meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Commentary/Rambam/Rambam Introduction to the Mishnah/English/merged.txt"}
text: Rambam Introduction to the Mishnah
  הקדמת הרמב"ם למשנה
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Rambam Introduction to the Mishnah, translation by Rabbi Francis Nataf, 2017
  -
  
  Rambam Introduction to the Mishnah
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  [Translators's Introduction]
  [Translators's Introduction]
  [Introductory poem from the Rambam]
  
  Section 2
  
  Know that each commandment that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to Moshe, our teacher – peace be upon him – was given to him with its explanation. He would say to him the commandment and afterward tell him its explanation and content; and [so too with] everything that is included in the Book of the Torah. And the manner of its teaching to Israel is as it is said (Eruvin 54b – in Chapter 5),
  Moshe would enter his tent, and Aharon would enter it first, and Moshe would tell him the commandment that was given to him, and teach him its explanation one time.
  And [then] Aharon withdrew and retreated to our teacher, Moshe's, right, and Elazar and Itamar, his sons, entered after him. And Moshe would tell them what he told Aharon.
  And they withdrew, and one sat to our teacher, Moshe's left and the second to the right of Aharon. And afterward, the seventy elders came, and Moshe taught them as he taught Aharon and his sons.
  And afterward, the masses and 'all who sought the Lord' came and He placed that commandment in front of them, [and so forth] until they heard everything from his mouth.  
  It came out that Aharon heard that commandment from the mouth of Moshe four times, his sons three times, the elders twice and the rest of the people once.
  And Moshe withdrew, and Aharon reviewed the explanation of that commandment  which he learned – that he heard from the mouth of Moshe four times, as we said – to  all those present.
  And Aharon retreated from them, after his sons had heard the commandment four times – three times from the mouth of Moshe, and once from the mouth of Aharon.
  And Elazar and Itamar reviewed [it,] to teach that commandment to all the people that were present, after Aharon withdrew. And they withdrew from teaching.
  And it came out that the seventy elders heard the commandment four times – two from the mouth of Moshe, one from the mouth of Aharon and one from the mouth of Elazar and Itamar. 
  And afterward, the elders also reviewed [it,] to teach the commandment to the masses one time. It came out that the entire congregation hears that commandment four times – once from the mouth of Moshe, once from the mouth of Aharon, a third [time] from the mouth of his sons and a fourth [time] from the mouth of the elders.
  And afterward all the people went to teach – each person his neighbor – all that they heard from the mouth of Moshe – and write that commandment in scrolls. And the officers would circulate to all of Israel to teach and correct, until [the people] knew the commandment by heart and became accustomed to reading it. And afterward, they taught them the explanations of that commandment that was given from God – and that explanation would include [many] matters. And they would write the commandment and study [it] according to the received tradition.
  And so [too] did our rabbis, may their memory be blessed, say in a bereita (Sifra, Behar), "'And God said to Moshe at Mount Sinai [with regards to the sabbatical year]' – and was not the whole entire Torah said form Sinai? Rather it is to tell you [that] just like [the law of] the sabbatical year was stated with its general principles and its details and its inferences from Sinai, so too were all the commandments, with their general principles and their details and their inferences, from Sinai."
  And behold for you an example: When the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moshe, "You shall live in booths seven days" (Leviticus 23:42);
  afterward, He made known that this booth is an obligation on males [and] not on females, and that sick people are not obligated in it, nor are wayfarers;
  and that it only be covered with that which grows from the ground, and that he should not cover it with wool or silk or vessels – even from that which grows from the ground – for example, comforters and  pillows and clothes.  
  And  he made known that eating and drinking and sleeping in it is all an obligation; and that its space should not be less than seven finger-breadths long on seven finger-breadths wide, and that the height of the booth not be less than ten finger-breadths.
  And when the prophet, peace be upon him, came, this commandment and its explanation was given to him. And so [too, with all of] the six hundred and thirteen commandments – they and their explanations – the commandment in writing, and the explanation orally.
  'And it was in the fortieth year in the eleventh month,' on Rosh Chodesh (the first day of) Shevat, [that Moshe] gathered the people and said to them, "The time of my death has arrived; and if there is from [among] you someone who heard a law and forgot it, he should come to me and ask me, and I will elucidate it. And anyone who has a doubt about a question, he should come, and I will explain it to him," as it is stated (Deuteronomy 1:5), "Moses undertook to expound this Torah, saying."
  And so did the sages say in the Sifrei, Devarim 1:5, "Anyone who forgot a law, let him come and review, and anyone who needs an explanation, let him come and [have it explained]."  And they took elucidations of the laws from his mouth and studied the explanations all of that time – from Rosh Chodesh Shevat until the seventh of Adar.
  And when it was before his death, he began to write the Torah in books. And he wrote thirteen books of the Torah – all of them [on] parchment – from [the letter] bet [in] <i>Bereishit</i> (the first word in the Torah) to [the letter] lamed [in] <i>le’einei kol Yisrael</i> (the last phrase in the Torah) (Bava Batra 15a). And he gave a book to each and every tribe, to behave according to it and to walk in its statutes. And the thirteenth book he gave to the Levites, and said to them (Deuteronomy 31:26), "Take this book of the Torah."
  Afterward, he went up to the mountaintop in the middle (Sifrei, Haazinu) of the seventh day of the month of Adar (Megillah 13b), as the tradition inferred.
  And that event that happened, they called death in our eyes – because we lost him and remembered him – and life for him, in honor of the heights that he reached. And so [too], they said (Sotah 13b), "Moshe, our teacher – peace be upon him – did not die, but rather he went up and is serving above. And the things about these matters are very expansive, and this is not their place.
  And when he died, peace be upon him – since he bequeathed to Yehoshua that which was imbued to him of the explanation – Yehoshua and the people of his generation applied their wisdom and their thought to [the received Torah]. And everything that Moshe received – he or any of the elders – there is nothing to say about it; and no disagreement arose about it.
  And whoever did not hear an explanation from the mouth of the prophet, peace be upon him, about matters that derive from them, extrapolated laws by propositions from the thirteen [exegetical] principles through which the Torah is expounded, which were given at Mount Sinai. And among those laws that they derived, there are some things wherein no disagreement arose, but [rather] they agreed about them. And there were among them [those] wherein disagreements between two opinions did arise – this one says like this, and that one says like that; this one reasons according to his reasoning and becomes more sure of his opinion, and that one reasons according to his reasoning and becomes more sure of his opinion; as principles of analysis that are by way of argumentation will result in such a result.
  And when a disagreement would arise, they would go according to the majority, as it states (Exodus 23:2), "you will incline after the majority."
  And know that prophecy does not help in the explanation of the Torah and in the extrapolation of its derivative commandments through the thirteen principles. [Rather,] that which Yehoshua and Pinchas would do in the matter of research and reasoning, that is [also] that which Ravina and Rav Ashi did. But the advantage of the prophet and his effect on the commandment – if you should ask; as my soul is alive – that  is one of the great and powerful fundamental principles upon which religion and its foundation relies.
  
  Section 3
  
  And I see that this is a fit place to elucidate this fundamental principle. And it is impossible [to do so] except after dividing the prophets that claim to have prophecy according to the way their prophecy is validated – which is likewise a great fundamental principle.
  And already all of the masses of people – and also a small number of their notables – have erred in this, as they imagine to themselves that prophecy does not exist with one who has it until he does a wondrous sign – like the signs of Moshe, our teacher, may his memory be blessed – and he changes the manner of the world; [or] like Eliyahu, may his memory be for the good, did in his bringing back to life the son of the widowed woman (II Kings 17); or, as is known to every person, with the signs of Elisha, peace be upon him.
  And this is not a true fundamental principle. As everything that Eliyahu and Elisha and the rest of the prophets did of [these] wonders, they did not do them in order to establish their [status] of prophecy – as their prophecy was already established before then. Rather, they did these signs for their needs; and because of their abundant closeness to the Holy One, blessed be He, He fulfilled their wills. As it is promised to the righteous ones (Job 22:28), "And you will decide to say it, and it will arise for you." But their prophecy is established by that which we will explain about the matter that we have begun to speak about.
  And I say at the outset that that which I say is a fundamental principle in our religion regarding prophecy – and that is that those that [claim to] have prophecy are first divided into two categories: the one that prophecies in the name of idolatry and the one that prophecies in the name of God. And the prophecy of idolatry is divided into categories:
  
  
  Section 4
  
  The first category is that a prophet arise and say, "X star cast its spirit upon me and said to me like this," or "Call upon me like this and I will answer you." And so [too], if he calls [people] to serve the Baal or one of the images, and says "The image informed me like this and said to me, thus, and commanded me about his worship with matter x," as the prophets of Baal and Asherah would do (I Kings 18).
  
