MISHNAH: [The portion of] the calf whose neck was broken¹, in the holy language. For it is said². 21:1.: “If a murder victim be found on the land, etc. ³. 21:2. Then your Elders and judges should go out.” Three from the High Court in Jerusalem had to go out⁴ 1:3 and Sifry Deut, 205, this opinion is ascribed to R. Simeon.. Rebbi Jehudah says five, since it is written “your Elders”, two, “and your judges”, two⁵, in: Confrontations with Judaism, P. Longworth, ed., London 1966; pp. 174–175).. Since no court may have an even number of members⁶, one adds another one.

footnotes: ¹ To atone for an unsolved murder; cf. Chapter 7:2, Note 36. ² Deut ³ Deut ⁴ In Mishnah Sanhedrin ⁵ Since a plural means at least two, an unspecified plural always means 2. (Cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition ⁶ So that an immediate verdict can be rendered in all cases that come before the court.

HALAKHAH: “The calf whose neck was broken,” etc. It is reasonable only from “they begin and say”¹⁰. He starts from the beginning of the paragraph¹¹. “If there be found,². 21:1.” not in a time when they are frequent¹². 205.. “If there be found,” not that you have to search¹³. “If there be found,” finding anywhere is only by witnesses¹⁴. “It is not known who killed him”, therefore if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck¹⁵. There, you say, if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck, and here, you say so? One for the killer, one for the victim¹⁶. ¹⁷ 3:1 (58c 1. 73), partially in Sanhedrin 1:2 (18c 1. 17). And that which you say that if it was known, even by a male or female slave, one did not break the neck, [is it only] if they say that if we see him we will be able to identify him. Even those who say, if we see him we will not be able to identify him, one did not break the neck since it is written: “Our eyes did not see.” But somebody did see!

footnotes: ¹⁰ This refers to the discussion which shows that the Levites and the Elders have to recite the verses as written, Chapter 7:2, Notes 43 ff. ¹¹ The Tanna of the Mishnah quotes from v. 1 when the recitation starts only at v. 9, to explain that the rules of the ceremony have to be deduced from the earlier verses. ² Deut ¹² Cf. Mishnah 9. The same statement in Sifry Deut ¹³ If the body of a missing person is found after a search, this does not qualify for the ceremony. ¹⁴ The High Court in Jerusalem will be involved only if two witnesses of good character testify that the corpse was found. ¹⁵ To avoid the ceremony, even a single witness of questionable character is sufficient whose testimony could not lead to a conviction. ¹⁶ As explained before, to aid the hunt for the killer, one witness is enough. To involve the High Court for the victim, two witnesses are needed. ¹⁷ This and the next paragraph are also in Roš Haššanah

If the court saw the killer. Some Tannaïm state, two of them should stand up and testify before them. There are Tannaïm who state that they all should go and testify at another place¹⁸ 25b, Baba qama 90b, makes it clear that a judge who is an accidental witness is by that fact disqualified as judge in the case. There, the baraitot are interpreted to mean that R. Ṭarphon holds that a judge can appear as witness before his colleagues, but R. Aqiba states that a judge as witness has to appear before a different court.. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: As they differ here, so they differ about testimony for the New Moon¹⁹.

footnotes: ¹⁸ The Babli, Roš Haššanah ¹⁹ And in effect in all court proceedings based on biblical standards. The Babli, Ketubot 21b, relaxes these standards in rabbinic cases involving money; accepting that a judge from his own knowledge may recognize a signature on a contract.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: “A slain one”, not one in convulsions; “a slain one”, not one in death-throes²⁴. 205.. If one saw him in convulsions and after some time he came back and did not find him, I say that a miracle occurred and he survived. If one saw him in death-throes here and then found him at another place, one measures from the place where he was found. “Which the Eternal, your God, is giving to you,” this excludes places outside the Land. “To inherit it,” this excludes Jerusalem²⁵ 1:2, Note 64. which belongs to all tribes, and following Rebbi Ismael. For Rebbi Ismael said, any “comings” which were said in the Torah mean after fourteen years, seven during which they conquered and seven during which they distributed²⁶ 1:2, Note 56 and the sources mentioned there; Babli Qiddušin 37a–38a; Seder ‘Olam Chapter 11.. Rebbi Phineas ben Rebbi Abun said, we may say that all these fourteen years they were not breaking the neck, for it is written “if there be found,². 21:1.” not in a time when they are frequent¹². 205.. And all these fourteen years they were frequent²³: נֹאמַר כָּל־אוֹתָן אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֶה שָׁנָה מְצוּייָנִים הָיוּ “we may say, all these fourteen years they were identified” (the case simply never happened). There are no conclusive arguments for or against either reading..

footnotes: ²⁴ These are tannaïtic statements in the Babli, 45b, and Sifry Deut ²⁵ The same argument in the Babli, 45b, where however one accepts the possibility of an opposing opinion. For the details of the argument for the exclusion of Jerusalem from the rules of inheritance, cf. Orlah ²⁶ Cf. Chapter 7, Note 80; in detail Orlah ² Deut ¹² Cf. Mishnah 9. The same statement in Sifry Deut ²³ From the Genizah ms. In the Leiden ms. and editio princeps

It was stated: How is it done? The emissaries of the court²⁸ come out, collect all his signs and bury him. They put up a marker on his grave so that the court who come from the stone hall²⁹ may measure.

footnotes: ²⁸ The local court which has to conduct the burial of persons without local relatives. ²⁹ The place of residence of the High Court in Jerusalem.

³⁰ 5:1, explained there in Notes 14–25; Šeqalim1:1, fol. 46a; Mo‘ed Qaṭan 1:1, fol. 80b/c. Similar arguments, in the name of different authorities, in Babli Mo‘ed Qaṭan 5a. From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran (Lev. 13:45): “impure, impure, he shall call out;” the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman (Ez. 39:15): “The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone”, from here that one makes markers for bones. A human, from here that one makes markers for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes markers on fixed stones. If you say on loose stones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A marker, from here the marks.

footnotes: ³⁰ This and the following two paragraphs are also in Ma‘aser Šeni

³¹ 1:5. The Tosephta follows the other Yerushalmi sources which read “pure” in the first sentence, against the mss. here and the Babli, Moëd Qaṭan 6a, which read “impure”. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a compressed corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure.

footnotes: ³¹ Tosephta Šeqalim

It was stated³¹ 1:5. The Tosephta follows the other Yerushalmi sources which read “pure” in the first sentence, against the mss. here and the Babli, Moëd Qaṭan 6a, which read “impure”.: One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure foods to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that [the earth] become unusable forever.

footnotes: ³¹ Tosephta Šeqalim

³⁴1:3. There³⁵ 1:3., we have stated: The leaning of the hands of the Elders³⁶. 4:15. If the entire community (or their representative, the High Court) have erred, the purification offering requires that the Elders shall lean their hands on the head of the bull. and the breaking of the neck of the calf is done by three [judges]; Rebbi Jehudah says, by five. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? “The Elders shall lean³⁷. 4:15; Babli 44b. The quote of the verb is unnecessary. The plural “Elders” means “at least two Elders,”, cf. Note 5.,” two. No court has an even number of members; one adds another one, that makes three. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? “They shall lean,” two; “the Elders,” two. No court has an even number of members; one adds another one, that makes five. And for the calf whose neck is broken, what is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? “Your Elders, your judges,³⁸. 21:2; Sifry Deut. 205.” two. No court has an even number of members; one adds another one, that makes three. What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? “Your Elders shall go out,” two, “and your judges,” two. No court has an even number of members; one adds, that makes five. Rebbi said, the words of Rebbi Simeon are reasonable for the leaning of the hands and those of Rebbi Jehudah for the breaking of the neck. The words of Rebbi Simeon are reasonable for the leaning of the hands, for he does not refer to “they shall lean”³⁹. And those of Rebbi Jehudah for the breaking of the neck, for he does not refer to “they shall go out.⁴⁰” If you would say that the words of Rebbi Jehudah are reasonable for the calf whose neck is broken because he refers to both to “they shall lean” and “they shall go out,” it turns out that you have to say “there shall go out” two, “your Elders” two, “and your judges,” two. No court has an even number of members; one adds another one, that makes seven⁴¹. How do the rabbis⁴³ explain “your Elders and your judges”? Your Elders who are your judges⁴³. It was stated⁴⁴ 14b.: Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says “your Elders,” that is the High Court; “and your judges” these are king and High Priest⁴⁵.

footnotes: ³⁴ The parallel text is in Sanhedrin ³⁵ Mishnah Sanhedrin ³⁶ Lev ³⁷ Lev ³⁸ Deut ³⁹ Since the number of the verb is in general determined by the number of the subject, this number cannot be considered independent information. ⁴⁰ This argument is less clear since R. Simeon likewise does not refer to the verb. The difference between R. Simeon and R. Jehudah is that for R. Jehudah “Elders, judges” represent independent plurals but for R. Simeon one is restricted to “judges who are Elders” (the Babli concurs in this, 34b). ⁴¹ Since this number is never mentioned, no author considers the plural form of the verb as information. ⁴³ In the Babli, “the select of your judges”, i. e., one disqualifies any judges who are not members of the High Court. ⁴³ In the Babli, “the select of your judges”, i. e., one disqualifies any judges who are not members of the High Court. ⁴⁴ Babli 45a, Sanhedrin ⁴⁵ He requires the entire High Court to appear (Rashi in Babli 45a). The king (or, in a tribal society, the head of the tribe) is involved since he represents the police powers who alone can determine whether the murderer is unknown. The High Priest is involved since he has to send the priests to conduct the ceremony.

