MISHNAH: The overseer said to them [Every day of the year, when the daily morning sacrifice was brought at dawn.] , “go and see whether the time of slaughter has arrived.” When it arrived, the lookout says “it is radiant.” Mathatias ben Samuel [He is mentioned in Mishnah Šeqalim5:1 as overseer of the lotteries. The sources are not unanimous about the meaning of these names, whether they came with the job or are a remembrance of outstanding personalities who once filled these positions. Some moderns presume that the list is of the last officials serving in the Second Temple.] says, “was the entire East illuminated up to what is in Hebron [Even though Hebron is South of Jerusalem, as explained at the end of the Halakhah.] ?” And he [The lookout.] answers “yes”.
HALAKHAH: [The Halakhah is copied in Roš Haššanah2:1 (א).] “The overseer said to them,” etc. What means borqi? Bareqet [The word denotes one of the precious stones in the breast plate of the High Priest, usually identified as agate or emerald. The word means radiant, from בָּרָק “lightning”.] . There [In Babylonia; in the formulation of the Babli 28b בָּרָק בַּרְקַאי.] , they are saying, בְּרוֹק בּוֹרְקָה, getting light, radiant.
May one witness be believed [The Babli holds in general that a single witness can be believed in matters of prohibitions; the biblical requirement of two witnesses is binding only in criminal cases and matters that may have implications in criminal law. From the present paragraph it seems that the Yerushalmi does not accept this in general but that in cases where one witness is sufficient there is no difference between male or female witnesses.] ? It is different here since one cannot control him; should we not worry and say, by the time somebody climbs up and goes out it will shine [While the time indicated must be approximately correct, since one asks only at the end of the night, and by the time somebody climbs up to check it clearly will be dawn, this does not prove that at the time of the assertion dawn was really visible. The text cannot be amended and the “not” deleted since it is confirmed by both sources.] ? The matter can be verified. If one witness says, this male was born on the Sabbath, one circumcises him on his word [Even though circumcising on the Sabbath a child not born on the Sabbath is a deadly sin.] . Rebbi Immi was carrying on the result of elapsed time [Arabic ملوهَ “interval of time”. He computed the end of the Sabbath astronomically, for a smooth terrestrial globe; a severe restriction for Tiberias situated on a steep Eastern slope.] . Rebbi Mattaniah was carrying on the saying of the moon shining [The translation of איביריתא is conjectural. The direction of the shining part of the moon indicates the position of the sun, from which its position below the horizon (of a smooth terrestrial globe) can be inferred without complicated computations.] . Rebbi Immi was (carrying) [circumcising] [The text in parenthesis is from Yoma, the one in braces from Roš Haššanah. Since Hippos was on the Eastern shore of the Lake of Galilee, so that for people in Tiberias on the Western shore the sun shone over Hippos in the morning, the statement cannot refer to the Sabbath. The reading of Roš Haššanah has to be accepted. Since circumcision has to be performed during daytime, R. Immi is consistently restrictive; in this case he does not rely on astronomical computations of sunrise but on the much later observation of the sun appearing over the mountains to the East.] on the saying of women, the sun was over Hippos.
And why “up to who is in Hebron? And he answers yes”? He comes to commemorate the merit of the Patriarchs.
MISHNAH: Why did they need this? Because once the moon shone [As the Halakhah points out, this can happen only in the second half of a month and therefore could not refer to a Day of Atonement.] and they thought that it dawned to the East; they slaughtered the daily sacrifice and had to bring it outside to the place of burning [The outside place reserved for the burning of disqualified sacrifices or those whose blood was brought into the Sanctuary and which could not be burned on the altar.] . Then they brought the Cohen [All Babli and independent Mishnah texts read: The High Priest.] to the place of immersion. This was the rule in the Temple: Everybody who spread his legs [Defecated. A biblical expression Jud.3:26.] needed immersion [Of his entire body in a miqweh.] ; and everybody who urinated needed sanctification of hands and feet [From the basin in the courtyard.] .
HALAKHAH: Moonlight comes up as a beam; sunlight spreads over the entire East [The reason given in the Mishnah is difficult to accept. In the Babli 28b it is explained that it was a cloudy day where the moonlight also was diffuse.] . So far if it was the end of the month; if it was the start [Even if one accepts the explanation of the Mishnah, the inquiry would only be necessary towards the end of the month when the moon rises towards morning.] ?
[A somewhat garbled version of a text in Berakhot 1:1 (Notes 63–70) and Gen. rabba 50(15).] Rebbi Ḥanina said: From the appearance of the “morning hind” [The zodiacal light.] until the first rays of light in the East a man can walk four mil [Since a person is presumed to be able to walk 40 mil on a full day at the equinoxes, this comes to 72 min.] . From the first rays of light in the East until sunrise a man can walk four mil [Babli Pesaḥim 94a,] . From where do we know that from the appearance of “the morning hind” until the first rays of light on the East there are four mil? [since it is written] [Gen. 19:15.] : and when the morning came, the angels urged Lot, saying [It is clear that the argument is not relevant to the question asked here, but to the time elapsing between first dawn and sunrise. To complete the proof, one has to add a reference to v. 23, found in Berakhot and Gen. rabba, which states that Lot arrived in Zoar at the time of sunrise.] . From Sodom to Zoar there are four mil. It is farther than that [In the Babli, Pesaḥim 93b, R. Ḥanina is quoted that he checked out the distance and it was 5 mil.] . Rebbi Zeˋira said: the angel was flattening the road before them. And from where that from the first rays of light in the East until sunrise there are four mil? When, and when, one thing compares to another [The additional and permits to compare the one time specified in Scripture to the other, the time between visibility of the zodiacal light and first dawn. ] .
[This and the following paragraph also are from Berakhot.] Rebbi Yose bar Abun said: Anybody who identifies the “morning hind” with the planet Venus is in error; that planet sometimes is too early and sometimes too late [Sometimes Venus sets still during the night and sometimes it still is seen after sunrise.] . What is it? It is like two double horns of light that arise from the East and illuminate.
[This paragraph was added to the ms. by a corrector. While there is no logical necessity for the addition of this text, it is copied from a Yoma text, not from Berakhot. In Berakhot the quotes from Esther make sense, v. 6:11 preceding 6:12. The paragraph also is copied in Qonteros Aḥaron(Q, Chapter 1, Note 44; p. 311) which also quotes 6:12 before v 6:11. The text of Q is identical with that given here except that the Aramaic endings are ה not א; babylonized spelling is to be expected from all correctors.] [Explanation [Greek δήλωμα.] : The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta were walking in the valley of Arbela before morning and saw “the morning hind” that started radiating. The great Rebbi Ḥiyya said to Rebbi Simeon ben Halaphta: Great man, so will be the deliverance of Israel; it starts out very small and grows and radiates as it goes on. What is the reason [Micha 7:8.] When he [In the biblical text: I.] shall dwell in darkness, the Eternal is my light. So also at the start [Esth. 2:21.] Mordocai was sitting at the king’s gate.” After that [Esth.6:12.] Mordocai returned to the king’s gate. After that [Esth.6:11.] Haman took the garment and the horse. After that: [Esth. 8:15.] Mordocai left the king’s presence in royal garb. After that: [Esth. 8:16.] The Jews had light and joy.]