  
  Section 5
  
  And the second category is that he say, "The word of God [came] to me to worship baal x or to bring down the force of the y queen of the heavens for matter z," and he says to them a matter from the matters of their service and the acts that the idolaters of that idolatry do, as it is established for us in the Torah. And this is also prophesying in the name of idolatry, as this [category] includes one who says that it itself commanded it [as well as] one who says that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded to worship any thing from them.
  And when we hear one of these two ideas from the one who [claims to] have prophecy, and witnesses testify about him according to that which is stated in the Torah; his judgement is that he be killed by strangulation, as the Holy One, blessed be, stated (Deuteronomy 13:6), "And that prophet or dream-diviner shall be put to death."
  And it is not for us to examine the one who [claims] prophecy and we do not request a sign. And even – if to establish his prophecy – he does from the signs and wonders, the grandeur of which have not known, he is to be strangulated. And we do not examine his signs, as the reason for the existence of these signs is that which the verse states (Deuteronomy 13:4), "for the Lord, your God, is testing you."
  And also, the intellect that denies his testimony is more trustworthy than the eye that sees his signs – as it has already become [exceedingly] clear for the intelligentsia to only honor and serve the One who makes exist all that exist and the One who brings together all perfection. 
  And the one who prophesies in the name of God is also divided into two categories:
  
  
  Section 6
  
   The first category is that he prophesies in the name of God and calls to the masses to believe him and he commands about His service and says that the Holy One, blessed be He, added a commandment to the commandments or subtracted a commandment from the tally of commandments that were gathered together in the Book of the Torah. And there is no distinction between if he adds or subtracts upon the verse, or if he adds or subtracts upon the traditionally received explanation. 
  And the matter that he add or subtract from the verse is, for example, that he say that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to me that the <i>orlah</i> prohibition is for two years, and after two years, it is permissible to eat the fruits of the saplings; or that he says, “The Holy One, blessed be He, told me that <i>orlah</i> is forbidden to eat for four years," instead of what the Holy One, blessed be He, said (Leviticus 19:23), "three years it shall be forbidden for you"; and similar to it.
  Or if he changes anything in the received tradition – and even if the simple meaning of the verse supports him; for example, that he says that that which is stated in the Torah (Deuteronomy 25:12), "you shall cut off her hand," is truly cutting off the hand, and not a fine for the one that embarrasses – as is the received tradition; and he attributes the thing to prophecy and says that the Holy One, blessed be He, told me that this commandment that He stated, "you shall cut off her hand," is like its simple meaning – this one, too, is killed by strangulation; as he is a false prophet and he attributes to the Holy One, blessed be He, that which He did not say to him.
  And also with this one, one should not examine the sign or wonder; as the prophet who showed his signs to all the people of the world and brought into our hearts to legitimate him and believe him – as the verse states (Exodus 19:9), "and also trust you forever" – he told us in the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, that another Torah besides this one will not come from the Creator. And that is what he said (Deuteronomy 20:12), "It is not in the Heavens."
  And it stated (Deuteronomy 20:14), "in your mouth and in your heart, to do it" – the matter of "in your mouth" is the commandment that is known orally; and the matter of "in your heart" is the analyses that [the sages] extrapolated with investigation, which are included in the powers that come from the heart.
  And we have also been warned against adding and subtracting from [commandments known in the ways just mentioned], as it is stated (Deuteronomy 20:13), "neither add to it nor subtract from it." And therefore they, peace be upon them, said (Megillah 2b), "A prophet may not innovate something from now [on]."
  And since we knew that his claim about the Holy One, blessed be He, is a false claim, and he attributed to Him something that He did not tell him; we become obligated to kill him, as the verse states (Deuteronomy 18:20), "But any prophet who willfully, etc. that prophet shall die."
  