MISHNAH: If [the corpse] was found hidden in a heap⁴⁶, or hanging from a tree, or floating on the water, one did not break the neck as it is written⁴⁷. 21:1. If there only had been written “if one finds a corpse and the murderer is unknown”, one would have had to bring a calf in any case. The added details should be interpreted as necessary conditions in whose absence the rules do not apply. “on the earth” but not hidden in a heap, “fallen” but not hanging from a tree, “on the field” but not floating on the water. If he was found close to the border, a town in which Gentiles live, or a town without a court⁴⁸, one did measure only from a town with a court⁴⁹. 205 show that the clause “one did not measure” does double duty and the meaning of the sentence is: “If it was found close to the border, a town in which Gentiles live, or a town without a court, one did not measure; one did measure only from a town with a court.”. If he was found exactly in the middle between two towns, both bring a total of two calves, the words of Rebbi Eliezer; ⁵⁰. 206; not in the Rome ms. nor in the Babli. Since the Yerushalmi discusses the position of the Sages but the Babli does not, it is clear that the omission in the Babylonian Mishnah is original. but the Sages say that one town brings one calf whose neck is broken but two towns do not bring two calves, and Jerusalem does not bring a calf whose neck is broken⁵¹.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ Of earth or debris. ⁴⁷ Deut ⁴⁸ Without a permanent court with authority over the local police. In Mishnaic Hebrew, עיר denotes any cluster of human dwellings, from hamlet to village to town; occasionally it may refer even to a walled city. ⁴⁹ This is the reading in most mss., including independent Mishnah mss. and those of the Babli. A few mss. and Sifry Deut ⁵⁰ This sentence is found only in the Leiden ms., a single Mishnah ms., and Sifry Deut ⁵¹ Since Jerusalem was not divided as tribal property, cf. Note 24.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Eliezer⁵². 205, and the Babli (45b) except for Ashkenazic mss.: R. Eleazar. says, if he was found strangled and hanging from a tree they did not break its neck. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, one does not have to say strangled and hanging from a tree, from where even if he was found cast away? The verse⁴⁷. 21:1. If there only had been written “if one finds a corpse and the murderer is unknown”, one would have had to bring a calf in any case. The added details should be interpreted as necessary conditions in whose absence the rules do not apply. says “fallen”, why does the verse say “slain”? But even if he was found strangled or hanging from a tree they did not break its neck.

footnotes: ⁵² In the Genizah ms., the Tosephta (9:1), Sifry Deut ⁴⁷ Deut

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun stated⁵³ on the authority of R. Joḥanan. In the version of the Genizah, this is an amoraic statement intended to brand a contradicting tannaitic one as unreliable. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he was found standing on his bed and the knife was sticking in his heart, one did not break its neck. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, one did break its neck.” But that of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai is of those which are so-and-so⁵⁴ collection, nor does it contain a name of a tradent which would vouchsafe the text for the 100 years between R. Simeon and R. Joḥanan.. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, all those [statements] of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai which are so-and-so are isolated opinions and one cannot rely on them.

footnotes: ⁵³ The word is missing in the Genizah ms. It can be justified in that R. Yose b. Abun recited a baraita ⁵⁴ The statement is not from a recognized baraita

If he was found at the entrance of the city one did break its neck⁵⁵ in order to perform the commanded measurement.

footnotes: ⁵⁵ In the Babli sources (45a, Tosephta 9:1): “one did measure”. In all cases one has to measure the distanec of the corpse from the nearest city even if it is obvious which city is the nearest one.

⁵⁶ 6:3, Notes 78–80. When Rav descended there⁵⁷, he declared: I am this place’s Ben Azai⁵⁸ because a few paragraphs down hidden sheaves will be discussed.. There came an old man and asked him, two slain people, one on top of the other? Rav was of the opinion that one breaks its neck. He told him, one does not break its neck. He asked him, why? He said to him, not the lower one for he is hidden⁵⁹., not the upper one because he floats. When he ascended here, he came to Rebbi, who told him: He told you correctly, “if he is found,” and not “if they are found.” It is reasonable to say “on the land,” not floating on the water, “on a field”, not hidden in a heap. That is how it was stated in the House of Rebbi⁶⁰.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Peah ⁵⁷ “There” always means Babylonia; going to Babylonia is “descending,” going to the Land of Israel is “ascending.” The story appears in the same context in the Babli 45a, the actor being Abbaie, three generations after Rav. ⁵⁸ Ben Azai, one of the most outstanding students of Rebbi Aqiba, was a walking encyclopedia and used to stroll through the markets of Tiberias, ready to immediately answer any question of Jewish learning. He died during mystical studies before he could marry R. Aqiba’s daughter. In the Talmudim, several Sages are reported to have tried to imitate Ben Azai but all of them were quickly confronted with a question for which they gave the wrong answer or did not know any answer at all. The story is inserted in Peah ⁵⁹ The lower body is not “found”; he is only discovered when the body on top is removed. The upper body is not found on the land ⁶⁰ However, our parallel sources follow the Mishnah.

The argument of the rabbis seems inverted; there they say to exclude the hidden things⁶² 6:9, Sifry Deut. 283, interpreting Deut. 24:19: If you cut your harvest on your field and you forget a sheaf on the field, you may not return to take it. R. Jehudah says, this excludes anything hidden, the Sages say this includes everything hidden. But in Deut. 21:1, on your field is interpreted as “not hidden in a heap,” excluding any hidden corpse., but here they say to include the hidden things. There, “your field,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden; “your harvest,” in the open, to exclude that which is hidden. It is a restriction after a restriction⁶³ 1:1 it is generalized to the statement that any sequence of restrictions of an even number of elements is an extension; for an odd number of elements it is a restriction. to add the hidden things. But here, “on the land,” not floating on the water.

footnotes: ⁶² This refers to Mishnah Peah ⁶³ The principle that a restriction after a restriction is an extension is universally accepted in both Talmudim; in Horaiot

“If he was found close to the border,” I say that Saracens killed him. “To a town in which Gentiles live,” I say that Gentiles killed him. “Or a town without a court, one did measure only from a town with a court,” as it is written⁶⁵. 21:7. Since the members of the local court have to recite the declaration which acknowledges that the crime was perpetrated within the domain of their authority, it is clear that they must come from the seat of the court.: “Our hands did not spill this blood.”

footnotes: ⁶⁵ Deut

What is the reason of the rabbis? As it is written⁶⁶. 21:3.: “It shall be the town close to the slain.” What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? As it is written⁶⁷. 21:2. The Babli, Bekhorot16b, which never quotes the Sages, disagrees, and holds that for R. Eliezer it is possible to determine lengths with the utmost precision because if it were possible to measure only with limited precision, the two towns together could bring one calf and stipulate that it should count for that town which really is closest if unlimited precision were possible.: “They shall measure to the towns which surround the slain.”

footnotes: ⁶⁶ Deut ⁶⁷ Deut

What is the status of cities of refuge⁶⁸2:7 (fol. 32a); the statement is alluded to in Ma‘aser Šeni 5:8 (fol. 56d, Note 165). If the Levitical cities and the cities of refuge were parcelled out to their inhabitants, they would own land given by God and would be under the obligation of the calf, Deut. 21:1. But if the cities were tribal property and the houses given to the inhabitants as living quarters by the tribal council, not as property, then individual Levites and Cohanim never obtained land and their court cannot participate in the ceremony.? If you say, they were given as distribution, they bring a calf whose neck is broken. If you say, they were given as living quarters, they do not bring a calf whose neck is broken.

footnotes: ⁶⁸ The levitic cities which served as refuges for the homicide. These cities certainly have a court which has to supervise the trial of the homicide. The problem alluded to here is not mentioned in the Babli; the main reference in the Yerushalmi is Makkot

MISHNAH: From where did they measure? Rebbi Eliezer says, from his navel. Rebbi Aqiba says, from his nose. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, from the place which makes him slain, from his neck.

HALAKHAH: “From where did they measure? Rebbi Eliezer says, from his navel”, from the place the child is formed. “Rebbi Aqiba says, from his nose,” from the place from which one is identified⁶⁹. ⁷⁰ 16:3, Notes 39–44. This follows what Rav Jehudah⁷¹: R. Jeremiah. said in the name of Rav: “The recognition of their faces testified about them⁷². 3:9.,” that is the nose. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if somebody does not want to be recognized, he should put a patch on his nostrils, then he will not be recognized. As in the following: In the times of king Ursicinus, some people from Sepphoris were under arrest warrants. They put patches on their nostrils and were not recognized. Finally they were denunciated and all were caught because of lies.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ The Babli, 45b, agrees for the reason of R. Eliezer and disagrees for R. Aqiba. ⁷⁰ The rest of the paragraph is from Yebamot ⁷¹ In Yebamot ⁷² Is

“Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, from the place which makes him slain, from his neck.” What is the reason? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: “To put you⁷⁴. 21:34. The implication is that חלל means “slain by the sword” and that most victims of the sword have their throats cut. The Babli agrees, 45b. on the throats of the corpses of sinners.”

footnotes: ⁷⁴ The sword, mentioned in the preceding verse; Ez

MISHNAH: If his head is found at another place than his body, one brings⁷⁵ his head to his body, the words of Rebbi Eliezer; Rebbi Aqiba says, the body to his head.

footnotes: ⁷⁵ For burial since an unknown slain person must be buried at the place he was found. In the Babli, 45b, and most Mishnah mss., the positions of Mishnaiot 3 and 4 are switched.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar said, they disagree about burial⁷⁷. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: When do they disagree? If the head was higher but the body lower. But if the head was lower and the body higher everybody agrees that one brings the head to the body⁷⁸. If there was an incline⁷⁹ on both sides, do I say that the head fell to one side and the body to the other⁸⁰ or does this head have no body and that body no head? If it was level, any distance it is usual to chop it off⁸¹ is one body; otherwise, the head has no body and the body no head⁸².

footnotes: ⁷⁷ In the Babli, 45b, R. Isaac based on tannaitic sources. ⁷⁸ Because the body fell where he was killed but the head rolled down the incline. ⁷⁹ The corresponding Babli word is מדרון. ⁸⁰ If head and body are found at two different sides of a mountain ridge. ⁸¹ It is reasonable to assume that a chopped-off head would fall so far away from the body which fell at the place he was killed. ⁸² And they must be buried separately.

MISHNAH: When the Elders of Jerusalem had completed their work⁸³ and left, the Elders of that town bring “a cattle calf, one which never had been used for work, which never had drawn under a yoke.⁸⁴. 21:3.” Bodily defects do not disqualify it. One brings it down to an etan valley; the meaning of etan is “hard”⁸⁵. Even if it is not hard it is qualified. One breaks its neck with a stiletto from behind. Its place is forbidden to be used for sowing or agricultural works; it may be used to card flax or to hew stones.

footnotes: ⁸³ To determine which town is responsible for bringing the calf. ⁸⁴ Deut ⁸⁵ Not ploughable.