It was stated [Tosephta 1:16, Babli Zevaḥim 20b, Yerushalmi Kilaim 9:2 Notes 47–48.] : “A Cohen who left to speak with another person, if to go a distance, he needs immersion [As requited by Mishnah 3.] ; if for a short time he needs sanctification of hands and legs [Since when he returns he starts his service anew; cf. Chapter 2 Note 51.] . But is defecation not for a short time? There is a difference for defecation since they treat it as if going a distance.
It was stated: A person sleeping needs immersion, being drowsy needs sanctification of hands and legs. Does a person sleeping need immersion? Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state [Babli 25a,69b; Sotah 40b,41b; Qiddušin 78b; Sanhedrin 101b; Tamid 27b. Yerushalmi Pesaḥim 5:12 (Note 247), Sotah7:7 (Note 219).] , “there was no sitting in the Temple courtyard except for the kings of the Davidic dynasty;” and Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, even for the kings of the Davidic dynasty there was no sitting in the Temple courtyard. Explain it that somebody was supporting himself on a wall and sleeping. But is it not written [2S. 7:18.] , King David came and sat before the Eternal? Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari said, he concentrated in prayer [As required by Mishnah 3.] .
MISHNAH: Nobody enters the courtyard to serve, even if he was pure, unless he immerses himself. Five immersions and ten sanctifications did the High Priest immerse himself and sanctify on that day, and all of them in the Sanctuary in the Parwa house [A subterranean cave inside the walls enclosing the sacred domain. The Babli declares “Parwa” to be the name of a magus or sorcerer.] , except this one alone [Since the Mishnah states that nobody can enter the sacred domain for service unless he immersed himself in water outside the sacred domain, it is obvious that before serving the High Priest also must immerse himself in a miqweh on the Temple Mount but outside the sacred domain] .
HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: No person did enter the courtyard or for service [Nobody, Cohen or lay person, could enter the sacred domain without ablution. But the Cohen who entered not for service could not start to serve until he underwent a second immersion.] , [even if he was pure,] unless he immerses himself. Not only for service but also not for service.
They asked Ben Zoma, where does this immersion come from [Which does not seem to be biblical.] ? He said to them, since when he enters the holy from the holy he needs immersion [As stated later in the Mishnah, if the High Priest changes from his 8 garments used for service outside to white garments used inside the Sanctuary he both immerses himself and sanctifies hands and legs.] , from profane to holy so much more? It is not necessary, but from holy to holy he should not need immersion [Since he already immersed himself at the start of the service.] , from profane to holy he should need immersion [This would be an answer to the question asked at the start of the paragraph, but it is contradicted by the later Mishnaiot.] . Rebbi Shammai said, it is the following. Since from holy to holy where he is not subject to extirpation [If he is pure when entering the Sanctuary but becomes impure inside, if he leaves immediately he is not subject to extirpation (Mishnah Ševuot 2:4.)] he needs immersion, from profane to holy where he is subject to extirpation [If he enters the sacred domain while impure, he is subject to extirpation.] not so much more that he should need immersion? And even from holy to holy he should be subject to extirpation, following what we have stated there [Mishnah Ševuot 2:4.] : “If he prostrated himself,or tarried that he could have prostrated himself. [While impure, he is subject to extirpation.] ” What is the duration of prostration? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi [In Ševuot 2:4, he gives a much shorter time frame. The criterion given here, the time necessary to recite half or all of the verse, is the one given by the Babli Ševuot16b in the name of other Galilean authorities.] , [as long as] [2Chr. 7:3.] they bowed down with their faces on the floor and prostrated themselves. Rebbi Abbahu adds, thanking the Eternal for He is good, Rebbi Mana adds, His grace is forever.
It was stated: [Babli 30a.] Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back [In itself this immersion is useless. If a person actually is impure, he is forbidden to partake of sancta and to enter the sacred domain. Immersion in a miqweh will remove the impurity but the disability regarding sancta and the sacred domain is removed only by the following sundown (Lev. 22:7). Therefore immersion in the morning is only for pure persons; for R. Jehudah it is instituted so people should not inadvertently enter the sacred domain while still not qualified for it.] . There, we have stated [Mishnah Berakhot 3:6. The Mishnah is truncated; the full text explains the plural form of the verb: “The person with gonorrhea who had an emission of semen, as well as a menstruating woman who lost semen, and the woman who started menstruating while having intercourse, need immersion, but Rebbi Jehudah declares them not liable.” An emission of semen pollutes, but it is a minor impurity which is removed by immersion in water and, for sancta, the following sundown. But gonorrhea and menstruation cause severe impurity for which immersion is possible only after seven days (Lev. 15:13,19). An immersion because of emission, before the time where immersion for the severe impurity is possible, is totally ineffective. A different version of the following discussion is in Berakhot 3:6, Notes 260–264.] : “the woman who started menstruating while having intercourse, needs immersion, but Rebbi Jehudah declares them not liable.” Why does Rebbi Jehudah disagree? Is it about immersion of discipline or because even if he immerses himself what would be its use? What is the difference? If he [The male sufferer from gonorrhea, mentioned in the Mishnah. He had an emission before he started suffering from gonorrhea. He was obligated for an immersion before he became severely impure.] had an emission. If you say that Rebbi Jehudah disagrees about immersion of discipline, it is a word of the Torah [Lev. 15:16.] . If you say, even if he immerses himself, what would be its use? It is useful that he immerse himself, as it was stated, Rebbi Jehudah says, they instituted this immersion only as immersion of discipline, for sometimes when a person goes to wash he remembers an old emission of semen which he had and turns back. This implies that Rebbi Jehudah did not disagree about immersion of discipline but because even if he immerses himself, what would be its use?
MISHNAH: They spread a byssus sheet [The same material from which the white garments are made which the High Priest wears for the special functions on the Day of Atonement.] between him and the people; he undressed, stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the golden garments [The eight garments which the High Priest wears all year long, of which the diadem was pure gold and the coat, belt, and breast-shield contained gold.] , and he dressed, and sanctified hands and legs. They brought him the daily sacrifice; he cut it, [Since the entire service of the Day of Atonement has to be performed by the High Priest himself, he has a problem in that he has to slaughter the sheep (and later the other sacrifices) while at the same time receiving the blood, which has to be that pumped out by the heart, not what is flowing out later. Therefore he has to cut the legal minimum, throat and esophagus, and let another Cohen cut the carotid arteries, which action, while necessary for the slaughter, does not formally fall under the definition of שחט “to cut the throat”.] and another completed the slaughter for him. He received the blood and poured it. He entered to burn the incense, to clean the lights, to sacrifice [On the large altar in the inner courtyard, outside the sanctuary/] the head, the limbs, the pan-baked breads, and the wine.
