strength¹³². 15:2.”. Rebbi Eliezer the son of Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, like an adult who recites the Hallel in the synagogue, and they repeat the first word¹³³ 38b, and retained in the Yemenite balādī rite, where the congregation answer hallelujah (the first word of Ps. 113) at each caesura and end of sentence. The Galilean Amoraic way was for several people to recite the Hallel, with each of them saying half a verse (Berakhot 8:9 fol. 12c, Megillah 1:11 fol. 72a).. Moses said, “I shall sing”, and they repeat: “I shall sing”. Moses said: “My strength”, and they repeat after him: “I shall sing”. Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, when our forefathers were in the sea, the toddler was resting on his mother’s knees and the baby was suckling from his mother’s breast; but when they saw the Divine Glory, the toddler lifted his head from his mother’s knees and the baby took away his mouth from his mother’s breast; they opened their mouths in song and praise and said, “that is my God and I shall declare Him Beautiful¹³². 15:2.”. Rebbi Meïr said, even the fetuses were saying a song from their mothers’ wombs, as it is said: “¹³⁴. 68:27. In Mishnaic Hebrew, מָקוֹר means the female womb; cf. Lev. 20:18. In choirs praise God, the Eternal from the source of Israel.” Rebbi Nehemiah said, when our forefathers rose from the sea they saw the corpses of the sinners who had subjected them to hard, forced labor, all of them dead corpses thrown on the sea shore. They wanted to sing and the holy spirit rested upon them. Even the most insignificant in Israel sang the song just as Moses did. That is what is written: “¹³⁵. 63:11. The verse ends: “Where is He Who put His Holy Spirit in their midst.” He remembered the days of old, Moses, his people; where is He Who raised them from the sea?” It is not written “the sheeps’ shepherd” but “His sheeps’ shepherd”; this teaches that He turned all of them into shepherds¹³⁶.

footnotes: ¹²⁹ Tosephta Soṭah ¹³⁰ The entire class, until they know Hallel ¹³¹ Ex ¹³² Ex ¹³³ This is prescribed by the Babli, Sukkah ¹³² Ex ¹³⁴ Ps ¹³⁵ Is ¹³⁶ Since the first half of the verse equates Moses and His people, the singular of the second clause is taken as collective.

Why does the verse say, “to tell”? To tell to [future] generations. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, the entire verse. Moses said, “I shall sing”, and they recite after his lead: “I shall sing to the Eternal for He is very highly high; horse and rider He cast into the sea¹³¹. 15:1..” Moses said: “strength and growth”, and they recite after his lead: “strength and growth is Yah¹³². 15:2.”.¹³⁷, this is attributed to R. Eleazar ben Thaddai, a Tanna whose time is difficult to determine and who is never quoted in Yerushalmi sources. Cf. B.-Z. Wacholder, The Date of Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael, HUCA 39 (1968), 117–144. It is written: ¹³⁸. 5:2. In rabbinic Hebrew, פרע means “to pay one’s debt”.“When retribution is retributed for Israel, when the people volunteers;” the heads of the people volunteered. When the Holy One, praise to Him, does wonders for Israel, they should sing a song. They objected: There is the redemption from Egypt! That is something else since it was the beginning of their redemption¹³⁹. 113 is the song of the Israelites during Passover night [Pesaḥim 117a; cf. Cant. rabba 1(37), Mekhilta deR. Ismael, Shirah 1; deR. Simeon bar Ioḥai p. 71]. Cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 314–319.. They objected. There is redemption of Mardocai and Esther¹⁴⁰. 9:22.! That is something else since they were outside the Land¹⁴¹ 14a.; some want to say that Mardocai and Esther were freed of their enemies, they were not freed from [Gentile] government¹⁴¹ 14a..

footnotes: ¹³¹ Ex ¹³² Ex ¹³⁷ In the Mekhiltot ¹³⁸ Jud ¹³⁹ Meaning that the Song of the Sea also covers the Exodus, since the latter was confirmed only at the Sea. In the Babli and midrashic literature, Ps ¹⁴⁰ Who instituted a “day of feasting and joy” but not the recitation of Hallel, Esth ¹⁴¹ Babli, Megillah ¹⁴¹ Babli, Megillah