HALAKHAH: “One which never had been used for work,” intentionally, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” intentionally or unintentionally⁸⁶ 26a/b, gives as example that if the farmer lets the calf accompany its mother while she is threshing and by this helps in threshing, it remains acceptable but if the farmer intends that the calf should suckle and thereby help in threshing, it becomes disqualified.. Rebbi Jonah explains the Mishnah: “One which never had been used for work,” intentionally, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” intentionally or unintentionally, if it actually had drawn⁸⁷. Rebbi Yose explained the Mishnah: Intentionally even if it had not drawn⁸⁸, unintentionally if it actually had drawn. It turns out that Rebbi Jonah follows Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Yose the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael says, anything which was in a set and left the set to teach leaves its set and stands in its new meaning⁸⁹; cf. Chapter 7, Note 108. Drawing ploughs or carts was part of the set of works for which cattle are used. If drawing is singled out for separate attention, in this opinion the general rules valid for agricultural works, that the animal has to be made to work, indicated by the passive, are no longer valid. The active mode seems to imply that if the calf drew something on its own initiative, it still will be disabled. This rule is not to be identified with the 12th rule (Sifra Introduction, Babli Temurah 13b, Šebuot 25b): “Anything which was in a set and was taken out to be judged by different rules you cannot restore into the set unless the verse does this explicitly.” Once an animal was dedicated as sacrifice, it is forbidden to exchange it (Lev. 27:10). The same is true for animal tithes (Lev. 27:33), which are sacrifices. The fact that the rules are spelled out again for tithes (whose status of sanctity is automatic) shows that the differences in the rules are intended; one cannot infer from the rules of one for those of the other.. Therefore, he has to spell out “one which never had been used for work,” intentionally, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” intentionally or unintentionally, if it actually had drawn⁹⁰. Rebbi Yose follows the rabbis, since the rabbis say, anything which was in a set and left the set to teach remains in its set and in its new meaning⁹¹, Introduction): “Anything which was in a set and left the set to teach did not leave to teach about itself alone but to teach about the entire set.” The new teaching is that active drawing automatically disables even if not desired by the farmer. This implies that drawing is only an example; the same rule will be valid for any agricultural work.. Therefore, he has to spell out: intentionally even if it had not drawn, unintentionally if it actually had drawn.

footnotes: ⁸⁶ The problem discussed in this paragraph is that if no work ever had been done with the calf, it should be obvious that it never was harnessed under a yoke to draw anything. Therefore the mention of the yoke must give harnessing the animal a status different from any other agricultural work. For the Babli, 46a, imposing a yoke disables the calf whether it was used for work or not, while other agricultural work disables only if it was actually used. This avoids the problem discussed here.The intention here is that of the farmer who has to decide to use his calf for work. The Babli, Pesaḥim ⁸⁷ Imposing the yoke does not disqualify the calf, only actually drawing (a cart or a plow) does. ⁸⁸ In that case, imposing the yoke on the calf disqualifies it. ⁸⁹ This is a version of the hermeneutical rules not found in the Babli or the Sifra ⁹⁰ Since the verse puts the emphasis on drawing, not on carrying the yoke. ⁹¹ This is close to the formulation of rule 9 (Sifra

How far would it have to draw⁹²? Rebbi said, its⁹³ width. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said, three finger breadths. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Nehorai said, the entire length of the yoke in its width⁹⁴.

footnotes: ⁹² To become disqualified. ⁹³ The yoke’s width. In the Babli, 46a, this is defined as one handbreadth (4 thumbbreadths). Rebbi’s opinion is quoted as R. Joḥanan’s in the Babli. ⁹⁴ The length of the yoke is measured by the breadth of the animal. This opinion is mentioned as a possibility in the Babli only to be immediately dismissed.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: “One which never had been used for work,” a general statement, “which never had drawn under a yoke,” a detailed statement. If a general statement is followed by a detail, the general does not contain more than the detail⁹⁵. He said to him, if it were written “which never had worked, which never had drawn,” you would be justified; but it is written “one which never had been used for work.” This does not describe general and detail, but the additional reference to “yoke” for an equal cut⁹⁶, i. e., not needed to derive other rules. It is difficult to construct the word “yoke” as free in the case of the red cow.. Since relative to “yoke” said for the calf He treated all work as a yoke⁹⁷ invoked by R. Ze‘ira strictly follows the interpretation of (the later) R. Yose. The interpretation of R. Jonah therefore is rejected implicitly., so for the “yoke” said for the cow⁹⁸. 19. Verse 19:2 states that the cow (1) must be unblemished and (2) cannot have borne a yoke. Condition (1) is not mentioned for the calf and is explicitly excluded by the Mishnah. (2) implies that the cow is disabled even if no work was ever done or intended. In rabbinic interpretation, the cow had “borne a yoke” if she was mounted by a male. we have to treat all work as a yoke⁹⁹. 19:2; its prohibition is inferred from the case of the calf.. Since relative to “yoke” said for the calf work disables whether intentional or unintentional¹⁰⁰, so for the “yoke” said for the cow work disables whether intentional or unintentional. Since relative to “yoke” said for the cow, the yoke disables¹⁰¹. 19:2 makes it clear that even if a yoke accidentally fell on the cow, it disables permanently., also for the “yoke” said for the calf the yoke disables. Then since for the “yoke” said for the cow blemishes disable, so also for the “yoke” said for the calf blemishes disable¹⁰²? The verse¹⁰³. 19:2. says, “where this one has no blemish.” Blemishes disable the cow, blemishes do not disable the calf¹⁰⁴. 123.. Then it also says¹⁰⁵. 21:3. “one which never had been used for work,” for this one work disables, does for the cow work not disable? Can you say there, “where this one has no blemish,” this one is disabled by blemishes, sacrifices are not disabled by blemishes?¹⁰⁶. 22:17–25. Therefore, the only case which the emphatic this one excludes is that of the calf. In Sifry Num. 123, it is concluded that the cow must be unblemished but not the Cohen who burns it in a ceremony outside the sanctuary.

footnotes: ⁹⁵ The fifth hermeneutical rule. Since the detail is logically contained in the general, its mention serves as definition for the general statement. The same objection is noted in the Babli, 46a; the short answer given in the Babli is intelligible only in the light of the Yerushalmi. ⁹⁶ The second hermeneutical rule used in an extended sense, not only that a word has identical meaning in all its occurrences in the Pentateuch but also that all rules connected with it are identical in the two cases being compared. This extended rule requires that the word be free ⁹⁷ The gezerah šawah ⁹⁸ The red cow whose ashes are used for purification from the impurity of the dead, Num ⁹⁹ Work is not mentioned in Num ¹⁰⁰ Following R. Yose, the yoke disables irrespective of intention (with some qualifications). Since R. Yose extends the rules of the yoke to all work, he will do the same for the red cow. ¹⁰¹ For the cow, Num ¹⁰² This would contradict the Mishnah. ¹⁰³ Num ¹⁰⁴ The same argument Babli 46a, in an expanded version Sifry Num ¹⁰⁵ Deut ¹⁰⁶ This is blatantly false, Lev

Would missing limbs disable it? That would not be even like sacrifices of the descendants of Noah¹⁰⁸ 9:4 36d line 71, Megillah1:13 72b line 39) and in the Babli (Avodah zarah 5b, 51a, Zebaḥim 116a, Temurah 7a) that a Gentile’s sacrifice on his own altar is accepted by Heaven if only the animal is of the pure kinds and not missing anything observable from the outside. Only in the Temple are Gentile sacrifices subject to the rules of Lev. 21:21–25. The same verse is quoted in the Babli as in the Yerushalmi.! Did not Rebbi Yasa say that Rebbi Eleazar explained to the colleagues: “From all living, from all flesh¹⁰⁹. 6:19. The interpretation of the verse is: From all living creatures, each one with his entire flesh, i. e., a whole body.,” that they should be complete in their limbs? There, some were for the altar¹¹⁰. 8:20) it is inferred that all pure animals entering his ark were acceptable sacrifices., but here¹¹¹, the altar has no part. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Since you say, purgation is written there as for sacrifices¹¹². 21:8; the purpoise of the entire ceremony is to purge the Land from the guilt of innocent blood. The goal of purgation is spelled out for all purification and reparation offerings in Lev. 4 ff., it is as if some of it were for the altar. Does ṭerefa¹¹³. 22:30) “Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat,” meaning that a carcass torn by a predator is forbidden as food. From this root, the technical term ṭerefa means that any life-threatening injury forbids the afflicted animal as food. There is no difference whether the injury is caused by outside action or sickness. For example, tuberculous lesions of the lung are a main source of ṭerefa. Obviously there are two kinds of ṭerefa: those that can be observed by outward inspection and those which can only be noted when the animal is cut up after slaughter. Since all animals offered on the altar (except birds) must be offered in pieces, it is clear that all kinds of ṭerefa are forbidden for the altar. But in the case of the calf, only what is verifiable on the living animal is intended. The position of the Babli, Ḥulin 11a, is that most animals do not have life-threatening internal injuries and, therefore, one may assume that a healthy-looking calf is healthy. (The list of what is considered life-threatening is in Mishnah Ḥulin 3:1,3). disable it? Since you say, it is as if some of it were for the altar, in that it should be clear to you that ṭerefa disables it. If its foot was undeveloped, as a donkey’s foot¹¹⁴, how do you treat that? If you treat it as if missing a limb, can it be enabled¹¹⁵? If you treat it as a bodily defect, can it be disabled¹¹⁶? Does its blood prepare¹¹⁷ 2, Note 141, Terumot 1, Note 9, Mishnah Makhširin 6:4.? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated that its blood is impure¹¹⁸, its blood prepares.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ All of mankind, who have to follow the “natural law” given to Noah. It is accepted both in the Yerushalmi (also Pesaḥim ¹⁰⁹ Gen ¹¹⁰ Since Noaḥ used some of the animals for elevation sacrifices (Gen ¹¹¹ The calf is buried at the place it is killed. ¹¹² Deut ¹¹³ Here, the word is used in its original meaning (Ex ¹¹⁴ The calf does not have split hooves. ¹¹⁵ It would seem natural to emend the text by switching the places of “enabled” and “disabled” and consider the text as declarative sentences. That is what all commentators and editors do but it is unacceptable since even the Genizah ms., which derives from an archetype different from the Leiden and Rome mss., does have “enabled” and “disabled” in the positions indicated. It seems necessary to treat the sentences as rhetorical questions. ¹¹⁶ Since it was slated in the Mishnah that bodily defects do not disable. ¹¹⁷ If some of the killed calf’s blood comes in touch with fresh food, does it make that food susceptible to ritual impurity. For preparation for impurity, cf. Demay ¹¹⁸ Since any impure fluid is impure at least in the first degree, it transmits its impurity and, therefore, does prepare for impurity.