  Section 7
  
  And the second category is with regards to the prophet that, for example, calls to people to serve God, and commands about His commandments and warns to observe the Torah, without addition or subtraction – as the prophet who was the end of the prophets said (Malachi 3:22), "Remember the Torah of Moshe, My servant" – and promises good rewards to the one that does it, and warns with a punishment anyone who transgresses it, as did Yishaya, Yirmiyahu, Yechezkel and the other ones of them.
  And he commands commandments and [enacts] prohibitions about a matter that is not from the Torah – for example, he says, "Fight against city x" or "nation y, now"; as Shmuel commanded Shaul to fight against Amalek (I Samuel 15).
  Or he prevents from killing, like that which Elisha prevented Yehoram from killing the troops of Aram that entered Shomron, like the matter that is known (II Kings 6:22); and like that which Yishaya prevented the bringing of water inside the wall (Isaiah 22:9); and like that which Yirmiyahu prevented Israel from going to the Land of Israel (or it should say “to the land of Egypt”)  before the completion of seventy years (Jeremiah 42:15); and similar to this matter.
  And because of this, when a prophet makes the claim of prophecy and does not attribute it to idolatry and does not add to the Torah or subtract from it – but [rather] says other things, as we have recounted – we then need to test him to clarify his testimony for us. 
  This is because anyone – the prophetic testimony of which is substantiated – is fitting to do all that he commands, from a small thing to a large. And anyone who transgresses any of his commands is obligated death at the hand of Heaven; as the Holy One, blessed be He, stated about someone who transgresses the command of the prophet (Deuteronomy 18:19), "I will require it from him." And if his testimony is not substantiated, he is put to death by strangulation.
  And the substantiation of prophetic testimony will be according to what I will tell: When a person [claims to] have prophecy, as we have elucidated, and he be fit for it – for example, that he be from the men of wisdom, faith, asceticism, intellect and pleasant character traits – as it is a fundamental principle for us that prophecy only resides upon one who is wise, strong and wealthy (Shabbat 92a – Chapter 10).
  And there are many positive virtues in this matter – it is impossible to group them all together. And the [explanation] about them and the proof of each one of them from verses from the books of the Torah and the words of the prophets would require a book of its own – and maybe God will assist me to it, with all that is fitting to write about this matter.
  And when the one prophesying is fit for prophecy, according to that which is appropriate, we say to him, "Prove [yourself] to us with predictions and  tell us things from among that which the Holy One, blessed be He, has taught you." And he tells and promises [their truth]. And if all of his predictions are substantiated, then we know that all of his prophecies are true. But if he lies about it, or even if one of his words fails – and even if it is a small thing – we know that he is a false prophet.
  And this is written in the Torah about this proof – (Deuteronomy 18:19-20): "And should you say in your heart, 'How can we know that the oracle was not spoken by the Lord,' if the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and the oracle does not happen and does not come."
  And we should not believe him and say that his prophecy is true when one or two of his proofs are realized, but [rather] his [status] should be contingent until his true signs be many – 'like all that he spoke in the name of the Lord' – one time after another.
  And therefore it stated about the matter of Shmuel when he became famous that everything he said came to be, as it is stated (I Samuel 3:20), "And all of Israel knew etc. that Shmuel was trustworthy as a prophet of the Lord."
  And  he did not not innovate anything for them that they would not ask him as a prophet. And had their custom been to ask about all of their matters, Shaul would not have asked Shmuel at the start about the lost object that was lost from him. 
  And there is no doubt that the thing is like this, since the Holy One, blessed be He, established prophets for us instead of astrologers and soothsayers and magicians, so that we can ask them general principles and details, and they will inform us of trustworthy things [about the future. In this, they are similar to] those magicians that will say things that [in their case] may materialize and may not materialize, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 18:14-15), "Those nations that you are about to dispossess etc., A prophet from among your own people, like myself, etc." 
  And because of these matters, they would call a prophet a seer. [This is] since he would see the future before it's happening, as it is stated (I Samuel 9:9), "for the prophet of today was formerly called a seer."
  And lest one think and say that since the establishment of a prophet is through the realization of new things and the future that he makes known to the one who is testing him, behold all the magicians and stargazers and masters of spiritual powers are able to claim prophecy; since we see them telling what will happen in the future with our own eyes every day.
  And that – as my soul is alive – is a big topic, and it is fitting to elucidate it, so that the difference be elucidated between one who prophesies in the name of God and the words of the masters of powers.
  And I say that the magicians and the stargazers and the people of that group will say predictions of events, but [only] some of them will be realized [while] some of them will – per force – come out to be false. And we always see this thing, and even the people of that craft would agree to it, 'and their signs are not foreign to them.' 
  And the advantage of one of them over his fellow is in there being less untruths than the untruths of the other. But that all the details of their predictions be realized is impossible.
  And the masters of these powers do not flatter themselves and are not praised [to say] that all of their words are realized. But [rather], they say that this year will be a drought and no rain will come down at all, and it comes out that there will [only] be a little rain; or he will say that rain will come down tomorrow, and it comes out that it comes down on the day [after tomorrow]; and similar to this. And this thing will happen to him if he is very expert, and [such diviners] are the ones known by name, that are spoken about in their books. 
  And this is the matter of the words of Yeshayahu to Babylonia (Isaiah 47:13), "let them stand up and save you now, the astrologers, the stargazers, who inform, month by month, [from that which will come upon you]" and our rabbis said, "'From that' and not all of that."
  And the predictions and the proofs of the prophets are not like this, but [rather] everything is realized to the last word, and not one of their words fails – not a small one and not a large one – for all time, in that which he speaks about in the name of God. And therefore, if one of his words [ends up being] empty, we know his untruth; and that is what it stated (II Kings 10:10), "nothing that the Lord has spoken [...] shall fall to the ground."
  And it is to this matter that Yirmiyahu alluded to about the dreamers whose visions were realized that would make known what was shown to them in the dreams by way of prophecy; and he would rebuke them and destroy their claims in his saying (Jeremiah 23:28), "'Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream; and let him who has received My word report My word faithfully; how can straw be compared to grain,' says the Lord."
  And the sages explained the content of this matter: That prophecy is clear and there is no admixture of deceit, [just] like grain is clear of straw. But the dreamers and those like them of the necromancers are mostly deceit, like straw that has grains of wheat [mixed in]. And they said (Berakhot 55a), "In the same way as there cannot be grain without straw, so too is it impossible for a dream to be without nonsensical things."
  And there is one large topic that remains, [that] is fitting for us to elucidate; and that is when the prophet prophecies drought in their land or that hailstones should come down on them, and similar to it; and afterwards none of this matter materializes, and they are shown mercy from the Heavens and all of their concerns ended in peace and tranquility.
  The deceit of the prophet is not shown by this, and it is not fitting to say [because of this] that he is a false prophet and that he should be obligated in death; [as it is] because the Holy One, blessed be He, thought better about the calamity. And it is possible that they repented and left their vexations or that the Holy One, blessed be He, delayed their deserts in His compassion and stayed His anger until a different time – as He did with Achav, when He said through Eliyahu (I Kings 21:29), "'I will not bring the disaster in his lifetime; I will bring the disaster upon his house in his son’s time.'” Or He may have had mercy upon them for the sake of the merits of those that came before them. And it did not say about a thing like this, "the oracle does not happen and does not come."
  But if he promised good proclamations that will arise at a specific time, and he says, There will be quiet and tranquility this year," and there were wars in it; or he said, "This year will be rainy and blessed," and there was famine and drought, and similar to it – we know that he is a false prophet, and that the negation of his claim and his falsehood have been established.
  And about this the verse stated (Deuteronomy 18:22), "the prophet has uttered it presumptuously; do not stand in dread of him." [This] means to say, let him not scare you and do not let his faith and his uprightness and his wisdom bewilder you from killing him, since he had the temerity to testify [falsely about] something great like this, and 'he spoke guile about the Lord,' may He be blessed.  
  [This is because] when the Holy One, blessed be He, promised a saying about good proclamations through a prophet, it is impossible that He not do it; so that His prophecy be established for people. And this is what they, peace be upon them, said (Berakhot 7a), "[Regarding] anything that comes out of the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He – even on condition – He does not go back on it."
  [However regarding] the matter of Yaakov's fear after the Holy One, blessed be He, promised Him good proclamations; as it is stated (Genesis 28:15), "'Behold, I am with you: I will protect you wherever you go,'” and [yet] he feared lest he die, as it is stated (Genesis 32:8), "Yaakov was greatly frightened and he was distressed" – the sages, may their memory be blessed, said about this matter that he was afraid of iniquity, lest it would cause him death. And that is what they said (Berakhot 4a), "He reasoned, 'Lest sin cause it.'"
  This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, promises good, and [yet] the iniquities overcome it and this good does not materialize. But it is to be known that this matter is only between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the prophet. [However] that the Holy One, blessed be He, should say to the prophet to promise a good proclamation to [other] people in an absolute statement without [any] condition and it not materialize, such a thing is null and it is impossible for it to be. As [otherwise] there would be no room for us to establish the trustworthiness of a prophet, and the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us in our Torah the fundamental principle that a prophet is tested when his promises are validated.
  And Yirmiyahu hinted to this fundamental principle in his disagreement with Chananiah ben Azur, as Yirmiyahu would prophesy for calamity and death and said that Nevuchadnetsar would win and be successful and destroy the Temple, but Chananiah ben Azur would prophesy for the good, and for the bringing of the vessels of the House of the Lord, that had been brought to Babylonia, back to Jerusalem. And Yirmiyahu said to him, when he was debating with him about the preserved fundamental principles, that if his own prophecy did not materialize and Nevuchadnetsar did not win, and all of the vessels of the House of the Lord are returned, as you say; that thing doesn't contradict my prophecy, [as] maybe God had mercy upon you. But if your words do not materialize and the vessels of the House of the Lord do not return, it shall become clear through this that your prophecy is false; and [so] your prophecy will not be established until your predictions for the good that you promised materialize. 
  And this is what he said (Jeremiah 28:7-9), "'But just listen to this word which I speak in your ears and in they ears of all the people: The prophets who lived before you and me from ancient times prophesied war, disaster, and pestilence against many lands and great kingdoms. So if a prophet prophesies peace, then only when the word of the prophet comes true can it be known that the Lord really sent him.'" He meant to say with this thing that [about] those prophets that would prophesy with good and with calamity, we cannot know from all the things they prophesied for calamity if their testimony is realized or if they lied. Rather, the trustworthiness of their words is known [only] when they promise good and it materializes.
  And when the prophecy of a prophet is established according to that which we have established, and a name goes out for him (he becomes known as a prophet), like Shmuel and Eliyahu and the ones besides them, that prophet has the ability to do something that no [man of] flesh besides him can do. And that is that which I say: When he commands temporarily to negate a commandment from all of the positive commandments or he commands to permit something forbidden from the negative commandments, it is obligatory for us to listen to his word and to do his commandment – and anyone that transgresses it is liable for death at the hand of Heaven – except for idolatry, and this is explicit in the Talmud.
  And that is what they said (Sanhedrin 90a), "In everything that the prophet will tell you to transgress the words of the Torah, listen to him – except for idolatry." But [this is] on condition that this thing not stand forever, and not that he should say that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded to negate this commandment all the days of the world, but [rather] that he command to negate the commandment for a reason and for a temporary need.
  And when they would ask the prophet himself about his commanding to transgress a commandment from all of the commandments that God commanded us through Moshe, his answer would be that the negation of this commandment is not established, but [rather] it is fitting to only do it now – temporarily – similar to, for example, what a court does with a temporary ordinance.
  [And it is] like Eliyahu did on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18), since he sacrificed a burnt offering outside [of the Temple, even though] Jerusalem was standing – and, in it, the Temple was standing [and] built. And anyone who does this deed without the commandment of the prophet is liable for excision. And the Holy One, blessed be He, warned about it in the Torah (Deuteronomy 12:13), "Take care not to sacrifice your burnt offerings in any place you like."  And one who does it is liable for excision, as it stated about one who sacrifices it outside (Leviticus 17:4), "blood shall be imputed to that man: he has shed blood; and he shall be cut off."
  But [if] they [would have] asked him, peace be upon him – at the time of his sacrificing on Mount Carmel – and they would have said to him, "May we do like this deed all the days of the world," he would have said to them that it is not permissible, and that anyone who sacrifices outside is liable for excision; but this deed was done according to a temporary need – to reveal the falsehood of the prophets of the Baal and to silence what is in their hands. 
  And like Elisha did in his commanding to fight with Moav to cut all the fruit-bearing trees, as he said (II Kings 3:19), "'and you shall fell every good tree.'" And yet God prevented us from doing this in His saying (Deuteronomy 20:19), "you must not destroy its trees, wielding the ax against them." And if they had asked Elisha if this commandment was negated, and if it was rendered permissible for us to cut down fruit-bearing trees when we besiege a city in the future, he would have said that it is not permissible; but [that] this deed was done now for the matter of a need. 
  And I will bring you an example, and this fundamental principle will become clear to you for all of the commandments: If a man of prophecy – whose prophecy has become clear among us, as we have said – would say to us on the Shabbat day, that we get up – all of us, women and men – and we burn fire and fashion instruments of war in it and that [each] man should gird his instruments of war and fight with the men of place x and take their spoil and conquer their women on this day that is Shabbat; it would be an obligation upon us – we, who have been commanded by the Torah of Moshe – to get up immediately, as he has commanded us, and not to delay. And we would do all that he commanded with alacrity and enhanced love – without a doubt and without delay. And we would believe about everything that we would do that day, that it is a commandment, even though it is the day of Shabbat (resting) from lighting fire and the doing of work and killing and war. 
  And we will look forward to a good reward from the Holy One, blessed be He, because we did the commandment of the prophet, which is the positive commandment of doing his word, as it is stated through Moshe (Deuteronomy 18:15), "'The Lord, your God, will raise up for you a prophet from among you, from your brothers, like myself; to him you shall heed.'"
  And the received tradition comes [to explain] (Sanhedrin 90a), "In everything that the prophet will tell you to transgress the words of the Torah, listen to him – except for idolatry:" for example, if he would say to us, "Worship this idol only today," or "Burn incense to this star at this time only," he should be killed. And there is nothing to listen to him about. 
  And if a man should think in his heart that he is righteous and fears God and has become, 'elderly and coming of days,' and he say, "Behold, I am old and have come of days and I have such and such years and I have not transgressed any of the commandments during them ever, and [so] how can I get up on this day which is the Shabbat day, and transgress this prohibition [that is punished with] stoning, and go and fight; and I don't have the ability in me to do good or bad, and others can be found in my place and there are many people to do this thing"; this man is a rebel and transgresses the words of God and he is obligated in death at the hand of Heaven, as he transgressed that which the prophet commanded.
  And the One who commanded the Shabbat, He is the One who commanded about the words of the prophet and all that he decrees. And anyone who transgresses his word, is obligated, as we have mentioned. And that is what it stated in the verse (Deuteronomy 18:19), "And if anybody fails to heed the words he speaks in My name, I will require it from him.'"
  And included in this is that anyone who ties a permanent knot on the Shabbat day – while he is doing these tasks of labor – that is not needed to help him at the time of the commandment that the prophet commanded is obligated in stoning.
  And if this prophet that commanded us what he commanded on the Shabbat day and we did his word, [now] says to us that the boundary [within which one can carry on] Shabbat is two thousand ells minus one ell, or two thousand ells and an ell – and he supports this matter by [saying] that it was said in the way of prophecy and not in the way of investigation and reasoning – we will know that he is a false prophet and he should be killed by strangulation.
  And in this fashion, you have [what is required] to reason [about] everything that the prophet will command you about, and everything that you may find in Scripture about the matter of the prophet that contradicts something from the commandments. And this fundamental principle is a key to all of this matter.
  And only in this is the prophet distinguished from other people concerning the commandments. But regarding investigation and reasoning and discernment of the commandments, he is like the other sages who are like him, who don't have prophecy. As when a prophet follows a reasoning and one who is not a prophet, likewise, follows a reasoning; and the prophet says that the Holy One, blessed be He, told me that my reasoning is correct – do not listen to him. Rather [if there are] one thousand prophets – all of them like Eliyahu and Elisha – following one reasoning, and one thousand and one sages following the opposite of that reasoning, 'we lean towards the many.' And the law is like the words of the one thousand and one sages, not like the words of the one thousand glorious prophets.
  And so [too] did the sages say (Chullin 124a), "God!, If Yehoshua bin Nun had told me this with his [own] mouth, I would not have listened to him and not accepted it from him." And so also did they say (Yevamot 102a), "If Eliyahu were to come and say, 'We release [a levirate woman] with a soft sandal,' we listen to him; 'With a hard sandal,' we do not listen to him." They wanted to say [by this] that one cannot add or subtract from the commandments by way of prophecy in any fashion. And so, if the prophet testifies that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him that the law of x commandment is like this and that reasoning y is true – that prophet is killed, as he is a false prophet, as we have established.
  [This is] since Torah is not given after the first prophet, and there is nothing to add and nothing to subtract, as is is stated (Deuteronomy 30:12), "'It is not in the heavens.'" And we have not been permitted to learn from the prophets, but rather from the sages, the men of reasoning and discernment. It did not say, "and you shall come to the prophet who will be at that time, but rather (Deuteronomy 17:9) "and you shall come to the Levite priests, or the judge." And the sages already spoke about this matter very much, and it is the truth. 
  