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Until he cut two or most of two [“Two” is the technical term for windpipe and esophagus, see Note 68. Babli 32b] . Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “[they brought him the daily sacrifice;] he cut it.”
It is written [Jer. 46:20 (Babli 32b).] , qeresò from the North comes into it. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. One said, a butcher; but the other said, a remover. He who said, a butcher, from this, “they brought him the daily sacrifice; he cut it.” He who said, a remover, an exiler, from loam I also was cut off [Job 33:6. Hebrew קרץ may represent both قرص “to pinch, tweak, sting” and قرض “sever, cut off, clip”.] .
MISHNAH: The incense in the morning [Not only on the day of Atonement but every day of the year.] was brought between blood and limbs; in the evening it was brought between limbs and libations [Not only libation but also the flour offering.] . If the High Priest was old or asthenic [Greek ἀσθενής.] , one heats water for him [On the preceding day since cooking or heating is forbidden on the day of Atonement.] and pours into the cold water to mitigate its coldness.
HALAKHAH: It is written about the daily sacrifice in the morning [Ex. 29:39; Num. 28:4.] , and it is written about wood in the morning [This has to read: in the morning, in the morning; Lev. 6:5, referring to the two wooden logs which have to be ceremoniously put into the fire every morning. While this is not mentioned in the Mishnah, the presentation and arrangement of the two logs also is an obligation of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement.] . Something about which is written in the morning, in the morning, shall precede something about which in the morning is written only once. Then even before its blood? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do [Ex. 29:39; Num. 28:4.] , preceded action for it [The slaughter and the dissection of the daily sacrifice are not done on the altar; they are not covered by any argument about the number of “mornings” quoted. They have to be done as early as possible in the morning (and as late as possible in the evening.)] . It is written about the daily sacrifice in the morning, and it is written about incense in the morning, in the morning [Ex. 30:7.] . Something about which is written in the morning, in the morning, shall precede something about which only [one] in the morning is written. Where do we hold? If about limbs, are they not like wood [They are to be burned on the altar; they can be considered fuel of the altar.] ? But we are holding, even for its blood. It is written about wood in the morning, in the morning, and it is written about incense in the morning, in the morning, and I do not know which of the two is preceding. Which one is enabling what? Wood enables the incense; the wood shall precede the incense [Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 2(8).] . Come and see, wood precedes the blood and blood precedes incense, and you are saying so? Rebbi Hila said, no. Since I could not prove by a logical argument that wood enables the incense, you needed that baraita. They wanted to say, what enables the incense? Charcoal. Rebbi Eleazar said, smoke-creating herb [Cf. Chapter 2, Note 227.] .
It says for the afternoon daily sacrifice, in the evening [Ex. 29:39; Num. 28:4.] , and it says about incense, in the evening, close to the lights [Ex. 30:8: When Aaron kindles the light in the evening he shall burn incense on it i. e., on the interior altar.] . (Not) [You say] about the lights, from evening to morning [Ex. 27:21.] (?)[.] A matter where it is said in the evening close to the lights shall be delayed after a matter where only in the evening is said. Then even after the libations? Rebbi Hila said, you shall do [Ex. 29:39; Num. 28:4.] , delayed action for it [By an argument parallel to that of Note 79.] . Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Hila: Here you are saying, “you shall do, preceded action for it”, and there you are saying, “you shall do, delayed action for it”? Rebbi Hila said, each one according to its subject. The daily morning sacrifice was shown to be later; you shall do, preceded action for it. The daily evening sacrifice was shown to be earlier, the verse says you shall do, delayed action for it. Rebbi Zeˋira acclaimed [A Semitic adaptation of Greek καλόω.] him and called him “son of the Torah.”
It was stated [Babli 34b.] : Rebbi Jehudah says, iron bars they were heating on the eve of the Day of atonement which they dropped into the water to mitigate its cold. Would he be not like a person who extinguished {fire} on the Day of Atonement [Presuming that the iron still was really hot by next morning. The Babli holds that the problem is that sudden cooling of iron bars is a step in the production of steel and as such forbidden on the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement, but in this case where the bars have been stored for an entire night the prohibition would only be rabbinic, which is not applied in the Temple.] ? But would Rebbi Jehudah hold that there are no principal categories of work on Sabbath [But on the Day of Atonement all work is forbidden (Lev. 16:29) as on the Sabbath.] ? But Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon must have said the same [R. Simeon holds that an action whose forbidden aspect was not intended is not forbidden on the Sabbath; cf. Šabbat Chapter 2, Note 19.] . Were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same [Šabbat Chapter 2, Note 148. Babli Šabbat31b.] ? Let us say that Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon, said the same [But we know from Mishnah Šabbat that R. Jehudah disagrees.] ! But Rebbi Jehudah must think that derivatives of fire are not like fire, and the rabbis think that derivatives of fire are like fire. Could one not heat water [Which may be poured into cold water on the Sabbath according to everybody.] ? Rebbi Joshua bar Abin, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Anyani bar Sosai: The reason of this Tanna, that they should not say, we saw the High Priest immersing himself in drawn water [A miqweh cannot be filled with drawn water; 3 log of drawn water invalidate a miqweh of 40 seah (960 log), Mishnah Miqwaot 2:4.] on the Day of Atonement.
MISHNAH: They brought him to the Parwa house [A subterranean cave inside the walls enclosing the sacred domain. The Babli declares “Parwa” to be the name of a magus or sorcerer.] , which was in the sacred domain. They spread a byssus sheet [The same material from which the white garments are made which the High Priest wears for the special functions on the Day of Atonement.] between him and the people; he sanctified hands and legs and undressed; Rebbi Meïr says, he undressed and sanctified hands and legs. He stepped down, and immersed himself, came up and dried himself with a towel. They brought him the white garments [The four garments (coat, slacks, belt, and turban) made of byssus required for all expiatory acts on the Day of Atonement, Lev. 16:4.] , he dressed and sanctified hands and legs. In the morning he was wearing Pelusian [Linen manufactured in Pelusium, the most expensive kind on the market.] worth twelve mina, and in the evening Indian [A mina was 100 denar (drachma); 30 mina = 3’000 silver denar. For first Century prices, this seems excessive, but the examples given later exclude the possibility that the data might be second Century re-interpretations. In Mishnah Peah 8:8 it is stated that a fortune of 200 denar disqualifies its owner from receiving welfare.] of 800 denar, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, in the morning he was wearing Pelusian worth eighteen mina and in the evening of twelve mina, all together thirty mina [Then why does the Mishnah not require second quality Pelusian linen for the afternoon service?] . This he takes from Temple property; if he wants to add, he adds from his own.