An old man asked the rabbis of Caesarea: Does the breaking of its neck clear its ṭerefa from its impurity¹²⁰? They said to him, is that not a Mishnah: “He who cuts the throat and it turns out to be *ṭerefa.*¹²¹ 6:2. This refers to the obligation to cover a wild animal’s blood with earth if it was slaughtered for food (Lev. 17:13). R. Meïr holds that the intent is all that counts, even if it should turn out in the end that the animal could not be used as food. The argument here is that the animal was slaughtered in the way prescribed and the fact that it is forbidden for consumption (or for any use) should be irrelevant.” He said to them, but I asked about breaking the neck and you answer me cutting the throat! They said to him, but did not Rebbi Yannai say¹²². 22:28: “Cattle or sheep, you should not cut their and their calves throats on the same day”. There is one opinion which holds that guilt is incurred only if both animals are validly slaughtered as food on the name day. It is generally acknowledged in both Talmudim that R. Meïr considers even ineffective cutting the throat as falling under all rules of “cutting the throat.” In Halakhah 6, the reading of the mss. is אפילו עריפה חייב “even for breaking its neck he is guilty.” It seems that this should be the reading here also, but unfortunately the Genizah fragment is illegible at this spot. Since the reading as written is not impossible, it is better not to disturb the text., the words of Rebbi Meïr, even if it was ṭerefa he is guilty? He said to them, you answer me from that of Rebbi Yannai¹²³ 70b, argues that the dead calf must be pure since “purification is written there as for sacrifices” (Note 110).?

footnotes: ¹²⁰ In all cases of ritual slaughter except for the calf, cutting the throat שחיטה is required. The same is prescribed for profane slaughter of animals intended as food (Deut. 12:21). Any animal which is killed in any other way becomes a carcass whose impurity is original and severe (Lev. 11:39-40). The question arises naturally whether the carcass of the calf is severely impure, not having been slaughtered in the required form, or maybe is pure since its neck was broken by divine decree. ¹²¹ Mishnah Ḥulin ¹²² This is quoted in full in Halakhah 6. The statement refers to Lev ¹²³ In Halakhah 6, R. Simeon ben Laqish disagrees with R. Yannai. Therefore, there is no proof along these lines.The Babli, Zebaḥim

“The meaning of etan is “hard”, “Hard is your seat, make your nest in the rock¹²⁵. 24:21. The same quote in the Babli. 46a/b..” “Even if it is not hard it is qualified.” Similarly, if there is no brook? Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, “they shall bring down, and they shall bring down,” even if there is no brook¹²⁶. 21:4. While the vaw starting the sentence is quite necessary as vaw consecutive, R. Simeon wants to construe it as unnecessary addition which enlarges the domain in which the calf could have its neck broken. There are no parallels to this opinion.. But that of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai is of those which are so-and-so⁵⁴ collection, nor does it contain a name of a tradent which would vouchsafe the text for the 100 years between R. Simeon and R. Joḥanan.. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, all those [statements] of Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai which are so-and-so are isolated opinions and one cannot rely on them.

footnotes: ¹²⁵ Num ¹²⁶ Deut ⁵⁴ The statement is not from a recognized baraita

Does he break its neck until he has cut two blood arteries¹²⁷ or most of them? Let us hear from the following, that Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Any place the bottom of the neck is acceptable for slaughtering, the back of the neck is acceptable for breaking¹²⁸. 5:8), it is clear that the Cohen has to cut the arteries and the windpipe. In the absence of an indication to the contrary, this requirement may be transferred to the breaking of the calf’s neck.; here he would say the same.

footnotes: ¹²⁷ The carotid arteries leading to the brain and the windpipe which must be cut in ritual slaughter. ¹²⁸ This breaking, מְלִיקָה, is done by the finger nail on the neck of a pidgeon used as a purification offering. Since it says “he may not separate (the head from the body)” (Lev

There¹²⁹ 3:9. A person who is both a Cohen and a Nazir ploughing in a graveyard in which both vines and grain grow, on a holiday of a Sabbatical year, with an ox and a donkey together which both were dedicated to the Temple., we have stated: “One might plough one furrow and infringe thereby on eight prohibitions.” Rebbi Hoshaia asked: Could one not state “one who ploughs the place where the calf’s neck was broken,” for a total of nine¹³⁰ 22a. The obvious answer is that this could not be a graveyard in which both vines and grain grow.? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it by the past¹³¹. He said to them, since it was for the past, so certainly for the future¹³².

footnotes: ¹²⁹ Mishnah Makkot ¹³⁰ The same questions in the Babli, Makkot ¹³¹ Since verse 21:4 says of the hard valley: “which would not be worked on and would not be sown”. The imperfect may be interpreted as a past. ¹³² The primary meaning of the imperfect is as a future.

The place where it¹³² falls down and its surroundings are forbidden. How much are its surroundings? Four cubits¹³³ גיסה in the opinion of S. Lieberman may be Syriac. In the two Tosephta mss. (9:1) the readings are גיתה, גיזתה.. Rebbi says, I am saying that its surroundings are fifty cubits¹³⁴. Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: “which would not be worked on,” a general statement. “And would not be sown,” a detail. If a general statement is followed by a detail, the general does not contain more than the detail⁹⁵. He said to him, if it were written “which would not be worked on, which would not be sown,” you would be justified; but it is written “which would not be worked on.” This does not describe general statement and detail, but an additional reference¹³⁶.

footnotes: ¹³² The primary meaning of the imperfect is as a future. ¹³³ Where the calf falls down. The hapax ¹³⁴ In the Tosephta: 40 cubits. Since no reason is given for that number and it does not appear in other agricultural contexts, the reading of the Yerushalmi is preferable. The Genizah ms. is not available at this point. The notion that a strip 4 cubits wide is attached to a given domain appears in several contexts, agricultural (as boundary strip betwen fields) and not agricultural (as private domain on the Sabbath, as reserved domain in front of a house in a multi-family courtyard). ⁹⁵ The fifth hermeneutical rule. Since the detail is logically contained in the general, its mention serves as definition for the general statement. The same objection is noted in the Babli, 46a; the short answer given in the Babli is intelligible only in the light of the Yerushalmi. ¹³⁶ That “work” means agricultural use, but that industrial use of the place is permitted.

MISHNAH: The Elders of that town wash their hands with water at the place where the calf's neck was broken and say¹³⁷: "Our hands did not spill this blood," etc. Did we ever think that the court was spilling blood? But, that he did not come to our attention and we sent him away, or that we did not see him and left him¹³⁸. The priests say¹⁴¹. 21:8.: “Purge for Your people Israel which You did redeem, o Eternal.” They did not have to say that¹⁴¹. 21:8. “the blood was purged for them,” but the Holy Spirit announces to them that when they follow this procedure the blood will be purged for them. If the killer was found before the calf should have its neck broken, it should leave¹⁴² and graze in the flock. If after the calf’s neck was broken it should be buried at its place because if came from the start in a doubtful case; it purged its doubt and left. If the killer was found after the calf’s neck was broken, he should be executed¹⁴³.

footnotes: ¹³⁷ Deut. 21:7. The Yerushalmi version of this Mishnah is rather shorter than the Babli one. The Yerushalmi version is that of Sifry Deut., 210. ¹³⁸ The court can perform the ceremony only if it did not tolerate a breakdown of social services. ¹⁴¹ Deut ¹⁴¹ Deut ¹⁴² It becomes totally profane. ¹⁴³ The calf atones for the community, not the murderer.

HALAKHAH: The rabbis here explain the verse¹³⁹ about the murderer, the rabbis there explain the verse about the murder victim. The rabbis here explain the verse about the murderer, "he did not come to our attention and we sent him away," and did not execute him; "or that we did not see him and left him," and muddled his trial. But the rabbis there¹⁴⁰ explain the verse about the murder victim, "he did not come to our attention and we sent him away," without company; "or that we did not see him and left him," without provisions.

footnotes: ¹³⁹ In all occurrences, the Genizah ms. reads "the Mishnah", which is the more accurate text. ¹⁴⁰ Babli 46b; an extended version by R. Joshua ben Levi, insisting that unsolved murder cases exist only if social services arc insufficient, Babli 38b.

