Megillah1

1MISHNAH: The scroll [The Esther scroll read on Purim.] is read on the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, the Fourteenth, the Fifteenth [Of Adar; in an intercalary year the Adar preceding Nisan.] , no less and no more. Places walled [Greek χάραξ “palisade”.] from the days of Joshua bin Nun [The reason is explained in the third paragraph of the Halakhah.] read on the Fifteenth. Hamlets [Who either have no organized prayer service since they count less than ten adult males or they have nobody competent to read the scroll.] and large villages read on the Fourteenth, except that hamlets precede to the market day [Monday or Thursday preceding Purim. On these days one reads the scroll in the local synagogue for the benefit of the peasants who come to town to sell their produce on the market. If the 14th, Purim, is on Sunday, one reads for the peasants on the 11th. If it falls on Wednesday or Sabbath, one reads on the 12th; on Tuesday or Friday one reads on the 13th. (In the computed calendar, the 14th never falls on Monday, Wednesday, or Sabbath; Note 89.)] .

2HALAKHAH: “The scroll is read,” etc. Rebbi Ila, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To confirm these Purim days in their times [Esth. 9:31.] . Why does the verse say, in their times? Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Jonah says, to give them other times [He would allow other days than those enumerated in the Mishnah if circumstances demand it.] . Rebbi Yose says, times which the Sages fixed for them. And those are these: the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, the Fourteenth, the Fifteenth [Since the days enumerated in the Mishnah are supposed to have been decreed by the Great Assembly, they could be modified only by an assembly of greater authority. It is unlikely that such an assembly ever could be convened. Differently in the Babli, 2a.] . Or maybe only the Sixteenth and the Seventeenth? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by [Esth. 9:27.] , one shall not impregnate [The language is taken from calendar computation where “intercalation” is called “impregnation”. Here it means “changing the usual calendar data.”] . Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass [Reading the root עבר not as rabbinic Hebrew “to be pregnant” but as biblical Hebrew “to pass by”. One may not celebrate Purim later than the last date mentioned in the Scroll, the 15 of Adar.] . Maybe it is only the Ninth and the Tenth? Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: It is not written “days” but like the days [Esth. 9:22.] , pair days with days, the Eleventh and Twelfth corresponding to Fourteenth and Fifteenth. Or the Twelfth and Thirteenth corresponding to Fourteenth and Fifteenth? Rebbi Ḥelbo said, the Thirteenth was a day of war [Esth. 9:1.] . It proves for itself that it was not a day of comfort. Then one should not read on this day. One reads before and after, on the day one should not read [Excluding the 13th would be technically impossible. Cf. Meïri Megillah, ed. M. Herschler, pp. 14/15.] ? Or only the Ninth and the Tenth? Like the days, days close to the days. But if days close to the days, {maybe} only Sixteenth and Seventeenth? You cannot, for Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by, one shall not impregnate [The language is taken from calendar computation where “intercalation” is called “impregnation”. Here it means “changing the usual calendar data.”] . [Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass. [Corrector’s addition from the earlier text, totally out of place since one speaks of predating, not postdating.] ]

3It was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan: The entire month is qualified for reading the scroll [For example a person going on a trip who probably will not have a scroll available to him on the days enumerated in the Mishnah can discharge his obligation by reading the scroll before his departure.] . What is the reason? The month which for them was turned from sorrow to joy [Esth. 9:22.] . Rebbi Ḥelbo said, but only up to the Fifteenth. As Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: and it shall not pass by, one shall not impregnate [The language is taken from calendar computation where “intercalation” is called “impregnation”. Here it means “changing the usual calendar data.”] . Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Samuel: and it shall not pass by, and one shall not let it pass. That is what you are saying to read the scroll. But making a dinner [The obligatory dinner to celebrate Purim.] one makes only on the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth; and one distributes [to the poor] [A separate obligation to give to the poor, Esth. 9:22.] only on the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth. The eyes of the poor are only directed to the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth [Babli 4b.] . Then these should be for reading and those for the dinner? Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rav: These days are remembered and executed [Esth. 9:28.] . Remembered by reading. And executed by dinner. This implies that the Scroll is given to be analyzed [While in principle a text posterior to the Pentateuch cannot prescribe any new obligation, only testify to the practice of earlier generations in the interpretation of the law, an exception is made for the Esther scroll, whose prescriptions are considered divine and in which the story is repeated in Chapter 9 for legal interpretation only. Since Sadducees did not recognize Esther as a canonical book, this elevation of the scroll to Pentateuchal status must be considered an anti-Sadducee demonstration.] Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It is said here [Esth. 9:30.] , words of peace and truth. And it is said there, [Prov. 23:23.] truth buy but do not sell [It is permitted to pay for instruction in the Torah but forbidden to take money for teaching others. “Truth” in Proverbs always refers to the Torah.] . It is like the truth of the Torah. This one needs ruling, that one needs ruling [Torah verses, as well as a Torah scroll, may only be written on lines, if parchment or leather impressed into the material with a metal ruler, if on paper the latter must be lined. (Babli 16b.)] . This one is given to be analyzed, that one is given to be analyzed. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The scroll which Samuel handed to David [With the plan for the building of the Temple.] is given to be analyzed. What is the reason? [This disqualifies all Aramaic translations, even Targum Onkelos canonized in Babylonia.] Everything in writing, that is the Masora. For the hand of the Eternal, that is the Holy Spirit. To me for understanding, from here that it is given to be analyzed. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, and why do we not say, the plan of everything was in spirit with him [1Chr. 28:12.] ? Rebbi Mana said, what is בָר֨וּחַ֙? by the wind of his mouth [רוח may be interpreted as Divine inspiration only if indicated as such in the verse.] .

4“Places walled from the days of Joshua bin Nun read on the Fifteenth.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They honored the Land of Israel which was desolate in those days and attached it to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fifteenth? Rebbi Abbahu analyzed “dwelling, dwelling”. Since “dwelling” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “dwelling” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun [The basis for this argument and the next one is Esth. 9:19: Therefore the dispersed Jews who dwell in open towns celebrate the Fourteenth of the Month of Adar. While this does not prove that the inhabitants of walled cities read on the Fifteenth, it makes clear that those in open towns do not read on the Fifteenth. The only question is whether the town has to be open at the time of reading or had to be open at the time of the conquest. Now “dwelling” is mentioned in the verse, and it is mentioned as a duty to dwell in the Land after the conquest in Deut. 12:10.] . Then should not everybody read on the Fourteenth? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy analyzed “open, openness.” It is said here “openness” and it said there [Deut. 3:5.] except for very many open towns. Since “open” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “openness” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun [This argument to exclude dwellers in towns that are not open from reading on the 14 is quoted in the Babli 2b.] . It was stated [Tosephta 1:1.] : “Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, from the days of Ahasuerus. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said to him, what has the reference to Susa the Fortress to do here? If you are inferring from Susa the Fortress then one should read in Susa the Fortress, but not read at any other place [Not even in the city of Susa which in the Scroll is clearly distinguished from the government complex, the Fortress.] .” It seems that there are three Tannaim. The first Tanna intends to say, from the days of Joshua bin Nun. Another Tanna intends to say, from the days of Ahasuerus. Another Tanna intends to say, “town” in any case [In any town not walled at the time of reading one reads on the 14.] . It turns out that you may say that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah say the same [It is not proven that R. Yose ben R. Jehudah disagrees with R. Joshua ben Qorha in practice since he does not proffer an alternative.] , only that each one of them infers from a separate argument; and it was stated so [Tosephta 1:1.] : “what is close to a walled place and what is seen with it has the same standing as it [As Amoraic statement Babli 2b. These places read on the 15.] .” Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For example like Ḥamata. Since he only said “like”, therefore Ḥamata itself was walled in the days of Joshua bin Nun. From the following [Jos. 19:35, in the description of the territory of Naftali. Cf. Babli Makkot 10a.] : Fortified towns, Haṣsiddim, Ṣer, and Ḥamat, Raqqat, and Kinneret. Haṣsiddim is Wheat village [Possibly Hattim on the plain above Tiberias.] , Ṣer is next to it, Ḥamat Ḥamata [In the Babli 6a this is identified as the hot springs of Tiberias (which, however, has no archeological remains of the time of Joshua.)] , Raqqat Tiberias [Tell Raqqat is slightly to the North of Herodian Tiberias.] , Kinneret, Genezareth. Rebbi Levi objected, is it not written [Jos. 12:3, as Northern border of the kingdom of Siḥon, given to the tribe of Gad.] , the prairie to the Kinneret lake? Were there two Genesareths [Since the Jordan plain of Gad ended at the Southern end of the Sea of Galilee whereas Genezareth is close to its Northern end.] ? Or were there only two autonomous districts [Greek ʼαυτονομία.] , like Bet Yeraḥ and Zinbarai, which are towers on Lake Kinneret, where the fortification was abandoned and taken over by Gentiles. Come and see, there one does not read, outside one reads [Since this is unreasonable, one may only read in the suburbs on the 15th if there is organized communal reading in the city on the 15th.] ?

5Ḥizqiah read it [The Esther scroll in Tiberias. Babli 5b.] on the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth, since he was apprehensive about what Rebbi Simeon ben Yohay had stated, a person who would sell a dwelling-house in a walled city [Lev. 25:29.] , that excludes Tiberias whose wall is the lake [While Herodian Tiberias had a wall on the land side since there was none on the lake side it was of little military value. The question is whether such military value is required for the definition of “walled city” both for the laws of the Jubilee and for reading the Scroll.] . Rebbi Joḥanan read it in the Kifra synagogue and said, this is the main ancient Tiberias [It seems that this synagogue (at other places called Kufra) was outside the wall. In his opinion this was the original Raqqat which was encroached upon by Herod building Tiberias.] ; he was not apprehensive about what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥay had stated. They were lenient in matters of reading it, as we have stated there [Mishnah Arakhin 9:5, about the rules of houses in walled cities for which there exists a right of buying back only during one year.] : “Anything inside the walls is treated as a house of a walled city except fields. Rebbi Meïr says, even fields.” And it was stated so [Tosephta 1:1.] : “what is close to a walled place and what is seen with it has the same standing as it. [While R. Simeon ben Yoḥay may be correct for the laws of the Jubilee, his argument is irrelevant for reading the Scroll.] ”

6[Ta`aniot 4:8, Notes 340–342.] Rebbi Joḥanan said, from Gibbethon to Antipatris there were 60’000 villages. The smallest among them was Bet Shemesh, about which it is written [1S. 6:19.] , He smote of the men of Bet Shemesh, for they looked at the Ark ofthe Eternal, etc. These were in one direction. If you execute this with reeds it will not carry it. Rebbi Ḥanina said, the Land of Israel folded its fist.

7All the towns which Joshua enumerated are at least one hundred. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he enumerated those walled. Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, he enumerated those close to the border. The verse supports Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: their border was Meḥelef [Jos. 19:33. The verse establishes that the localities mentioned in Jos. are boundary markers, in this case of Naftali. All localities mentioned in the verse will be identified later in the paragraph.] [etc. And Qaḥtat, and Nahallal, and Shimron, and Yedeala, and Bet Leḥem [Jos. 19:15, description of the border between Zevulun and Naftali. Addition by the corrector since the localities will later be discussed in the text. But since of the first verse only one locality was named, the addition seems to be unwarranted. Clearly, the interest is on Tiberias and its wider neighborhood.] .] Meḥelef, Ḥelef. Me’elon, Aylin. Baṣa`ananim, Basin of Qedesh. And Adami, Damin. Hanneqeb, Ṣaidata. And Yabneel, Kefar Yama. Up to Laqqum, Loqim [Most of the places are not identified. If the root of בצעננים is בצעה “swamp”, the translation would have to be “swamp near Qedesh Naftali.” Damin seems to be the village of Dameh near Tiberias. Hanneqeb seems to be Arabic נקב “hole, breach”, a good description for the mountain pass controlling the road from Tiberias to the Mediterranean. Kefar Yama may be the place Yamnia mentioned by Josephus (Bell. II.xx.6) in Galilee.] . And Qaṭtat, Qeṭonit. And Nahallal, Mahlul. And Shimron, Simonieh. And Yedeala, Ḥirieh. And Bet Leḥem, Bet Leḥem Sarieh [The places mentioned in Jos. 19:15, in the center of Lower Galilee; in Talmudic times the region of Sepphoris. Except for the Galilean Bet Lehem the places are unidentified.] .

8Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi: Lod and Ge-Haḥarašim [Mentioned first in Neh. 11:35 as settlements in the region of Benjamin. Babli 4a.] were walled from the times of Joshua bin Nun. Why did he not say, “and Ono”? Because it is written [Neh. 11:35.] . But so is Lod and it was mentioned. But because it was stated [Mishnah Arakhin 9:6, describing walled cities.] , “Gamla, Gedor, Hadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem, and those similar to them.” But is it not written [1Chr. 8:12, descendants of Benjamin.] , The sons of Elpa‘al: Ever, and Misham, and Shemer; he built Ono and Lod and its dependencies? Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, it was destroyed in the times of the Concubine at Gibea [Babli 4a.] ; Elpa‘al rebuilt it. That is what is written [Jud. 20:48.] , also all existing towns they put to the fire. Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Lod and Ono are Ge-Haḥarašim [It is possible to read Neh. 11:35 as: Lod and Ono are Ge-Harašim (valley of the artisans.) He therefore disagrees with Rebbi’s statement.] .

9Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya. Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading [Šeqalim 1:1, Note 24; also quoted twice in the sequel. He asserts that even though villagers may read early and inhabitants of walled cities have to read on the Fifteenth, reading on the Fourteenth satisfies the basic requirement. Those who are reading on both days, as mentioned later, because the tradition about the existence of a walled settlement in the days of Joshua bin Nun is not reliable, do not recite a benediction on the second day.] . It only comes to teach you that the obligations apply to the Second Adar [As explained in Šeqalim, if the Scroll was read on the 15 of Adar and then an intercalary month was declared, the reading has to be repeated but even in a walled town may be read on the 14.] . Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Aḥa were sitting together. Rebbi Yose said to Rebbi Aḥa, it is only reasonable for the past; but for the future [If the scroll was read by error on the 14th it does not have to be repeated since the basic obligation was fulfilled, but a place which by tradition is obligated to read on the 15 cannot be permitted in the future to read on the 14.] ? And did we not state, at a place where one is used to read it on two days, one reads it on two days? He said to him, I also am of this opinion. Rebbi Mana said, this is correct. If somebody read it on the Fourteenth and read it again on the Fifteenth, would one not listen to him? If you are saying so [That a place reading and celebrating on the 15th may be permitted to change to the 14th.] , with your hand you uproot the time of walled places.

10Naḥman the son of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Joy and enjoyment [The entire statement is an explanation of Esth. 9:10, but the expression “joy and enjoyment” is from 8:17 instead of the correct “joy” (as in the Babli, 5b.)] , this implies that eulogies are forbidden. And festive dinner, this implies that fasting is forbidden. And holiday, this implies that work is forbidden [The Babli notes that it is not clear from the statement whether this refers to both days of Purim or only to the day celebrated in the community.] . Rebbi Ḥelbo said, many times I sat before Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman but did not hear these things from him. He said to him, did you hear all the traditions which my father had? The action of Rebbi disagrees, for Rebbi acted demonstratively on two days in the year. He took a bath on the Seventeenth of Tammuz [To emphasize that the restrictions of the 9 of Av do not apply to the 17 of Tammuz.] and planted saplings on Purim [To make it clear that work is not forbidden on Purim; Babli 5b.] . Rebbi Ḥabiba in the names of the Rabbis of there: Any place where it is written holiday it is not written theyaccepted, and any place where it is written they accepted it is not written holiday [In the list of Esth. 9:19 “holiday” is mentioned, but in the note 9:22 that the Jews accepted the rules of Purim, only joy and dinner are mentioned (in addition to obligations to send food to one another and gifts to the poor.)] . And here it is written holiday and it is written they accepted [This can be read either as proof of R. Ḥelbo’s position (as a question), or (as a statement) by Naḥman that 9:23 asserts that the Jews accepted all that Mordocai had written to them, implicitly endorsing the holiday status.] ? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Family and family, these are the hamlets. City and city, these are the fortified places. Town and town, these are the small towns [Esth. 9:28; Babli 2b.] .

11Samuel stated: Why do they [The inhabitants of isolated hamlets.] precede to the market day? So they may provide [water and] [Corrector’s addition from the Babli 4a, to be deleted. Water is drawn from local wells.] food to their brothers in the fortified places [Corrector’s addition from the Babli 4a, to be deleted. Water is drawn from local wells.] . Rebbi Philippos ben Protos said before Rebbi Jonah: Could this mean that it is forbidden for {agricultural} work [If you invite the farmers to listen to the reading of the scroll in the city synagogue because you want them to bring their produce to the local market, do you not tell them to harvest their produce early in the morning and this certainly is agricultural work.] ? He said to him, if from this you can conclude nothing. Are there not the intermediate days of holidays which are forbidden for {agricultural} work [As explained in Mo`ed qatan, work forbidden on the intermediate days of holidays essentially is agricultural work.] but they provide food to their brothers in the fortified places. You only have this from Rebbi, for Rebbi acted demonstratively on two days in the year. He took a bath on the Seventeenth of Tammuz [To emphasize that the restrictions of the 9 of Av do not apply to the 17 of Tammuz.] and planted saplings on Purim [Therefore Rebbi choose agricultural work to perform in public on Purim.] .

12Rebbi Justus ben Rebbi Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not Ezra institute that one reads in the Torah Mondays, Thursdays, and Sabbath afternoon [Babli Bava qamma 82a (and below Halakhah 4:1, 75a l. 21). The Torah reading on Sabbath morning is attributed to Moses.] ? And Mordocai and Esther institute on basis of what Ezra will institute in the future [Since the text dates Purim to Xerxes but Ezra to Artaxerxes, basing a date for the reading of the Scroll on an institution of Ezra clearly is anachronistic.] ? He said to him, he who ordered the Mishnah based it on Scripture: Family and family, city and city, town and town [Esth. 9:28. No fixed dates are indicated, only that there are variable times according to circumstances. The fixation of market days to Monday and Thursday is a later development in the many centuries between Persian rule and Mishna composition.] .

13MISHNAH: How is this? If it falls on Monday, hamlets and large villages read on this day, but walled cities the next day. If it falls on Tuesday or Wednesday, hamlets precede to the market day, large villages read on this day, but walled cities the next day.