MISHNAH: On the same day, Joshua ben Hyrkanos explained that Job served the Holy One, praise to Him, only out of love¹⁴², not fear of punishment in the World to Come; cf. Mishnah 7., as it is said¹⁴³ 13:15. The Ketib is לא איחל, the Qere לוֹ איחל. The Qere represents the majority of mss. before the Masoretes. The Mishnah shows that the difference of readings existed many Centuries before the Masoretes.: “Behold, even if He will kill me, to Him I pray.” But the matter is still in suspense¹⁴⁴ or Qere., “to Him I look forward” or “I do not look forward to Him”. The verse says, “until I die I shall not remove my innocence from me¹⁴⁵ 27:5.,” this teaches that he did it out of love.

footnotes: ¹⁴² His acts represent amor dei ¹⁴³ Job ¹⁴⁴ Between authenticity of Ketib ¹⁴⁵ Job

HALAKHAH: “On the same day, Joshua ben Hyrcanos explained,” etc. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: “God lives¹⁴⁶ 27:2. This is an oath formula. Since nobody swears by the life of the king unless he loves the king, the verse supports R. Joshua ben Hyrkanos. Who removed my lawsuit, and the Ruler made me bitter;” for nobody swears by the King’s life unless he loves Him. They said in the name of Rebbi Nathan: “Also He is my help, for insincerity will not come before Him.¹⁴⁷ 13:16; cf. Note 143. The verse following the one in dispute shows that לו is the only consistent reading.”

footnotes: ¹⁴⁶ Job ¹⁴⁷ Job

One verse says, “you shall love the Eternal, your God,¹⁴⁸. 6:5.” and another verse says, “fear the Eternal, your God, and Him you should serve.¹⁴⁹. 6:13.” ¹⁵⁰ 9:6, Notes 241–255. Act from love and act from fear. Act from love, because if you are tempted to hate, know that you must love and a lover is no hater. Act from fear, because if you are tempted to rebel, know that you must fear and one who fears does not rebel.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁸ Deut ¹⁴⁹ Deut ¹⁵⁰ From here to the end of the Halakhah the text, with minor variations, is also in Berakhot

There are seven kinds of religious people: Religious on the shoulder, religious on credit, religious balancing, religious “what is the deduction,” religious “I shall do it when I realize my guilt,” religious from fear, religious from love. Religious on the shoulder, he carries his deeds on his shoulder. Religious on credit, “give me credit that I can perform commandments.” Religious balancing, he commits one sin and observes one commandment and balances one against the other. Religious “what is the deduction,” what I have that is what I am using to deduct for doing a commandment. Religious “I shall do it when I realize my guilt,” I committed that sin and therefore I shall do this good deed to counteract it¹⁵¹ 22b declares explicitly that the first five are “destroyers of the world.” In the Yerushalmi, it is clear that the first five are considered in a negative light but they are still considered better than one who performs no commandments at all.. Religious from fear, like Job. Religious from love, like Abraham. No one is beloved as much as the religious from love, like Abraham.

footnotes: ¹⁵¹ A slightly different list with completely different interpretations in Babli Soṭa

Our forefather Abraham turned the evil instincts into good ones. What is the reason? (Neh. 9:8): “You found his heart trustworthy before You.” Rebbi Aḥa said, he compromised, from “concluding a covenant with him.” But David could not stand it and killed it in his heart. What is the reason? (Ps. 109:22) “But my heart is slain in me.”

Rebbi Aqiba was tortured before the evil Tineius Rufus. There came the time for reciting the Shema‘. He started to read and laughed. He said to him: Old man, you are either a sorcerer or one contemptuous of suffering. He said to him: The spirit of this man should be blown away; I am neither a sorcerer nor contemptuous of sufferings. But all my life I read this verse (Deut. 6:5): “You must love the Eternal, your God, with all your heart, all your soul, and all your force.” I loved Him with all my heart. I loved Him with all my money. But whether with all my soul I could not test. But now, when “with all your soul” came, the time of reciting the Shema‘ has arrived and my mind has not wavered, therefore I am reciting and laughing.