The Elders wash their hands with water at the place where the calf’s neck was broken and say¹³⁸: “Our hands did not spill this blood,” etc. The priests say¹⁴¹. 21:8.: “Purge for Your people Israel.” The Holy Spirit says, “the blood was purged for them.” Three verses were said on one topic, what this one said the other did not say, and vice-versa. Similarly, you say¹⁴⁴. 38:25–26. A different version in the Babli, Makkot 23b.: “She said, please recognize this seal, strings, and staff,” so far Tamar spoke. “Jehudah recognized and said, she is more just than I am because I did not give her to my son Shelah,” so far Jehudah spoke. The Holy Spirit said, “he never knew her again.¹⁴⁵” Three verses were said on one topic, what this one said the other did not say, and vice-versa. Similarly, you say¹⁴⁶. 13:27–30. The interpretation saves Joshua’s reputation, who is silent in the biblical narrative.: “They told him and said, we came to the land you sent us to; it really is flowing of milk and honey and that is its fruit;” so far Joshua spoke. “But the people are strong who dwell in the land, the cities are very highly fortified, and also the young giants we saw there;” so far said the spies. “Caleb silenced the people to Moses and said, we certainly can mount and inherit it, for certainly we can do it;” so far Caleb spoke. Three verses were said on one topic, what this one said the other did not say, and vice-versa. Similarly, you say¹⁴⁷. 5:28–31.: “Sisera’s mother looked out and whimpered, etc.;” so far Sisera’s mother spoke. “Her wise princesses answered her, …, will they not find and distribute booty;” so far said her daughters-in-law. And the Holy Spirit says, “so all enemies of the Eternal will be lost.”

footnotes: ¹³⁸ The court can perform the ceremony only if it did not tolerate a breakdown of social services. ¹⁴¹ Deut ¹⁴⁴ Gen ¹⁴⁵ On could also translate: He never stopped knowing her. ¹⁴⁶ Num ¹⁴⁷ Jud

Rebbi Phineas said, it is worthy to provide purification all the time back to the Exodus¹⁴⁸. 210, this is an anonymous tannaitic statement. A comment which there entered the text from the margin explains: “This (the response of the Holy Spirit to the priest’s prayer) teaches that the homicide sins against the Jewish people in all generations going back to those who left Egypt.”.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁸ In Sifry Deut

Rebbi Yannai said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: Even if one broke its neck he is guilty¹⁵⁰. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The words of Rebbi Meïr: Even if one broke its neck he is guilty. The words of Rebbi Simeon: Even if he cut its throat, he is not punishable¹⁵¹ 82a). Since the verse which forbids slaughtering mother and young on the same day uses the word תשחטו, it follows that for him only the provision of food either for the altar or humans is forbidden; nothing done with an atoning calf falls under that law.. Rebbi Yannai said, I heard about a boundary, from when it is forbidden: “They shall bring it down,” from the time of bringing down¹⁵² 82a, R. Yannai stated only that he heard that there is a well defined moment in which the calf becomes sanctified and loses its quality as potential food; the members of his Academy determined that moment to be when the calf enters the unworkable area of the valley.. Rebbi Ila said, to free it from “it and its young” following Rebbi Simeon¹⁵³.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁰ If a calf has its neck broken the same day its mother was slaughtered for food, cf. Note 120. ¹⁵¹ R. Simeon holds that any use of the verb שחט in the Pentateuch refers to slaughter either for the altar or human consumption (Ḥulin ¹⁵² In the Babli, Ḥulin ¹⁵³ This qualifies the statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish in the name of R. Simeon (ben Ioḥai). If the mother was slaughtered while her calf was still potential profane food, the calf cannot be slaughtered on the same day. If the mother was slaughtered after the calf had lost its status as potential food, even if the calf was wrongly slaughtered by cutting its throat instead of breaking its neck, the prohibition was not infringed upon. The Babli does not follow this argument.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it is holy while still alive. The Mishnah said so: “it should leave and graze in the flock.” What shall it leave? It shall leave its holiness.

Rebbi Mattania said, this is correct¹⁵⁴. What is written? “The blood shall be purged for them¹⁵⁵;” then it is silent. Nevertheless, “but you shall eliminate innocent blood from your midst”¹⁵⁶. 21:9. Babylonian sources (Soṭah 47b, Ketubot 37b, Tosephta Keritut 4:3) quote an unrelated verse, Num. 35:33..

footnotes: ¹⁵⁴ This refers to the statement that if the calf was killed before the murderer was found, the murderer still can be executed. ¹⁵⁵ The community, not the murderer. ¹⁵⁶ Deut

MISHNAH: If one witness says, I saw the murderer¹⁵⁷, and one witness says, I did not see him¹⁵⁸; or a woman¹⁵⁹ said, I saw, but another woman said, I did not see, they did break the neck. If one witness said I saw, but two said, we did not see, they did break the neck. I two said, we saw, but one said to them, you did not see¹⁶⁰, they did not break the neck.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁷ He could identify the murderer if he was caught. ¹⁵⁸ He saw the murder being committed but did not see the murderer and could not identify him in court. Then the murderer cannot be prosecuted under biblical law. (This means that when caught he could not be executed. It does not exclude that under the king’s police powers he could be punished.) ¹⁵⁹ Or any other witness who can testify to facts but not in law. (For example, the testimony of gamblers, criminals, women, or slaves cannot be used to impose the death penalty or to notarize documents.) ¹⁶⁰ He was with them and testifies that from their position it was impossible to see the murderer. Since he is one against two, his testimony is disregarded.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁶² 15, Notes 135–138; Soṭah 6:4; Babli 47b. Gidul bar Benjamin in the name of Rav: Anywhere they accepted the testimony of a woman parallel to that of a man, a man can contradict a woman and a woman can contradict a man. One should state: “A witness says that he saw the murderer, and a woman says that she did not see; a woman said that he saw and a witness said that he did not see,” as it was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: One follows the majority of the testimonies. How is that? Two women against one woman they considered as if there were two witnesses against one witness. What you say refers to a woman and women. But if there were a hundred women against one [male] witness, they are like one witness.

footnotes: ¹⁶² See the parallel texts Yebamot

MISHNAH: When professional murderers prevailed, breaking of the calf’s neck became obsolete, when Eleazar ben Dinai came¹⁶³ XX, 6,1; Jewish War II, 12,4; 13,6; VII, 8,1. who was called Teḥina ben Perisha. They turned to call him murderous son.

footnotes: ¹⁶³ Josephus, Antiquities

HALAKHAH: “Murderous son,” son, professional murderer¹⁶⁵ were felt to be Aramaic, not Hebrew..

footnotes: ¹⁶⁵ This shows that professional names of the pattern pĕ‘ôlā

MISHNAH: When the adulterers prevailed, the spell-inducing water stopped and Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai¹⁶⁶ abolished it, as it is said¹⁶⁷. 4:14.: “I shall not care if your daughters are whoring,” etc.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁶ It is unclear when he abolished the ritual of the suspected wife and whether this was part of his program to divorce Judaism from Temple rituals. ¹⁶⁷ Hos

HALAKHAH: For it is written¹⁶⁷. 4:14., “for they behave like donkeys with the prostitutes,” and it is written¹⁶⁸ 5:27.: “The woman will be a swearword among her people.” In times when her people are peaceful, not in times when her people are dissolute. “The man shall be free from sin.¹⁶⁹ 5:31. In the Genizah ms., the entire verse is copied, as required by the following homily: “The man shall be free from sin, then this woman will bear her iniquity.”” When does the woman carry her iniquity? If the man is free from sin¹⁷⁰ 9(53); Sifry Num. 21. An opposing opinion Sifry zuṭa Naśo31..

footnotes: ¹⁶⁷ Hos ¹⁶⁸ Num. ¹⁶⁹ Num. ¹⁷⁰ A more extended treatment in the Babli, 47b; Num. rabba

MISHNAH: When Yose ben Yo‘ezer from Ṣereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem died¹⁷¹ (1:4)., the grape bunches¹⁷² disappeared, as it was said¹⁷³ 7:1. The reference is to v. 2: “The devout man has perished from the earth, there is no upright person among humankind.”: “There is no bunch to eat, no early ripe fig that my soul desires.”

footnotes: ¹⁷¹ The first couple of leaders mentioned in Abot ¹⁷² People who united in their personalities knowledge, exemplary behavior, and leadership. ¹⁷³ Micah

HALAKHAH: There did not arise another grape bunch until Rebbi Aqiba rose. Were the other couples¹⁷⁴ after the two Yose. not also grape bunches? But these served in a position of leadership¹⁷⁵; the others did not serve in a position of leadership.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁴ Those mentioned in the first Chapter of Mishnah Abot ¹⁷⁵ They served just before the Maccabean revolt; Yose ben Yo‘ezer was killed as an opponent of the Seleucids. It seems that the two were the heads of the ruling council of the province of Judea. After the revolt, the political power was totally divorced from the spiritual leadership and the later couples could not attain the political role played by the first or by R. Aqiba in the Bar Kokhba years.

It was stated: It is possible to raise questions about all couples¹⁷⁷ 15b) which states that the couples who held office between Moses and the two Yoses either taught Torah as well as Moses did or that it was impossible to find anything questionable about them. from the time that Moses died until Yose ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Joseph ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem. It is possible to raise questions about all couples from the time that Yose ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Joseph ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem died until Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba arose. They said about Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba that all he did was in the name of Heaven except that he raised an animal of the flock¹⁷⁸ 15b, Baba qama 80a) which forbids raising sheep and goats in agricultural lands because their destructive feeding habits.. This happened the following way. Once he fell sick and the medical men went to visit him. They told him: there is no healing for you except freshly warm milk, because he had angina pectoris. What did he do? He bought a goat and bound it to the legs of his bed¹⁷⁹ and when he had an attack of angina he sucked from it freshly warm milk. But when the Sages wanted to visit him, they said how could we enter when the robber¹⁸⁰ dwells with him in the house? When he died, he said: I did never sin except that in this case I disregarded the words of my colleagues. After his death they checked all he had done and did not find any sin except that goat alone¹⁸¹ 15b, tells this story about “a pious man” and doubts whether it is about R. Jehudah ben Baba, who was executed by the Roman government in the aftermath of the war of Bar Kokhba, or R. Jehudah bar Ilai, known simply as R. Jehudah..

footnotes: ¹⁷⁷ The president (נָשִׂיא) and executive officer (אַב בֵּית דִּין) of the high court of the nation at any given moment.The text here is the opposite of the tradition of the Babli (Temurah ¹⁷⁸ There exists a rabbinic rule (Babli Temurah ¹⁷⁹ That it could not roam and damage plants. ¹⁸⁰ Greek λῃστής, “robber”. ¹⁸¹ The Babli, Temurah

Rebbi Simeon from Shezur said, my father’s family were landowners in Galilee. Why were they ruined? Because they judged civil matters alone¹⁸² 1:1). and were raising animals of the flock. And this was so: We had a copse close to the village but a field was between it and us, and the flock entered it going and coming there¹⁸³.

footnotes: ¹⁸² While a competent judge may sit alone in judgment, it is bad behavior since only God judges alone (Mishnah Sanhedrin ¹⁸³ The goats did damage to agriculture while being driven to the woods. He denies that R. Jehudah ben Baba did anything wrong since he was careful to keep his goat from doing damage and holds him a blameless pious man.