14HALAKHAH: In all cases where we are stating “if it falls” it refers to the Fourteenth [Of Adar (II).] . Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah implies this, “walled cities the next day.” Rebbi Yose [Who published the calendar rules which insure that the Day of Atonement never falls on Friday or Sunday (Eruvin Chapter 3, Note 199.)] said, there is no “if it falls on Monday”, [there is no] “if it falls on the Sabbath. [Mishnah 4.] ” If it falls on Monday, the Great Fast Day is on Sunday; if it falls on the Sabbath, the Great Fast Day falls on Friday [In the computed calendar only the lengths of the Months Marḥeshwan and Kislew are variable. Therefore if the day of the week of any date after 1 Tevet is known, the day of week of any later date in the year may easily be computed. In addition, the Adar preceding Nisan always has 29 days. After the 14th, there are 15 days left in Adar. From Nisan 1 to Tishre 1 are three months of 30 days and three of 29 days. Together with the 10 days of Tishre to the Day of Atonement this makes] .

15MISHNAH: If it falls on Thursday, hamlets and large villages read on this day, but walled cities on the next day. If it falls on Friday, hamlets precede to the market day [Thursday.] , large villages and walled cities read on this day [One forbids reading the scroll on a Sabbath, to avoid having a person carrying the scroll in the public domain in a place having no eruv.] . If it falls on the Sabbath, hamlets and large villages precede and read on the market day, but walled cities on the next day.

16HALAKHAH: They asked before Rebbi Ze`ira [Two generations before R. Yose, when the 14th on Monday and Sabbath was not impossible.] : Come and see, if it falls so that in walled cities one should read on the Sabbath, one reads on Friday [Mishnah 4.] . If it falls so that in villages one should read on the Sabbath, it is being pushed to the market day [Mishnah 5.] ! Rebbi La said, because of the honor of walled cities, that one should not say, we saw walled cities and villages read at the same day. Then it should not be pushed to the market day, that one should not say, we saw hamlets and villages read on the same day. Then if it falls on Monday, falls on [Thursday, falls on] [Corrector’s addition, probably against the intent of the original compiler, cf. Note 87.] the Sabbath? It was found stated, Hamlets [and villages] [Corrector’s addition. Since villages always read between hamlets and walled cities, the note is correct but logically unnecessary.] and walled cities may read together; and this Tanna does not show (respect) [even] [The [corrector’s] note is incomprehensible; follow the (scribe’s) text.] for any creature. He holds that walled cities cannot precede villages; he holds that any which is pushed away is pushed to the market day. “Rebbi says, all shall be pushed to the market day. [Tosephta 1:2; Babli 4b.] ” For he holds that walled cities cannot precede villages; for he holds that any which is pushed away is pushed to the market day. How does one act? Rebbi Yose said, following the Mishnah [In all actual cases one follows the applicable one of Mishnaiot 2–5] .

17They asked before Rebbi Ze`ira [Two generations before R. Yose, when the 14th on Monday and Sabbath was not impossible.] : As you are saying there, if it falls so that in walled cities one should read on the Sabbath, one reads on Friday [Mishnah 4.] . If it falls so that in villages one should read on the Sabbath, should one not read it on Friday [Since if the 15th is on a Sabbath one reads on the 14th, on Friday, there seems to be no reason why one should not read on Friday if the 14th is on the Sabbath, against the Mishnah.] ? But the Mishnah must be by two Tannaim. The first Tanna is of the opinion that any which is pushed away is pushed to the market day [This is the Mishnah.] . [The other Tanna is of the opinion that not everything which is pushed away is pushed to the market day.] [Corrector’s addition. Probably not part of the original text, in which Rebbi Ze`ira immediately states that one follows Rav who explains that all Mishnaiot are consistent.] He said to them, so says Rav: it is one Tanna. Why did they say, if for walled cities it falls on a Sabbath, one reads it on Friday? Because Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading [Šeqalim 1:1, Note 24; also quoted twice in the sequel. He asserts that even though villagers may read early and inhabitants of walled cities have to read on the Fifteenth, reading on the Fourteenth satisfies the basic requirement. Those who are reading on both days, as mentioned later, because the tradition about the existence of a walled settlement in the days of Joshua bin Nun is not reliable, do not recite a benediction on the second day.] [If for walled cities it is a Sabbath, then Friday is the 14th and is valid reading for everybody (after the fact).] . And similarly, if for villages it would fall on the Sabbath [But if Sabbath is the 14th, Friday is not acceptable following R. Ḥelbo, and there are two reasons why one should read on Thursday.] ; as Rebbi Ḥelbo said, the Thirteenth was a day of war [Esth. 9:1.] . It proves for itself that it was not a day of comfort. It is found stated, hamlets read on Friday [Following R. La in the preceding Halakhah. Babli 5a.] ; large villages are pushed to the market day, and walled cities after the Sabbath. How does one act? Rebbi Yose said, it is impossible [Who published the calendar rules which insure that the Day of Atonement never falls on Friday or Sunday (Eruvin Chapter 3, Note 199.)] , but if one would be possible, following the Mishnah [In all actual cases one follows the applicable one of Mishnaiot 2–5] .

18Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: In any case they said, it should be pushed away from its place, only with ten [For the Yerushalmi it is clear that on the 14 (or for walled cities the 15), reading the Scroll is not a sacral act and public worship; therefore it does not have to be performed in public by 10 adult males. The only problem is if the scroll has to be read on another day; where in one opinion it remains a private act but in the other it needs publicity, a public reading in the presence of at least ten adult males. Babli 5a.] . But we see Rabbis even single? Rebbi Abuna in the name of Rebbi [Read: Rav.] Assi: In any case they said, any that is pushed to the market day, only with ten. Rebbi Ḥanania said, Rav Ḥuna and Rav Jehudah disagree. One says, only with ten; the other one says, even singly. The one who said only for ten objected to the one who said even singly: then why does he not read at his place [Why should not everybody read privately on the 14th?] ?

19Rebbi said, the Mishnah comes out on the Eleventh, the Twelfth, the Thirteenth, the Fourteenth, the Fifteenth [The 11th appears as a day of reading the scroll only if the 14th is a Sunday, and this case is missing in the Mishnah in the Yerushalmi; it is in the Mishnah in the Babli (and in Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah). Rebbi declares the Mishnah in the Babli and independent Mishnah mss. as the correct last edition of the text.] .

20MISHNAH: What is a large village? Any in which there are ten unoccupied people [Since a day laborer is supposed to work from sunrise to sunset, and the farmer or householder who hires him must supervise and work with him during that time, regular synagogue service during the week is possible only if there are at least 10 adult males available after sunrise and before sunset for public morning and afternoon services. Since the inhabitants of hamlets are supposed to come to the synagogue to hear the reading of the scroll, if the synagogue is not open they cannot come. If the community has people able to read the scroll but cannot support a daily synagogue service, they are reading on the 14th.] . Less than that is a hamlet. About these [The days preceding Purim.] it was said that one precedes and does not trail. But for the times of offering of wood by the priests and the people [As described in Mishnah Ta`anit 4:6.] , and the Ninth of Av [Which is pushed to the 10th if the 9th is a Sabbath.] , and the festive offering [The festival offering required from every pilgrim at one of the three yearly festivals of pilgrimage cannot be offered prior to the start of the festival, but may be offered anytime in the holiday week (which in case of Pentecost is after the end of the holiday).] , and the public assembly [The public Torah reading on Tabernacles of the Sabbatical year; Deut. 31:10–13.] , one trails but does not precede [If any of these dates falls on a Sabbath, the obligation is transferred to the following Sunday.] . Even though they said, one precedes but does not trail, one is permitted to eulogize, and to fast [The prohibition of mourning and fasting refers only to Purim itself, not to the dates of reading the scroll if these precede the 14th of Adar.] , and gifts to the poor [As stated before (Note 21), these obligations also are independent of the date of reading the scroll.] . Rebbi Jehudah said, when has this been said? At places where one assembles Monday and Thursday. But at a place where one assembles neither Monday nor Thursday one reads on its time [Since a day laborer is supposed to work from sunrise to sunset, and the farmer or householder who hires him must supervise and work with him during that time, regular synagogue service during the week is possible only if there are at least 10 adult males available after sunrise and before sunset for public morning and afternoon services. Since the inhabitants of hamlets are supposed to come to the synagogue to hear the reading of the scroll, if the synagogue is not open they cannot come. If the community has people able to read the scroll but cannot support a daily synagogue service, they are reading on the 14th.] .

21HALAKHAH: It was stated: Ten who are free from work for the synagogue [It is not implied that these people do not work at all; only that they are free to go to the synagogue mornings and evenings. Babli 5a.] . Rav Jehudah said, like us who do not need time to study [He already has passed all his exams and obtained a job as communal rabbi; therefore he is free (probably better: obligated) to come to the synagogue every morning and evening.] . It was stated, a place with less than ten inhabitants, its improvement is by its deficiency and is treated like a village [If there are less than 10 inhabitants it is not worth while for the nearby village to organize a reading for them; since the market day is irrelevant for them automatically they have to read on the 14th.] .

22“About these [The days preceding Purim.] it was said that one precedes and does not trail.” Reading the Scroll and paying the Sheqel tax one precedes and does not trail; the Meal of the New Moon and the Purim Meal one trails [The meal at which the New Moon is declared by the calendar court by its nature cannot be celebrated before the New Moon has been declared; the Purim meal is scheduled for the afternoon of the 14th (or 15th), probably extending into the next night.] but does not precede. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Abbahu: then could one make it on the Sabbath [For which one has to go to the expenses of a festive meal anyhow.] ? He answered him, to make them days of drinking and joy [Esth. 9:22.] ; those whose joy depends on the court [The calendar court, before the publication of the computed calendar. After the publication, every date is permanently depending on R. Yose’s court.] ; this excludes those whose joy depends on Heaven.

23“ [Tosephta 1:5; Babli Bava meṣia` 78b.] The Purim collection is for Purim [The gifts to the poor demanded by Esth. 9:22 must be used by the poor to buy food for the Purim meal.] . Rebbi Eleazar [The ms. sources (Note 126) are about evenly split between Eleazar and Eliezer.] said, only that the poor should not change it from its destination to {buy from it} laces for his shoes. One does not check eligibility for the money given as Purim charity; one gives to anybody who extends his hand to take.” One may not change Purim monies; does this imply that other {charity} monies one may change [Mishnah Qiddušin 1:6 states that a promise to Heaven has the legal consequences of delivery to persons. If monies promised to charity must be delivered, what else may be changed?] ? But the intended use of any monies may be changed [While the fact that the monies must be given to charity cannot be changed, the name and nature of the charity may be changed before the monies are delivered to the administrators of the charity. Tosephta 2:15, Babli Arakhin 6a.] before they are given into the hands of the administrators; after they are given into the hands of the administrators they may not be changed.

24[This paragraph also is Ta`aniot 4:6 (Notes 187–194), Šeqalim 4:1 (Notes 10–18); Babli Ta`anit 12a.] “But for the times of offering of wood by the priests.” For what reason were the times of wood by the priests and the people to be counted? Only that at the time when Israel returned from the Diaspora and did not find wood in the chamber, those came forward and volunteered wood from their own and donated it to the public. It was used to offer public sacrifices. The prophets among them stipulated for them that even if the chamber was full of wood, if those came and offered and volunteered wood from their own, that the sacrifice should only be brought first from theirs. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering. It was stated, a woman who made a coat for her son has to surrender it to the public. Rebbi Aḥa said, this is Rebbi Yose’s, since Rebbi Yose said, also he may volunteer as unpaid trustee. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila, it is the opinion of everybody. Where do they disagree? About the body of the offering. But for enablers of the offering everybody agrees that a private offering can be turned into public offering.. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose: “Those days are observed at the time of sacrifices and not at the time of sacrifices; Rebbi Yose says, they are observed only at the time of sacrifices.” Also from the following: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Sadoq said, we were of the descendants of Senaah ben Benjamin. When the Ninth of Av fell on a Sabbath, we postponed it to the end of the Sabbath and we were fasting but not completing.”

25“And the Ninth of Av.” [This paragraph also is in Ta`aniot 4:9, Notes 370–377.] Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya, it should have been logical that one should fast on the Tenth, since on it it was burned. Why on the Ninth? Because the calamity started on it. So it was stated, on the Seventh they entered, on the Eighth they were misbehaving in it, on the Ninth they started the fire, and on the Tenth it was burned. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi fasted Ninth and Tenth. Rebbi Levi fasted on the Ninth and the night of the Tenth. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Rebbi wanted to uproot the Ninth of Av but they did not let him. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, I was with you but it was not said so, but Rebbi wanted to uproot the Ninth of Av which fell on a Sabbath but they did not let him. He said, because it was pushed aside, let it be pushed aside. They said to him, let it be pushed to the next day. In a similar case, that which we stated there: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said, for both of them it says, God blessed them and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply [Gen. 1:28.] , etc.” Rebbi Eleazar in the Name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Practice follows Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said to him, I was with you and it was only said, if she asks to be married the law is on her side. He said about them, two are better than one [Eccl. 4:9.] .

26“And the festive offering.” One verse says, the harvest festival, the first fruits of your work [Ex. 23:16.] . Another verse says, any productive work you shall not do [Lev. 23:21. The first verse seems to require harvesting on Pentecost, the second verse forbids it. Babli Ḥagigah 17b.] . Rebbi Ḥanania said, how could both verses be sustained? If it falls on a weekday you bring the festival offering and refrain from work. If it falls on the Sabbath, the following day you bring the festival offering and harvest [Since Pentecost is only one day, the next day is a regular work day.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only ears for her dough [On a day of sacrificing one is forbidden gainful work, as on a holiday. Therefore on the Sunday after Pentecost on Sabbath the only harvesting permitted is collecting for immediate consumption.] . As what was stated [Pesaḥim 4:1, Notes 6–7; Megillat Ta`anit Chapter 5.] , “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me {to bring} wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement [The arrangement of firewood on the altar.] on that day are forbidden funeral orations, and fasting, and working [Work is not forbidden in a formal sense as on the Sabbath or holiday, only any gainful employment, including harvest for later sale.] .”

27“And the public assembly.” Rebbi Abba, son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said, because of horn blowing [Tosephta Sotah 7:15 states that Cohanim blow golden trumpets at the public assembly. There is no horn blowing on the Sabbath.] . Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Ḥiyya said, because of the platform [On which the king sits to read from the Torah, Tosephta Sotah 7:13. This argument follows the opinion that the Torah was read inside the Temple enclosure, not on the Temple Mount outside the enclosure following R. Eliezer ben Jacob.] . Could they not make it the day before? Not to compress the courtyard [The Torah is read on the first of the intermediate days of Tabernacles. The courtyard is rather small and could not accommodate the worshippers on the first day of the holiday if it already had been constructed there. Quoted by Rashi 5a.] . Rebbi Mattaniah said, because of you shall not plant any wooden Ashera [Deut. 16:21. In his opinion, any permanent wooden construction is forbidden in the Temple precinct. R. Eliezer ben Jacob reads the verse as forbidding any wooden structure in the Temple precinct (Sifry Deut. 145); therefore he must hold that the reading was outside on the Mount. This raises the question whether R. Mattaniah quotes the verse in support of R. Isaac ben R. Ḥiyya or in opposition since for R. Eliezer ben Jacob only R. Abba ben R. Ḥiyya’s reason would be valid (Maimonides Ḥagigah 3:7).] .

28The Mishnah is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, “not to eulogize” one is forbidden to fast, “not to fast” one is permitted to eulogize. “Not to” unspecified is as “not to fast.” Rebbi Jonah said, “these are the days not to fast on them, and partially not to eulogize on them.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, why does it say “on them” twice? To teach that the night is permitted but the day forbidden. As it was stated, “therefore a person who takes it on himself has to forbid himself in prayer.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that he must mention it on the preceding evening. This comes following what Rebbi Ze`ira said in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Similar to Friday night and Sabbath day.

29The Mishnah either follows Rebbi Yose on the eleventh or Rebbi Meïr on the twelfth. But it is difficult for Rebbi Meïr. Was it not stated, “on the twelfth of it is Tirion Day?” But Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Tirion Day was disestablished; the day when Julianus and Pappos were killed. “On the thirteenth of it is Nikanor Day.” What is Nikanor Day? “A commander of the Greek government was passing by on his way to Alexandria when he saw Jerusalem, and insulted, blasphemed, and vituperated and said, when I shall return in peace I shall destroy this tower One of the Hasmoneans went out against him, killed his soldiers until he came to his car When he came to his car he hacked off his hand and cut off his head, stuck them on a piece of wood and wrote under it, the mouth which spoke in guilt and the hand stretched out in haughtiness, and hang it on a pole outside Jerusalem.” In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it is understandable, it comes to forbid the previous day. What does it come to forbid for Rebbi Yose? To forbid the day before he does not need since itself it forbidden because of the fourteenth. It comes to inform you that eulogies are forbidden. And also for Rebbi Meïr it is not difficult; was it not stated, “on the twelfth of it is Tirion Day?” But Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Tirion Day was disestablished; the day when Julianus and Pappos were killed. “On the fourteenth and the fifteenth is Purim, not to eulogize. On the sixteenth they started to build the wall of Jerusalem, not to eulogize.” In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it is understandable, it comes to forbid the previous day. What does it come to forbid for Rebbi Yose? To forbid the day before he does not need since itself is forbidden because of the fifteenth. It comes to inform you that eulogies are forbidden.

30“On the seventeenth of it Gentiles attacked the remainder of the Sopherim at the city of Khalkis and Bet-Zabdin and there was relief.” In Rebbi Meïr’s opinion it is understandable, it comes to forbid the {day} itself. What does it come to forbid for Rebbi Yose? Rebbi Yose said, all these matters neither support nor contradict either Rebbi Meïr or Rebbi Yose; they only come to report the days on which miracles were done for Israel. You have to understand that this is so since we have stated: “On the New Moon of Nisan the Daily Offering was settled, one may not eulogize.” Without this is it not already forbidden to him because of the New Moon? “But on Sabbath and holidays one fasts before and after them. What do you understand to be lenient with these and restrictive with those? For these are words of the Torah, and words of the Torah do not need reinforcement. But those are words of the Sopherim, and words of the Sopherim need reinforcement.” That is what you were saying, as long as Megillat Ta`anit was not abolished. But since Megillat Ta`anit was abolished, all these were abolished. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi both said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Simon both said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Jonathan said, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Joḥanan said, yesterday I was repeating, “it happened that in Lydda they decided on a fast-day on Ḥanukkah. They said about Rebbi Eliezer that he got a haircut, and about Rebbi Joshua that he took a {thermal} bath. Rebbi Joshua said to them, go and fast because you fasted.” And you are saying, Megillat Ta`anit was abolished? Rebbi Abba said, even if you are saying that Megillat Ta`anit was abolished, Ḥanukkah and Purim were not abolished.

31The actions of the rabbis imply that Megillat Ta`anit was abolished. Rebbi Jonathan fasted every New Year’s Day’s eve. Rebbi Abun fasted every Sabbath eve. Rebbi Ze`ira fasted 300 fasts, and some say 900, and disregarded Megillat Ta`anit. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa commanded the schoolteachers, if a woman comes to ask you, tell her that one may fast any time except Sabbaths, holidays, New Moons, intermediate days of holidays, Ḥanukkah and Purim.