HALAKHAH: What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? He undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified. [The argument is about Lev. 16:23–24, where at the end of the expiatory service Aaron is commanded first to take off his byssus garments, then to wash (immerse himself), and then to dress in the High Priest’s garb for the ordinary afternoon service.] . What is the rabbi’s reason? And he undressed, and he dressed. It tied undressing to dressing [The argument is more explicit in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 6(6) and here in Halakhah 7:3, Babli 71a. It says in Lev. 16:23, he shall take off the linen garments which he wore. Since nobody can take off clothing which he does not wear, the reference is taken to v. 4 where Aaron is commanded to wash his flesh in water and wear them. Therefore all procedures connected with dressing are required for undressing, in the same order.] . Since for dressing he sanctifies, so for undressing he sanctifies. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, does washing separate in Rebbi Meïr’s opinion [As formulated at the beginning, the second sanctification is tied to washing, not to dressing. This is unreasonable.] ? He said to him, you think that Rebbi Meïr’s reason is, and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and sanctified.. It is not so, but and he undressed and sanctified, and he washed and dressed and sanctified.
Samuel said, both for undressing and for dressing are for the future [The sanctifications at a change of dress are not biblical. According to the reason given for the rabbis’ position, both are intended for the next step in the service.] . Bar Qappara said, one for the future and one for the past, both for dressing [For him, each step in the service needs sanctification before and after. The second sanctification is not for taking off the garments but for the garments he is wearing at the moment of sanctification.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is for the future [The first sanctification at the start of the morning service is a biblical requirement, Ex. 30:21. Therefore there is no requirement of sanctification when the High Priest takes off his profane clothing.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the first sanctification is obstructive [Without this sanctification, the High Priest would be disqualified from serving.] . What is the reason? An eternal law for your generations [A misquote from Ex. 30:21.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that the last sanctification is for the past. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah [Mishnah 7:4.] says so. “They bring him his own clothing and he dresses.” Does anybody sanctify his hands and legs to wear profane clothing? Rebbi Joḥanan said, and he shall wear them [Lev. 16:4.] . The dressing is obstructive [Obviously he cannot serve naked, but the emphasis is on wear them: all four garments enumerated in the verse form an inseparable unit.] , but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive. And similarly, the dressing is obstructive, but sanctification of hands and legs is not obstructive [All changes of dress during the day are biblical prescriptions but the accompanying sanctifications (except the first, as stated) are required but their omission does not disqualify. Babli Zevaḥim 19b.] .
כדי [This is misspelled for בד “linen cloth”.] that they should be double [This is a discussion of a bardita reported in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 1(5), Babli Zevaḥim 18b. The word “linen cloth” is repeated four times in Lev. 16:4. One of these is necessary to establish that the High Priest has to wear four linen garments; the other three are read to imply that the garments should be of byssus (expensive), new, and double (not transparent, in the Babli’s version, woven from entwined thread.)] . We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac did not come to the assembly hall. He met Rebbi Zeˋira and asked him, what did you newly find [was for you in the house of study] [The text in brackets was added by a corrector who did not understand the text. The addition is in the usual Babli style in this situation.] on that day? He told him, linen cloth, that they should be double. We determined that this does not follow Rebbi Yose [Since the discussion centers on a baritta, the discovery of the Amoraim was that the baratta cannot be R. Yose’s.] . As it was stated, and for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats [Ex. 27:40.] . The rabbis say, two coats for each one; Rebbi Yose says, even one coat for each one. What is the rabbis’ reason? And for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats. What is Rebbi Yose’s reason? Make coats for 100 sons of Aaron. Linen cloth, that they should be new [This is a discussion of a bardita reported in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 1(5), Babli Zevaḥim 18b. The word “linen cloth” is repeated four times in Lev. 16:4. One of these is necessary to establish that the High Priest has to wear four linen garments; the other three are read to imply that the garments should be of byssus (expensive), new, and double (not transparent, in the Babli’s version, woven from entwined thread.)] . If you are saying that they should not be worn out, was it not stated, and he shall wear them [Lev. 16:4.] , even if they are worn out? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement [R. Yose (the Tanna) does not accept that the garments have to be new every year. The Babli 12b attributes the disagreement to other Tannaim.] .
Leather which was tanned for an amulet. It is permitted to write a mezuza on it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel forbids [Rabban Simeon requires that the parchment on which the mezuza is written be especially prepared for sacramental use.] . Rebbi Yose said, we were of the opinion that where they disagree is about a private person; therefore not for Heaven. Since it was stated, holy stones have to be quarried in holiness, in holiness they have to be quarried [The duplication means that the stones (of the High Priest’s breastplate) have to be quarried (and later, the priestly garment to be woven) with the intention to produce sacred utensils.] . Holy garments have to be woven in holiness, in holiness they have to be woven. And Rebbi Ḥaninah said in the name of Rebbi Yasa, this is as the disagreement. This implies that they disagree even for Heaven [For use in the Temple. Tosephta Menaḥot9:21.] , as it was stated: If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, as long as it was not used for Heaven, a lay person may use it; after it was used for Heaven, a lay person may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for Heaven, a lay person may not use it? Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Yasa, as the disagreement. [As it was stated:] [The text in parentheses was added by a corrector who did not understand the text. The following text is not quoted as support of the prior statement but is discussed in its own right; the question is whether it is a parallel to the earlier statement or not.] If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, as long as it was not used for a lay person, Heaven may use it; after it was used for a lay person Heaven may not use it. But was it not stated, If somebody makes a vessel for a lay person, Heaven may not use it? Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the rabbis there: Explain it that it was paid for by the Temple tax [Therefore it is Temple property and any non-sacramental use is larceny committed on Heaven’s property.] and you cannot infer anything.
[The same text is in Megillah 3:1 (ל).] From which moment on are vessels of Temple service holy? Immediately [Is a declaration of intent to use the vessel in the Temple the equivalent of a formal dedication and donation to the Temple, or not? Since the contents of a sacred vessel automatically become holy, in the second case the holiness of the vessel and its power to convert profane to sacral start at the same moment.] or at the moment of use? If you are saying immediately, it is understandable. If you are saying at the moment of use, simultaneously they become holy {and make holy} [Added from Megillah, necessary for understanding the sentence.] . One can understand for those of Moses which became holy by the anointing oil [Before they were actually used. This is an action, not a declaration of intent.] . But those of Solomon simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they entered the Land they transferred from Moses’s to Solomon’s [But first to the Tabernacle at Shiloh.] . If none of Moses was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy. When they returned from the Diaspora, they transferred from Solomon’s [The vessels given by Cyrus from the treasury of Babylon.] to theirs. If none of Solomon was available, they simultaneously became holy and made holy.