MISHNAH: ¹⁸⁴ 5, Mishnah 13, explained there in Notes 171ff. to the end of that Tractate. The High Priest Joḥanan disestablished the declaration of tithes. He also eliminated the arousers and the hitters. Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem and in his days nobody had to ask about demay.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁴ This Mishnah and its Halakhah are from Ma‘aser Šeni

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Our Mishnah after the people were suspected of giving tithe to Cohanim. There is support for Rebbi Joḥanan in one and disagreement with him in one. Disagreement with him as we have stated there: “Similarly, the daughter of a Cohen [married] to a Levite should eat neither heave nor tithe.” We understand that she should not eat heave. But tithe any way you take it, if she is a Cohen’s daughter she should eat, if she is a Levite’s wife she should eat. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: [It follows] him who says one does not give tithe to Cohanim. That means, he himself says one gives heave to Cohanim.

It supports him because he says it is all praise, as Rebbi Joḥanan said, Joḥanan the High Priest sent and checked in all localities of Israel and found that they separated only Great Heave. But First and Second Tithes some were separating and some did not. He said, since [omitting] First Tithe is a deadly sin and [omitting] Second Tithe [implies] the sin of ṭevel, a person should give a name to heave and heave of the tithe and give them to the Cohen; Second Tithe he exchanges for coins. About the remaining tithe of the poor, he who has a claim on another person must bring proof.

Why should he not make the declaration? Rebbi Hila said, he causes anger before the Omnipresent by saying “I did” when he did not. If it is so, he who separated should make the declaration, he who did not separate should not make the declaration, as we have stated: “Up to ‘Look down’ they were saying it in an undertone, from ‘Look down’ onwards in a high voice.”

“The arousers.” Those who were saying (Ps. 44:24): “Be roused, why do You sleep, o Eternal, etc.” Does there exist sleep before the Omnipresent? Has it not already been said (Ps. 121:4): “Lo, He will not slumber nor sleep, the Guardian of Israel!” Why does the verse say (Ps. 78:65): “Like a sleeper awoke the Eternal, like a hero exhilarated by wine.” But in a symbolic way it is as if sleep were before Him when Israel is in trouble and the other peoples are at ease. So it says (Job 17:2): “When they apostasize, My Eye will rest.”

“The hitters.” Those who were hitting the calf between its horns. Joḥanan the High Priest said to them, how long will you feed torn animals to the altar? He went and made them rings. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: He made rings for them, wide below and narrow at the top.

“Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem,” up to his early days. “And in his days nobody had to ask about demay” because he sent out teams

The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies some are censure and some praise. Since Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Tanḥum, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, originally tithe was split into three parts. One third to his acquaintances among Cohanim and Levites, one third to the public treasury, one third to the poor and the fellows in Jerusalem. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, a person who went to court in Jerusalem, up to three letters he paid for himself, from there on from the public treasury. When Eleazar ben Paḥora and Judah ben Pakora came, they took it by force and it would have been in his hand to stop this but he did not but disestablished the declaration of tithes, and this is for censure. But the arousers for praise and the hitters for praise.

“Up to his days the hammer was hitting in Jerusalem,” up to his early days. Rebbi Ḥasida asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, is it not reasonable to the end of his days. He said, I also am of that opinion.

{What means] demay? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi: Maybe he put in order, maybe he did not put in order.

MISHNAH: When the Synhedrion was disestablished¹⁸⁹, the epithalamium stopped at wedding feasts as it was said¹⁹⁰ 24:9.: “They shall not drink wine in song.”

footnotes: ¹⁸⁹ Not really disestablished but when criminal jurisdiction was taken away from Jewish courts, transferred to the Roman administration, and only strictly religious matters were left to the High Court which was generally regarded as Synhedrion. ¹⁹⁰ Is.

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Rav Jeremiah said: “The Elders are no longer at the gate¹⁹¹ 5:14: “The Elders are no longer at the gate, [therefore not] the young men at their songs.” The same in the Babli, 48a, in the name of Rav Huna ben Rav Joshua, 2 generations after Abba bar Rav Jeremiah.” etc.

footnotes: ¹⁹¹ Thr.

Rav Ḥisda said, in earlier times the fear of the court was on them and they did not include lewd language in song. But now when the fear of the court is no longer on them they include lewd language in song¹⁹².

footnotes: ¹⁹² Lewd language being a regular feature of the Greek epithalamium.

In earlier times they required payment only from a person alone. But now they require payment from him and his family¹⁹⁵ 20:5, alluded to later. A court punishes only the criminal but God’s justice is against “that man (who sacrifices his children to the Moloch) and his family.” This proves that if the courts can no longer enforce biblical law, the Heavenly Court will enforce it in a much harsher way.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: In earlier times, for every trouble that came over the community they have a joyous occasion to make up for it¹⁹⁶ the catalogue of days when fasting was forbidden. But now, in the words of the Tosephta (15:6): Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for every trouble that comes over the community, the court disestablishes another joyous occasion.. But after the Synhedrion was abolished, song disappeared from wedding feasts. After both disappeared, ¹⁹⁷ 5:15.“our heart’s joy stopped, our dance turned into mourning.” But what was the high court good for¹⁹⁸? But because it was said¹⁹⁹ 20:4. It is implied that the real reason is the following v. 5. “if the people of the Land consistently turn away their eyes from that man when he is giving of his seed to the Moloch, not to kill him,” in any death they would choose²⁰⁰. They gave a parable, to what can this be compared? To one who was a criminal in a town. They delivered him to the one wielding reeds, who jailed him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding reeds. They delivered him to the one wielding sticks who hit him, but he turned out to be stronger than the one wielding sticks²⁰¹. They delivered him to the wielder of leather straps who whipped him, but he turned out to be stronger than the wielder of leather straps. They delivered him to the ruler who hung him in the kiln²⁰². So the later troubles cause the earlier ones to be forgotten.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁵ In the Tosephta, 15:7, this is combined with the verse Lev. ¹⁹⁶ The delivery from trouble was a festive occasion documented in Megillat Ta‘anit, ¹⁹⁷ Thr. ¹⁹⁸ What is the connection between the disestablishment of Jewish criminal jurisdiction and the disappearance of the epithalamium from Jewish weddings? The rest of the paragraph has a close parallel in Tosephta 15:7. ¹⁹⁹ Lev. ²⁰⁰ This gives the high court emergency powers to act as a secret, Vehmic, court in case the criminal is too powerful. ²⁰¹ He might be the Roman lictor since the ruler mentioned is a Roman proconsul. ²⁰² Greek κάμινος, ἡ, “oven, furnace, kiln.”

MISHNAH: After the earlier prophets died, Urim and Tummim²⁰³ stopped. When the Temple was destroyed, the shamir and flowing bee’s honey stopped and trusting men disappeared, as it was said²⁰⁴ 12:2.: “Help, o Eternal, for the pious man is finished, for the trusting have vanished from mankind.”

footnotes: ²⁰³ The oracle carried by the High Priest. ²⁰⁴ Ps.

HALAKHAH: “After the earlier prophets died, Urim and Tummim stopped.” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: These are Samuel and David²⁰⁵ In the Babli, 48b, this is the opinion of Rav Huna, the most prominent of Rav’s students.. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of Rav: These are Gad and Nathan²⁰⁶. Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Samuel bar Isaac in the name of Rav: These are Jeremiah and Barukh. The word of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi implies that these are Jeremiah and Barukh. For Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said²⁰⁷ 26:5. The quote proves that oracles were used by kings after David (even though Zacariah is not mentioned in the list of high priests in Ezra 7 and Urim and Tummim were high-priestly oracles), as pointed out in the Babli by Rabba bar Samuel, a slightly younger contemporary of R. Joshua ben Levi. The Tosephta, 13:3, states that the oracle disappeared only with the destruction of the first Temple. In many quotes in Babli and Yerushalmi (e. g., Ta‘aniot 2:1 65a line 64, Yoma 21b) the oracle is mentioned in the list of five things missing in the second Temple., “it was when he asked God in the days of Zacariah who understood God’s visions.”

footnotes: ²⁰⁵ Since there is no explicit reference in Scripture about priestly oracles in books later than Samuel. ²⁰⁶ David’s court prophets. ²⁰⁷ 2Chr.

After the last prophets, Haggai, Zacariah, and Malachi, died, the Holy Ghost stopped from them, but nevertheless they were using the disembodied voice²⁰⁹. If happened that Simeon the Just heard a disembodied voice coming out of the holiest-of-holies saying: Gaius Caligula was killed and his decisions became void.²¹⁰ It happened that young men went to fight at Antiochia when Joḥanan the High Priest heard a disembodied voice coming out of the holiest-of-holies saying: The young people are victorious who fought at Antiochia. At that time they wrote down the exact time and found that it happened exactly at that hour²¹¹.

footnotes: ²⁰⁹ Tosephta 13:3; Babli 48b. In the Tosephta: “nevertheless they (the Heavenly Court) were communicating the disembodied voice.” ²¹⁰ Tosephta 13:6, Babli 33a. At least one of the names mentioned here cannot be correct. ²¹¹ Tosephta 13:5, Babli 33a. It was remarked that the voice spoke Aramaic which is not understood by angels.