Neḥemiah from Emmaus served Rebbi Aqiba for 22 years and he taught him “את and גם mean additions, אך and רק mean exclusions.” He asked him: What means that which is written (Deut. 6:13) “את the Eternal, your God, you must fear.” He said to him, Him and His Torah.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, since all your days you explained that Job served the Omnipresent only out of fear, as it was said: “A man, artless and straight, fearing God and fleeing from evil¹⁵² 1:1.”; but behold, Joshua, your student’s student¹⁵³ deduced that he did it out of love!

footnotes: ¹⁵² Job ¹⁵³ It is not clear whose student Joshua ben Hyrkanos was. He probably is not mentioned anywhere else in tannaïtic literature.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Joshua said, who would remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai,” etc. ¹⁵⁴ 15a/b. When was Job? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: He was in the days of our father Abraham; that is what is written: “¹⁵⁵ 1:1. A man was in the land of Oz, his name was Job.” And it is written, “¹⁵⁶ 23:21, in the list of Aramean Naḥor tribes. Oz his firstborn.” Rebbi Abba said¹⁵⁷, in the days of our father Jacob and Dinah was his wife; that is what is written: “¹⁵⁸ 2:10. You speak like one of the impious ones”, and it is written: “¹⁵⁹ 34:7. For an impiety he did in Israel.” Rebbi Levi said, he was in the days of the tribes; that is what is written: “¹⁶⁰ 15:18. The previous verse ends: This I have seen, I shall tell it; the verses are interpreted as referring to Judah and Reuben who confessed their sins; cf. Chapter 1, Note 195. What Sages would tell, they did not conceal from their fathers.” Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta said, he was born when they descended into Egypt and he died when they left¹⁶¹ pp. 283–284. Job lived another 140 years after his tribulations (Job 42:16). Since God gave double restitution for everything he had lost, it is concluded that he suffered in his 70th year and lived for 210 years.. A parable of a shepherd when a wolf came and attacked his flock. What did he do? He put up a ram against him¹⁶². That is what is written: “¹⁶³ 16:11. He delivered me to the evil one, he threw me amongst evildoers.” Rebbi Ismael stated: Job was one of Pharao’s servants, a great one in his government¹⁶⁴1(12), this is extended to include in Pharao’s council Bileam, who voted for killing the Jewish children and was killed, Job who abstained from voting and suffered, and Jethro who voted against Pharao’s decree and was rewarded in that his descendants sat in the Synhedrion.’¹⁶⁵ as a term for government is from the time of the principate when the emperor ran the state by his freedmen and slaves, his familia.. That is what is written: “¹⁶⁶ 9:20. One who feared the word of the Eternal etc.”, and it is written about him, “¹⁵⁵ 1:1. a man, artless and straight, fearing God and fleeing from evil¹⁵² 1:1.”. Rebbi Yose bar Jehudah¹⁶⁷ says, he was in the days when the Judges judged; that is what is written: “Behold, you all did see, why do you turn all into vapor¹⁶⁸ 27:12..” You saw what my generation did, that they collect tithes on the threshing floors; “you loved whore’s wages on all grain threshing floors¹⁶⁹ 9:1. Since it is in the hand of the farmer to whom to give his tithes; the Levite or Cohen who comes to the threshing floor to collect his tithes is an extortionist (Cf. Demay 6:3, Note 69)..” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan¹⁷⁰: He was in the days of the queen of Seba, as it is said: “Seba attacked and took them¹⁷¹ 1:15..” Rebbi Nathan¹⁷² said, he was in the days of the Chaldeans, as it is said: “The Chaldeans attacked from three sides.¹⁷³ 1:17.” Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa¹⁷⁴ said, he was in the days of Asuerus, as it is said: “One shall look for beautiful virgins for the king¹⁷⁵ 2:2..” And it is written, “no women were found like Job’s daughters¹⁷⁶ 42:15..” Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he was of the returnees of the diaspora. Rebbi Joḥanan said, He was of the returnees from the diaspora and was a Jew¹⁷⁷. Therefore Rebbi Joḥanan learned from him the rules of mourning. “Job got up and tore his coat¹⁷⁸ 1:20.”; Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: From here [one learns] that a mourner has to tear [his garment] while standing¹⁷⁹ 3:7, Babli 20b, the verse is quoted without asking whether Job was Jewish or not.. Rebbi Ḥiyya¹⁸⁰ stated: In My world I had one just Gentile, I gave him his reward and removed him from My world¹⁸¹. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish¹⁸² said, Job did not exist and will never live. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is inconsistent: There, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Bar Qappara: He was in the days of our father Abraham, but here he says so? But he did exist but his suffering did not. Then why is it written about him? To tell you that if it had come upon him, he would have withstood it.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁴ The parallel is in Babli, Baba Batra ¹⁵⁵ Job ¹⁵⁶ Gen. ¹⁵⁷ In the Babli, this is the opinion of R. Nathan in an alternate version. ¹⁵⁸ Job ¹⁵⁹ Gen. ¹⁶⁰ Job. ¹⁶¹ This is an anonymous tannaïtic opinion in the Babli. The traditional duration of the tribes’ stay in Egypt is 210 years; cf. the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, ¹⁶² In the Babli, 14b, this is hinted at by the statement that Job’s goats were able to attack wolves, being supernaturally safe from predators. ¹⁶³ Job ¹⁶⁴ In the later Midrash, Ex. rabba ¹⁶⁵ Familia ¹⁶⁶ Ex. ¹⁵⁵ Job ¹⁵² Job ¹⁶⁷ In the Babli, R. Eleazar. ¹⁶⁸ Job ¹⁶⁹ Hos. ¹⁷⁰ In the Babli, R. Nathan. ¹⁷¹ Job ¹⁷² In the Babli, the anonymous Sages. ¹⁷³ Job ¹⁷⁴ Same argument in the Babli. ¹⁷⁵ Esth. ¹⁷⁶ Job ¹⁷⁷ In the Babli, R. Joḥanan and R. Eleazar. ¹⁷⁸ Job ¹⁷⁹ In Mo‘ed Qaṭan ¹⁸⁰ In the Babli this is an anonymous tannaïtic statement. ¹⁸¹ Since Job, in contrast to Jewish saintly persons, received his reward in this world, he seems to be excluded from the World to Come. ¹⁸² In the Babli, 14a, this is the opinion of an anonymous author who proves that Scripture in effect contains tales that do not correspond to reality, such as Nathan’s tale of the poor man and his sheep.