  Section 8
  
  And when Yehoshua bin Nun, peace be upon him, died, he taught the elders that which he received of the [Torah's oral] explanation; and the laws that they extrapolated during his time about which no disagreement occurred; and [those] about which there occurred a disagreement [and] they decided the law according to the majority of the elders. And about them the verse states (Joshua 24:31), "and all the days of the elders who had length of days after Joshua." And afterward, these elders taught that which they received from Yehoshua to the prophets, peace be upon them. And the prophets learned, one from another.
  And there was no time that there was not contemplation and innovation of the matters. And the sages of each generation would make the words of the predecessors the main thing, and they would learn from them and innovate matters. And there was no disagreement [about] the fundamentals passed on.
  Until came the time of the men of the Great Assembly – and they were Chaggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Daniel, Chananiah, Mishael, Azariah, Ezra the Scribe, Nechemiah ben Chakhaliah, Mordechai, Zerubavel ben Shaltiel; and accompanying these prophets were the remainder of the hundred and twenty elders, from 'the craftsmen and sentry' and similar to them. And they also contemplated [the laws] as had done their predecessors, and they decreed decrees and ordained ordinances. And the last of this holy fellowship was the beginning of the sages mentioned in the mishnah – and that is Shimon the Righteous. And he was high priest in that generation.
  And after them, when the time arrived for our Holy Rabbi, peace be upon him, [he organized the Mishnah]. He was unique in his generation – a man that had all of the graces and the good character traits in him; to the point that through them, he merited to be called our Holy Rabbi by the people of his generation. And his name is Yehudah.
  And he was complete in wisdom and virtue, as they said (Gittin 59.), "From the days of Moshe, our teacher, and until Rabbi, we did not see Torah and grandeur in one place (man)." And he was complete in piety and humility and distancing from the [physical] delights, as they also said (Sotah 49b), "From when Rabbi died, humility and fear of sin have ceased."
  And he was eloquent and above all men in the holy tongue, to the point that the sages – peace be upon them – would learn the meaning of that which was garbled from the letters of Scripture (the meaning of unclear words) from the words of his slaves and servants, and this is made famous in the Talmud (Rosh HaShanah 26a).
  And he had the wealth and assets and broad means, about which it is said (Bava Metzia 85a), "The stable overseer of Rabbi was wealthier than Shavur Malka (the king of Persia)." And so, he made men of wisdom – and those that sought it – comfortable, and he spread Torah in Israel. And he gathered the laws and the words of the sages and the received disagreements [dating] from the time of Moshe, our  teacher, until his [own] days. 
  And he himself was [part of the transmission], as he received [the tradition] from Shimon, his father. And Shimon [received it] from Gamliel, his father; and he from Shimon; and he from Hillel; and he from Shemaya and Avtalyon, his teachers; and they from Yehudah ben Tabai and Shimon ben Shetach; and they from Yehoshua ben Prachiah and Natai of Arbel; and they from Yose ben Yoezer of Tsereidah and Yose ben Yochanan; and they from Antigonos of Sokho; and he from Shimon the Righteous; and he from Ezra – who was from the remnants of the Great Assembly; and Ezra, from Baruch ben Neriah, his teacher; and Baruch from Yirmiyah.
  And so [too] Yirmiyah received [it] from those before him of the prophets, without a doubt – one prophet from another – [back] until the elders that received [it] from Yehoshua bin Nun, and he from the mouth of Moshe.
  And when he gathered all of the thoughts and statements, he began to compose the Mishnah, which includes the explanation of all of the commandments that are written in the Torah. Some of the them are traditions received from the mouth of Moshe – peace be upon him. And some of them are teachings that they extrapolated by way of reason, about which no disagreement happened; and [still] some are teachings wherein disagreements occurred between two reasonings. And he wrote those with their disagreements – x says like this and y says like that. 
  And if there was [only] one who argued on the many, he would write them [as] the words of the one and the words of the many. And this thing was done for useful matters, and they are mentioned in the mishnah (Mishnah Eduyot 1), and I will mention them.
  But [I will do this] after [writing about] a fundamental principle which I saw fit to mention. And that is that a person could say, if the explanation is, like we have established it, received from the mouth of Moshe – as we have said from their words, the whole Torah, its general principles, its details and its inferences were said from Sinai – if so, what are these specific laws about it is said that they are 'laws of Moshe from Sinai?'
  And [about] this fundamental principle, you must understand its secret. And that is that the explanations that were transmitted from the mouth of Moshe have no disagreement about them in any way. As behold, from then until now, we have not found a disagreement occur among the sages at any time, from the days of Moshe and until Rav Ashi, such that one say, "They take out the eye of one who has taken out the eye of his fellow, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 19:21), 'an eye for an eye'"; and the second one say that it is only indemnity that he has to pay.
  And we have also not found a disagreement in that which the verse states (Leviticus 23:40), "the fruit of a beautiful tree," such that one would say it is a citron (etrog), and the other say it is quinces or pomegranates or other [fruit] beside it. And we have also not found a disagreement about a "leafy tree" that it is [anything but] a myrtle.
  And we have not found a disagreement about the statement of the verse (Deuteronomy 25:12), "And you shall cut off her hand," that it is [anything but] indemnity. And not about that which the verse stated (Leviticus 21:9), "When the daughter of a priest defiles herself through harlotry, etc. she shall be put to the fire," that, nonetheless, we only make this decree when she is married.
  And so [too], we have not heard of anyone, from Moshe until now, disagreeing about the decree of Scripture (Deuteronomy 22:21) that they should stone a maiden the virginity of whom was not found, with the one that said that is only if she was married, and witnesses testified that she strayed after the betrothal – with witnesses and a warning.
  And similar to this, in the general category of [the Torah's] commandments, there is no disagreement about them, since the explanations of all of them are received from the mouth of Moshe. And about them and about what is similar to them, they said, "The whole Torah was said – its general principles, its details and its inferences – from Sinai."
  But even though they are transmitted and there is no disagreement about them, we can – with the wisdom of the Torah that is given to us – extrapolate these explanations [from the Torah] by one of the ways of reasonings, or [from] the associations, proofs or hints found in Scripture.  
  And when you see in the Talmud [that] they are investigating and disagreeing with one with another in the pattern of investigation and bringing proofs for one of these explanations, and similar to these – for example, that which the statement of the verse stated, "the fruit of a beautiful tree," maybe it will be pomegranates or quinces or other [fruits] besides them, until (Sukkah 35a – Chapter 3) they bring a proof about it from that which it stated, "the fruit of a beautiful (<i>hadar</i>) tree," and [one teacher] said it is a tree the taste of its fruit and its [bark] which are the same; and another said, it is a fruit that resides (<i>hadar</i>) in its tree from one year to the next; and [yet] another said, it is a fruit that dwells upon all waters – they did not bring these proofs because the matter had become garbled for them, until it became known to thee from these proofs. But [rather] without a doubt, we have seen from Yehoshua until now that they would hold a citron with the palm branch (lulav) every year. And there is no disagreement about it, but [rather] they were probing for the hint that is found in Scripture for this transmitted explanation [that the fruit in question is a citron].
  And so [too], their proof about the myrtle (Sukkah 32b); and their proof about the laws of [destroying various] bodily organs (Bava Kamma 83b), and that is what one is obligated to his fellow, whose limb he has destroyed; and also their proof that the daughter of a priest which was mentioned there is married (Sanhedrin 52a); and all that is similar to it – is [all] according to this principle.
  And this matter is that which they said, "its general principles and its details," [by which] they meant to say matters that we can extrapolate by 'the general principle and the detail (<i>klal uprat</i>)' and the rest of the thirteen [hermeneutical] principles, but they were [also] transmitted from Moshe. And about all of these – even though they are transmitted from the mouth of Moshe – it is not said [that it is] a 'law of Moshe from Sinai,' as it should not be said that "the fruit of a beautiful tree" is a citron, is a 'law of Moshe from Sinai'; or that one who injures his fellow pays money, is a 'law of Moshe from Sinai.'
  As it has already become clear to us that all of these explanations are from the mouth of Moshe, but [also] have hints to them in the verse, or they extrapolated them by one of the ways of reasoning, as we mentioned. And therefore, only about anything that does not have a hint in Scripture and is not connected to it and it is impossible to extrapolate by one of the ways of reasoning, is it said [that it is a] 'law of Moshe from Sinai.'
  And because of this, when we said, "Sizes are a law of Moshe from Sinai," they challenged us and said (Berakhot 40a), "Why do you say they are a 'law of Moshe from Sinai,' and behold, sizes are hinted about in the verse, when it stated (Deuteronomy 8:8), 'A land of wheat and barley'"; the answer will be that it is 'a law of Moshe from Sinai,' and the sizes do not have a source from which to extrapolate them by one of the ways of reasoning, and they do not have a hint in all of the Torah, but [rather] this commandment was associated with this verse as a [mnemonic], so that it will be known and remembered, but it is not the subject of the verse.
  And this is the [meaning] of what they said, "The verse is [only] a general association," in every place they mentioned it.
  And I include in this most of the laws about which it is said [that it is] a 'law of Moshe from Sinai' – and it is possible that it be all [of them]. And the truth of what I said is elucidated for you, as there is none of them – not even one – that they extrapolated by a way of reasoning, and it is impossible to associate [any one of them] with a verse, except by way of [general] association, as we have elucidated. And we do not ever find that they investigated them with reasonings or brought proofs about them, but rather they took them from the mouth of Moshe, as the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded him:
  A half <i>log</i> of oil for a thanksgiving offering, and a quarter of (wine) [oil] for a Nazirite; eleven days between one menstruation period (<i>niddah</i>) and another; and extending [the height of a partition], joining [two surfaces] and [considering an unfit portion of a sukkah covering as] a bent side are [each one] 'a law of Moshe from Sinai.'
  Sizes, obstructions and partitions are a 'law of Moshe from Sinai.'
  Tefillin on <i>klaf</i>, mezuzah on <i>dokhsostos</i> and Torah scrolls on <i>gvil</i> (different types of parchment) is a 'law of Moshe from Sinai.'
  The [letter,] shin of the tefillin; the knot of the tefillin and the black straps; square tefillin; and the sleeve (<i>maabarta</i>) of the tefillin is a 'law of Moshe from Sinai.'
  They are wrapped in their hair and sewed in tendons is a 'law of Moshe from Sinai.'
  We write a Torah scroll with ink and lined is a 'law of Moshe from Sinai.'
  The intercourse of a [girl] less than three years old is not intercourse, is a  'law of Moshe from Sinai.'
  One who [plants] his field with two types of wheat gives one corner [of his field if] he makes one threshing floor and two corners [if] he makes two threshing floors, is a 'law of Moshe from Sinai.'
  Garden plantings that are not [systematically] eaten, join [with grain to create a forbidden mixture (<i>kilayim</i>)] when [they are] one twenty-fourth of that which falls into a field of a <i>seah</i>, is a  'law of Moshe from Sinai.'
  For the sake of ten trees scattered in a field of a <i>seah</i>, we can plow the whole field of a <i>seah</i> [on the seventh year], is a  'law of Moshe from Sinai.' 
  [For a] cake of dried figs, part of which has become impure, we tithe the <i>terumah</i> tithe from the [section] of it that is pure is a 'law of Moshe from Sinai.' 
  The sexton may see from where the young children are reading [on Shabbat night by the light of the candle], is a  'law of Moshe from Sinai.'
  A woman may don an apron whether it is in front of her or whether it is in back of her [on Shabbat], is a 'law of Moshe from Sinai.'
  They permitted the mixing of harsh and mellow wines, is a 'law of Moshe from Sinai.'
  We tithe the poor tithe in Ammon and Moav on the seventh year, is a 'law of Moshe from Sinai.'
  And every place that one of these laws will come up in that which we will explain of the Mishnah, I will explain it there in its place, with God's help.
  Therefore the types of laws that were established in the Torah, upon these principles that we have prefaced, are divided into five divisions:
  