²¹² 11a, Berakhot 57a; Yerushalmi Avodah zarah 3:1 (42c 1. 32), Horaiot 3:7 (48c 1. 41). It happened that Elders came together in the house Gadia²¹³ in Jericho, when a disembodied voice came and said to them: There is among you one man who would be worthy that the Holy Spirit should rest on him²¹⁴, only the generation is not worthy. They all looked at Hillel the Elder. When he died, they said about him, o meek, pious student of Ezra. Again it happened that Elders came together in a second floor at Jabne, when a disembodied voice came and said to them: There is among you one man who would be worthy that the Holy Spirit should rest on him, only the generation is not worthy. They all looked at Samuel Minor. Why was he called Minor? Because he effaced himself. Some say, because he was slightly below Samuel from Ramah²¹⁵. When he died, they said about him o meek, pious student of Hillel the Elder. When he was dying he said²¹⁶: Simeon and Ismael²¹⁷18, Šemaḥot 8). to the sword, the rest of the people to plunder, immense troubles will be. He said that in Aramaic and they did not understand what he was saying. For Rebbi Jehudah ben Baba they intended to say o meek, pious, but the time was torn²¹⁸.

footnotes: ²¹² Tosephta 13:3–4; Babli 48b, Sanhedrin ²¹³ In both Babli sources: Guriah. ²¹⁴ That he should be a prophet. ²¹⁵ The biblical prophet. ²¹⁶ It is clear that Samuel Minor lived in the time of Gamliel I, Hillel’s grandson, and that there already was an academy at Jabneh at that time. ²¹⁷ Simeon ben Gamliel, president of the revolutionary government in the war of 68–70, and Ismael, the High Priest during the revolt; both executed after Titus’s triumph in Rome. (Late and secondary transformation of this source: Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim ²¹⁸ He was executed in the aftermath of the war of Bar Kokhba.

It was stated²¹⁹ is listed as a creature whose existence was part of the plan of Creation but which came into being only at its appointed time (the expression being: it was created Friday evening at dusk): Mishnah Abot5:6, Babli Pesaḥim 54a, Sifry Deut. 355, Mekhilta Bešallaḥ Wayyissa‘ 5, Abot dR. Nathan B 37, Pirqe R. Eliezer19,31, Tanḥuma Wayyera 23, Pseudo-Jonathan Num. 22:28, Midraš Ma‘aśeh Torah (Jellinek vol. 2, p. 100). Cf. also the story of Solomon and the shamir in Babli Giṭṭin 68b.: Rebbi Jehudah said, what was this shamir? It is a creature that existed from the creation of the world and if one shows it stones those would open themselves like the two boards of a pinax²²⁰, and Solomon built the Temple with it. That is what is written²²¹ 6:7.: “During the building of the House, it was built from whole carried stones, and hammers or axe or any iron implement was not heard in the House when it was built.” Rebbi Nehemiah says, they were sawed. That is what is written²²² 7:9.: “All these were expensive stones, in the measure of ashlars, sawed with a saw inside and out.” Say now, at the building site they were not treated at all but they were finished outside and then brought inside²²³ 20:25.. Rebbi says, the words of Rebbi Jehudah are convincing for the stones of the Temple and those of Rebbi Nehemiah for the stones of Solomon’s palace. But since nothing can withstand it, and even when it was put on a stone or a box sheet it would split it and fall down, what did they do to restrain it? One was binding it with wool fibers and put it into a lead cylinder filled with barley bran. That is what is written²²⁴: “He enjoys robbing the strong.”

footnotes: ²¹⁹ Tosephta 15:1 the entire paragraph. The Babli, 48b, quotes only the part referring to R. Jehudah’s statement, and that anonymously.In many places, the shamir ²²⁰ A writing tablet of two smooth wooden plates hinged together and covered with wax. Greek πίναξ, - ακος, ὁ, “board, plank, anything made of wood; writing tablet, catalogs, etc.” ²²¹ 1K. ²²² 1K. ²²³ Since iron may not be used in the building of the Temple, Ex. ²²⁴ Am. 5:9; this is taken as referring to the shamir.

“And flowing bee’s honey”. Rebbi Eleazar said, honey that comes with floaters. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, farina which floats on the sieve kneaded with honey and butter²²⁵. ²²⁶ Chapter 7, Notes 71–75. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the second quality fruit we ate in our youth tasted better that the peaches we ate in our old age, because during his lifetime the world changed. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, one seah of Arbel grain did yield one seah of fine flour, one seah of white flour, one seah of dark flour, one seah of bran, one seah of coarse bran. But today, we do not even get one for one.

footnotes: ²²⁵ He explains the recipe R. Eleazar had in mind, as a delicacy which lost its taste with the destruction of the first Temple. Babli 48b, in the name of Rav. ²²⁶ This is from Chapter 1, Note 298; explained in Peah

“Trusting men disappeared.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, men who trusted in Torah, as one teacher who was teaching Bible to his brother in Tyre when they were calling on him for a business deal²²⁷. He said, I do not push aside my set time²²⁸. If it is destined to come to me, it will come to me²²⁹.

footnotes: ²²⁷ Greek πραγματεία, ἡ, “occupation, business, diligent study, prosecution of business”. ²²⁸ Time set aside for study every day at the same hour. ²²⁹ This essentially disproves the Mishnah that there are no longer people trusting in God.

MISHNAH: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rebbi Joshua: Since the day the Temple was destroyed there is no day without a curse, and the dew did not descend for a blessing; and the taste of fruits disappeared. Rebbi Yose says, also the fat of fruits disappeared. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, purity²³⁰ took away taste, tithes²³¹. took away the fat of grain, immorality and sorcery killed everything²³².

footnotes: ²³⁰ Meaning: lack of purity, the fact that people eat their profane food not under the rules of ritual purity applying to sanctified food, the original distinguishing feature of the old pharisaic sect. ²³¹ The fact that people did not tithe but mostly only gave heave; cf. Tractate Demay ²³² Moral, not ritual, defects account for all other troubles. The Babylonian Mishnah essentially is the Tosephta, cf. Note 236.

HALAKHAH: It is written²³³. 7:12.: “But God is angry every day.” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the earlier ones²³⁴ all continue. What can do away with them²³⁵? Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The priestly blessing does away with them. ²³⁶ Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, you can observe that dew has become cursed. In earlier times, a village abundant in dew was abundant in produce but today, a village abundant in dew is poor in produce²³⁷ 7:4, Notes 66 ff.! In earlier times, dew descended on chaff and straw and whitened it²³⁸, but today it descends on chaff and straw and blackens it.

footnotes: ²³³ Ps ²³⁴ The troubles are cumulative; the new troubles do not eliminate the old ones. ²³⁵ The earlier troubles? ²³⁶ Tosephta 15:2; there the text of the Mishnah also is repeated. ²³⁷ Cf. Peah ²³⁸ In the Tosephta, his proof is from the manna which was made shiny by the dew on it.

It was stated²³⁹: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, purity²³⁰ took away taste and smell, tithes²³¹. took away the fat of grain.” From what was taken most? Rebbi Levi ben Ḥaita said, let us hear from the following²⁴⁰. 2:16. Grain shrank from 1 to .5 but wine from 1 to .4, which is 20% less.: “One thought to come to a heap of twenty and it was ten. He came to the winepress to draw 50 pitchers,” it does not say ‘and there were 25’ but “and there were 20.” “²⁴¹ But the Sages say, immorality and sorcery killed everything²³².”

footnotes: ²³⁹ Text of the Babylonian Mishnah. In Tosephta 15:2: “tithes took away oils and grain.” ²³⁰ Meaning: lack of purity, the fact that people eat their profane food not under the rules of ritual purity applying to sanctified food, the original distinguishing feature of the old pharisaic sect. ²³¹ The fact that people did not tithe but mostly only gave heave; cf. Tractate Demay ²⁴⁰ Ḥag ²⁴¹ This is the version of the Babylonian Mishnah. ²³² Moral, not ritual, defects account for all other troubles. The Babylonian Mishnah essentially is the Tosephta, cf. Note 236.

MISHNAH: During Vespasian’s war²⁴² they decided about²⁴³ grooms’ crowns and the erus²⁴⁴ a tymbal or tambourine. The Yerushalmi explanation is unintelligible.. During Quietus’s²⁴⁵ (cf. the author’s edition, Northvale NJ 1998, p. 260 ff.), and of a Gaonic responsum (Ginze Schechter 2, No. 17, p. 244, 249). That reading has been chosen for the translation. Cf. H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden³, vol. 4, Note 14. war they decided about brides’ crowns and that nobody should teach Greek to his son²⁴⁶. During the last war they decided that a bride should not be carried in a litter through the city; our teachers²⁴⁷ permitted that a bride should be carried in a litter through the city.

footnotes: ²⁴² The Jewish war which resulted in the destruction of the Temple. ²⁴³ The rabbinic High Court, reconstituted at Jabneh under Vespasian’s protection by the anti-war leader Joḥanan ben Zakkai forbade grooms to wear crowns as a sign of national mourning. ²⁴⁴ In the Babli, this is defined as “one-sided percussion instrument;” in the interpretation of the Gaonim and Arukh ²⁴⁵ The Jewish revolt against Trajan, outside the Land of Israel. קיטוס instead of טיטוס is the reading of the Geniza mss. of the Mishnah, of the Palestinian Mishnah (Cambridge ms.), and the Kaufman ms., of important mss. of Seder ‘Olam ²⁴⁶ The Babli, 49b, dates the prohibition of Greek to the time of Pompey. ²⁴⁷ In general, “our teachers” refers either to Rebbi, R. Jehudah I the Prince, or his grandson, R. Jehudah II the Prince. In any case, the last sentence is a post-Mishnaic correction of the Mishnah.