Rebbi Aqiba explained: “Elihu Ben Barakhel the Buzite from the family Ram got angry.¹⁸³32:2.” Elihu that is Bileam. Ben Barakhel, who came to curse Israel but blessed them. The Buzite¹⁸⁴, whose prophecy was degraded, “who falls down open-eyed.¹⁸⁵ 24:4.” From the family Ram, “from Aram did Balaq lead me¹⁸⁶ 23:7..” Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to him, if he is he, then the Omnipresent already covered it up. If he is not he, in the future [world] he will argue with you. But Elihu that is Isaac. Ben Barakhel, the son whom God blessed, as it was said: “The Eternal had blessed him¹⁸⁷ 26:12. In the Babli, Baba Batra15b, the consensus it that Elihu was Jewish; cf. Tosaphot s. v. אליהוא. Some commentators note that *Gen.*25:11 would have been a better quote since it mentions Isaac’s status as son and uses the term Elohim, contained in the name, and not YHWH, as in *Gen.*26:12.”. The Buzite¹⁸⁴, who degraded all temples of foreign worship at the moment he was bound on the altar. From the family Ram, the son of Abram.

footnotes: ¹⁸³ Job ¹⁸⁴ From the root בוז “to insult, to degrade”. ¹⁸⁵ Num. ¹⁸⁶ Num. ¹⁸⁷ Gen. ¹⁸⁴ From the root בוז “to insult, to degrade”.

Moses wrote the five books of the Torah and added the chapters about Balaq and Bileam. He also wrote the book of Job¹⁸⁸ 13b; only that the last eight verses of the Torah are attributed to Joshua. The chapter about Balaq and Bileam is a recitation of facts, ostensibly not needed as part of the Law..

footnotes: ¹⁸⁸ The same statement in the Babli, Baba Batra

“ “A man, artless and straight, fearing God and fleeing from evil¹⁵² 1:1.”. Rebbi Taḥlifa from Caesarea said, he was conciliatory. Rebbi Ze‘ira said to him, is a person who is not conciliatory not acceptable? But he was conciliatory even if cursed¹⁸⁹19:17), if the verse attests that he was “fleeing from evil”, this proves that even that prohibition he did not fail to honor. In the Babli, Baba Batra 15b, Megillah 28a, he is declared to have been conciliatory in money matters..

footnotes: ¹⁵² Job ¹⁸⁹ Since it is forbidden to hate one’s neighbor in one’s heart (Lev.