  Section 9
  
  The first division are explanations transmitted from the mouth of Moshe and they have a hint in Scripture and it it possible to extrapolate them by way of reasoning. And about this there is no disagreement; if one says, "So has it been transmitted to me," there is nothing to say about it.
  
  
  Section 10
  
  The second division are the laws about which it is said, a 'law of Moshe from Sinai.' And there are no proofs about them as we have mentioned. Likewise here, none disagree with [such a law].
  
  
  Section 11
  
  The third division are the laws that they extrapolated by the ways of reasoning and a disagreement about them occurred, as we have mentioned – and the law was decided in them according to the majority. And this happens, when the investigation is given to divergence. And because of this, they say (Yevamot 76b), "If it is a [transmitted] law, we will accept it; but if it is a law [that is deduced], there is a rebuttal."
  Rather the disagreement and the investigation occurred about something that a [transmitted] law was not heard. And you will find in all of the Talmud that they are examining the basis of the reasoning that causes the disagreement between the disputants; and [so] they say, "About what do they differ," or "What is the basis of Rabbi x," or "What is [the difference] between them?"
  And they bring it about this matter in most places; and they mention the basis that causes the disagreement – for example, that they will say, "Rabbi x holds from claim z, and y holds from claim a," and similar to it.
  But one who would think that the laws about which they disagree are likewise transmitted from the mouth of Moshe and they think that a disagreement occurred by way of a mistake in the laws or because one of them received the true transmission and the other made a mistake in his transmission or he forgot or he did not hear from his teacher everything he was supposed to hear – and bring [as] a proof about this, that which they said (Sanhedrin 88b), "From when the students of Shammai and Hillel – who did not serve all that was required of them – multiplied, disagreement grew in Israel and the Torah was made to be like two Torahs"; this thing is very repugnant.
  And these are the words of one who has no intellect and does not have the fundamental principles in his hand and who disfigures the people from which the commandments were transmitted; and all of this is emptiness and naught. And what brought him to believe this faulty belief is his lack of cognition of the words of the sages that are found in the Talmud. As they found that all of the explanation that is transmitted from the mouth of Moshe is true, but they did not [take cognizance] of the difference between the transmitted fundamentals and the topical extensions that [the sages] extrapolated by investigation.
  But [as for] you, a doubt should not enter your heart [about] the disagreement of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel; when they said (Berakhot 51b – Chapter 8), "We clean the room, and afterward rinse the hands" or "we rinse the hands, and afterward clean the room" – [that] you think that [the cause of this argument is that] one of these two things was not transmitted from the mouth of Moshe from Sinai.
  But [rather] the basis that causes them to disagree is what is mentioned in the Talmud (Berakhot 52b); that one of them forbids being served by an ignorant person and the other permits [it]. And so [too, with] all that is similar to these disagreements, that are the elaborations of elaborations.
  Rather, the matter of that which they said, "From when the students of Shammai and Hillel – who did not serve all that was required of them – multiplied, disagreement grew in Israel," is evident; in that when two people are of equal intellect and investigation and knowledge of the fundamentals from which reasonings extrapolate, no disagreement will occur in their reasonings in any way. And if it does occur, it will be minimal; as it is only found that Shammai and Hillel disagreed about isolated laws. 
  And that is because the thoughts of the two of them were very close – one to the other – in everything that they extrapolated by way of reasoning. And, likewise, the fundamentals that were given to this one, were like the fundamentals given to that one.  
  But when the diligence of the students towards wisdom slackened and their reasoning weakened – in comparison to the reasoning of Hillel and Shammai – disagreement occurred among them in the investigation of many things; as the reasoning of each and every one of them was according to his intellect and to what he had in hand of the fundamentals.
  And nonetheless, they should not be blamed; as we cannot force two sages that debate in investigation, to debate according to the intellect of Yehoshua and Pinchas. And, likewise, we have no doubt about that which they debated [just] because they are not like Shammai and Hillel or like those before them; as the Holy One, blessed be He, did not command His service in this manner.
  But [rather] He commanded us to listen to the sages of the generation, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 17:9), "to the judge that will be in those days."
  And it is through these ways that disagreement occurred; not because they erred in the laws, and one is saying truth and the other is saying falsehood. And how evident is this matter to all that give cognizance to it! And how precious and great is this fundamental principle about the commandments!
  