HALAKHAH: “Our head’s crown fell”; these are the grooms’ crowns, that is gilded woolen strips. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Of salt and sulfur²⁴⁹. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Of salt and olives. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, even of willows²⁵⁰. Rav Jeremiah of Šibšeb wore a crown of olive branches. Samuel heard this and said, it would have been better for him it he had been beheaded but not done this thing. That happened to him, as “an error coming from before the ruler.²⁵¹. 10:5.”

footnotes: ²⁴⁹ In the Babli, 49b, Rav holds that crowns of myrrh and roses are permitted, but of salt and sulfur prohibited. This is the tannaitic position in Tosephta 15:8. Rashi explains that one makes a crown out of a solid rock of salt and uses sulfur to paint ornaments in gold color on the crown. ²⁵⁰ In the Babli, Samuel holds that crowns of salt rock are forbidden, of reeds or willows permitted, but Levi holds that even reeds and willows are forbidden. ²⁵¹ Eccl

The following are grooms’ chambers²⁵²: Ornamented sheets on which hang golden halfmoons²⁵³. It was stated: But he makes papyrus²⁵⁴ 6:3, Note 38. ropes and hangs on them anything he wants.

footnotes: ²⁵² Here is missing a statement similar to Tosephta 15:9, hinted at in Babli 49b: During the last war, they decided on grooms’ chambers (to forbid extravagant decorations of the bridal chamber.) ²⁵³ In the Tosephta: golden chambers. In the Babli: golden sheets. ²⁵⁴ The word אפיפיירות is discussed at length in Kilaim

Mishnah: “And the erus.” resisa²⁵⁵ might be Accadic erēšum “smell, perfume” and רסיסה good Hebrew ריסוס “spraying (with perfume erēšum ṭābum)”..

footnotes: ²⁵⁵ In biblical Hebrew, this would mean “splinters”. Levy in his Dictionary conjectures that it refers to a musical instrument full of holes. Kohout proposes to amend to רביכה, a rebeq, a music instrument. It seems futile to try to explain the Yerushalmi in the light of the Babli. The word erus

The following are brides’ crowns, that is a city of gold²⁵⁶. Rebbi Aqiba made for his wife a city of gold²⁵⁷ 86a., which made Rabban Gamliel’s wife jealous. He said to her, did you ever do what she did? She sold her braided hair, gave the money to him so he could study Torah²⁵⁸.

footnotes: ²⁵⁶ A golden diadem in the shape of a city wall. The same explanation in the Babli, 49b. In the Tosephta, “a golden headband”. ²⁵⁷ Reported also in the Babli, Šabbat ²⁵⁸ In the tradition of the Babli, she was a daughter from a very rich house who was disinherited for marrying an ignorant nobody. She had married him on condition that he would study to become a famous Sage.

²⁶⁰ 1:1, Notes 94–97. Cf. Babli Menaḥot 99b. They asked Rebbi Joshua: May a person teach Greek to his son? He said to them, he may teach him at an hour that is neither day nor night as it is written (Jos. 1:8): “You shall meditate about it day and night.” If it is so, a man would be forbidden to teach a profession to his son since it is written: “You shall meditate about it day and night.” But Rebbi Ismael stated (Deut. 30:19): “Choose life!” That refers to a profession. Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of informants. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter since it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said: Because he wants to teach his daughters, he attaches it to Rebbi Joḥanan. It should come over me that I never heard it from Rebbi Joḥanan.

footnotes: ²⁶⁰ This is from Peah

Who permits the earlier ones²⁶²? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, the one who permitted these permitted those²⁶³. As the following: The Head of the Diaspora sent and asked Rav Ḥisdai: what is the meaning of “taking away the head cover, removing the crown”²⁶⁴. 21:31.? He said to him, when the head cover was taken away, the crown was removed²⁶⁵. 28:37) was taken away, then the grooms’ crowns should be removed. He found a biblical reason for the rabbinic decision.. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, he is grace and his words are gracious²⁶⁶ 7a, based on the same etymological pun. A totally different interpretation of the verse, also endorsed by R. Joḥanan, in Ruth rabba 3(1)..

footnotes: ²⁶² We find that “our teachers” permitted a prohibition dating from the war of Bar Kokhba. What is the status of the earlier decrees mentioned in the Mishnah. ²⁶³ He holds that “our teachers” abolished the entire Mishnah. ²⁶⁴ Ez ²⁶⁵ When the Temple was destroyed and the head cover of the High Priest (Ex ²⁶⁶ A parallel in the Babli, Giṭṭin

MISHNAH: ²⁶⁷/Tosephta quoted in the Halakhah as alternative version. The mention of Rebbi and R. Phineas ben Yaïr characterizes the entire Mishnah as a late addition. When Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai died, the splendor of wisdom disappeared. When the elder Rabban Gamliel²⁶⁸ died, the honor of Torah disappeared, purity and self-discipline died. When Ismael ben Phiabi²⁶⁹ died, the splendor of priesthood died. When Rebbi died, meekness and fear of sin died. When Rebbi Meїr died, the inventors of parables disappeared. When Rebbi Aqiba died, the preachers²⁷⁰ disappeared. When Ben Azai died, the perseverers²⁷¹ disappeared. When Ben Zoma died, the students²⁷² disappeared. When Rebbi Joshua died, good disappeared from the world²⁷³ When Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah died, wealth disappeared from the Sages. When Rabban Gamliel died²⁷⁴, locusts came and troubles increased. When Rebbi Ḥanina ben Dosa and Yose the small²⁷⁵ died, piety disappeared. Why was he called Yose of the small room? For he was the concentrate of pious men. Rebbi Phineas ben Yaїr says, after the Temple was destroyed, fellows and freeborn were ashamed and covered their heads, people of [good] deeds shrivelled, strong-armed people and informers became dominant, nobody explains, nobody desires and nobody asks. On whom can we rely? On our Father in Heaven. The great Rebbi Eliezer²⁷⁶ says, from the day the Temple was destroyed, the Sages were diminished to be like scribes, the scribes like community servants, the community servants like common people; the common people go and degenerate, nobody desires and nobody asks. On whom can we rely? On our Father in Heaven. On the heels of the Messiah impertinence will grow, inflation will lead, the vine will give its fruit but the wine will be expensive, the government will turn heretic²⁷⁷, nobody rebukes, the assembly hall will be a brothel, Galilee will be destroyed and Gaulanitis²⁷⁸ 6:1, Notes 31–51. become deserted, frontier dwellers will move from city to city and nobody will have mercy on them, the wisdom of scholars will be defective, those who fear sin will be despised, truth will be absent, young men will insult Elders, Elders will stand before the young, “a son will abuse his father, a daughter rebel against her mother and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, the enemies of a person are his family”²⁷⁹ 7:6., the generation is dog-faced, a son is not ashamed before his father. What do we have to rely on? Our Father in Heaven.

footnotes: ²⁶⁷ The Mishnah in the Babli is quite different in this first paragraph; it is close to the baraita ²⁶⁸ Hillel’s grandson, whom the Apostle Paul claimed as his teacher. ²⁶⁹ The last High Priest of good character. ²⁷⁰ It may be that “interpreters of biblical verses” is meant. R. Aqiba is the last authority who systematically derived laws directly from an interpretation of verses. ²⁷¹ Who study day and night. ²⁷² It is difficult to know what this means. In the Babli, “the preachers disappeared”. Ben Zoma is known for his gnostic studies. ²⁷³ Had he lived, he probably could have averted the uprising of Bar Kochba. ²⁷⁴ In many independent Mishnah mss. (and the following Tosephta) “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel”; missing in the Babli. The Yerushalmi reading is preferable since Rabban Gamliel died just before the Bar Kochba revolt but his son died at the beginning of the Severan dynasty which was a good time for the Jewish population of Palestine. ²⁷⁵ קיטונתה is usually derived from Greek κοιτών “bedroom”, Syriac קיטונא “room”. In Babli and independent Mishnah he is called קטונתא “the little one”, because, according to some mss., he was the most insignificant of the pious. It is more than likely that the Yerushalmi קיטונתה is identical with קטונתא except for the addition of a stray י. This is accepted in the translation. Other Babli mss. and early medieval authors also call him “the concentrate of piety”. ²⁷⁶ R. Eliezer ben Hyrkanos. ²⁷⁷ This Mishnah expected the Messiah to appear when the Roman state turned Christian. ²⁷⁸ Which was densely settled by Jews in talmudic times, cf. Ševi‘it ²⁷⁹ Micah

HALAKHAH: ²⁸⁰“When Rebbi Eliezer died, the book of wisdom was hidden²⁸¹. When Rebbi Joshua died, good counsel and good deeds disappeared from Israel. When Rebbi Aqiba died, the souces of wisdom disappeared. When Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah died, wealth disappered from the Sages. When Rebbi Yose died, insight disappeared. When Ben Azai died, the perseverers disappeared. When Ben Zoma died, the preachers disappeared. When Rebbi Joshua died, good disappeared from the world. When Rebbi Ḥanina ben Dosa died, the workers [of wonders] disappeared. When Rebbi Yose the pious and Rebbi²⁸² and in a few Mishnah mss., he is called Abba Yose, placing him before the destruction of the Temple. In Baba qama 3:7 (3d, 1. 37) he is called Yose the Babylonian or Yose ben Jehudah, without title. Yose the minor died, pious men disappeared. Why is he called minor? For he was the concentrate of the just and the pious. When Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel died, locusts came and troubles increased. When Rebbi died, troubles were doubled.”

footnotes: ²⁸⁰ A similar version in Tosephta 15:3–5; Babli 49b. ²⁸¹ In Tosephta and Babli: The Torah scroll was hidden. ²⁸² In the Tosephta sources, in the Babylonian bardita,

²⁸³ 3:1 (42c, 1. 42). The first sentence is also in the Babli, Berakhot28b. Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: When Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai died, he commanded and said, clear the courtyard because of the impurity and prepare a chair for Hezekiah, the king of Judah. When his student Rebbi Eliezer died, he commanded and said, clear the courtyard because of the impurity and prepare a chair for Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai. But some say, what his teacher saw, he saw. They proposed marriage into the family of the Patriarch to one of the family Pazi, but he did not accept and said that they should not be ashamed. When he was dying, he commanded and said, clear the courtyard because of the impurity and prepare a chair for Josaphat, the king of Judah. They said, the one who ran after honor²⁸⁴ should come for him who fled before honor.

footnotes: ²⁸³ The entire paragraph is in Avodah zarah ²⁸⁴ While all other Davidic kings married local women, he married a princess from the House of Omri.

²⁸⁵ Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that Elders came together in the upper floor of the house Gadia in Jericho, when a disembodied voice came and said to them: There are among you two who would be worthy that the Holy Spirit should rest on them, and one of them is Hillel the Elder. They all looked at Samuel Minor. Again it happened that Elders came together in a second floor at Jabne, when a disembodied voice came and said to them: There are among you two who would be worthy that the Holy Spirit should rest on them, and one of them is Samuel Minor. They all looked at Rebbi Eliezer ben Hyrkanos and were happy that their opinion²⁸⁶ coincided with that of the Omnipresent.

footnotes: ²⁸⁵ Cf. Notes 209 ff. ²⁸⁶ About Samuel Minor.