32Simeon bar Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Joḥanan and he instructed following Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Eleazar was sorry about this; he said, does one disregard the anonymous {Mishnah} and follow an isolated opinion? He found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr. When he understood that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated this in the name of Rebbi Meïr, he said, the old man understands his chapters well. Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yudan: Did not Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. He said to him, and if not Rebbi, maybe somebody else. How is this? If it is found that Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, then practice follows the anonymous statement. In a case where Rebbi did not teach a disagreement but others taught it in disagreement and Rebbi taught it anonymously, certainly practice has to follow the anonymous text. There come Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, every place where Rebbi taught a disagreement and afterwards taught it anonymously, practice follows the anonymous statement. Why does he instruct here following the isolated opinion? Rebbi Samuel bar Ina in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: That is, if no disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion. But if a disagreement is stated together with the anonymous opinion, practice does not follow the anonymous opinion.

33[Babli 7a/b, where however the text in the printed editions is unreliable and originally was a metathesis of the Yerushalmi text; cf. Dikduke Soferim Megillah pp. 24–25, Notes 3-ג. Since this story illustrates the meaning of sending meals one person to the other and gifts to the poor which is mentioned in Mishnah 7, it seems that this paragraph, which has no connection with the subjects of Mishnah 6, really belongs to the next Halakhah.] Rebbi Yudan the Patriarch sent the Great Rebbi Hoshaia a roast and a pitcher [Greek λάγηνος, Latin lagena.] of wine. He sent and told him, you fulfilled with us gifts to the needy. Then he sent him a calf and a barrel of wine. He sent and told him, you fulfilled with us, sending meals one person to the other.

34It was stated: In a place (where they are in danger) [where they assemble] [Obviously the text of the (scribe) is the correct one; the [corrector’s] has to be deleted. The scribe’s text is quoted by R. S. Nathanson in Ziun Yerushalaim in the name of Nahmanides in the Wilna edition of the Yerushalmi; the quote is not found in Nahmanides”s Novellae to Megillah edited by M. Goldstein, Jerusalem 1973.] one reads it on the Fourteenth. Rebbi Yose asked: If it is a place (where they are in danger) [where they assemble] they should not read it at all [A customary obligation is not to be executed if it leads to danger of life.] .

35MISHNAH: If the Scroll was read during the first Adar and then the year was intercalated [While the Scroll was read correctly, since now actually the Adar preceding Nisan is the next month the reading has to be repeated.] one has to read it during the second Adar. There is no difference between first and second Adar except reading the Scroll and gifts to the needy [In this form it is not quite correct since the intercalation also makes the first Adar 30 days but the second is 29 days. One has to explain that on the 14th (or 15th) of the second one reads the scroll, gives gifts to the needy and sends food to friends, but the prohibition of fasting and mourning extends to the same days in the first Adar.] .

36HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if it was intercalated and afterwards they read it; but if they read it and after that it was intercalated it does not apply [In this rejected opinion, if the reading the first time was legitimate, it does not have to be repeated. The accepted opinion leaves open the question whether also the benedictions recited for the reading have to be repeated. Differently Babli 6b–7a.] . The Mishnah does not say so, but “if the Scroll was read during the first Adar and then the year was intercalated one has to read it during the second Adar.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: it is written [Esth. 9:29.] , to validate this Purim letter; why does the verse say, the second? But from here that If the Scroll was read during the first Adar and then the year was intercalated one has to read it during the second Adar.

37[Babli 7a.] Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: What did Mordocai and Esther do? They wrote a letter and sent to our rabbis [The established rabbinate in the Holy Land, the only one authorized to decree practices valid everywhere.] . So they said to them, do you accept upon yourselves these two days every year? They answered them, are not the troubles which come upon us enough, that you want to add to ours the trouble of Haman? They insisted and wrote them a second letter; that is what is written [Esth. 9:29.] , to confirm to them this second [Purim]letter. What was written in it? They told them, if this is your fear, already it is written and deposited in Archives [Greek ’αρχεῑον.] : are these not written in the annals of the kings of Media and Persia [Esth. 10:2.] . Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: 85 Elders and among them more than 30 prophets [In Babli sources: 120 Elders.] were sorry about this matter. They said, it is written [Lev. 27:34. Quoted in the same sense in the Babli Šabbat 104a, Yoma 80b, Temurah 16b.] : These are the commandments which the Eternal commanded to Moses. These are the commandments which we were commanded by Moses’s saying. So did Moses say to us: No other prophet will reveal to you anything afterwards. And Mordocai and Esther want to introduce something new [Since from the middle of Chapter 9 to the end of the Scroll the rules of Purim are written to be interpreted as biblical laws. This cannot be compared to Ḥanukkah which is a purely rabbinical time of remembrance. Writing new rules of biblical status is a clear violation of the prohibition neither to add nor to subtract(Deut. 4:2). This is a sufficient reason for Sadducees to reject the scroll and the attendant questionable activities.] ? They did not move from there but discussed [the matter] [Corrector’s addition in Babylonian style.] until the Holy One, praise to Him, illuminated their eyes and they found it written in the Torah, in Prophets, and in Hagiographs. This is what is written [Ex. 17:14.] , the Eternal said to Moses, write this in a book for remembrance. This is the Torah, as you are saying, this is the Torah which Moses put before the Children of Israel [Deut. 4:44.] . Remembrance are the Prophets, a book of remembrance is being written before Him for those who fear the Eternal, [Mal. 3:16.] etc. In a book are the Hagiographs, Esther’s word confirmed the matter of these Purim days and it was written in a book [Esth. 9:32.] .

38Rav, and Rebbi Ḥanina, and Rebbi Jonathan, and Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, this scroll had be said to Moses on Sinai; only there is no earlier and later in the Torah [Babli Pesaḥim 6a. Since the Torah is a timeless document, the historical succession must be irrelevant. In philosophical terms, they support Mendelssohn and possibly Maimonides, proponents of an abstract Judaism, against Jehudah Hallevi’s Judaism as historical religion. The argument, mutatis mutandis, is found again in the attempts at justification of the medieval pseudepigraph Zohar as Tannaitic document.] . Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Prophets and Hagiographs will in the future be nullified, but the five books of the Torah will never be nullified. What is the reason? A strong voice, never ending [Deut. 5:19.] . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, also the Esther scroll and practices will never be nullified. It is said here, a strong voice, never ending, and it is said there, their remembrance will not end from their descendants [Esth. 9:28.] . Practices? His practices are eternal [Hab. 3:6. R. Joḥanan follows the first generation Amoraim in accepting Judaism as an abstract religion, which therefore is open to total re-interpretation [which even envisages disappearance of biblical holidays (Midrash Mishle 9[2]; Responsa Rashba #93.] R. Simeon ben Laqish accepts Judaism as historical religion whose rules do evolve but cannot be revolutionized.] .

39Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. The Holy One, praiuse to Him, saw that the evil Haman in the future would weigh his money against Israel. He said, it is better that my children’s money should precede this evil one’s money. Therefore one precedes and reads the paragraph about Šeqalim [A fundraising sermon concept to accompany the reading of Ex. 30:11–16 on the Sabbath preceding or falling on the New Moon of Adar (2). Originally this was introduced as a proclamation that the Temple tax was due. After the destruction of the Temple this reason disappeared and the Temple tax was turned into charity money and merged with the gifts due to the poor on Purim. Babli 13b.] .

40Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every year by year [Esth. 9:21. The implication is that Purim should be celebrated in an intercalary year the way it is celebrated in a regular year.] . It bundled an intercalary year with one which is not intercalary. Since in a year which is not intercalary Adar is next to Nisan, also in an intercalary year Adar is next to Nisan. Rebbi Ḥelbo said, in order to make one liberation close to the other liberation [In the Babli 6b both reasons are attributed to Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. The opposing opinion of R. Eleazar ben R. Yose is not mentioned in the Yerushalmi.] .

41Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: That year [The year described in the Esther Scroll.] was intercalary. What is the reason? From day to day, and from month to month, to the twelfth month which is the month of Adar [Esth. 3:7, describing Haman’s casting of lots (following the Babylonian calendar in which the intercalary month also was Adar.)] . Is the first Adar additional? Is the second Adar additional? What is the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the two lambs of Pentecost are between them [They are prescribed to be yearlings. On the face of it, they have nothing to do with the rules of Adar since they are due in Siwan. The meaning of the statement is that if the first Adar is the addition, the second Adar is the last in the year and the year is stretched to 13 months. But if the second Adar is the addition then a month-year by definition has 12 months; the thirteenth month is neither of the preceding nor of the following year. (This argument is not found otherwise in the Talmudim.) In the first case, a lamb is a yearling up to the date of its birth in the following year; in the second case it is a yearling for 12 months from the date of its birth.] . If it was born on the fifteenth of Adar in a non-intercalary year and it enters an intercalary year; if you are saying that the first Adar is additional, it is a long year. If you are saying that the second Adar is additional, it [The lamb as a yearling.] has only up to the fifteenth of the first Adar. Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, a Mishnah states that the first Adar is additional, as we have stated there [Mishnah Idiut 7:7.] : “They testified that one may intercalate the year during all of Adar; for there were those who said, until Purim. They testified that one may intercalate the year conditionally [The calendar court has the entire month of Adar (necessarily the first) to decree the year as intercalary (and thereby changing the current Adar from 29 to 30 days) In the absence of the Patriarch the court may decree an intercalation subject to later approval by the Patriarch.] .” This implies that the first Adar is additional. If you would say that the second Adar is the addition [See Note 176.] , it no longer is the year and he intercalates it? Mar Uqba found two letters [This is the traditional style in which the Patriarch’s court announces intercalation; cf. Sanhedrin: Yerushalmi 1:1 Notes 179ff., Tosephta 2:2–11, Babli 11b. In this case these were letters addressed to the Head of the Diaspora in Babylonia.] . In one was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add thirty days to the year.” And in one it was written, “it is good in my eyes and the eyes of my colleagues to add a month to the year.” He who says “thirty days” implies that the first Adar is additional [Since as noted at the end, the regular Adar preceding Nisan has 29 days.] ; he who says “a month” implies that the second Adar is additional. If from there, you cannot infer anything, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa and Rebbi Yudan from Gezur, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, forever both months may be augmented [The rule that the Adar preceding Nisan has 29 days is a desideratum; its violation does not invalidate any religious act.] . If he augmented the first and did not augment the second, what he did is well done. Always the Adar close to Nisan is defective [Without explicit change from a competent authority.] .

42[A parallel text for this and the following paragraph is in Šeqalim 1:1, Notes 51 ff.] It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, Obligations which apply to the Second Adar do not apply to the First Adar except for eulogy and for fasting which are equal for both [Tosephta 1:6, Babli 6b.] . Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav, Rebbi Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Rebbi Ḥuna, the rabbi of Sepphoris said, Rebbi Ḥanina made it a custom in Sepphoris following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. He only said custom, therefore not as practice [It is obligatory only in places which adopted the ruling.] . But in matters of documents one writes the First Adar, the Second Adar, only that for the Second Adar one writes תִינָייָן. Rebbi Jehudah says, the Second Adar one writes ת, and it is enough [In the anonymous opinion for both months one writes Adar, but the second one is qualified by “second” (in Aramaic, the language of contracts in both Talmudim.) R. Jehudah agrees that “Adar” alone means the First Adar in an intercalary year, but the Second may be indicated by a single letter ת֗, first letter of the Aramaic word “second”. Babli Nedarim 63a.] .

43[The origin of this paragraph is Šeqalim 1:1 (Notes 19 ff.); therefore the Mishnah here is quoted as “there”.] There, we have stated: “The only difference between a First Adar and a Second Adar is the reading of the Esther scroll and gifts to the poor”. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, also proclamations regarding sheqalim and kilaim are between them [Mishnah Sheqalim 1:1 in an intercalary year refers to the first day of Second Adar.] . Rebbi Ḥelbo and Rav Ḥuna, Rav in the name of the Great Rabbi Ḥiyya: Everybody may fulfill his obligation on the Fourteenth, which is the time of its reading [Šeqalim 1:1, Note 24; also quoted twice in the sequel. He asserts that even though villagers may read early and inhabitants of walled cities have to read on the Fifteenth, reading on the Fourteenth satisfies the basic requirement. Those who are reading on both days, as mentioned later, because the tradition about the existence of a walled settlement in the days of Joshua bin Nun is not reliable, do not recite a benediction on the second day.] . Rebbi Yose said, this [This refers to the statement of R. Simon.] is correct. Did they not say,. one proclaims about sheqalim, so that Israel should bring their sheqalim in time? If you would say on the First Adar, there still would be sixty days {left} in the year. Did they not say, also one goes to inspect for kilaim, not that the plants should be recognizable? If you would say in the First Adar, they still would be small.

44MISHNAH: The only difference between holiday and Sabbath refers to preparation of food [There are many differences in the rules which are different for holidays and for the Sabbath. What is stated here is that what is biblically forbidden on the Sabbath (enumerated in Sabbath 7:2) is biblically forbidden on a holiday except anything used for the preparation of food which is explicitly exempted from prohibition (Ex. 12:16.] . The only difference between Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that in the first case its intentional desecration is punished by man and in the second case by extirpation [Anything biblically forbidden on a Sabbath is forbidden on the Day of Atonement without exception (but eating is forbidden on the Day of Atonement and required on the Sabbath.)] .

45HALAKHAH: [Corrector’s addition. Except for the introductory sentence this is copied from Yom Ṭov 5:2 (Notes 82–88).] [It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, they also permitted actions preparatory to the preparation of food [Tosephta 1:7. Since the preparation of food is permitted on a holiday but prohibited on a Sabbath, there necessarily is a gray area where the decision between permitted and prohibited actions must be rabbinical by biblical standards.] . What is between them? Rav Ḥisday said, to sharpen the tip of the spit is between them. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, to produce fire from stones is between them. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated from Barzilah: what is the matter? Is the matter to sharpen the tip of the spit, or to produce fire from stones? You only have the following [Yom Ṭov 3:8.] : “One does not sharpen the knife but he cleanses it on another.” Rav Ḥisday said, this is Rebbi Jehudah’s, for Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, it is everybody’s opinion, to remove the fat on it.]

46[The paragraph is from Yom Tov5:2, Notes 77 ff., based on the quote from Mishnah 5:2.] “All these were said on a holiday, so much more on the Sabbath..” Are these it? Are there no others [One proves that the list is incomplete.] ? There is stoning on the Sabbath, there is no stoning on a holiday. There is extirpation on the Sabbath, there is no extirpation on a holiday. There is flogging on a holiday, there is no flogging on the Sabbath [Desecrating the Sabbath is a capital crime, intentional desecration being punishable by stoning if there are witnesses, by divine extirpation otherwise. Desecration of a holiday is a simple transgression, intentional desecration before witnesses is punishable by flogging.] . If you would say, we are coming to state cases connected with food, did we not state: “one lowers produce through a skylight on the holiday but not on the Sabbath [Mishnah Yom Tov 5:1.] ”? In addition from the following, one grinds aromatic wood for a circumcision on a holiday but not on the Sabbath [Babli Šabbat 134a.] . Rebbi Yose said, only if he circumcised [Since grinding aromatic wood is not preparation of food it may be done if the necessity is clearly established, not in advance of an expected event.] . In addition from what was stated [The following is copied from Yom Tov 4:2, Notes 60–61.] , “The Sages agree with Rebbi Meïr about seals in the ground that one pushes aside, and removes, and unties, and cuts. On the Sabbath one pushes aside but one does not remove nor untie nor cut. For implements on the Sabbath it is permitted; it is not necessary to mention on a holiday.”

47[This paragraph appears also in Ketubot3:1 (כ), and in slightly different form in Terumot 7:1, in both cases in a much longer discussion about payment for torts inflicted during the commission of a crime. It is commonly held that civil claims cannot be enforced if the perpetrator is subject to criminal prosecution in a capital case; there is dispute whether this extends to cases punishable by whipping and/or extirpation by judgment of Heaven.] “The only difference between Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that in the first case its intentional desecration is punished by man and in the second case by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules [Payments for torts committed while desecrating the Day of Atonement are treated as if they were committed on the Sabbath.] . This is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment. What is between them? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abuna said, a menstruating adolescent girl is between them [If a single girl close to adulthood is raped, the rapist is subject to a fine and he has to marry her (Deut. 22:28–29). If he has sexual relations with her, he is subject to extirpation (Lev. 20:18).] . Rebbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them [The wife’s sister is forbidden during the wife’s lifetime (Lev. 18:18). No punishment is indicated in that verse, but in v. 26 all incest prohibitions are treated as equal; therefore it is implied that the wife’s sister is prohibited under penalty of extirpation by Heaven.] . In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started; so the Day of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, these may become permitted after their prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to the Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation does not apply to these, he has to pay. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaim about whipping and extirpation [Since the prior discussion (not repeated here) was between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish, it is of interest to know what are the positions of the Tannaim R. Neḥoniah ben Haqanah and R. Simeon ben Menassiah.] ? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: Rebbi Tarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath [While desecrating the Sabbath is a capital crime, a desecration can be prosecuted in a human court only if the act was witnessed and criminal intent was proven by testimony that the perpetrator was duly warned before the act not to commit a capital crime. A Sabbath desecration not prosecutable in court is punishable by Heaven by extirpation (Ex. 31:14).] and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there can be no whipping connected to extirpation [In the Babli, Ketubot 34b/35a, this is deduced from Ex. 21:22–23, where payment is due if a pregnant woman is injured and an abortion caused, but no payment is due if the woman is murdered.] , so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no whipping in a case involving extirpation. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? Not for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly flogging in extirpation cases, since they disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes [Slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day is a simple prohibition (Lev. 22:28), punishable by whipping. Slaughter as idolatrous sacrifice is a capital crime.] . Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death [Since no conviction is possible without proof of criminal intent, actual prosecution is possible only if the nature of the crime to be committed was known to the perpetrator. For R. Joḥanan the rules apply only to cases that actually come before the court.] . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry [For R. Simeon ben Laqish the rules of capital cases apply if capital punishment is a legal possibility even if the circumstances of the actual case prohibit its imposition.] . He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! Here are two cases, there it is one case [The prohibiton of slaughtering an animal and its young also applies to profane slaughter; it is unrelated to the prohibition of idolatry. The parallel discussion in the Babli is Ḥulin81b, where it is pointed out that one has to presume that the first animal was slaughtered for food but the second for idolatry; only in that case does one act result in two transgressions. But in the question asked here one deals with one transgression which, however, cannot be prosecuted for lack of witnesses.] .