  
  Section 12
  
  And the fourth division are the ordinances that the prophets and the sages ordained in each and every generation, in order to make a fence around the Torah. And about them did the Holy One, blessed be He, command to do them, and it is what He said in the general statement (Leviticus 18:30), "And you will guard My guarding" – and the received tradition came [to explain] (Yevamot 21a), "Make a guarding around my guarding." And the sages called them ordinances.
  And sometimes a disagreement occurs about them, because one sage forbids this because of that, and another sage does not agree with him. And this is often [found] in the Talmud, that they say," Rabbi x decrees this because of this and that and Rabbi y did not decree [it]." And this is likewise one of the reasons for disagreement.
  As behold, chicken flesh with milk is a rabbinic ordinance [that is] in order to distance [us] from sin. And in the Torah, only the flesh of beasts and animals was forbidden, but the sages forbade chicken flesh in order to distance [us] from the [Torah] prohibition. And among them is one who does not ordain this ordinance; as Rabbi Yose [HaGalili] would permit chicken flesh with milk, and all the people of his city would eat it, as is made known by the Talmud (Shabbat 130a).
  And when there occurs agreement about one of the ordinances, none can disagree with it on any account. And when its prohibition spreads to all of Israel, we may not disagree with that ordinance – even the prophets, themselves, were not permitted to abrogate it. And so, they said in the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 36a) that Eliyahu, his memory should be for the good, was not able to abrogate one of the eighteen things that the House of Shammai and the House of Hilled decreed. And they brought a reason for this – that it is since their prohibitions spread to all of Israel.
  
  Section 13
  
  The fifth division are the laws that are made by way of investigation and consensus about things that occur among people – that do not have in them an addition to a commandment, nor a subtraction – or about things that are of benefit to people in matter of the Torah. And the sages called them decrees and practices.
  And it is forbidden to transgress them; and Shlomo, peace be upon him, already said (Ecclesiastes 10:8), "one who breaches a fence will be bitten by a snake." And these decrees are very numerous and are mentioned in the Talmud and in the Mishnah – some of them about what is prohibited and forbidden, and some of them about monetary issues.
  And there are some of them that are the decrees that the prophets decreed, like the decrees of Moshe and Yehoshua and Ezra, like they said (Megillah 4a – Chapter 1), "Moshe decreed for Israel that they should ask and expound about the laws of Pesach on Pesach." And they said (Berakhot 48b – Chapter 7), "Moshe decreed <i>hazan</i> (the first blessing in the grace) at the time that the manna fell for Israel." But the decrees of Yehoshua and Ezra are many.
  And there are some of them that are decrees attributed to individuals among the sages, as they said (Mishnah Sheviit 10:3), "Hillel decreed <i>pruzbul</i>," (Gittin 34b) "Rabban Gamliel the Elder decreed," (Beitzah 5a) "Yochanan ben Zakkai decreed," and in the Talmud [one frequently finds], "Rabbi x decreed, Rabbi y decreed."
  And there are some of them that are decrees attributed to the many sages, as they said (Ketuvot 49:), "In Usha, they decreed," or as it is said, "The sages decreed" or "It is a decree of the sages," and many that are similar to it.
  
  Section 14
  
  If so, all of the laws that are mentioned in the Mishnah are divided into these five divisions. And they are explanations transmitted from the mouth of Moshe and they have a hint in Scripture or it is possible to bring a reasoning to reason like them; and 'laws of Moshe from Sinai'; and those which were extrapolated, about which a disagreement occurred; and ordinances; and decrees. 
  And the reason that required them to write the disagreement that occurred between two opinions is what I will say – that if the laws were written as they were determined without the disagreement, and the words of the sage that the law is not like were [just] pushed off, it is possible that someone who received the transmission of the opposite of the thing that was determined to be the law from the sage that disagrees with that opinion, or someone who leans towards his opinion, will come afterwards. And [so] a doubt will come into our souls: how did this man receive that thing x is forbidden, when the mishnah says that it is permissible – which is the opposite of this matter – and he is a man of truth? 
  And because of this, when these opinions are written, this breach will be sealed. As when the recipient [of such an opinion] will say, "I have heard that this and that are forbidden," we will say [back] to him, "You have spoken [well] and that is the opinion of x, but the many disagree with him," or "y disagreed with him, and the law is like the opinion of the one that disagrees, because [the latter's] reasoning is more correct," or "because we have found something else that supports him (Mishnah Eduyot 1)."
  But the reason that required them to write the words of the individual [alongside those] of the many is because it is possible for the law to be like the individual. And therefore, it comes to teach us that when a line of reasoning is obvious (straightforward), even if it is [that of an] individual, we listen to him – even though the many disagree with him.
  And the reason that required them to write the opinion of a man and afterwards that he recanted from that opinion – for example, when they said, "The House of Shammai said like this and the House of Hillel said like this and that, and the House of Hillel recanted to instruct like the words of the House of Shammai" – is in order to inform you of [the need for] the love of truth and the power of righteousness and faith.
  As behold, when these honorable, pious and magnanimous men, who were outstanding in their wisdom, saw that the words of the one who is in disagreement with them were better than their words and [that] their investigation is correct, they conceded to him and recanted to his opinion. All the more so, when other people see that the truth is leaning towards the one with which they have a conflict, should [such a one] lean towards the truth and not stiffen his neck. And this is the [meaning of the] verse (Deuteronomy 16:20), "Justice, justice shall you pursue." 
  And about this the sages said (Avot 5:7), "Concede to the truth." They wanted to say [with this] – even though you can save yourself [in the argument] with rhetorical claims; when you know that the words of your fellow are true, [but] your claim upon him looks clear because of his weakness or because of your ability to distort the truth, recant to his words and abandon the fight.
  