Stones quarried for a corpse are forbidden for usufruct [Since a grave and its appurtenances are forbidden for usufruct.] . For a corpse or a living person [Babli Sanhedrin 48a: A mausoleum built for a person still living is permitted for usufruct.] they are permitted for usufruct. If somebody throws an implement near the bier of a corpse, within four cubits it is forbidden for usufruct; anything outside four cubits is permitted for usufruct
[One returns to the discussion of the Mishnah. Most of this paragraph is a baraita in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 6(6).] ”You find that by five immersions and ten sanctifications he immerses and sanctifies himself on that day. From where that there are two sanctifications for every immersion? The verse says [The argument is about Lev. 16:23–24, where at the end of the expiatory service Aaron is commanded first to take off his byssus garments, then to wash (immerse himself), and then to dress in the High Priest’s garb for the ordinary afternoon service.] , and he undressed, and he washed, and he washed, (and he undressed) [and he dressed]. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, it is an argument de minore ad majus. Since at a place where he does not need immersion he needs sanctification of hands and legs [During all other days of the year, there is only one sanctification at the start of the day’s service.] , here where he needs immersion not so much more that he should need sanctification of hands and legs? Take away your argument. Since there it is once for the entire day, also here it would be once for the entire day [Since the consequence of a logical argument cannot be stronger than the premise.] . The verse says, and he shall take off the linen garments, why does the verse say, which he wore? Could we ever think that he took off what he was not wearing? Then why does it say, which he wore? It bracketed undressing and dressing. Since dressing needs sanctification of hands and legs, also undressing needs sanctification of hands and legs [The argument is more explicit in Sifra Aḥare Pereq 6(6) and here in Halakhah 7:3, Babli 71a. It says in Lev. 16:23, he shall take off the linen garments which he wore. Since nobody can take off clothing which he does not wear, the reference is taken to v. 4 where Aaron is commanded to wash his flesh in water and wear them. Therefore all procedures connected with dressing are required for undressing, in the same order.] .” Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable the opposite way. It bracketed undressing and dressing. Since undressing needs sanctification of hands and legs, also dressing needs sanctification of hands and legs [Since “washing” is mentioned after undressing and before dressing. Only the corrector’s text is correct.] .”
But is not second quality of Pelusian better than first Indian [Then why does the Mishnah not require second quality Pelusian linen for the afternoon service?] ? A formulation which is an exaggeration [Arabic فرط “excess, exaggeration”. The Mishnah is formulated to give leeway in the choice of materials.] . There, we have stated [Mishnah Menaḥot8:5, about the oil qualified for the lamp and the flour sacrifices in the Temple. Since the Mishnah is known, the corrector’s addition is not absolutely necessary.] : “Nothing is better than the best of first quality. [Second tier of the first and first tier of the second are equal.]” But is not the second tier of first quality better than the first of second quality? A formulation which is an exaggeration. What about it? Rebbi Nahman in the name of Rebbi Mana: In the morning, linen is written four times. In the afternoon, linen is written [In Lev. 16:23 linen is mentioned only once, in contrast to 4 times in v. 4.] .
It happened that Rebbi Ismael ben Phiabi wore coats worth 100 mina, he went up and sacrificed on the altar [First he cannot serve without first donating his garments to the Temple and second they will become unusable by the bloodstains that are unavoidable.] . It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Hartom wore coats worth 20’000 [20’000 denar = 200 mina.] , he went up and sacrificed on the altar, but his brothers the Cohanim took him down since he was seen naked under it. What did he do? He drenched it with water and circled the altar seven times [He made his garment opaque by soaking it with water and then drying it by circling the flames on the altar.] .
MISHNAH: He comes to his bull [The bull to be sacrificed which he is required to provide from his own money; Lev. 16:3, 6.] ; his bull was standing between the Temple Hall and the altar, its head to the South and its face to the West [The bull’s body was standing North to South but its head was bent to the West, facing the Temple Hall.] , and the Cohen standing in the East with his face to the West. He leans his hands on it [Between its horns.] and confesses, and thus he was saying: “Please Hashem [“The Name”, the generally accepted sobriquet for the Divine Name, whose correct pronunciation was taught only to the High Priest and which he only used on the Day of Atonement in his confessions.] , I acted criminally, I offended, I sinned [As explained in the Halakhah, עָוֹן is a criminal act, פֶּשַׁע is an intentional sin, and חֵטְא is an unintentional sin.] before You, I and my house. Please Hashem, please atone the criminal acts, and the offenses, and the sins, by which I offended, acted criminally, and sinned before You, I and my house, as is written in the Torah of Your servant Moses [Lev. 16:30.] , because on that day He will atone for you, etc.” They [The priests and the people standing in the outer courtyards.] answer him: “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever” He comes to the Eastern part of the courtyard, North of the altar [The prescribed place of slaughter of all most holy sacrifices.] ; the executive officer [The person overseeing the daily routine in the Temple.] to his right and the head of the serving family [The Cohanim were divided into 24 watches; each watch came to the Temple for one week to serve there (except for a few permanent offices, enumerated in Tractate Šeqalim.) Each watch was divided into 6 families; each family serving for one day, except for the Sabbath when the entire watch were serving together. The head of the family serving on the day of Atonement accompanies the High Priest.] to his left. There were two he-goats, [Lev. 16:8.] and an um [Greek κάλπη.] was there with two lots in it. They were of boxwood but Ben Gamia [The High Priest Joshua ben Gamia, contemporary of king Agrippa I, who instituted universal Jewish compulsory elementary education.] made them from gold; he was remembered for praise.
HALAKHAH: What is “North of the altar” which is qualified for the slaughter of most holy sacrifices [For the elevation sacrifice this is required in Lev. 1:11 ; for all other most holy sacrifices it is prescribed that they be slaughtered “at the place of the elevation sacrifice.”.] ? From the Northern wall of the altar to the Northern wall of the courtyard the entire width of the altar, i. e., 32 cubits [The length of each side of the square altar, Mishnah Middot 3:1.] , the words of Rebbi [In the Babli 36a (Zevaḥim 20a), “R. Yose ben R. Jehudah”. This reading is required here also since Rebbi is quoted later to extend the permitted area another 22 cubits Eastward.] . Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, from before the House of Knives [On the Northern wall between the Temple Hall and the altar there were 24 niches, one for each watch of priests, where they kept their slaughtering knives.] up to [The word עַד “up to” has to be deleted, since the place of the niches was there. Many verses in Lev. instruct that all kinds of most holy sacrifices must be slaughtered “before the Eternal”, i. e., to the East of the Temple Hall.] between the Hall and the altar, to the Eastern [“Eastern” must be deleted and replaced by “Northern”. The Eastern wall is at the entrance of the courtyard.] wall of the courtyard. Rebbi adds: the place where Cohanim can enter, eleven cubits, and the place where Israel can enter, eleven cubits [The area of the altar and westward could only be entered by Cohanim at the time of service; East of it was the courtyard of the Cohanim, 11 cubits wide, where Cohanim could enter at all times, even if not currently occupied. East of this was a space, also 11 wide, accessible to Israel males. Still further East was the women’s courtyard, 135 cubits wide (Middot 2:6). Rebbi adds that part of the area of all courtyards which is North of the altar.] , from the Northern rim of the altar to the Eastern wall of the courtyard.
Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified [This must read “disqualified” since Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:1 states without dissent that slaughter of sacrifices by a Non-Cohen, a woman, or a slave, is qualified.] by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow [The Red Cow (Num. 19). Here one has to switch the places of “slaughters” and sprinkles.” Rav instructed that in baraitot specifying where a Cohen is indispensable, it always should mention sprinkling (mostly pouring the blood on the altar) but not slaughtering. But he requires that the Cow be slaughtered by a Cohen even though Num. 19:3 states only that somebody has to slaughter the Cow in the Cohen’s presence.] state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified] [The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, consistent with his earlier text, but materially wrong. The text in brackets is the corrector’s; its correctness is shown by the following argument of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba.] by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles [Num. 19:3, 4. This sprinkling is not that of water with the ashes of the Red Cow, but of its blood, and the verse specifies that it has to be done by the Cohen.] ? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man [The main thrust of Num. 19:18 is that it describes a rite which does not require a Cohen.] , also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman [If slaughter of sacrifices is permitted to laymen, why is the High Priest burdened with slaughter in addition to all his other duties on that day?] . He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written [Lev. 16:15. While in the case of the bull, Aaron is only commanded to sacrifice(v. 6), in the case of the he-goat it is spelled out that he has to slaughter. There is more reason to require the High Priest to personally slaughter the he-goat than the bull.] . For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.
Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull of the Day of Atonement requires a Cohen. [If slaughter of sacrifices is permitted to laymen, why is the High Priest burdened with slaughter in addition to all his other duties on that day?] But why does he not say, “and the he-goat”? That is the verse, and he slaughters, and he brings [Lev. 16:15. While in the case of the bull, Aaron is only commanded to sacrifice(v. 6), in the case of the he-goat it is spelled out that he has to slaughter. There is more reason to require the High Priest to personally slaughter the he-goat than the bull.] . Since bringing is by a Cohen, also the slaughter is by a Cohen. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement require a Cohen.
Rebbi Ḥaggai said, the first time he says “please Hashem”, the second time he says, “please Bashem” [The correct version of the Mishnah is that in the confession the reading is Hashem, but in the prayer for forgiveness it is Bashem. Obviously this does not refer to what the High Priest actually said, since he used the correct vocalization for YHWH on all three occasions in the ritual (in the confession, in the prayer for forgiveness, and in the quote from Lev. 16:30), but fixes the text for the re-enactment of the ritual in the musaph prayer of the Day of Atonement.]
[Babli 36b, Sifra Aḥare Parashah2(4–6), the entire paragraph. The starting sentence was added by the corrector, probably from one of the parallel sources.] [It was stated: “How does he confess? “I acted criminally, I rebelled, I sinned;’ and it says [Ex. 34:7.] , He forgives crime, rebellion, and sin; and it says [Lev. 16:21.] , and he shall confess over it all crimes of the Children of Israel, etc., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, criminal acts are intentional crimes, offenses are rebellions [Sins intentionally committed as rebellion against God.] , sins are inadvertent actions [Ševuot 1:3 (Note 114), Babli Ševuot12b, Keritut 25b.] . After he confesses about criminal acts he turns around and confesses about inadvertent acts? But he confesses as follows: Please Hashem, I sinned, I acted criminally, I rebelled before You, I and my house (etc..) [and the sons of Aaron. As is written in the Torah of Moses as follows, for on that day he shall, etc. They, answer him: “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever”.] [The text in parentheses is the scribe’s, the one in brackets the corrector’s, probably added from one of the parallel sources.] And so we find that confessors do confess. David said [Ps. 106:6. The vaw added to the last word is from the synagogue service of the Day.] , we and our fathers sinned, we acted criminally and we led to bad behavior. His son Solomon said [IK. 8:47.] , [we sinned,] we acted criminally, behaved badly. Daniel said [Dan.9:5.] , we sinned, we actedcriminally, we led to bad behavior, and we rebelled. Also he was confessing thus: I sinned, I acted criminally, I rebelled before You. What means this which Moses said, He forgives crime, rebellion, and sin; and it says, and he shall confess over it all crimes of the Children of Israel, etc. [How can one explain the illogical order?] ? But since he confesses to criminal rebellious acts, it is as if they were inadvertent sins before Him.”
Ten times did the High Priest pronounce the Name on the Day of Atonement [Babli 39b.] : Six times with the bull [3 times with the bull confessing his sins the first time; 3 times with the bull confessing the sins of the Cohanim.] , and three with the he-goat, and once with the lots [Mishnah 4:1.] . Those near were falling on their faces, those farther away were saying “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever”. These and those did not move away from there before they forgot it. This is My Name forever [Ex. 3:14.] , “this is My Name to conceal. [Babli Pesaḥim 50a.] ” In earlier times he was saying it aloud. Since the lawless increased, he said it softly. Rebbi Tarphon said, I was standing in a row with my brothers the Cohanim and turned my ear towards the High Priest, when I heard him mixing it with the song of the Cohanim [They sang “Praised be the glory of His Kingdom forever and ever” not after he had pronounced the name but immediately when he started pronouncing it.] . In earlier times it was given to everybody. Since the lawless increased, it was given only to qualified ones.
[A copy of this paragraph is in Qonteros Aḥaron (Q). The strict Aramaic used in the paragraph attests to its aggadic character, explaining why the knowledge of the correct pronunciation of the Name is lost.] Samuel was passing by when he heard a Persian cursing his son by it [The Name.] ; he died. He said, a man is gone and [he] who heard, heard. Rebbi Iniany bar Sosay went up to Rebbi Ḥanina in Sepphoris. He said, come and I shall transmit it to you. His son went under the couch. He [The son.] sneezed and he [R. Ḥanina.] heard the sound. He said, why are you acting together in trickery [Translation of the text of Q.] , go! Neither for you nor for him. A physician [In Q: R. Yose of Sepphoris.] in Sepphoris said to Rebbi Phineas bar Ḥama, come and I shall transmit it to you. He told him, I am unable. He asked him, why? He said to him, because I am eating tithe, and anybody conversant with it [The Name.] cannot eat anything from any person.