48[This paragraph is the end of the long discussion about the possibility of fines if a crime was committed and has absolutely no connection with the topic discussed here. It is copied from Ketubot together with the preceding paragraph.] According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaim and those rabbis [The Tannaim quoted in the preceding paragraph and the rabbis (presumed to be R. Meïr and his students) who formulated Mishnah Ketubot 3:1 which states that fines are due in all cases except capital crimes.] ? Prohibitions without extirpation. Rebbi Judan said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them [The bastard is a child born from adulterous or incestuous sexual relations. It is stated in Deut. 23:2: No bastard may come into the Eternal’s congregation. This may be read (with Maimonides, Issure Biah 15:2) that marriage with a (male or female) bastard is punishable; then the rape of an unmarried bastard girl unquestionably requires a fine. Or it may be read (with RAVaD) that “come to” in rabbinic interpretation everywhere means sexual relations; then the rape of a bastard girl also incurs the penalty of flogging. Only relations and marriage between a male and a female certain bastards are permitted according to everybody.] . Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday [Whose violation is punished by flogging; there is no extirpation.] is between them. These Tannaim think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the adolescent girls who can claim a fine” cannot follow the rabbis [Since it clearly states that crimes punishable by Heaven incur fines in human courts.] ! Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it according to everybody if it refers to a bastard male who sleeps with a bastard girl [The bastard is a child born from adulterous or incestuous sexual relations. It is stated in Deut. 23:2: No bastard may come into the Eternal’s congregation. This may be read (with Maimonides, Issure Biah 15:2) that marriage with a (male or female) bastard is punishable; then the rape of an unmarried bastard girl unquestionably requires a fine. Or it may be read (with RAVaD) that “come to” in rabbinic interpretation everywhere means sexual relations; then the rape of a bastard girl also incurs the penalty of flogging. Only relations and marriage between a male and a female certain bastards are permitted according to everybody.] But is his brother’s wife [This is a separate Note, not connected to the preceding. According to the Mishnah the brother’s virgin wife is entitled to the fine if she is raped by the brother in law. If the brother is alive, it is adultery, a capital crime. If the brother is dead, since she still is a virgin she has no children. If the brother has no children from another woman, any sex act between her and her brother in law, even rape, makes her the brother in law’s wedded wife, with a claim to ketubah but no fine.] not his sister-in-law? Explain it that the man’s brother had children and had performed the preliminary wedding with a woman when he died and his brother came and raped her [She is forbidden to him (Lev. 18:16) and by the argument of Note 206 there is extirpation.] .

49MISHNAH: The only difference between one who is under a vow {not to have} usufruct from another [Mishnah Nedarim 4:1. A is restricted in that B made a vow that A may have no usufruct from him. (If A makes a vow that B may have no usufruct of him, the active mode is used.)] and one who is under a vow about use of food is passing through his real estate [Setting his foot on the other’s property.] and vessels that cannot be used to prepare food. The only difference between vows and voluntary gifts [Dedications of animals as Temple sacrifices.] is that for vows one is responsible if they died or were lost, and for voluntary gifts one is not responsible if they died or were lost.

50HALAKHAH: [This is copied from Nedarim 4:1 (Notes 5–12, נ) since it refers to parts of Mishnah Nedarim 4:1 not repeated in Megillah 1:9. Cf. Babli Nedarim 33a.] Therefore vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow {not to have} usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use [This is the text of Mishnah Nedarim 4:1 in the Yerushalmi; in the Babli “use for” is missing. It indicates that the original Yerushalmi Mishnah was the same as the Babli.] of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans [Greek λοπάς.] and pots are forbidden. To mill grain and to press grapes is forbidden. Harvesting grain is a problem, harvesting grapes is a problem. What kind of usufruct of food? It was stated: But he may borrow an axe from him. We wanted to say, an axe to split. Explain it by a hatchet for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that zwsta [Neither the form given in Megillah nor that in Nedarim are satisfactorily explained.] since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is like a sieve.

51[His obligation is extinguished only by the offering of a qualified animal as sacrifice, irrespective of other circumstances.] “What is the vow about which they spoke? He who says, on me is the obligation for an elevation offering [His obligation is limited to this particular animal. If it dies or develops a disqualifying blemish, his obligation is terminated.] . What is the voluntary gift about which they spoke? He who says, this one is for an elevation offering.” [Mishnah Qinnim 1:1. Babli 8a, Roš Haššanah 6a, Ḥulin 139a.] Rebbi Ḥama the colleague of the rabbis asked, if he said, “on me is the obligation”, and came back and said, “this one is” [Is this a new obligation or is it a dedication of a specific animal intended to fulfill its prior general obligation? It is presumed that the second statement immediately follows the first.] ? Rebbi Ḥinena asked, would it not be reasonable if he said, “this one is”, and came back and said, “on me is the obligation”? A severe prohibition falls one a simple prohibition but a simple prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition [In the second case, the voluntary gift is transformed into a vow. In the first case, the vow is not transformed into a voluntary gift.] .

52MISHNAH: The only difference between a sufferer from flux who experienced two episodes and one who experienced three is the sacrifice [The impurity of the sufferer, a male from gonorrhea or a female from any genital emission, is the topic of Lev. 15:1–30 and Tractate Zavim. After one emission of fluid the sufferer becomes impure; he needs immersion in a miqweh and becomes pure at sundown. If he has two emissions in one day or in two successive days, he is a source of severe impurity and cannot become pure unless he was seven consecutive days without symptoms. If he has three emissions in at most three consecutive days, he cannot participate in any kind of sacred offerings unless after his purification he brings a sacrifice of two birds (Lev. 15:14,29).] . The only difference between a sufferer from skin disease who is quarantined and one declared absolute is torn clothing, untended hair, shaving, and birds [In a number of cases of skin disease when the diagnosis is not clear cut, the sufferer is quarantined 7 or 14 days (Lev. 13:4,5,21,26,31. Even if after the quarantine the priest declares him not impure, he has to immerse himself and the clothing he wore during his quarantine in a miqweh, but during the quarantine he does not have to wear torn clothing and dishevelled hair like the person declared as certain sufferer (Lev. 13:45). After he is healed he still has to immerse himself and the clothing he wore during his impurity, but he does not have to undergo the purification ceremony described in Lev. 14:1–32. (Tractate Nega`im).] .

53HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this is Rebbi Eleazar’s, for “Rebbi Eleazar said, [also] the third time one checks him out because of the sacrifice. [Mishnah Zavim 2:2. The Mishnah states that the male sufferer from flux is impure only if he has a discharge for a medical condition. If it is possible that the discharge is an ejaculation of semen because of some exterior influence, he still is impure and needs immersion but this is not cumulative and does not start a count. Then the Mishnah restricts this investigation to the first two times. A third episode within 3 days establishes a pattern; the cause must be medical. The majority of sources including Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah (and the organization of the Mishnah) indicate that the name is correctly “Eleazar” and not “Eliezer”.] ” But for the rabbis, the second time if forced he is pure, but the third time if forced is impure [According to the anonymous majority, the Mishnah should mention that there is another difference between two and three times flux, that the second may be checked and eliminated whereas the third may not.] . Rebbi Yose said, if it is not the rabbis’, it also is not Rebbi Eleazar’s, as it was stated: Rebbi Eleazar said, I did not say to undo his count [He agrees that two consecutive counts establish a pattern which creates severe impurity but he holds that an obligatory sacrifice may be brought only if the obligation is clearly established, whereas impurity in most cases has to be observed on a suspicion.] , only that he may not bring a sacrifice. I did not say that he is not a sufferer from flux to undo the count of episodes; not to upset his status did I say but that he may not bring a sacrifice. This implies that it [Mishnah 10.] is everybody’s opinion. If you would say it is Rebbi Eleazar’s it should state: the second time is subject to undoing but not a sacrifice, the third time to undoing and sacrifice [Similar to what was noted for the majority in Note 236, but with a different background.] . In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, if she experienced two episodes of easy flux [Which establishes severe impurity.] and one in difficulty she undoes [If the third time would not be counted had it been the second, it cannot be counted for a sacrifice. If therefore an unquestionable third episode happens on a later date, the count for sacrifice has to start anew.] and does not bring a sacrifice.

54[Here starts the discussion of the second part of the Mishnah, the sufferer from skin disease.] Rebbi Yudan said: The Mishnah is about two persons [Not the rare case of a person about to be declared pure after quarantine when suddenly in the presence of the Cohen signs of impurity appear; Mishnah Nega`im 7:3.] . Rebbi Ḥanina said, the Mishnah says so, “the only difference between a sufferer from skin disease who is quarantined and one declared absolute is torn clothing, untended hair, shaving, and birds.” This implies that we are dealing with two persons. If you would say about one person, one should state: “the only difference between a large white spot and a small white spot. [A large white spot is one looking depressed and containing a white hair which is impure (Lev. 13:3). A small one is one not looking depressed and without a white hair (Lev. 13:4) which requires quarantine.] ” Just as you are saying there, we are dealing with two persons, so also here we are dealing with two persons [Also the first sentence of the Mishnah refers to two different people.] .

55If it spread while in quarantine [Lev. 13:13. If the entire skin of the patient is diseased, he is pure. Naturally while the disease is spreading he satisfies all conditions of severe purity, but since this requires a pronouncement by the Cohen, if there were no clear signs of impurity when he was put in quarantine and at the end of the quarantine the entire skin already was diseased, the Cohen who sees him only at the start and the end of his 7 days of quarantine has to declare him pure out of quarantine without ever pronouncing him absolutely impure.] , Rebbi Joḥanan said, he needs birds. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not need birds. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: [Sifra Mesora` Introduction 6–8.] “From the sufferer from skin disease [Lev. 14:3. As introduction to the bird ceremony the Cohen has “to see that the skin disease was healed from the sufferer from skin disease.” Skin disease can be healed only from a sufferer from the disease; the final remark seems to be redundant. It is added to include also a sufferer who never was declared as such.] ; to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds. Is that not a logical argument? If a person became pure and the signs of what made him impure are not on him shall need birds [The disappearance of his symptoms is the sign that he is healed, in contrast to the person who is pure but far from healed in that all his skin is infected.] , (should not) [is it not logical that] [The corrector’s changes are from the (Babylonian style) Sifra.] one who became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him [shall] need birds? [But] the one on whom it was stable for two weeks [Lev. 13:6. If the white spot does not grow within 14 days nor develop a white hair, the person has to be declared pure (after immersion) even though his problem skin is still visible.] shall disprove it, since he became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him, but he does not need birds. So do not wonder if one on whom it spread while in quarantine and the signs of what made him impure are on him does not need birds. The verse says, from the sufferer of skin disease to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds.” If you would say that one becoming pure in quarantine does not need birds, should he not have objected that it would have been better to argue spreading against spreadings and not staying stable against spreadings [This is the proof that the Sifra supports the opinion of R. Joḥanan since following R. Eleazar instead of appealing to purity after a lengthy quarantine the Tanna should have mentioned the case of fast spreading skin disease which at the next inspection by the Cohen already has changed from a sign of impurity to one of purity and does not need birds.] ? Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis: the baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan since the Tanna answers his colleague, no. If you are saying about this one who never was up to be declared absolute, what can you say about the one who was to be declared absolute [The case of dispute between R. Joḥanan and R. Eleazar is not comparable to other cases of skin disease since the Cohen is not empowered to inspect during the quarantine; the patient never was in a state to be declared absolutely impure.] ? Because he was to be declared absolute, he needs birds. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the closing statement [The second sentence of the Mishnah.] supports Rebbi Eleazar. The one becoming pure in quarantine is not liable for torn clothing, and untended hair, and shaving, and birds. All of this is what we are considering here, about spreadings [This seems to refer to a statement similar to the wording of the Mishnah in the Babli: The only difference between one declared pure after quarantine and one declared pure after being absolutely impure is shaving and birds. Since this envisages a situation like the one discussed here, it explicitly supports the Babylonian R. Eleazar.] . Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, all they are disagreeing is about bringing birds. But in the matter of bringing a sacrifice everybody agrees that he does not bring a sacrifice. It was stated thus: On the seventh he has to shave, on the eighth he shall bring [Lev. 14:9,10.] ; one who needs shaving brings a sacrifice, one who does not need shaving does not bring a sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: All days on which the skin disease is on him he will be impure [Lev. 13:46.] , one whose impurity is caused by his skin disease. This excludes him whose (purity) [impurity] [Both the scribe’s and the corrector’s texts give the same meaning; the correction is unnecessary.] depends on the count of his days [Since the Cohen cannot judge him during the intermediate days of his quarantine.] . So far torn clothing and unkempt hair. From where shaving and birds [What is the biblical source of the statement of the Mishnah regarding these items?] ? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner in the name of Rebbi Shammai: This shall be the doctrine of the sufferer from skin disease on the day [Lev. 14:2.] . One who may become impure and pure on one day; this excludes one who cannot become impure and pure on one day [Since quarantine makes impure for a minimum of 7 days.] .

56MISHNAH: The only difference between Torah scrolls and Tefillin [Boxes containing parchment with the verses Ex. 13:2–12,11–16, Deut. 6:4–9,11:13–21, “to be tied to the arms and be a sign between the eyes.”] and Mezuzot [A single sheet with the same verses, “to be affixed to the doorposts of your house and your gates.”] is that Torah scrolls may be written in any language [In translation for the purpose of study.] but Tefillin and Mezuzot may be written only in Hebrew square script. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also Torah scrolls they only permitted to be written in Greek [In translation, not in phonetic transcription into Greek letters as in Origenes’s Hexapla.] .

57HALAKHAH: It is written [Gen. 11:1.] all Earth was one tongue and unified words. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan. One said, they were speaking seventy languages [Everybody understood all languages of the 70 peoples mentioned as descendants of Noah.] . But the other said, they were speaking in the language of the Unique of the World, the holy language. Bar Qappara stated, may God embellish Japhet and dwell in the tents of Shem [Gen. 9:27.] , that one should speak Japhet’s language in Shem’s tents [Greek was the common language of all Jews in the Roman Empire.] . The sons of Japhet: Gomer and Magog, and Yawan, and Tubal, and Meshekh, and Tiras [Gen. 10:2.] . Gomer, Germamia [The district Jerma in N. Assyria. It is to be noted that Saadia Gaon in his Arabic Pentateuch translation disregards the determinations both of the Yerushalmi and the Babli (Yoma 10a) for the descendants of Sem and Japhet but follows the determinations given here for the descendants of Ham (Gen. 10:18–19).] . Magog, Gothica. Madai, as it is understood [Media.] . Yawan, Ephesus [Representing all of Ionia.] . Tuval, Bythinia. Meshekh, Moesia. Tiras, Rebbi Simon said Persia, but the rabbis said Thrace. The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, and Riphat, and Togarma [Gen. 10:3.] . Asia [Not the continent, nor Asia Minor, but probably the city of Sardis.] , and Adiabene, and Germanicia [A city in the province of Comagene, near the border of Cappadocia.] . The sons of Yawan: Elisha, and Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim [Gen. 10:4.] . Elis [Possibly Aeolis. Note that in the text two names are written as one.] , Tarsos, Euboea, and Dardania [Dardanos in the Troas.] . The Arwadite [Gen. 10:18.] , Rhodos. The Ṣamarite, Ḥoms. The Ḥamatite, Ḥama. Up to Lasha`. Rebbi Eleazar said, to Kallirrhoe. Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, from here about the Targum [Since the names in the Hebrew text are unintelligible, the text itself authorizes translations which make it intelligible.] .

58Rebbi Jonathan from Bet Guvrrin said, four languages are appropriate that the world should use them, and they are these: The Foreign Language [Greek, the non-Hebrew language common to the Jews in the Roman Empire.] for song, Latin for war, Syriac for elegies, Hebrew for speech. Some are saying, also Assyrian [Hebrew square script, adopted from the Aramaic script of Northern Iraq, used by the Persian administration of the territories West of the Euphrates for their Reichsaramaic.] for writing.

59Assyrian has a script but no language; Hebrew has a language but no script. They choose for themselves Assyrian script and Hebrew language [This refers to the tradition quoted in the Babli, Sanhedrin 21a: “Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew script and the Holy Language. It was given to them a second time in the days of Ezra in Assyrian script and Aramaic language. Israel chose for themselves Assyrian script and the Holy language.” For this entire passage the Babli reference is Sanhedrin 21b–22a.] . Why is it called Assyrian? Because it is beautiful script; Rebbi Levi said, because they brought it with them from Assyria [In the first version the name of the script has nothing to do with Assyria. In the second it is asserted that it is the Aramaic script of what earlier was Assyria.] . It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, Ezra was worthy that the Torah could have been given through him, only Moses’s generation preceded him. Even though the Torah was not given through him, but he gave writing and language [This refers to the tradition quoted in the Babli, Sanhedrin 21a: “Originally the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew script and the Holy Language. It was given to them a second time in the days of Ezra in Assyrian script and Aramaic language. Israel chose for themselves Assyrian script and the Holy language.” For this entire passage the Babli reference is Sanhedrin 21b–22a.] ; and the script of the letter written in Aramaic and explained in Aramaic [Ezra 4:7.] . And they could not read this script [Dan. 5:8.] ; this teaches that it was given on that day [The Babylonian sages could not read the script on the wall because it was new. This claims divine origin for the square script.] . Rebbi Nathan says, the Torah was given in paleo-Hebrew; this follows Rebbi Yose [The Babylonian R. Nathan follows the Babylonian tradition that traces Targum Onkelos to Ezra and asserts that he transcribed the Torah into Aramaic script.] . Rebbi said, the Torah was given in Assyrian, but when they sinned it was changed into paleo-Hebrew. When they merited it in the days of Ezra it was changed into Assyrian: Also today I shall return to you what was told to change [Zach. 9:12. The translation here tries to express the homily implied by the quotes.] ; he shall write for himself this changing Torah in a scroll [Deut. 17:18.] , a script which in the future is apt to change. It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Protos who said it in the name of Rebbi Eleazar from Modiin, the Torah was given in Assyrian script. What is the reason? The hooks of the pillars [Ex. 27:10.] , that the letters vav of the Torah look like pillars [In paleo-Hebrew the letter vav, meaning “hook”, really looks like a hook on a stick. In square script the hook is lost, only the stick is left.] . Rebbi Levi said, for him who said, the Torah was given in paleo-Hebrew, the letter ayin was a miracle [This does not refer to the Torah but to the stone tablets. From the description that the tablets were written on both sides it is inferred that the letters pierced the stone; the same letters were visible on both sides. This creates a problem for circular shaped letters, ayin in paleo-Hebrew and samekh in square script.] . He who said, the Torah was given Assyrian, the letter samekh was a miracle. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Simon both were saying, in earlier copies of the Torah neither he nor final mem were closed [The open final mem is exemplified in the Aramaic inscription of King Uziahu’s ossuary. In early Medieval mss. the he looks like a ח, only that the left leg is not at the left end but touching the vertical bar somewhat to the right. The open he is recommended in the Babli, Menaḥot 29b. For a thorough discussion, cf. S. Liebermann, Tarbiz 4 (1933) pp. 292–293.] . Therefore samekh was closed [This justifies R. Levi’s remark that only samekh but not final mem represented a problem.] .