  Section 15
  
  And when the redactor thought to compose this book upon this structure, he saw [fit] to divide it into six divisions:
  The first division is of the commandments that are obligated with that which grows from the ground, like forbidden mixtures, the sabbatical year, <i>orlah</i>, the priestly and levitical tithes and the other statutes of the presents [from the field].
  The second division is of the seasonal times of the year and the holidays and that which we are obligated about them, and the differences in their laws, and that which is forbidden in them and that which is permitted in them, and those laws and commandments which are proper to associate with each of their times. 
  The third division is of sexual relations, and the distinctions that exist in the laws between men and women – for example, levirate marriage, release (<i>chalitsah</i>), marriage contracts, betrothals, divorce bills and that which is fitting to say about each of its sections.
  The fourth division is of civil laws, disputes between a man and his fellow, commerce, give and take (sales and purchases), and land partnerships and that which is similar to it.
  The fifth division is of the matters of the sacrifices, according to the differences of their laws and the multiplicity of their topics.
  The sixth division is of the matter of [types of] purity and their opposite.
  And he called each of its divisions, Order – [such that] the first division is the Order of Seeds (Zeraim); the second is the Order of Appointed Time (Moed); the third is the Order of Women (<i>Nashim</i>); the fourth is the Order of Damages (Nezikin); the fifth is the Order of Holy Things (Kodashim); and the sixth is the Order of Purities (Tahorot). (And their mnemonic is <i>zeman nakat </i>).
  And he began with the Order of Seeds because it includes the commandments specific to the seed of the earth. And the seed of the earth is the sustenance of all animals, and since it is impossible for man to live without eating food, the service of God would not be possible [without it]. And because of this, he began by speaking about the commandments specific to the seed of the earth.
  And afterwards, he spoke about the Order of Appointed Time, as the way of their arrangement in the Torah is like this, as it is stated (Exodus 23:10-11). "Six years you shall sow (your field and six years shall you prune your vineyard) [your land] and gather in its yield; but in the seventh you shall let it rest and lie fallow." and it states afterwards (Exodus 23:12), "Six days you shall do your work," and afterwards (Exodus 23:14), "Three times a year you shall hold a festival for Me."
  And afterwards, he saw [fit] to begin with the laws of women before the laws of damages in order to follow the Scripture that stated (Exodus 21:7), "When a man sells his daughter as a slave," and (Exodus 21:22), "When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman," and afterwards (Exodus 21:28), "When an ox gores a man." And because of this, he had the Order of Women precede the Order of Damages. 
  And the Book of Exodus includes these four topics, the topic of the Order of Seeds and the Order of Appointed Time and the Order of Women and the Order of Damages.
  And after he spoke about the matter of Exodus, he spoke about the matter of Leviticus, according to its arrangement, and he arranged Holy Things after Damages.
  And afterwards Purities – as so did Scripture arrange them – and he had the law of sacrifices precede before the law of [types] of impurities and purities, as behold, it only began the [topic of purity] in Parshat Shemini 
  And when he gathered all of these six general types of commandments, he saw [fit] to divide each of these categories to more specific categories, according to what is fit. And he called the name of each one of the specific [categories], tractate. Afterward, he divided the material that is in each of the specific categories into sections and he called each one, chapter. And afterward, he divided the material of each chapter into small sections that are clear to understand and easy to know by heart and to teach, and he called the name of each one of these small sections, law (halacha [more commonly referred to as mishnah]).
  And he divided the material in the Order of Seeds, as I will say: He began with the Tractate of Blessings (<i>Berakhot</i>). And the reason that required him to begin with it is that when an expert physician wants to preserve the health of a healthy person upon the state that it is in, he begins by ordering the dietary regimen at the beginning of his medical prescriptions. And therefore, this sage saw [fit] to begin with Blessings, as anyone who eats does not have allowance to eat until he recites a blessing. And [so], he saw fit to order Blessings at the beginning of his words, so that he would order the food in a regimen that has substance to it. 
  Afterward he saw [fit] to organize his words so that it would not be lacking any matter of all the matters, and therefore he spoke about the [entire] category of the blessings that a person is obligated about for nourishment and for the commandments. And the only commandment that a person is obligated about every day is the recital of Shema alone. And it is not correct to speak about the blessings over the recital of Shema before he speaks about the recital of Shema itself. Therefore, he began, "From when do we recite the Shema," and everything that is connected to it.
  And afterwards, he went back to the topic of the Order, and that is to speak about the commandments of the seed of the earth. And he began with Tractate Peah (Corner) after Blessings, because with all of the [other] gifts that a person is obligated about with the seed, he is not obligated until after his reaping it, but the standing grain is obligated in 'peah,' when it is still in the ground. And because of that, he began by speaking about it.
  And he arranged Tractate Demai after Peah, because the poor also have a right to ['demai'], just like they have to 'peah' – and so did they say, "We [can] feed 'demai' to the poor."
  And after Demai [came] Kilayim; as so did Scripture arrange them in the Order (Parsha) of Kedoshim Tihiyu (Leviticus 19:9), "you shall not reap all the way to the corner of your field," and after it (Leviticus 19:19), "you shall not sow your field with 'kilayim' (a forbidden mixture). 
  And he arranged Sheviit (Seventh [Year] after Kilayim. And it would have been correct for Tractate Orlah to be after Kilayim – as so are they arranged in the Torah – were it not that he saw that 'orlah' is not from the commandments that a person is compelled to do; as the whole time that he does not plant a tree, he is not obligated in Orlah; but the seventh [year] is from the commandments that a person is compelled to do; and also as the sabbatical year has its own specific Order (parsha) in the Torah. And therefore he began by speaking about the sabbatical year.
  And he arranged Tractate Terumah Gedolah (The Great Priestly Tithe) after Sheviit because 'terumah' is the first gift that we remove from the seed.
  And he arranged Maaser Rishon (First Tithe) after Terumah because it is in the second rank after 'terumah' in the law of separation.
  And he arranged Maaser Sheni (Second Tithe) after Maaser Rishon, according to the order of their ranks.
  And he arranged Tractate Challah afterward because after we take out all of these gifts – which are 'terumah' and maaser rishon and [maaser] sheni – then we grind it and make it into flour and knead it, and then we become obligated in 'challah.'
  And when he finished speaking about the seed and its gifts, he started to speak about the topic of the fruits; and he arranged Tractate Orlah after Tractate Challah.
  And afterwards, Bikkurim (First Fruits), as so did Scripture arrange them – 'orlah' in the Book of Leviticus, and 'bikkurim,' in Parshat Ki Tavo (in Deuteronomy). And the number of the divisions in the Order of Seeds came to eleven tractates.
  And afterwards, he divided the Order of Appointed Time into its specific categories, as he did with the Order of Seeds. And he started with Tractate Shabbat, because it is the first in rank and because it is in every seven days and [so] its time appears frequently; and also [because] the Torah began with it in the section of the appointed times.
  And after Shabbat, he arranged Eruvin, because it is on the topic of Shabbat.
  And after it, Pesachim (Pesach Sacrifices), which is the beginning of the commandments given through Moshe. And it is, likewise, the second commandment after Shabbat in the section of the appointed times.
  And afterwards, he arranged Shekalim (Coins), as [these sections] are arranged in the Torah.
  And he arranged Kippurim (Atonements) after Shekalim, according to their arrangement; as the commandment of 'shekalim' is in Parshat Ki Tissa (in Exodus) and 'kippurim' is in Parshat Acharei Mot (in Leviticus).
  And afterwards, he came to conclude his words about the three pilgrim festivals. And before this, he spoke about 'pesachim,' and it remained for him to speak about the matter of Sukkot and Shavuot. And he only found things about Shavuot that are [common] to all of the holidays to speak about, and that is Tractate Beitzah (Egg). And he began with Sukkah (Booth) before Beitzah due to the multiplicity of commandments that there are on Sukkot.
  And the only time period mentioned in Scripture that remained for him to speak about was Rosh Hashanah. And after Beitzah, he spoke about Rosh Hashanah
  And when he finished his words about the appointed times stated in the Torah, he went back to speaking about the times of the fasts mentioned in the Books of the Prophets; and these are the fasts that the prophets ordained. And [so] afterwards, he arranged the topic of fasts.
  And after the fasts, he arranged Megillah (about Purim), since it was an ordinance of the prophets that was later than those that ordained the fasts.
  And after Megillah, he arranged Moed Katan (about the intermediate festival days), because there is the connection between it and the days of Purim that fasts and eulogies are forbidden on both of them.
  And when he finished speaking about the times and their obligations and all that is connected with them, he concluded the topic with Tractate Chagigah, the topic of which is the obligation of the three pilgrim holidays. And he left it for last, because it is not a general matter, because it is only an obligation on the males, as it is stated (Exodus 23:17), "all of your males shall be seen." And the material in the Order of Appointed Time came to twelve tractates.
  Afterwards, he divided the material in the Order of Women. And he started with Tractate Yevamot (Levirate Marriages); and the reason that required him to start with Yevamot and not to start with Tractate Ketubot (Marriage Contracts) – and the investigation of the intellect would adduce that it is fitting to have it precede – is rather because marriage is something that stands in the discretion of a man and his will, and [so] the court is not able to coerce a man until he marries a woman; but with levirate marriage, it is compelled to do it and to say to him, "Either release or [marry]." And starting with things that are compelled before things that are not compelled is correct and fitting. And therefore, he started with Yevamot.
  And he arranged Ketubot afterward.
  And after Ketubot is Nedarim (Vows); as the whole section of vows (in the Torah) and its examination is [about] the vows of women, as it is stated (Numbers 30:17), " between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter." And when the marriage is complete and the woman enters the marriage canopy, her husband has the authority to abrogate her vows. And because of this he made Nedarim adjacent to Ketubot.
  And after Nedarim, he arranged Nezirut (Nazirite Separation), because 'nezirut' is also in the category of vows, and when a woman vows to be a nazirite, her husband can abrogate [it]. And therefore, he arranged Nezirut after Nedarim.
  And when he finished speaking about marriages and that which follows from them regarding abrogation of vows, he began the topic of divorce – since divorce comes after marriage. And [so] he arranged Gittin [Divorce Bills] after Nezirut.
  And after Gittin is Sotah (Wayward Woman), as its subject is from the topic of divorces; as when the sotah is unfaithful, we must coerce the man and the woman regarding divorce, as I will explain in its place.
  And after Sotah, he arranged Kiddushin (Betrothals). And it should be asked here, "For what [reason] did he arrange Kiddushin last, and it would have been correct for it to be arranged before Ketubot?"