MISHNAH: Ben Qatin made twelve spouts to the basin [From which the Cohanim sanctify hands and legs.] , which had only two. He also made a mechanical device for the basin that its water should not become disqualified overnight [That the basin is lowered into a cistern containing 40 seˋah of water which is enough to purify and therefore never becomes disqualified. Otherwise the sunrise of a new day disqualifies all remainders of the service of the previous day.] . King Monobaz [King of Adiabene in NE Mesopotamia, who converted to Judaism together with his mother.] made all handles of the vessels for the Day of Atonement of gold. His mother Helene made a golden chandelier at the door of the Temple. She also made a golden table with the Chapter about the deviant wife written on it. Miracles happened to Nicanor’s doors; one remembers him for praise.
HALAKHAH: [Discussion of the second part of Mishnah 7 (Mishnah 9 in most Mishnah mss.)] What is “North of the altar” which is qualified for the slaughter of most holy sacrifices [For the elevation sacrifice this is required in Lev. 1:11 ; for all other most holy sacrifices it is prescribed that they be slaughtered “at the place of the elevation sacrifice.”.] ? From the Northern wall of the altar; one repeats this from the preceding Halakhah up to “from the Northern rim of the altar to the Eastern wall of the courtyard.”
For five things did the executive officer serve. The executive officer says to him, Sir High Priest, lift your right hand [Mishnah 4:1.] . The executive officer [The person overseeing the daily routine in the Temple.] to his right and the head of the serving family [The Cohanim were divided into 24 watches; each watch came to the Temple for one week to serve there (except for a few permanent offices, enumerated in Tractate Šeqalim.) Each watch was divided into 6 families; each family serving for one day, except for the Sabbath when the entire watch were serving together. The head of the family serving on the day of Atonement accompanies the High Priest.] to his left [Anywhere the High Priest goes on the Day of Atonement.] . The executive officer swings scarves [Every day to signal to the Levites to start singing. Mishnah Tamid 7:3.] . The executive officer grabs his hand and brings him up [Everyday, if the High Priest wants to sacrifice, the executive officer has to help him after he climbed half of the ramp. Tamid 7:3.] . Nobody was appointed High Priest if he had not first been appointed executive officer.
“And an urn [Greek κάλπη.] was there with two lots in it. They were of boxwood. What is “of boxwood”? Πύξινον [Cf. Ketubot 7:11 (Note 177), Gen. r.15(2).] . Rebbi Samuel, Rav’s brother, asked: If they were lost, must the replacement be made from gold [After ben Gamla made the lots of gold, may the replacement be made of boxwood as it was originally or must any future replacement be made of gold? No R. Samuel, Rav’s brother, is otherwise known in talmudic literature. One may conjecture that the name is a scribal error for R. Samuel, R. Berekhiah’s brother.] ? It shall come following “one increases in holiness but does not decrease [Mishnah Šeqalim 6:6.] .”
Could they make spouts one on top of the other [Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 10. It is understood that Ben Qatina made 12 spouts level around the basin. Why was he restricted to 12?] ? Rebbi Jonah said, for the maximum day of the daily sacrifice [By Mishnah 2:5, this is the maximum number of Cohanim needed for any morning daily sacrifice. Babli 37a.] . The top because of a vessel reduced in its majority. But is the lower not in the category of volume inside a vessel [How could there be a biblical requirement that the Cohanim sanctify themselves with water drawn from a basin? It is one of the general principles of the rules of purity that water only purifies if either it is flowing (in any amount) or is collected in a cistern (of at least 40 seah); water drawn in a container and poured into a cistern renders the latter disqualified. One has to prove that the basin does not qualify as a container. According to the Babli, the original two spouts were one on top of the other (37a). As was noted in Eruvin (Chapter 1, Notes 199–206) the Solomon’s basin was a cylinder put on top of a rectangular solid. The upper part, being totally open to the bottom, is not a container. But the bottom seems to be a container.] ? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, a water canal was drawing from Etam [En Etam, “the pools of Salomon”, source of the water for the Temple.] , and the feet to the South were reduced in the size of pomegranates [The basin was not a container since the water in it was not at rest. It was filled from the water canal and the water flowed out of holes in the hooves of the three Southern bronze cattle on which the basin was resting (IK. 7:25). A hole in the size of a pomegranate makes any vessel pure since it cannot be a container even for solid food (Mishnah Kelim 17:1). (In Q, there is no mention of “Southern”.)] . Rebbi Simeon ben Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: The Sea was a place of immersion of the Cohanim, and the Sea for the Cohanim to wash in it [This entire paragraph is copied in Q.] . But was it not a vessel? A water canal was drawing from Etam, and the feet to the South were reduced in the size of pomegranates.
[This entire paragraph is copied in Q.] It is written [2Chr. 4:6. The topic is to find roots for the uncommon words אֲגַרְטְלֵ֨י, מַֽחֲלָפִי֭ם.] : And these are their numbers: gold basins30, Rebbi Samuel bar Nahman said, places where the blood of the lamb was collected. Silver basins 1’000, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, places where the blood of the bull was collected. Knives 29, Rebbi Simon said, these are the knives, as we have stated there [Mishnah Middot 4:7.] , “it was called the place of knives since there they hid the knives.”
“His mother Helene made a golden chandelier at the door of the Temple..” Two Amoraim. One said, a chandelier. But the other said, a basin [This translation is traditional; it is pure speculation. More likely is “a lamp (?) in shell form,” Aramaic diminutive of Greek κόγχη, ἡ “mussel”.] . Aquila translated before the chandelier, λαμπάδος [Genitive of λαμπάς, -άδος, ἡ, “torch”. This is the translation of the Theodotion version of the LXX of Dan. 5:5.] .
[This paragraph is from Sotah 2:2 (Notes 91–97).] “also she made a golden plate with the paragraph of the suspected wife written on it.” When the sun rose, sparks were reflected on it and one knew that the sun had risen. What was written on it? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Alef-Bet was written on it [Single letters were written on the tablet, each letter being the first of its word. (Cf. P. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, II, pp. 88–95).] . But did we not state: In the script there it was written here, not heavy, not thin, but average [The suspected wife’s scroll had to be written in the way the letters were on the queen’s tablet, not ornamental nor in italics. The questioner thought that the entire tablet had to be copied as it was written; then an abbreviated version would be impossible.] . Explain “the Alef there” by “from the Alef there”, “the Bet there” by ’’from the Bet there” [For each letter one copies the entire word. The first sentence of the scroll would read on the tablet as אם ל ש א א ו ל ש ט ת א ה מ ה ה ה which would be copied as אם לא שכב איש אתך ואם לא שטית טומאה תחת אישך הנקי ממי המרים המאררים האלה where every first letter was copied exactly from the tablet and the rest of the word added in the same style of script. Babli 37b.] . Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The entire paragraph of the suspected wife was written there, and from it he was reading and explaining all details of the paragraph [While writing, the Cohen explained the text homiletically to the suspected wife, so that she would understand the meaning of the ceremony.] .