60It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, even Torah scrolls they only permitted to be written in Greek. They investigated and found that the Torah may be correctly translated only into Greek. A villager invented for them Aramaic from the Greek [This disqualifies all Aramaic translations, even Targum Onkelos canonized in Babylonia.] . Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Akylas the proselyte translated the Torah [Into Greek. In the Babli 3a he is credited with the Aramaic translation as restoration of Ezra’s Aramaic translation.] before Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua; they praised him [and said to him], you are a superhuman beauty [Ps. 45:3.] . Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy said, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi asked, why do we not say there is a rule valid for Torah scrolls which does not apply to Tefillin and Mezuzot, in that Torah scrolls may be written on two sheets [Even a single book of the Torah is written on many sheets which then are sewn together. The short texts of Tefillin and Mezuzot must be written on single sheets. Babli Menaḥot 33a.] , but Tefillin and Mezuzot may only be written on single sheets. Rebbi Isaac the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya the scribe asked, a stronger question, in that Torah scrolls may be written on two hides [The leather on which the scroll is written does not have to be prepared from a single hide.] , but Tefillin and Mezuzot may only be written on single hides. The colleagues said before Rebbi Mana, or should we say, one column of two different hides? Is that not stronger? He said to them, because even scrolls are not written in this way [Rectangular sheets of leather may be sewn together to form a scroll; the stiches must be between the columns and may not intrude into the writing.] . One suspends in scrolls [If a letter or a word in the text was forgotten it may be added between the lines over of the place to which it belongs.] ; one suspends neither in Tefillin nor in Mezuzot. One does not suspend in scrolls which were written as Tefillin and Mezuzot; one suspends in Tefillin and Mezuzot written as scrolls [If in writing the paragraphs required for Tefillin or Mezuzot one has the choice to use the written text either as part of a scroll or as Tefillin or Mezuzah, one must follow the more stringent rules. But if these paragraphs are written as part of columns of a scroll, they cannot be used in Tefillin or Mezuzot and errors may be corrected by suspending the missing letters or words.] . Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Immi: If he was writing אלא עם, if the paragraph was made in this way it is qualified, otherwise disqualified [If a line is short, in this example 6 spaces (the Babli requires a minimum of 9) it is acceptable if and only if the entire column is equally slim.] . Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Immi bar Ḥinena: The script of scrolls is used as script of Tefillin and Mezuzot [Babli Menaḥot 29b.] .

61Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav: If there is a hole in the hip of a he, if one shaves it off and there remains a small hip it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified [If there is a hole in the leather where the right hand side vertical stroke of ה is written, the letter is not complete and therefore unacceptable. Rav permits to shave off the ink around the hole and below. If a small vertical stroke is left, the letter now is legible and entire; the text may be used for public reading from the scroll or as Tefillin or Mezuzah.] . Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If a gimel was at the end (of the border) [of the leather] [It seems that the corrector’s change is the result of his misunderstanding the text. It is required that each letter in the text be surrounded by blank space. If a letter reaches the border of the sheet, Rav Ḥisda permits shaving off a little bit to create the blank space if the remaining writing still is legible.] . If one shaves it off and there remains a small hip it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Ashian bar Nidba [In the Babli Menaḥot 29a his name is Ashian bar Nidbakh.] . If there was a hole in the middle of a bet. If the (border) [leather] surrounds it on every side it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified [He denies that the space around the letter can be created by shaving off some ink from the letter in question. He then requires that the entire letter be removed and rewritten.] . Rebbi Ze`ira said, it turns out that Rav Ḥisda follows Rav and both disagree with the system of Ashian bar Nidba. The colleagues are saying, Ashian bar Nidba parallels Rebbi Joḥanan.

62[The following two paragraphs are also in Berakhot 2:3 (Notes 145–152), as part of a series of statements of R. Idi in the name of R. Simon. Factually the first paragraph has no relevance in Berakhot and the second does not fit here.] As it was stated. If he mixed the letters. There are Tannaim who state, it is qualified. There are Tannaim who state, it is disqualified. Rebbi Ada bar Simeon [As noted, read: R. Idi in the name of R. Simon (ben Laqish).] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who says qualified, at the top. He who says disqualified, at the bottom; for example ארצך. תפארתינו ,ארצינו is questionable, תפארתך is questionable [(Rashba Responsa 1:711.) If a letter is completely written and its foot accidentally touches the following letter, as with a slightly too long foot of נ in נו, one may scratch off the superfluous length and has a complete acceptable letter. But when a letter has its head elongated, so that from the start the letter was not standing free, then the entire letter has to be scratched out and the writing has to start anew. The questionable case is a situation with a letter that is hanging down below the line, as in the combination תך when the small foot of ת meets the downward stroke of ך. In that case, the ת was complete but the ך was not; this case remains unsettled (i. e., for practical rulings both letters have to be erased and rewritten.)] .

63Rebbi Aḥa the son of Rebbi Simeon [As noted, read: R. Idi in the name of R. Simon (ben Laqish).] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: No man should stand at an elevated place and pray. What is the reason? Rebbi Abba the son of R. Pappai said: From the depth I call on You, Eternal! [Ps. 130:1.] Rebbi Ada bar Simeon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan said: No man should pray when he has an urge to go to the bathroom. What is the reason? Israel, prepare yourself before Your God. [Am. 4:12.] Rebbi Alexandri said: Watch your feet when you go to God’s house [Eccl. 4:17.] ; watch yourself from the drops that drip from between your feet. That means, for urine. But for defecation, if he can bear it, let him bear it. Rebbi Jacob bar Abiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Watch your feet when you go to God’s house; watch yourself when you are called to God’s house that you should be pure and innocent. Rebbi Abba said: Your fountain shall be blessed [Prov. 5:18.] , your being called to the grave shall be blessed. Rebbi Berekhiah said: A time to be born and a time to die [Eccl. 3:2.] , hail to the man whose hour of death is like the hour of his birth; just as at the hour of his birth he was innocent so at the hour of his death may he be innocent.

64Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: if it was made like half a bagel [If a Mezuzah is written in calligraphy in the shape of half-circles one inside the other then the inner arcs are shorter than the outer ones and contain fewer words.] . The uppermost line under which are two others must contain at least three words, the middle one two, the lowest one even [on the] earth [Deut. 11:21. The addition by the corrector clearly has to be deleted.] . Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: if it was made like a double flute [Greek συμφωνία. It is \_/-shaped, having the two mouth pieces close together but the bodies of the flutes diverging.] , the uppermost line under which are two others must contain at least three words, the lowest two. The middle one I do not know [Whether it need 2 or 3 words. Therefore 3 certainly are sufficient. The Babli Menaḥot 30b quotes the first Tanna as R. Yose (whom Babylonian practice follows), the second one as R. Jehudah’s.] . Rebbi Jeremiah said it: Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥisda; Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, Rebbi Ze`ura in the name of Ashian bar Nidba; the colleagues say, Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥananel. If the ink comes out of the holes it is disqualified. What does he do? He licks it off with his tongue and it jells [Whether it need 2 or 3 words. Therefore 3 certainly are sufficient. The Babli Menaḥot 30b quotes the first Tanna as R. Yose (whom Babylonian practice follows), the second one as R. Jehudah’s.] . If he made an error and omitted the Name. There are Tannaim who state, he suspends the Name. There are Tannaim who state, he erases the profane, writes the Name, and suspends the profane [If there is a hole in the leather or parchment which is visible once the ink has dried, the letter is incomplete and disqualified. But if the ink when dry covers the hole completely so that the reader will not notice the hole, it is qualified. Babli Šabbat 108a.] . Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Ḥananel in the name of Rav: practice follows him who says, he erases the profane, writes the Name, and suspends the profane. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Ḥananel in the name of Rav: but if it was like I am the Eternal your God [Num. 15:41.] it is permitted. Why? Because these are three words or because part of it is profane? What is the difference between them? God, Highest Power, Eternal [Jos. 22:22. The situation does not occur in the Pentateuch.] . If you are saying because they are three words, they are three words. If you are saying, because part of it is profane, nothing there is profane. For the Eternal is questionable, by the Eternal is questionable [Since it will be stated later that prefixes of the Name may be erased while suffixes may not, the question is whether an erasable prefix has the same status as a profane word preceding the Name.] .

65Rav Shesha the son of Rav Ḥananel said, one has to write ה below the knee joint of the ל, so you want to repay to the Eternal? In this way you want to repay to the Eternal [In Deut. 32:6 one has to write ה לי֙י, an enlarged he of which, however, the horizontal bar has to be aligned with the horizontal bar of the following lamed. The larger size will appear at the bottom where the vertical bars of this he are longer than those of the following Name.] ? The Mezuzah. There are Tannaim who state, open; there are Tannaim who state, closed [Paragraphs in the Hebrew Bible are either ending in a blank space of a third of a line, with the next paragraph starting on the same line on which the previous paragraph ended, this is called a closed paragraph. The other possibility is that the remainder of the last line remains empty; this is called open paragraph. Both paragraphs written in a Mezuzah, Deut. 6:4–9, 11:13–21, are closed in a Torah scroll; the first one follows an open paragraph, the second a closed one.] . Samuel bar Shilat in the name of Rav: Practice follows him who said open, since that is not its place [The Babli disagrees (Menaḥot 32a).] . Open at the start is closed. Open at the bottom is open. Open on both sides is closed [“Open at the start” means that the writing of the first paragraph starts only in the middle of the line. This is normal for paragraphs following a closed paragraph. Open at the bottom means that the remainder of the last line of the paragraph remains empty; this is the definition of an open paragraph. Open on both sides implies open at the start.] . If in error he omitted one verse, if it is two or three lines one repairs and reads from it; four one does not read from it [The scroll may not be used for public readings.] . Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥananel, the same holds for a tear [A tear in the parchment damaging up to three lines may be fixed by sewing the tear. If it is greater the page has to be removed and buried.] . It was stated, a scroll in which there are [two or three errors on every page one fixes and reads from it. Four one does not read from it. But was it not stated, a scroll in which there are] [It seems that the corrector’s addition is necessary from the statements following.] 85 errors, as the paragraph it was when the Ark travelled [Num. 10:35–36 is a separate text and contains exactly 85 letters.] , one repairs and reads from it? Rebbi Shammai said, here in a large scroll, there in a small scroll [A small scroll is one of 28 colums, which may exhibit 3 errors on each column and not reach 85. A large scroll has more columns; one has to check each column for the number of errors.] . Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥananel, if he found in it one page which is whole, it saves everything. How? Whole in that there are (no) [not three] [The later text shows clearly that the corrector’s text has to be deleted.] errors? Or whole that there are no four? Ḥagra the brother of Rebbi Abba bar Bina gave a Torah scroll to Rav Ḥananel who checked it. He said to him, this your Torah scroll needs prayer [There are so many errors that the scribe clearly sinned when writing the scroll.] . At the end he found in it a page which was whole, which saved everything. How? Whole in that there are no errors? Or whole that there are no four [Since no answer is given, in praxi one requires a column totally without error. Babli Mehaḥot 29b.] ?

66Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Ḥananel in the name of Rav: Its sewing [That the leaves of a Torah scroll and the Tefillin cases must be sewn together with sinews. Babli Makkot 11a.] is practice of Moses from Sinai. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: the knots of Tefillin [The straps of the Tefillin on the arm must be tied together with a small knot imitating the shape of י; the straps of the head Tefillin must be tied behind the head in a ד. Babli Menaḥot 35b.] are practice of Moses from Sinai. A Tefillin strip of Rebbi Jeremiah broke; he asked Rebbi Abba bar Mamal who said to him, and you stall tie them [Deut. 6:8.] , even simple tying [The suffix תם is read as a separate word, “unblemished, straight-forward.” The knots must be at the prescribed places; the shapes are desideratum (since the shapes would not fit if Moses wrote paleo-Hebrew.)] . Rebbi Ze`ira’s wall of the strip broke [The Tefillin are small cubes sitting on a square leather base. To this base is added a rectangular tube through which the strap is drawn (in Babylonian sources called תִּיתּוּרָא “augmentation”.) The wall became defective. Since it is augmentation, not the essence of Tefillin, it may be patched up.] . He asked Rav Huna and Rav Qatina, and they permitted him. It broke a second time and they permitted him, not from what they had learned [To permit patch of a patch was their decision, not traditional practice.] . Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The practice is that he who sews must leave space on top and bottom [If one sews leather sheets together, the top and bottom stitches should not be too close to the rim. Babli 19b.] so it should not tear. They hit him on the skull, if it is practice why “should not tear”? And if “should not tear” why practice [Since “practice” here means “practice from Moses on Sinai”, it needs no justification.] ? It is practice of Moses from Sinai that one write on leather, and write with ink, and rule with a ruler [The lines on which the horizontal bars of the letters are written must be impressed with a wooden or metal tool, not drawn by pencil.] , and ties with hair [The sheets used for Tefillin are made into scrolls which then are tied with animal hair before being out into Tefillin boxes. Babli Sabbat 108a.] , and patches with a patch [If the leather on which the Torah scroll is written has a tear, it can be patched up at the back with a leather patch.] , and glues with glue [If the text of the arm-Tefillin were written on separate sheets, they may be glued together to form one page.] , and sews [The Torah scroll and the cases for Tefillin.] with sinews. As he sews, he has to sew this stitch [The stitches must be evenly spaced.] . One needs to leave between line and line the width of a line, between word and word the width of a letter, between letter and letter something, between column and column a thumb-width [Babli Menaḥot 30a; Soferim 2:2.] . If he made the end of the column equal to its beginning he disqualified it [One may not start writing on a page below the top, that it may not look deficient.] . One must leave on the top of the scroll {a margin of} two finger-breadths and at the bottom three. Rebbi says, in the Torah at the top three and at the bottom a hand-breadth. Between book and book one has to leave four lines empty [Between the books of the Pentateuch. Babli Bava batra 13b; Soferim 2:3.] , in the Twelve Prophets three. One has to end in the middle of a column and start in its middle [In writing a Torah scroll containing all five books.] ; but for a Prophet he ends at the bottom and starts at the top [Since the books of Prophets are independent of one another.] ; but for the Twelve Prophets it is forbidden [A sheet of a single column is possible at the end of Deuteronomy.] . One makes no sheet less than three columns and none more than eight [Menaḥot 30a; Soferim 2:6.] . That you are saying, at the start. But at the end even a little [Since the Twelve Prophets form a single book.] ; and for parchment [Or rather split leather. Babli Bava batra 14a.] the Sages did not give any size.

67It is required that he write on leather on the place of the hair and on parchment on the place of its split [Where the script is more readable. Babli Menaḥot 32a.] . If he changed this, he disqualified it. One should not write half of it on leather and half of it on parchment, but he may write on leather from a pure domestic animal and half on leather from a pure wild animal. One only writes on leather from a pure animal [Babli Šabbat 108a.] . What is the reason? That the Eternal’s teaching be in your mouth [Ex. 13:9.] , from what you are putting into your mouth. But was it not stated, one writes on leather from carcasses and torn animals [Babli Šabbat 108a.] ? The kind which you are putting into your mouth [Since hide and leather are inedible anyhow.] . One makes a staff at the end of a book, but for the Torah one on both sides. Therefore one rolls a book up to its beginning but the Torah to its middle [The Torah scroll can be stored to open at the place where one stopped reading.] . Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Joseph: Even two sheets [The scroll shows two sheets when it is opened.] . Rebbi Ze`ira, Samuel bar Shilat in the name of Kahana: but only at the place of the suture [Babli 32a.] . Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: A scroll which has no cover one turns on the writing so the writing should not be degraded [Eruvin 10 (Note 79); Soferim 3:16.] .

68Of all double letters [The letters which in square script have two forms, as indicated in the next sentences.] in the alphabet one writes the first form at the start of a word and in the middle of a word, but the last form at the end, and if one changed this he disqualified it. In the name of Rebbi Matthew ben Ḥarash they said, מנצפ״ך is a practice of Moses from Sinai. What is מנצפ״ך? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: what the seers instituted for you [While R. Matthew ben Ḥarash holds that the Torah was given in square script, R. Jeremiah dates square script to the time of the (later) prophets; he holds that the Torah was given in Paleo-Hebrew. Babli 2b.] . Who are those seers? [Babli Šabbat 104a.] It happened on a day of rainstorm that the Sages did not come to the assembly hall, but the children entered. They said, come and let us form an assembly that it should not be cancelled. They said, what is that that it is written mem mem, nun nun, ṣade ṣade, peh feh, kaf khaf. From utterance to utterance, from trustworthy to trustworthy, from just to just, from mouth to mouth, from the hand of the Holy One, praise to Him, to the hand of Moses [The entire homily refers to the giving of the Torah, from utterance of God to utterance of Moses, etc.] . The Sages identified them and they all grew to become important personalities. They said, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua were from these. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rebbi Simon both were saying, in earlier copies of the Torah neither he nor final mem were closed [The open final mem is exemplified in the Aramaic inscription of King Uziahu’s ossuary. In early Medieval mss. the he looks like a ח, only that the left leg is not at the left end but touching the vertical bar somewhat to the right. The open he is recommended in the Babli, Menaḥot 29b. For a thorough discussion, cf. S. Liebermann, Tarbiz 4 (1933) pp. 292–293.] . Therefore samekh was closed [This justifies R. Levi’s remark that only samekh but not final mem represented a problem.] .

69Rebbi Simon and Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman both were saying, the people of Jerusalem were writing Jerusalem, to Jerusalem, and were not differentiating. And similarly North, to North; South, to South [In the Hebrew of late Second Temple times, as exemplified in the Qumran texts, locative is freely used as nominative (already noted by Geiger, Urschrift p. 233; cf. S. Liebermann Tarbiz 4(1933) p.293, E. Kutscher, Isaiah Scroll, p. 67).] .

70Thirteen things they changed for King Ptolemy. They wrote for him, “God created the beginning [Gen. 1:1; change not found in LXX.] .” “I shall make man in stature and form [Gen. 1:26; change not found in LXX.] .” “Male and his openings He created them [Gen. 1:27; change not found in LXX.] .” “He finished on the Sixth and rested on the Seventh [Gen. 2:2; change found in LXX.] ” “Now I shall descend [Gen. 11:7; change found in LXX.] .” “Sarah laughed in her surroundings, saying. [Gen. 18:12; LXX: “in herself”.] ” “For in their rage they slew a bull and in their will uprooted a trough [Gen. 49:6; change not found in LXX.] .” “Moses took his wife and his sons and let them ride on people-carriers [Ex. 4:20. LXX: “beast of burden”.] .” “The dwelling of the Children of Israel, which they dwelled in Egypt and other lands, was 430 years. [Ex. 12:40. LXX: “In the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan.”] ” And the hare [Lev. 11:6 (in LXX 11:5). LXX: “rough-foot”, a designation of the hare.] , “and the young of foot.” King Ptolemy’s mother was called “hare [The dynasty of the Ptolemies was called the Lagides, after an ancestor Lagos “hare”.] ”. “Not one precious thing I took from them [Num. 16:15; change found in LXX.] ” “Which the Eternal, your God, distributed them to give light to all peoples under all the heavens. [Deut. 4:19; change not found in LXX.] ” “Which I did not command peoples to worship them. [Deut. 17:3; change not found in LXX. The comparisons with the LXX text was done on the basis of Rahlfs’s edition; the history of the text between the time of the Jewish translation in Alexandria and its adaptation by Christian editors in the Roman Empire is unknown. The same list is in the Babli 9a.] ”

71All letters written with the Name as prefix are profane and may be erased, e. g., to the Eternal, by the Eternal, as the Eternal, that the Eternal, since we find that on the diadem it was separate from it, “holy to” at the bottom, “the Eternal” at the top [Yoma4:1 Note 27; Babli Šabbat 63b, Sukkah 5a. For the following, Ševuot 35b.] . All letters written with the Name as suffix are holy and may not be erased, e. g., our God, your God. These are the Names which may not be erased: one who writes the Name of four letters, whether YH or AD [The Name אֲדֹנָי used as pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. If the intention is to אֲדֹנַי “my masters”, the word is profane and may be erased.] . “El, Elohim, Elohei, Elohenu, Elohekhem, Shadday, Sabaoth, Ehye-Ašer-Ehye.” If one writes AD from Adonai, EH from Ehye, ŠD from Shadday, ṢB from Sabaoth, these may be erased and one erases their additions [אֵד “vapor”, אַה has no sense, שַׁד “female breast” שֶׁד “spirit”, צָב “turtle” are profane words.] . “To Elohim” one erases “to”; “to the Eternal” one erases “to” [As noted at the start of the paragraph.] . If he wrote YH [Which is a divine Name in its own right and should have been mentioned in the list.] of the four-letter Name, EL from Elohim, it may not be erased. This is the rule: Any which at another place is a permanent Name may not be erased.

72It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, the family Ḥagira were professional scribes in Jerusalem, who were erasing Sabaoth since it is a profane substantive at another place, the military commanders take position at the head of the people [Deut. 20:9.] . All Names written regarding our father Abraham are holy except one which is profane, it was when the gods made me err from my father’s house [Gen. 20:13. Babli Ševuot 35b.] . But some are saying, this one also is holy, “for unless God, they already would have made me err.” All Names written regarding Micha [Jud. 17–18.] are profane, even though they are written with YH, except one which is holy, all time that the House of God was at Siloh [Jud. 18:31.] . All Names written regarding Naboth, even though they are written with EL are holy, Naboth cursed God and King [1K. 21:13. Ševuot 35b.] . But “merciful and compassionate, patient and full of grace, King of kings, elevated, and great, and awesone, and supreme, powerful, just, straight, saintly, flawless, strong,” these are profane [These are attributes, not Names.] . The following are the names which cannot be split: Amiel, Amishadday, Ṣuriel, Ṣurishaddai, Gamliel, Pedahzur, Pedahel, may not be split [While theophoric names are profane, isolating the divine name by splitting the word would create a word which may not be erased since the syllable was intended as a Name.] These are names that may be split, Beth-El [A geographic name, written without any intent of endowing it with holiness.] , Beth-Awen, getting angry, I shall get angry, Poti-phera, Ṣafenath-Paneaḥ.

73[The text from here to the end of the Halakhah is copied in Sukkah3:12 (Notes 117–136).] Rav and Samuel. One said hallelu yah, and the other one said hallēluja. For him who said hallelu yah it is split but cannot be erased. For him who said hallelujah it may be erased but cannot be split. We do not know who said what. Since Rav said, I heard from my uncle, if somebody would give me a book of Psalms written by Rebbi Meïr I could erase all hallelujah in it since he did not intend to sanctify them. This implies that he said hallelujah. The words of the rabbis disagree, as Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, the book of Psalms was said with ten expressions of praise, with “hail”, with “excellence”, with melody, with song, with chant, with instruction, with shout, [with thanksgiving,] with prayer, with blessing. The most beatific of all of them is hallelujah since both the Name and praise are contained in it.

74Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: He told him, (on top) [in the mouth] before you. Rebbi Jonah answered both ways. Rebbi Eleazar answered both ways. As it was stated, if he heard but did not answer, he fulfilled his obligation; if he answered but did not hear he did not fulfill his obligation [The recitation of the holiday Hallel(Ps. 13–18).] . Rav in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana; but some say Rebbi Abba bar Ḥana in the name of Rav: Only if he answered at the start of the Chapters. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, what are the starts of Chapters? Hallelujah, praise, servants of the Eternal, praise the Name of the Eternal [Ps. 113:1.] . They asked before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: From where that he who heard but did not answer has fulfilled his obligation? He told them, since we are seeing great rabbis standing among the public when these say praised be he who comes and the others say in the name of the Eternal [Ps. 118:26.] , and both have fulfilled their obligation.

75Rebbi Hoshaya stated: One answers Amen even if he did not eat, but he may not say: “Let us praise Him, of Whose bounty we ate,” except if he did eat. It is stated: “One answers neither an orphan Amen, nor a plucked Amen. Ben Azai said, if one answered an orphan Amen, may his children be orphans; hurried, may the end of his days be hurried; plucked, may his soul be plucked off. For a long Amen, they lengthen his days and years in a good way. What is an orphan Amen? Rebbi Huna said, that is one who is obligated to recite a blessing, he answers Amen, and is not conscious for what he answered Amen. It is stated: One answers Amen after a Gentile who recited a benediction for the Eternal. By the Name, one does not answer Amen after him. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, if a Gentile blesses you, answer after him Amen since it is written [Deut. 7:14.] You shall be blessed by all peoples. A Gentile met Rebbi Ismael and blessed him. He answered: The word about you has already been said. He met a second one who cursed him; he answered: The word about you has already been said. His students said to him: Rebbi, did you say to the one what you said to the other? He said to them, so it is written [Gen. 27:29.] Those who curse you are cursed, but those who bless you are blessed.

76MISHNAH: The only difference between a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil and one invested [The making of the anointing oil is described in Ex. 30:22–33 as a personal obligation of Moses. It cannot be duplicated by any other person. Therefore only the High Priests of the Tabernacle, of Siloh, and the First Temple could be anointed for their duties. The High Priests of the Second Temple were invested with the vestments of their office but could not be anointed. The special purification offering of the High Priest of a bull described in Lev. 4:3–12 is restricted to the “anointed priest”. The purification offering of a High Priest of the Second Temple period was that of common people, a female goat or sheep; Lev. 4:27–35.] is the bull which comes for all commandments. The only difference between an acting High Priest and a deactivated High Priest [Removed by a king of the Herodian dynasty or a Roman procurator.] is the bull of the Day of Atonement and the Tenth of an Epha [Lev. 6:15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest.] .

77HALAKHAH: [The entire Halakhah is also in Horaiot3:3 (Notes 132–188). The copy of the first paragraph in Horaiot is incomplete; the later paragraphs are also in Yoma1:1 (Notes 123–149).] It was stated: The Anointed Priest brings a bull, the one clothed in multiple garb does not bring a bull. This disagrees with Rebbi Meïr, for Rebbi Meïr said, the one clothed in multiple garb brings a bull [The definite article used in Lev. 4:3, the priest, would alone have sufficed to characterize the High Priest, biblically distinguished from all others.] . What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? The Anointed. Why does the verse say priest? To add the one clothed in multiple garb [Tosephta Horaiot 2:3.] . What is the rabbis’ reason? The anointed. I could think that this is the king. The verse says, priest. If priest, I could think the one clothed in multiple garb. The verse says, anointed [The double restriction, the priest (the High Priest), anointed, makes it clear that only an anointed high priest is meant. The rabbinic disagreement implies that no High Priest of Second Temple times ever brought a purification sacrifice for himself.] . Then I could think that I am adding also the one anointed for war [The one mentioned in Deut. 20:3 charged with addressing the army. He also is called the priest (Soṭah Chapter 8) and bound by all restrictions imposed on the High Priest in Lev. 21:10–15 (Tosephta 2:1).] . The verse says, Anointed; one who has no anointed person over him. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. Here [Lev. 6:15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest.] is written anointed and there is written anointed. Here they say, to include the one clothed in multiple garb [Mishnah Horaiot 3:4 mentions the daily offering of a tenth of an ephah as duty of the High Priest clothed in multiple garb [Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 5(1)].] . But here [In the Chapter on purification sacrifices.] they say, to exclude the one clothed in multiple garb. Rebbi Hila said, each inference refers to its meaning. There the entire paragraph is said for Aaron. Why is said priest? To include the one clothed in multiple garb [Aaron and his successors are mentioned in v. 13. In v. 15, the mention of “the priest, anointed from his descendants in his stead” does not seem to require a mention of anointing as a definition.] . But here the paragraph does not mention Aaron. If it had said the Anointed but not priest, I would have said, [he brings a bull for forgetting a topic, but for acting in error he brings a goat. Therefore it is necessary that it would mention priest. But if it had mentioned priest but not the Anointed, I would have said,] [Unnecessary corrector’s addition.] this refers to the king [Since Cohen may simply mean “public servant” (2S. 8:18).] . If you would say already this precedes the paragraph about the king [Which is only the third in the Chapter.] , I would have said that for forgetting a topic he brings a bull but for acting in error he brings a goat [As explained in Horaiot2:3, The High Priest may offer a bull only for his forgetting a topic in religious law. One could argue that for simple acting in error, he should bring a commoner’s sacrifice (or, since a male animal is mentioned, the goat characterized earlier as sacrifice for inadvertent idolatry). The specific mention of priest bars him from a commoner’s sacrifice.] . Therefore it is necessary that it mention the Anointed and that it mention priest.

78Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he transgressed and offered his tenth of an ephah it is valid [This refers to the statement in the Mishnah that the only difference between acting and emeritus High Priests are the High Priest’s bull on the Day of Atonement and the daily flour offering of a tenth of an ephah. It is now stated that if the ex-High Priest, who, as will be explained later in the Halakhah, should be unfit to serve as High Priest and is barred from serving as common priest, nevertheless acts as High Priest, the offering is legitimate.] .

79[Here starts the parallel in Yoma 1:1.] “One arranges for another Cohen as his replacement, maybe a disqualification of his will happen. [Mishnah Yoma1:1. Since the entire service of the Day of Atonement is valid only if conducted by the High Priest, a replacement must be available in case the High Priest becomes impure or otherwise incapacitated. The High Priest undergoes a week of preparation for the service, to train for a very crowded program. The question then arises whether the designated backup also has to undergo the same training, possibly at the same place.] ” How? Does one leave them alone together? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses! If one would leave them alone together, he would kill him! Him [Lev. 6:12; the offering of the High Priest starting with the day he is anointed for his office. Sifra Ṣaw Parašah 3(3). The singular indicates that only one High Priest can be appointed at one time. This implies that the reserve appointee for the day of Atonement cannot have the status of High Priest unless he actually is needed.] . One anoints one, one does not anoint two. Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of rivalry [He disagrees and holds that while the two could not have been anointed on the same day, they could have been anointed on different days. The rule that the back-up Cohen has lower status is practical, not biblical, as is the entire institution of the back-up.] .

80If one was incapacitated and the other officiated. The first has all the sanctity of the High Priesthood on him; the second one is qualified neither as High Priest nor as common priest [As the Babli explains (Yoma 12b), “one increases in sanctity but never decreases” (cf. Bikkurim3:3, Note 57; Yoma3:8 Note 201, Ševuot 1:8 Note 169). Since the service of the Day of Atonement is valid only if performed by the High Priest, the substitute becomes a temporary High Priest. He cannot act as a High Priest if the actual High Priest’s temporary disability is removed and he is permanently barred from acting as a common priest. As the Babli points out, if the High Priest dies, the substitute automatically becomes his successor.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he transgressed and officiated, his officiating is valid [A doubt about the legitimacy of officiating in the Temple does not invalidate the offering (Terumot 8:1, Note 26).] . Whose officiating? [The case is told not only in the two parallels in Horaiot and Yoma, but also in abbreviated form in the Babli, Yoma 12b where, however, the ruling is not the king’s (necessarily of the Herodian dynasty) but “the rabbis’.” There is no reason to doubt the historicity of the Yerushalmi version.] Let us hear from the following: It happened to Ben Illem from Sepphoris that the High Priest experienced an emission of semen on the Day of Atonement [The High Priest is taken to live in the Temple, and therefore deprived of sexual activity, for seven days preceding the Day of Atonement. In the night of the Day of Atonement he is deprived of sleep (Yoma Mishnah 1:7) to avoid the danger of him having an involuntary emission. If he has one anyhow, he is disqualified for the entire day even if he immediately purifies himself in a miqweh since the disqualification by temporary impurity is not removed by the removal of the impurity until the following sundown (Lev. 22:7; cf. Ma`aser Šeni 3:2, Notes 21–22.)] ; Ben Illem entered and officiated in his stead. He asked the king when he went out: “The bull and the goat which are brought today, from whose property are they offered? From mine or from the High Priest’s?” The king understood what he was asking and answered him, “Ben Illem, is it not enough for you that you served once before Him Who spoke and the world was created? It is enough for you.” Ben Illem understood that he was removed from the High Priesthood.

81[In addition to the two parallels there is a short version in the Babli, Yoma 47a. There, the names are Ismael and Joseph. The passages are discussed in detail by Grätz, Geschichte der Juden vol. 3/2 Note 19/II. Josephus transcribes בֶּן קִמְחִית as τοῡ Καμύδου.] It happened that Simeon ben Qimḥit went out for a walk with an Arab king [on the evening before the Day of Atonement at sundown] [The different versions of this text are discussed in Horaiot, Note 157. Probably it should read “with the king at sundown before the Day of Atonement.” If the Arab was not converted to Judaism, the High Priest would have had to leave the holy precinct on the Day of Atonement, a most unlikely happening before he had finished all his duties. The version of the text presupposes that the king had immersed himself in a miqweh so he could enter the restricted area on the Temple Mount. Nevertheless, (Mishnah Ḥagigah 2:7) “The garments of the vulgar are severely impure for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are severely impure for those eating heave; the garments of those eating heave are severely impure for those sacrificing.” The severe impurity of מִדְרָס referred to here is the impurity of seats or beds used by a sufferer from gonorrhea or a menstruating woman, which makes anyone touching it impure and requires immersion in water and waiting until sundown. Since the king could not sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, he could not have immersed himself with an intention which would make him co-pure with the High Priest. Since the incident happened at sundown, the High Priest was automatically disqualified for the next 24 hours. While a living Gentile is not under the rules of biblical impurity, rabbinically every Gentile is impure and this impurity cannot be removed by immersion in water (Babli Avodah zarah 36b).] and a drop of spittle squirted on his garment and defiled him. His brother Jehudah entered and officiated in his stead. Their mother saw two of her sons as High Priests on the same day. Qimḥit had seven sons; all of them served as High Priests [Under the Herodian kings, when the High Priesthood was conferred and removed at the whim of the king.] . The Sages sent and asked Qimḥit, what good deeds are in your hand? She told them, there should come over me if the beams of the roof of my house ever saw the hair on my head or the seam of my undershirt [It is indecent for a married woman to be seen in public with uncovered hair. She was clothed at home as she was for the street and never undressed except in the dark. The Babli notes that many women follow this custom.] . They said, all flours are flour but Qimḥit’s flour is fine flour [A pun on the name of Qimḥit “flour lady”.] . They recited about her [Ps. 45:14.] : All the honor of the king’s daughter is inside; gold settings her garments [According to Rashi’s commentary in Yoma, the argument means that the reward of a woman who behaves with dignity in her home is that her son will be High Priest whose garment is adorned with golden settings for precious stones. (Cf. Tanḥuma Wayyišlaḥ 6, Bemidbar 3.)] .

82I could think that the one anointed for war [The one mentioned in Deut. 20:3 charged with addressing the army. He also is called the priest (Soṭah Chapter 8) and bound by all restrictions imposed on the High Priest in Lev. 21:10–15 (Tosephta 2:1).] should bring his tenth of an ephah [Lev. 6:15, on the daily flour sacrifice of the High Priest.] . [The verse says [Ex. 29:30. As often, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted: Seven days the priest shall wear them, who of his sons will stand in his stead to officiate in the Sanctuary. The only hereditary office in Divine Service is that of the High Priest. Babli Yoma72b/73a.] , in his stead, of his sons. One whose son will serve in his stead brings his tenth of an ephah.] This excludes the one anointed for war whose sons will not serve in his stead does not bring a tenth of an ephah. From where that the son of the anointed for war will not serve in his stead? The verse says [Ex. 29:30. As often, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted: Seven days the priest shall wear them, who of his sons will stand in his stead to officiate in the Sanctuary. The only hereditary office in Divine Service is that of the High Priest. Babli Yoma72b/73a.] , seven days shall the priest wear them, etc. If one officiates in the Tent of Meeting, his son will stand in his stead. This excludes the one anointed for war who does not officiate in the Tent of Meeting, [his son will not stand in his stead.] From where that he can be appointed as High Priest [Since the Anointed for War is under the restrictions valid for the High Priest, one has to ascertain that his office be subordinate, not coordinate, to the High Priesthood and that an appointment to High Priesthood does not violate the rule that one may not reduce the holiness of one’s position (Note 151).] ? [As is written,] [1Chr. 9:20. The leader of the priests is the High Priest. Phineas was appointed Anointed for War by Moses, Num. 31:6.] Phineas the son of Eleazar was leader over them; in earlier times the Eternal was with him. When Rebbi Yose wanted to needle [Hebrew verb built on a Greek root; cf. Berakhot 3, Note 96.] Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose [R. Yose seems to have complained about a lack of leadership on the part of his son.] , he said to him, “before, he was with him.” Before, he was with him. In the days of Zimri [Num. 27:1–15.] , he protested. In the days of the concubine at Gibea [Jud. 19–21. In the opinion of Seder Olam, based on the teachings of R. Yose the Tanna (who is meant here), the affair at Gibea happened at the start of the period of the Judges, when Phineas was High Priest. Cf. the author’s edition of Seder Olam (Northvale NJ 1998), pp. 122–123.] , he did not protest.