“Miracles happened to Nicanor’s doors; one remembers him for praise.” It was stated [Babli 38a, Tosephta 2:4.] : “It happened that they were traveling in a ship [The parallel sources add: “From Alexandria”.] when they ran into a big storm. They took one of the doors and threw it into the sea. When they wanted to throw also the second one he stood up and embraced it. He told them, it you are throwing it into the sea, throw me with it. He was crying and mourning continuously until he arrived at the port [Greek λιμήν, -ένες, ὁ.] of Jaffa. When he arrived at the port of Jaffa it started bubbling under the ship. As we have stated there [Mishnah Middot 2:3.] , ‘ All doors there were changed into golden ones except Nicanor’s doors since a miracle happened to them, but some say because their bronze had a golden shine.’ ” It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer [In the parallel sources: R. Eliezer ben Jacob.] , “their bronze was (Corinthian) [This is the correct scribe’s text. The corrector who did not understand the word changed it to the text in brackets. Corinthian brass was the most expensive kind, used for luxury goods; a copper alloy probably containing some precious metal. Greek Κορίνθιον “Corinthian”, adj., n..] [gold colored and more] beautiful than gold.”
MISHNAH: But the following are for shame: The family Garmu did not want to teach the preparation of the shew-bread. The family Eutinos did not want to teach about preparation of the incense. [Only the first two cases are discussed in the Halakhah. According to the Babli, Hugdas knew how to amplify his voice and Ben Qamsar knew how to write multiple letters simultaneously.] Hugdas ben Levi knew a chapter about song and did not want to teach. Ben Qamsar did not want to teach writing technique. About the earlier ones it is said [Prov. 10:3.] , the remembrance of the just is for blessing, and about those it is said, but the name of evildoers shall rot.
HALAKHAH: “The following are for shame: The family Garmu.” [Tosephta 2:5, Šeqalim 5:2 (ש), Babli 38a, Cant. rabba 3:8. The Šeqalim text of the Babli editio princeps belongs to the spelling tradition of the Tosephta.] “The family Garmu were experts in preparing the shew-bread and its removal from the oven, but they did not want to teach. They sent and brought craftsmen from Alexandria who were experts in preparing the shew-bread but were not experts in its removal from the oven. The family Garmu were heating from within and removing from the outside, and it did not become moldy [It had to stay fresh for a full week. The shew-bread was baked on clay forms in the shape of a ship.] . But those were heating from the outside and removing from the inside, and it became moldy. When the Sages realized the situation, they said, everything which the Holy One, praise to Him, created, he created to His glory; all work of the Eternal is for Himself [Prov. 16:4.] . They sent after them, but they refused to come until they doubled their wages. They used to take twelve mina [As yearly wages. The Babli and Cant. rabba declare this weekly wages, an exaggeration.] , so they gave them twenty-four. Rebbi Jehudah says, they used to take 24, so they gave them 48. They asked them, why do you not want to teach? They answered them, there is a tradition among us from our forefathers that this Temple will be destroyed in the future. Others should not learn and prepare the same before their foreign worship [Idolatry.] . In the following matter one mentions them for praise, that in the hands of their children white bread was never found, so people should not say, from the preparation of shew-bread they are eating.”
[Tosephta 2:6–7, Šeqalim 5:2, Babli 38a, Cant. rabba 3:8. The text here is slightly shortened.] “The family Eutinos were experts in preparing the incense and the smoke-creating herb, but they did not want to teach. They sent and brought craftsmen from Alexandria who were experts in preparing the incense but were not experts in the smoke-creating herb. The family Eutinos’s was going straight up, and spread [فشى “to expand, spread”.] , and descended. But theirs was immediately spreading. When the Sages realized the situation, they said, everything which the Holy One, praise to Him, created, he created to His glory; as it is said [Is.43:7.] , all which is called by My Name, etc. They sent after them, but they refused to come, etc. [Here the corresponding text from the preceding paragraph has to be inserted.] , up to “before their foreign worship [Idolatry.] .” In the following matter one mentions them for praise, that no woman of any of them ever went out perfumed. Not only that, but if one of them married a woman from outside, he contracted with her that she should not use perfume.
Rebbi Yose said, I found a child of the family Eutinos. I said to him, my son, from which family are you? he told me, from family X. I said to him, my son, because your forefathers intended to increase their prestige and to decrease Heaven’s prestige, therefore their prestige was diminished and Heaven’s prestige increased. Rebbi Aqiba said, Simeon ben Lagos [This is the spelling of the scribe. The corrector changed this to Logah following the text in the other sources.] told me, I was collecting herbs, I and a youth from the family Eutinos, when I saw him crying and laughing. I said to him, my son, why did you cry? He said to me, about the prestige of my family which is diminished. And why did you laugh? About the glory prepared for the Just in the future world; there is smoke-creating herb before me! I said to him, my son, show it to me. He answered me, I have a tradition from my ancestors not to show it to any creature.’ Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, I met an old man from the family Eutinos. He said to me, ‘Rabbi. In the past my family were humble, and transmitting this scroll [Containing the identification of the smoke-creating herb.] one to the other. But now they are not trustworthy; here the scroll is yours and take care of it.’ When I came and repeated these words before Rebbi Aqiba, his tears flowed and he said, from now on we do not have to mention them for shame.”
All found an excuse for their behavior except Ben Qamsar. Also following what we have stated there [Mishnah Šeqalim 5:1. The following Paragraph also is there (Leiden ms. ש, Babli editio princeps שׁ, Munich ms. of the Babli M.)] .
“These are the appointees who were in the Sanctuary.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, Rebbi Simon and the rabbis. One said, he comes to enumerate the qualified ones of every generation [The list is no historical document.] . But the other said, he who was in a generation enumerated what was in his generation [The list is a historical document from early Mishnaic times; time not otherwise determined.] . He who said, he comes to enumerate the qualified ones of every generation, about all of them he says [Prov. 10:3.] , the remembrance of the just is for blessing. He who said, he who was in a generation enumerated what was in his generation, about all of them he says [Prov. 10:3.] , but the name of evildoers shall not. About whom was it said, the remembrance of the just is for blessing? About Ben Qatin and his kind.
About all of them, Ben Zoma says, from yours they will give you, and by your name they are calling you, and according to your praise they place you, and there is no forgetting before the Omnipresent, and nobody touches what is prepared for you [He teaches an extreme doctrine of predestination, that the result of every action a person takes is predetermined in Heaven. Then even the exaggerated claims of the artisans working for the Temple would be predestined.] .