83And from where that he was asked in eight [The Anointed for War has two jobs. One is to address the army as described in Deut. 20:1–9, the other to ask the Urim and Tummim oracle on behalf of the army commander. Since this oracle is mentioned only in connection with the High Priest’s garments (Ex. 28:30) it is obvious that the Anointed for War must wear one of these garments for the oracle. But since all eight garments of the High Priest form an indivisible unit, he must wear all of them.] ? Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants in his stead [Ex. 29:30. As often, the proof is from the part of the verse not quoted: Seven days the priest shall wear them, who of his sons will stand in his stead to officiate in the Sanctuary. The only hereditary office in Divine Service is that of the High Priest. Babli Yoma72b/73a.] . Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him [Also for a secondary greatness.] . And from where that he officiated in eight [This seems logical. Since the Anointed for War is required to wear the High Priest’s garb, “one increases in sanctity but does not decrease” (cf. Note 429). The opposing opinion disqualifies the Anointed for War from all office in the Sanctuary.] ? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: And Aaron’s holy garments shall be for his descendants. Why does the verse say, in his stead? For greatness after him. Rebbi Jonah said to him [The name of R. Jonah’s interlocutor is not given; it is presumed to be his colleague R. Yose. He notes that R. Immi’s statement was identical to that of of R. Ḥiyya. In the Babli, Yoma 73a, the students of R. Joḥanan already point out that R. Joḥanan only gave his opinion on interrogation of the oracle, not of officiating.] , I was with you; he did not say “officiated” but “was asked”. Rav Hoshaia brought a Mishnah of Bar Qappara from the South which stated: But the Sages are saying that he is qualified neither in the four of a common priest nor in the eight of a High Priest [This seems logical. Since the Anointed for War is required to wear the High Priest’s garb, “one increases in sanctity but does not decrease” (cf. Note 429). The opposing opinion disqualifies the Anointed for War from all office in the Sanctuary.] . Rebbi Abba said, it would be logical that he officiate in four. Why did they say that he does not officiate? Lest people say, we saw a High Priest, sometimes he officiates in four, sometimes he officiates in eight [He holds that as a matter of principle, the Anointed for War could use the eight garments of the High Priest strictly for his duties outside the sanctuary and still be a common priest inside without violating the principle of Note 429. The Babli disagrees (Yoma73a) and bases the rule strictly on that principle. In contrast to the Babli, this would be strictly a rabbinic rule, not based on biblical principles, and therefore not a historical reconstruction by a new rule for the days of the Messiah.] . Rebbi Jonah said, would he not officiate inside and would he not be asked outside? Does one err between inside and outside? But did Rebbi Tarphon, the father of all of Israel, not err between blowing for assembly and the blowing for a sacrifice? As it is stated: The descendants of Aaron, the priests, shall blow the trumpets [Num. 10:8.] , blameless ones, not with bodily defects, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons [His oath formula, cursing himself if his statement should be found false. Babli Šabbat17a.] if I did not see Simeon, my mother’s brother, lame in one of his legs, standing in the Temple court with his trumpet in his hand and blowing! Rebbi Aqiba answered him, maybe you saw him only at the time of assembly [The command to call all the community in the desert by the sound of trumpets (Num. 10:3) is extended to use trumpets to introduce the public Torah reading in the Temple at Tabernacles in the Sabbatical Year (Deut. 31:10–13).] ; but I was saying, at the time of sacrifices [Num. 10:10; cf. Sanhedrin3:3 Note 155.] . Rebbi Tarphon said to him, I would hit my sons but you did not deviate right or left. I am the one who saw the act and forgot. You derive it and agree with tradition. Therefore, anybody who separates from you is as if he separated himself from his life [A similar text in Sifry Num.75 (a better text Yalqut #725).] .

84The priest shall atone who was anointed [Lev. 16:32. The problem is the legitimacy of a priest appointed ad hoc as High Priest to conduct the service of the Day of Atonement for which common priests are disqualified.] . Since the entire chapter is said about Aaron, from where to include another priest [The first 30 verses of the Chapter mention Aaron exclusively.] ? The verse says, who was anointed; not only the anointed with the anointing oil; from where the one clothed in multiple garb? The verse says, who was inducted into office. And from where another who was appointed [In an emergency of the Day of Atonement where no formal session of a court can be held. Even when anointing oil was available, simple investiture was enough.] ? The verse says, the priest shall atone [Since it does not stress “the High Priest”, it follows that any priest can be appointed to fill the office.] . How is he being appointed? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph, by mouth [It does not need the laying on of hands nor a document of appointment. (Tosaphot Yoma 12b s, v. כהן).] . Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that one may ordain Elders by word of mouth. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, a Mishnah says so: “Recant the four things that you are used to say and we shall make you president of the Court. [Mishnah Idiut 5:6. The oral promise was irrevocable.] ”

85MISHNAH: The only difference between a public altar and a private altar was the Pesah sacrifice [The public altar is the one constructed for the Tabernacle at Sinai, which was the common altar for all tribes. The rules given in Deut. are interpreted to mean that if the altar and the Tabernacle were at one place, Shilo in the time of the Judges, and Jerusalem, private altars were forbidden, but when altar and Tabernacle were at different places, in the time between the destruction of Shilo and the building of the Temple when the Tent was in Nob, the Ark at Bet Shemesh, Qiryat Yearim, or Jerusalem and the altar at Gibeon, private altars were permitted since a place can be considered to be “selected by the Eternal” only if it is the place both of the altar and the complete Tent. Mishnah Zevaḥim14:4–10.] . This is the principle: Anything which can be vowed or donated [Dedications of animals as Temple sacrifices.] is sacrificed on a private altar; but nothing which cannot be vowed or donated is sacrificed on a private altar.

86HALAKHAH: [“The only difference between a public altar and a private altar, etc.”] Rebbi Joḥanan spent three years that he did not visit the house of assembly because of pain. At the end Rebbi Eleazar saw in his dream: Tomorrow Sinai will come down and bring a new insight. He came and said before them, from where is this truth verified that divine service is by firstborns? [Mishnah Zevaḥim14:4: Before the Tabernacle was erected private altars were permitted and the service was in the hands of the firstborn.] From this verse [Num. 3:13. The reference is to the later part of the verse, I sanctified for Me every firstborn in Israel.] , for Mine is every firstborn; on the day when I smote every firstborn in the Land of Egypt, etc. And it is written [Ex. 12:12. The firstborn were sanctified to God because the gods of Egypt were destroyed.] , and on all gods of Egypt I shall pass judgment, etc. Before that what were they doing? Rebecca took the desirable garments of her older son Esaw, which were with her in the house [Gen. 27:15.] . What are “the desirable”? That he was acting as High Priest. Rebbi Levi said, the Eternal broke the staff of the evildoers [Is. 14:5.] , these are the firstborn who were the first to sacrifice to the Calf [Num. rabba 4(5).] .

87[Babli Zevaḥim115b, Tosefta Zevaḥim 13:1.] “Everything is brought on an altar [A private altar when it is legitimate. The detailed rules of sacrifices spelled out in Lev. are valid only for places of public worship.] , domestic and wild animals [On a public altar only cattle, sheep and goats are permitted.] , large and small birds [On a public altar only pigeons and turtle doves are permitted.] , male and female [By the rules of Lev. 1:3,10, an elevation sacrifice can only be a male animal.] , whole [but not] (and) [Clearly the text of the [corrector] is the only acceptable one.] defective, pure [Kosher animals and birds, Lev. 11.] but not impure. All are brought as elevation sacrifice and do not need stripping and partitioning [In the Babylonian sources (Note 476): they need stripping (remove the hide) and partitioning.] . Gentiles today are permitted to do this.” From where male and female? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: and the cows they offered as elevation offering to the Eternal. [1S. 6:14, referring to the cows which drew the cart on which the Philistines returned the Ark to Bet Shemesh. Since the place at Shilo was inactive without the Ark in the Tabernacle, it was a time when private altars were permitted.] From where whole [but not] (and) [Clearly the text of the [corrector] is the only acceptable one.] defective? Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Eleazar made it clear to the colleagues, from all living, from integer flesh [Gen. 6:19. The animal must be complete from the outside. It does not need inspection of its internal organs as required for kosher consumption of the meat or as sacrifice on a public altar. Babli Zevaḥim 116a.] , that they should be complete in their limbs. Plucked? Rebbi Eleazar made it clear, any bird, any wing [Gen. 7:14. If the feathers are removed, the bird has no more wings.] , to exclude plucked ones. From where pure but not impure? Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Levi: Noah pondered a lesson from the Torah. He said, it already was said to me, like vegetables from the field I gave you everything [Gen.9:3. While Adam was created as a vegetarian (Gen. 1:29), Noah was told to be an omnivore.] . Why did Scripture increase the pure ones? For sacrifices. And Gentiles today are permitted to do this. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, it is forbidden to a Jew to help him and it is forbidden to become his agent [Since private altars were forbidden after the building of the Temple, Jews cannot be involved in any way in building or serving such an altar. Babli Zevaḥim 116b.] .

88Antoninus [A crypto-Jewish Roman Emperor, probably of the Severan dynasty. It is futile to try to determine to whom one refers; cf. Kilaim9:4, Note 79. It was implied already in Halakhah 1 that Gentiles may have part in the World to Come.] asked Rebbi, may I build an altar? He said to him, build it and hide its stones. May one make incense for him? He said to him, make it without one of its ingredients. Was it not stated, you may not make for yourselves [Ex. 30:37.] ? You may not make for yourselves [but] others may make for you [Gentiles may make the incense for non-sacral use.] . Rebbi Ḥanania said, this was for Rebbi Romanos [Rebbi’s agent for matters to be done outside the seat of the Patriarchate.] whom Rebbi sent to make it for him. [A parallel, in slightly different order, is in Sanhedrin 10:6 (Notes 331–338). There, in Halakhah 3:12, and in Midrashic sources, the Emperor is called Antolinus.] There are indications implying that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] converted; there are indications implying that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] did not convert. One saw him walking with a slight shoe on the Day of Atonement [The scroll may not be used for public readings.] . What do you infer since even God-fearing people go outside thus? (Antolinus) [Antoninus] said to Rebbi, can I eat from the Leviathan [The just feasting on Leviathan meat in the World to Come are also mentioned in Lev. rabba 22(7), Babli Bava batra74b–75a.] in the World to Come? He said to him, yes. He told him, from the Passover lamb you would not let me eat, but from Leviathan you make me eat? He answered, what can we do for you since about the Passover lamb it is written that no uncircumcised man may eat from it [Ex. 12:48.] . When he heard this, he went and circumcized. He came to Rebbi and said to him, look at my circumcision. He answered him, at mine I never looked [It is indecent to look at sexual organs. Other references to this insert are Megillah3:3 (74a l.39); Avodah zarah 3:1 (42c l.5); Babli Šabbat 118b, Pesaḥim 104a.] , and at yours I should look? Why is he called our holy teacher? Because he never in his life looked at his circumcision. And why is his name Naḥum the holiest of holies [An otherwise unknown personality.] ? Because he never in his life looked at the figure on a coin. This implies that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] converted. The statement of the rabbis implies that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] did (not) convert, as [“Open at the start” means that the writing of the first paragraph starts only in the middle of the line. This is normal for paragraphs following a closed paragraph. Open at the bottom means that the remainder of the last line of the paragraph remains empty; this is the definition of an open paragraph. Open on both sides implies open at the start.] Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said: When in the Future World the proselytes come, (Antolinus) [Antoninus] comes at the head of all of them.

89Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Sons of Noah brought well-being offerings. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the Sons of Noah brought elevation offerings [Noah certainly sacrificed elevation sacrifices (Gen. 8:20); therefore these are certainly permitted on any private altar. Well-being sacrifices can be permitted on a private altar only if they are permitted to Gentiles, the children of Noah. In order to permit well-being sacrifices on private altars one must find examples of such sacrifices from the time preceding the epiphany on Sinai. Babli Zevaḥim 116a.] . Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, and Abel also brought from the firstlings of his sheep and of their excellence [Gen. 4:4. In Torah law, firstlings are sacrificed as special well-being offerings. In Lev. it is quite clear that “fat” in general is חֵלֶב ;פֶּדֶר is used only for fat destined to the altar and forbidden to humans. The suffixed form is חֶלְבְּהֶ֑ן. In Gen. the suffixed form is וּמֵֽחֶלְבֵהֶ֑ן; one has to explain חֵלֶב in 4:4 and 45:18 from Accadic ẖilibū “magnificence, splendor, excellence.” This interpretation is accepted here.] . What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? From their luxurious ones. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, he sent the young men of Israel and they offered elevation offerings [Ex. 24:5. The argument is the part of the verse which is not quoted: they sacrificed oxen as well-being sacrifices to the Eternal.] , etc.? What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Entire in their bodies, without stripping and partitioning [Instead of שְׁלָמִים he reads שְׁלֵמִים. Cf. Babli Ḥagigah 6b.] . Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: [Is it not written, Jethro, Moses’s in-law, took elevation and well-being offerings for God [Ex. 18:12. While the corrector’s addition seems to be a logical necessity, it probably is taken from Babli Zevaḥim116a.] ?] What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Following him who said that Jethro came after the giving of the Torah [His sacrifices followed all rules of Lev.] . Rebbi Ḥuna said, Jehudah the great one and Rebbi Yannai disagreed. One said, Jethro came before the giving of the Torah; but the other one said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. We did not know who said what. Let us hear from the following: Jethro, the priest of Midyan, Moses’s in-law, heard [Ex. 18:1.] . What did he hear? Ḥizqiah said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. Rebbi Joshua said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. [Rebbi Levi said, he heard the war of Amaleq.] The Great Jehudah said, he heard the giving of the Torah. Therefore he must be the one who said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the following supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Awake North, and come South [Cant. 4:16.] . Awake North refers to the elevation sacrifice which is slaughtered in the North. What means “awake”? What was sleeping [Old practices resurrected.] and awoke. And come South refers to well-being sacrifices which are slaughtered in the South. What means “come”? Something new [This is R. Yose ben Ḥanina’s argument that well-being sacrifices were introduced only by the Torah.] . What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? When the diasporas in the North awake and build the Temple in the South. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Levi: also the following verse supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is the teaching about the elevation sacrifice [Lev. 6:2.] . This is the elevation sacrifice which the Sons of Noah were sacrificing. When he comes to well-being sacrifice he says, this is the teaching about the well-being sacrifice [Lev. 7:11. Again the argument is from the continuation of the verse, not quoted.] . It is not written “which one brought” but shall bring from now on..

90Where are burned oxen and burned goats burned [Lev. 6:23. Any purification offering whose blood was brought inside the Sanctuary has to be burned (the purification sacrifices of the anointed High Priest, the community, and those of the Day of Atonement.)] ? On a grave [The paradigm of a place of impurity. In Lev. 4:12 it is ordered that the High Priest’s bull be burned on a place of purity. It is stated here that this applies only to the functioning Sanctuary in the desert, at Shilo, and in the Temple, but not at any other public altar.] . Since we have stated, the only difference between a public altar and a private altar was the Pesaḥ sacrifice [Since purification sacrifices to be burned are public offerings they seem to be improper on private altars. Does the Mishnah authorize them on private altars?] ? So in the Mishnah: The only difference between a public altar and a private altar was the Pesaḥ sacrifice exclusively [This means either that all purification sacrifices are permitted on private altars when such altars are permitted, or that no purification sacrifices are permitted on any altar when private altars are permitted.] ; not following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said, purification sacrifice and Pesaḥ for the individual on the public altar, no purification sacrifice and Pesaḥ for the individual on a private altar. It was stated [Babli Zevaḥim 117a, Tosephta Zevaḥim 13:15.] : “Rebbi Jehudah said, anything the community sacrifices at the Tent of Meeting in the desert it sacrifices at the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal [The temporary place of the Tabernacle during the conquest of Canaan under Joshua.] . What is the difference between the Tent of Meeting in the desert and the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal? At the Tent of Meeting in the desert was no permission of a private altar; at the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal was permission of a private altar. His altar may be on his roof, but he may sacrifice there only elevation and well-being sacrifices. But the Sages are saying, everything which community or private person sacrifice at the Tent of Meeting in the desert they sacrifice at the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal [Everybody agrees that on a private altar one could bring only voluntary offerings. On the public altar according to R. Jehudah only public sacrifices are possible; according to the rabbis also obligatory sacrifices of individuals.] .” What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Do not do at Gilgal everything which we are doing here today [Deut. 12:8.] . What may you do there? Anything straight-forward [A reformulation of the end of Deut. 12:8.] . What is that? That are elevation and well-being sacrifices. What is the rabbis’ reason? At a place where any man may do what is right in his eyes. Do not do everything which we are doing here today. What may you do there? Anything straight-forward. What is that? That are elevation and well-being sacrifices. Rebbi Jehudah says, the individual was warned and the individual was permitted. He was warned, and his private altar is on his roof, and he is permitted elevation and well-being sacrifices. The rabbis are saying, also community and individuals were warned. The community was comprehensively permitted. The individual stays in his prohibition [A commandment in the plural is directed to individuals, in the singular it is interpreted as a collective and addressed to the community as a whole. In Deut. 12:8 the first part is in the plural, the second in the singular. R. Jehudah reads the entire verse as addressed to the individual; therefore on a public altar one may not sacrifice what one cannot do on a private altar (except the case of the Pesaḥ treated in the next paragraph which is a private well-being sacrifice required to be brought on the public altar), whereas the majority splits the verse to permit all kinds of public sacrifices on the public altar. In the tradition of the Babli Zevaḥim117a the roles are switched.] .

91It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon [Tosephta Zevaḥim13:15. The only sacrifices authorized on a public altar are those fixed beforehand, not depending on circumstances. In the Tosephta, the statement is attributed to R. Jehudah. But since the following text starts with “in addition, R. Simeon says …”, the prior text must be R. Simeon’s (Note of Pene Moshe.)] : “The community only brings what Scripture fixed for it.” Rebbi Simeon is of the opinion that since when Second Tithe was introduced it was not interrupted [This statement does not belong here, it was copied from Halakhah 14. Second Tithe is the farmer’s property to be consumed in purity “before the Eternal” (Deut. 14:23). When the Tent was at Nob, the altar at Gibeon, and the Ark at Qiryat Yearim, it is difficult to see where “before the Eternal” was. He posits that the duty of Second Tithe was in force in the interval between Siloh and Solomon’s Temple.] . What is between them [R. Simeon and the majority who permit on the public altar anything sacrificed in the desert.] ? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the bull of hidden things [Lev. 4:13–21, the purification offering for erroneous acts of the community.] is between them. Rebbi Yose says, voluntary offerings of the community are between them. It was stated, both men and women [May sacrifice on a private altar.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no woman here, “man” is written in the paragraph [Deut. 12:8.] . It was stated, also a nazir’s sacrifices [May be brought on a private altar. Babli Temurah 14b.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are no nazir’s sacrifices here; nazir’s sacrifices are an obligation. It was stated, also libations [As detailed in Num. 15:1–16, required for the sacrifices authorized on private altars. Babli Zevaḥim 111a.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he who states “libations” does not hold with Rebbi, as it was stated, Rebbi says, I am saying that also after Israel entered the Land, libations only are brought inside [At the altar standing in a sanctified enclosure of the Tabernacle.] . What is the reason? In the Sanctuary pour alcoholic libations to the Eternal [Num. 28:7.] . A prohibition is written only for inside; from where for the outside? Let us hear from the following. From where that one who slaughters as Pesah for an individual on a private altar or the public altar in a time where altars are forbidden, that he transgresses a prohibition? The verse says, you may not slaughter the Pesaḥ at one [Deut. 16:6, read as: only at one place for all of Israel.] . He is punished with extirpation and you are saying so [Since the sacrifice as described is one at an unauthorized place and this is punished by extirpation (Lev. 17:4), whereas the verse quoted treats this as a simple misdemeanor.] ? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is about one who slaughters in the afternoon not for its name [Which disqualifies the sacrifice from fulfilling any obligation; Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1.] in a time when altars are permitted. Then why does he say, in a time when altars are forbidden? In a time when his altar is forbidden [Since Pesaḥ may not be brought on a private altar and is a modified well-being offering, a private altar on the afternoon of the 14 of Nisan is disqualified for any kind of well-being offering.] . Why not for its name? That you should not say, it is well-being offering [An animal vowed for Pesaḥ but not used for this purpose automatically is dedicated as well-being offering.] and qualified. In addition, from the following: I could think that if he slaughtered it in the afternoon it should be qualified. Why do you have (in the afternoon it should be qualified) [in the morning it should be disqualified] [The corrector’s text is to be deleted.] ? No. It is not for its name [Which disqualifies the sacrifice from fulfilling any obligation; Mishnah Zevaḥim 1:1.] . Rebbi Yose said, this implies that well-being sacrifices brought because of Pesaḥ [The corrector’s text is to be deleted.] are qualified on an altar. Would an elevation offering be brought because of a reparation sacrifice be qualified on an altar according to Rebbi Eleazar? Let us hear from the following: “This is the principle: Anything which can be vowed or donated [Dedications of animals as Temple sacrifices.] is sacrificed on a private altar; but nothing which cannot be vowed or donated is sacrificed on a private altar.”

92Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the altar is permitted only by a prophet. What is the reason? Guard yourself lest you bring your elevation offerings at any place you are seeing, except at a place [Deut. 12:13–14. The argument is from the part not quoted, except at a place which the Eternal will chose, by informing a prophet of His choice.] etc. [Ta`aniot 2:8, Notes 164–165.] And Elijah sacrifices when local altars are forbidden? Rebbi Simlai said, the Word He said to him [1K. 18:36.] : I acted on Your saying. I acted following Your Word.

93MISHNAH: The only difference between Shilo and Jerusalem was that at Shilo one ate simple sacrifices [Sacrifices parts of which were eaten by laity.] and Second Tithe at sight [Any place at which the Tabernacle could be seen.] and in Jerusalem inside the wall. In both cases most holy sacrifices [Sacrifices either burned as holocaust or eaten in part by priests only.] are eaten inside the curtains [The enclosure of the sacred domain which for the Tabernacle was formed by curtains.] . After the holiness of Shilo {temporary altars} were permitted but after Jerusalem {temporary altars} are not permitted [When Shilo was destroyed the historical record shows that Samuel and Saul sacrificed at several places, none of which could claim to be “chosen by the Eternal.” But Solomon declared the Temple to be God’s place forever(1K.8:13; 2Chr. 6:2).] .

94HALAKHAH: [Corrector’s addition, inserted at the wrong place since this paragraph is a direct continuation of the preceding one, showing that at all times a prophet may legally build an altar separate from the official sanctuary. As noted in N. 537, Deuteronomy nowhere declares that only one sanctuary is tolerated, but only that the place of sacrifices must have been chosen by the Eternal. The high cost of official worship as demanded in Num. 28–29 automatically restricts permanent worship to one place, making any additional place used on the authority of a recognized prophet a temporary matter.] Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius understood it from the following [Jos. 8:30. Since the altar on Mount Ebal was built at the time when the Tent and Moses’s altar were at Gilgal, this proves that at this time secondary public altars were not forbidden.] : Then Joshua would build an altar for the Eternal, the God of Israel, on Mount Ebal. Not only Mount Ebal, from where Shilo [That several official and private altars were permitted after the destruction of Shilo.] ? Samuel took a milk lamb and brought it up totally as elevation offering for the Eternal [1S. 7:9.] . Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, three sins were permitted for Samuel’s sheep: It and its hide [In Lev. 1:6 it is decreed that an elevation offering is burned without its hide. Babli Zevaḥim 120a.] , and deficient in time [This is not spelled out in the verse. No lamb may be sacrificed on an official altar if it is not at least 8 days old; Lev. 23:27.] , and he was a Levite [He was a descendant of Qoraḥ, and only descendants of Aaron may officiate at a public altar.] . Rebbi Yose said, if about this it implies nothing, since Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, seven sins were permitted for Gideon’s bull [Jud. 6:25–27. The stones had been used for an altar of Baal, therefore they were forbidden for all usufruct together with the wood of the Asherah tree. They could have been used only by direct commandment from God. That the bull had been worshipped as a deity is deduced from the involved language in the verse, where a single bull is called “second” to show that two sins were committed with it. (Babli Temurah 28b.) That sacrifices are permitted only during daytime is deduced from Lev. 7:38 (Halakhah 2:5). In Gideon’s time the sanctuary of Shilo was in existence.] : Disqualified stones, and Asherah wood, and separated, and worshipped, and night, and outsider, and altar prohibition. He who wants may understand it well from that by Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: When he returned to Rama, for there was his house, and there he judged Israel, and there he built an altar for the Eternal [1S. 8:17, after the destruction of Shilo.] . It is written [1S. 9:24.] , the cook lifted the thigh and what was on it and put before Saul, etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the thigh and meat [The thigh belongs to the officiating Cohen (Ex. 29:27–28); Saul could have received it only if no Cohen was officiating at the altar. Babli Avodah zarah 25a, Zevaḥim 119b.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, the thigh and the fat tail [The fat tail is to be burned on the altar, Lev. 3:9.] . Rebbi Eleazar said, the thigh and the breast [The thigh belongs to the officiating Cohen (Ex. 29:27–28); Saul could have received it only if no Cohen was officiating at the altar. Babli Avodah zarah 25a, Zevaḥim 119b.] , as Rebbi Eleazar said, the thigh and the breast belong to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The hide of the elevation sacrifice belongs to the Cohanim at a public altar [In Lev. 7:8 it is decreed that the hide belongs to the officiating Cohen. Since a non-Cohen was shown to be able to officiate at a private altar, the hide belongs to the owner. Babli Zevaḥim 119b.] but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The contribution of a thanksgiving sacrifice [The officiating Cohen’s part of the breads accompanying the sacrifice, Lev. 7:14.] belongs to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, is the night qualified at a private altar [Since on an official altar sacrifices are possible only during daytime, Halakhah 2:5.] ? Rebbi Eleazar answered, is it not written, [1S. 14:34. It is stated in the verse that the slaughter was in the night; in v. 35 it is stated that Saul built an altar.] Saul said, disperse under the people and tell them, every man shall bring to me his ox, etc. And it is written [1S. 14:33, they engaged in pagan slaughter.] , they told Saul saying, behold the people are sinning against the Eternal by eating on the blood, etc. How is this? The night for profane {slaughter}, and the day for sacrificial. When Rebbi Joḥanan heard this, he said, well did Rebbi Eleazar teach us [That the verse emphasizes profane slaughter during nighttime. Babli Zevaḥim 120a.] .

95Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ila`y. One verse says, he abandoned the dwelling at Shilo [Ps. 78:60. The argument is based on the second part of the verse, a Tent He made dwell among mankind.] , but an other verse says, she brought him to the Eternal’s House at Shilo [1Sam. 1:25.] . How is this? A stone house below and the gobelins on top [The three layers of covers of the Tent of Meeting were drawn over a stone wall. Babli Zevaḥim 118a.] , and this was “rest. [Private altars are prohibited in Deut. 12:9 when Israel comes to the rest and the inheritance. “Rest” is defined as Shilo, “inheritance” as Jerusalem. Babli 10a.] ” Rebbi Ze`ira said, a minimum of ten hand-breadths, as in building a house. But was it not stated, just as the Tent of Meeting was erected so was the Tent at Shilo erected? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, its poles, its planks, its latches, its bases, and its columns [Ex. 39:33.] . Its poles were visible inside like stars in the sky.

96The Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi: I heard from your fathers that all covers [The Tabernacles and the Temple erected in the Land, including Nob and Gibeon; Babli Zevaḥim 118b..] [which existed] only were in Benjamin’s part. What is the reason? He rests between his shoulders [Deut. 33:12, in the blessing of Benjamin.] . But is it not written, He despised the Tent of Joseph and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah [Ps. 78:67–68. This locates the Temple in the territory of Judah even though Jos. 15:8 puts the Northern border of Judah in the Hinnom valley (and probably Jaffa Street.)] . Did he choose Judah [Since it was stated earlier that the Temple building was in Benjamin.] ? But choosing, choosing. Since choosing there includes Benjamin, so choosing here includes Benjamin [If the place at Shiloh was chosen in Benjamin, the one in Jerusalem also was in Benjamin (while occupied by Jebusites.)] . Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: and the pleasure of the Dweller in the senna [Deut. 33:15, in the blessing of Joseph.] . Sacral meat given to atonement is consumed in the part of Joseph [Even if the Tent at Shiloh was on Benjamin territory, the place outside the Tent reserved for the priests’ eating of sacral meat was in Joseph.] . Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris said, like vertex of a trapezoid [A technical term otherwise used in the laws of Kilaim1:9, Note 202. It would make more sense to read “from Benjamin’s part into Joseph’s part.”] entered from Joseph’s part into Benjamin’s part; on it the altar was situated. What is the reason? The border turned eastward to Taanat-Shilo [Jos. 16:6. Since this identifies Taanat Shilo (“the fig tree of Shilo) as a suburb of Shilo, they must read the description of the Ephraimite border in the verse as description of the Southern border. Babli Zevaḥim 118b.] , up to the door-sill [An Accadic word, askuppu.] of Shilo. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: and the pleasure of the Dweller in the senna. That the Divine Presence dwelt in the greatness [Reading the otherwise undocumented סנא as Arabic “elevation, greatness”.] of Joseph.

97Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Since simple sacrifices and Second Tithe were eaten at sight [Any place at which the Tabernacle could be seen.] the person who stated the Mishnah did not need to warn about the consumption but about its bringing [The main point in Mishnah 14 is not that these have to be eaten there but, by implication, that they are forbidden except at the official Sanctuary. Babli Zevaḥim 118a.] . What is the reason? Guard yourself, lest you bring your elevation sacrifices [Deut. 12:13, the verse forbidding altars which are not legitimized by a prophet.] , lest you bring what you are obliged to offer [To an illegitimate place.] . Rebbi Simeon bar Miasha asked before Rebbi Eleazar: What means “at sight”? Shilo or Shiloh and the Sanctuary at Shilo? He told him, Shiloh and the Sanctuary at Shilo, as for example Bet-Maon, only that there is an interruption and here is no interruption [It is necessary not only that the Sanctuary be seen but also that it be possible to reach the Sanctuary from the place of consumption without leaving the area from which it is seen. Babli Zevaḥim 118b.] .

98Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This is the indication: Any time the Ark is inside [The Tabernacle or the Temple.] , private altars are forbidden; once it left, private altars are permitted. Rebbi Ze`ura asked before Rebbi Yasa: even temporarily, as in the case of Eli [1S. 4:4. While it turned out that the absence of the Ark was permanent, it was intended to be temporary. What was the status of private altars between the removal of the Ark from Shilo and its installation in Qiryat Yearim?] ? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, “there”, “there”. Just as in the case of “there” mentioned there private altars are forbidden, so in the case of “there” mentioned here private altars are forbidden [It is not quite clear to which verses this refers. In Zevaḥim119a Rashi refers to the prohibition of private altars, where “there” is used both in Deut. 12:7 and 14:23 regarding the obligation to sacrifice at the public shrine, and Ex. 40:3 regarding the place of the Ark in the Tabernacle.] . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, in that case if there is no Ark is there no Pesaḥ [In that case there could not have been any Pesaḥ sacrifice in the Second Temple, whose basic institutions were approved by Zachariah, Haggai, and Malachia. Since we know that the Pesaḥ was sacrificed there, the argument presented must be invalid.] ? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, “appellation”, “appellation”. Just as in the case of “appellation” mentioned there private altars are forbidden, so in the case of “appellation” mentioned here private altars are forbidden [It is not clear what this means. It cannot refer to the biblical meaning of the word אַזְכָּרָה, the declaration by the priest that the part taken is God’s part to be burned on the altar, since this does not apply to the items in question. Therefore it must refer to the rabbinic meaning of אַזְכָּרָה, the Name YHWH, which appears many times both in reference to permitted and prohibited altars.] . And so Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon were saying, Second Tithe in Nob and Gibeon. One understands Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said, purification sacrifice and Pesaḥ for the individual on the public altar, no purification sacrifice and Pesah for the individual on a private altar [He expressly endorses Pesaḥ on any public altar, without reference to the Ark.] . Following Rebbi Simeon? Since Rebbi Simeon said, “The community only brings what Scripture fixed for it. [But Pesaḥ depends on the calendar, it is not fixed beforehand and therefore should be forbidden on a public altar. The same holds a fortiori for Second Tithe which depends on the crop; Note 521.] ” Rebbi Simeon is of the opinion that since when Second Tithe was introduced it was not interrupted [This statement does not belong here, it was copied from Halakhah 14. Second Tithe is the farmer’s property to be consumed in purity “before the Eternal” (Deut. 14:23). When the Tent was at Nob, the altar at Gibeon, and the Ark at Qiryat Yearim, it is difficult to see where “before the Eternal” was. He posits that the duty of Second Tithe was in force in the interval between Siloh and Solomon’s Temple.] .

99[This text is from Pesaḥim 2:4 (Notes 210–227) except for an unwarranted addition by the corrector in the Pesaḥim text.] From where that the Cohanim may fulfill their obligation with ḥallah or heave, and Israel with Second Tithe on Passover? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot [Ex. 12:18,20. Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yohay 12:20 (p. 24).] ; this adds. Could I think that they may fulfill their obligation with First Fruits? The verse says, inallyour dwelling places you shall eat mazzot [Ex. 12:20.] , mazzah which may be eaten at any dwelling place; this excludes First Fruits which are not eaten at any dwelling place. They objected, but may Second Tithe be eaten at any dwelling place? It may be redeemed and be eaten at any dwelling place. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: What was bought with tithe money and became impure, following Rebbi Jehudah, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked: Ḥallah from dough made from Second Tithe in Jerusalem, since it is not subject to being redeemed and eaten at any dwelling place, one may not fulfill one’s obligation with it.

100I could think that they may fulfill their obligation with flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir. The verse says, seven days you shall eat mazzot [Ex. 12:15.] ; mazzah which may be eaten all seven days. This excludes thanksgiving offering and wafers of a nazir which may not be eaten all seven days. Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: since flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering and (goats) [wafers] [The scribe’s text clearly is in error.] of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: this implies that wafers of a nazir may be eaten in the entire domain of the Land of Israel, the presenter could not exclude because of “dwelling place”. One understands about flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering. But it is not so for wafers of a nazir. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no nazir here; nezirut is an obligation [May be brought on a private altar. Babli Temurah 14b.] . Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, explain it if his purification offering was presented in Shiloh but his elevation and well-being offerings in Nob or Gibeon. Rebbi Ḥananiah, Rebbi Ezrah asked before Rebbi Mana: Did not the teacher say in the name of Rebbi Yose: Holiday well-being offerings brought at an elevated place are qualified but they are not counted against an obligation of the owner? But it must be for Rebbi Jehudah, as Rebbi Jehudah said, purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a principal elevated place, but no purification and Passover offerings of individuals at a private altar. It only follows Rebbi Simeon, since “Rebbi Simeon said, when one of the bloods was sprinkled, the nazir is permitted to drink wine and to defile himself for the dead. [Mishnah Nazir 6:11. Therefore only the first sacrifice of the nazir is obligatory, the others together with the bread may be offered locally.] ”

101There are Tannaim who state, rest is Shilo, inheritance is Jerusalem. There are Tannaim who state, rest is Jerusalem, inheritance is Shilo [Since in the verse quoted next the times when private altars are forbidden is called rest and inheritance. Babli 10a, Zevaḥim 119a.] . He who says that rest is Shilo, because up to now you did not come to the rest [Deut. 12:9.] . Inheritance is Jerusalem, My inheritance is a vulture, a hyena for Me [Jer. 12:9.] . He who said, inheritance is Shilo, My inheritance like a lion in the forest [Jer. 12:8.] ; rest is Jerusalem, this is My rest forever [Ps. 132:14.] , etc.; like one who made a bundle and rested with it [Even if he has to work on the bundle, once he has assembled it he feels like being able to rest. So it is with Jerusalem, even though it was repeatedly destroyed, it is not to be replaced.] . At the Tent of Meeting private altars were forbidden. At Gilgal private altars were permitted. At Shilo private altars were forbidden. At Nob and Gibeon private altars were permitted. At Jerusalem private altars were forbidden. {A parable of} a king who said to his slave, drink wine neither from Tiberias, nor from Caesarea [Caesarea Philippi, as always.] , nor from Sepphoris. Therefore from in-between is permitted. So at the Tent of Meeting they spent 39 years. At Gilgal they spent fourteen years, seven when they conquered and seven when they distributed [As inferred from verses in Seder Olam 11 (in the author’s edition, pp. 116–119); Babli Zevaḥim 118b.] . At Shilo they spent 369 years [Seder Olam 11 (p. 117).] , at Nob and Gibeon they spent 57, thirteen at Nob [Seder Olam 13 (p. 131.] and 44 at Gibeon [Since Solomon started building the Temple in year 480 after the Exodus (1K. 6:1), the time at Gibeon was 480 - (40+14+369+13). This is not quite correct since the altar at Gibeon was closed only at the inauguration of the Temple, after a building period of 7 years.] . But in Jerusalem they spent 410 years at the first Temple and 420 at the last Temple [Babli Yoma 9a. The computation which gives too few years for the Second Temple is analyzed by the author in Seder Olam, pp. 248–250.] , to confirm what has been said, the glory of this last Temple will be greater than that of the first [Hag.2:9.] .