  And if you say that he did not arrange it before Ketubot in order to not separate between Yevamot and Ketubot – as their subject is one, and it is the matter of sexual relations – and that their words should be connected; yet if this was necessary, its redactor should nonetheless have written it after Gittin; so that it be in order; first Kiddushin, and after it Gittin, and their order would [then] be correct.
  And the answer would be that its order was made like this because it was his desire to go according to the order of Scripture, which had divorce precede marriage. And that is what the Holy One, blessed be He, said (Deuteronomy 24:1-2), "and he writes her a bill of divorce and he hands it to her[...] and she leaves his household and she becomes the wife of another man." And from His words that He stated, "and she becomes the wife of another man," we learned a chapter from the chapters of Kiddushin, as it is elucidated in the Talmud (Kiddushin 5a), "'Becoming' is compared to 'leaving.'" And the sections of the material in the Order of Women come to seven tractates.
  Afterwards, he divided the material in the Order of Damages, and he divided the first tractate into three parts. And he began with Bava Kamma (the First Gate) and its topic is speaking about [causes] of damage – for example, an ox, a pit, a destroyer (a fire or a grazing animal) – and the law of one who damages. And a judge is not allowed to have anything precede his removing damage from people; and because of that, he had it precede the other laws.
  And afterwards, Bava Metzia (the Middle Gate); and its topic is speaking about claims and deposits and rental agreements and the law of a borrower and a renter, and all that is fitting to connect with this topic – as Scripture did, since after the laws of the ox, the pit, the destroyer and "when men fight," it spoke about the four [types] of guardians (Exodus 21-22).
  And afterwards, Bava Batra (the Last Gate); and its topic is speaking about division of lands and the laws regarding families and neighbors and the nullification of buying and selling due to a blemish found in [the items], and speaking about sales and acquisitions and how it is appropriate to judge them, and guarantees and inheritances. And he arranged this section last because it is all received tradition and words of reasoning, and it is not elucidated in the Torah.  
  And when he made known the subject of the laws, he started to speak about the judges, the authors of the ordinances and of these laws. And [so] he arranged Sanhedrin (High Court) after Bava Batra.
  Indeed, Tractate Makkot is connected to Tractate Sanhedrin in some textual variants, and it is counted as part of it. And they said that because he said, "These are the ones strangulated" [near the end of Sanhedrin], he attached to it, "These are the ones lashed" [at the beginning of Makkot]; but this is not a true reason. [Rather], it is a tractate on its own. And it was made adjacent to Sanhedrin because the only people that have permission to punish and lash are the judges themselves, as Scripture stated (Deuteronomy 25:2), "the judge shall put him down and give him lashes in his presence, by count, according to his evil."  
  And after Makkot, he arranged Shevuot (Oaths) because there are similarities between the end of the tractate that preceded and the beginning of this tractate in their laws and judgements; and they are similar one to another, as is mentioned in the Talmud (Shevuot 2a). And he [also] connected it to that topic, since it is also about the acts of judges, as the only who can coerce [the taking of] an oath is a judge.
  And when he finished speaking about laws and judges and all that is unique to the acts of judges regarding disagreement and the obligation of oaths, he came to speak about the topic of testimonies (Eduyot) and the majority of the subject of this tractate is to remember in it all of the laws that were testified to by lucid, trustworthy people, whose testimony is worthy to rely upon. And this is a section of the laws, as testimonies must be recited in front of judges. And likewise, all testimony that they testified [in this tractate] was testified in the court. And he arranged it after Tractate Shevuot, because there is a constant need for Tractate Shevuot, [whereas] Eduyot are (proposals) [depositions] of words that they testified about in front of the judges at certain times, and [the judges] accepted them from them.
  Afterwards, he started to speak about idolatry, since its topic is a compulsory thing for a judge to know. And then he will be complete – when he will know the practices of those idolatries and their laws, and what is needed for them; and then he will know how to judge upon it. As anyone who worships the star of Saturn with the worship of the star of Venus or prays to the star of Jupiter with the prayer of Mars is not liable for death, as has come [down] from the clear received tradition. And he left this tractate for last because the matter of idolatry only occurs once in a thousand times at infrequent times.
  And when he finished everything that the judge would need, he started with Avot (Fathers). And he did this for two [reasons]:
  The [first] one is to inform that the consensus and the received tradition are true and correct; and that it was received [one generation] from [another]. And therefore, it is fitting to honor a sage of [the tradition] and to place him in an honored status, since the teaching came to him; and he is in his generation like those [sages of the tradition] in their generations. And so did they say (Rosh Hashanah 25a), "If we have come to call the court of Rabban Gamliel into question, etc." They said, "Shimshon in his generation was like Aharon in his generation; Yiftach in his generation was like Shmuel in his generation." And about this matter, there is a great ethical teaching for people: that they not say, "Why should we accept the judgement of x or the ordinance of Judge y?"
  And the matter is not like this, as judgement does not belong to Judge y, but rather to the Holy One, blessed be He, who commanded us about it, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 1:17), "for judgment is God’s." Hence it is all one judgement, and they received it one man from another through the passing generations.
  And the second matter is that he wanted to remember in this tractate the ethical teaching of each sage among the sages, peace be upon them, so that we learn the virtues from them. And there is no man that needs this thing more than the judges – as when unlearned people would not be masters of virtue, damage would not accrue to the masses, but rather only to [the person in question], but when a judge would not be a master of virtue and modest, he would damage himself and damage [others].
  Therefore the start of his words in Tractate Avot was judicial ethics, as he said, "Be deliberate in judgment." And the judge must be restrained by all of the matters that are in Tractate Avot – for example, that he be deliberate in judgement, and not be quick to execute a legal decision, as it is possible that there be a hidden matter in that case, as they said [about such a case], peace be upon them, "A deceitful case."
  And he should also not prolong the judgement when he he know that here is nothing hidden about it; as this is called oppression in judgement. And he should make efforts in interrogating the witnesses and to be careful  at the time of the interrogation that the witnesses not learn something form his words that will help their interest; and he should not teach a claim to [one of] the litigants – and this is called lawyering.  
  And he should not profane himself by the company of unlearned people, lest it be a disgrace. And he should not drop out of sight, to the point that people not be able to see him anytime they need him, lest the destitute get destroyed. And he should not seek rest and [physical] delights, lest the truth be destroyed, and [so that] desire not pull him away.
  And he should not want to go in front of his colleagues to judge [a case] and he should not force himself to be among the judges [about a case], lest he become suspect.
  And he needs to go above and beyond in all of his cases [to seek] compromise. And if he is able to not come to a legal decision all of his days, but [rather] make compromise between the two litigants, 'behold how good and how pleasant' [is this]. But if he cannot, then he should make a verdict.
  And he should not push, but [rather] he should give long periods of time to the litigant and allow him to plead for himself the whole day – and even though he is verbose and speaks depravity and idiocy.
  And if [the truth of a litigant's claim] is impossible according to that which appears from their claims, he should make the verdict immediately; as we see our rabbis doing regarding the tying of hands and the striking of the officer and lashing and punishing and the stripping of clothes and the tearing up of endorsed contracts, when they found that which obligated [them] to do this, and many similar to this. And [about that which is] similar to this commandment, they said (Sanhedrin 6b), "Let the judgement pierce the mountain." 
  And in general, the judge must be like an expert physician: As long as he can heal with foods, he will not heal with medications. But when he sees that the illness is strong and it is impossible for it to be healied with foods, he will heal with light medications that are close to the nature of food – for example, liquids and spiced or treated preserves. And if he sees that the illness gets stronger and that these things do not subdue it and are not the antidote, he goes back to heal it with strong medications and he makes him drink powerful medications, for example, 'sakmonia,' and that which is similar to it from the bitter and harsh medications. 
  So [too], the judge must take efforts to make a compromise. And if he cannot, he judges gently and he appeases the litigant with a soft word. And if he cannot [do this either] because of the cruelty of one of the litigants who wants to win with deception and violence, he should strengthen himself against him, and 'pound the evildoers below him.'
  And the judge needs to not greatly pursue the pleasures of the world and the love of wealth and rank, as Scripture stated (Exodus 18:21), "that hate profit." And they, peace be upon them, said (Ketubot 105b), "'By justice a king sustains the land, etc.' – if a judge is similar to to a king who does not need anything, he will sustain the land; but if he is similar to a priest who searches out the threshing floors, 'he will destroy it.'"
  And since it is apparent that the judge needs all these ethical teachings in order to discipline himself with them – if so, how pleasant and correct was the arrangement of Tractate Avot and everything that accompanies it after Tractate Sanhedrin; as [the former] includes all of these ethical teachings; and also added to them are other topics that bring to separation from the world and [from] the honor of the world and to growth and acts of straightness and fear [of God]. 
  And when he finished [discussing] judicial ethics, he started to elucidate [the proceedings in the case of] their mistakes – as it is impossible for anyone who has the nature of flesh and blood not to err and not to sin. And therefore he arranged Horayot (Legal Decisions) after Avot, and, with it, he concluded the Order of Damages. And the divisions of the material in Damages came to eight tractates.
  And afterwards, the divided the material regarding Holy Things, and he began with sacrifices of the priests, which [comprise] Tractate Zevachim (Slaughterings).
  And after Zevachim is Menachot (Meal Offerings), as is their order in the Torah.
  And when he finished the topic of the slaughterings of holy things and that which accompanies them, he spoke about the topic of the slaughter of the other slaughterings, according to the order of Scripture. As behold, after it stated (Deuteronomy 12:11), "And it shall be the place that the Lord chooses[...], there will you bring, etc.," it stated (Deuteronomy 12:15), "But whenever you desire, you may slaughter and eat meat." And [so] he brought Chullin (Profane Things) after Menachot. 
  And after Chullin is Bekhorot (Firstlings), likewise according to the order of Scripture; as after it stated, "But whenever you desire," it stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your settlements of the tithes of your grain or wine or oil, or of the firstlings of your herds and flocks."
  And when he finished speaking about the topics of the holy things, he arranged the monies of assessments, as they are also holy. And [so] he brought Arakhin (Assessments) after Bekhorot.
  And after Arakhin is Temurah (Exchange), likewise according to the order of Scripture.
  And when he finished speaking about all of these categories, he brought afterward Tractate Keritot (Excisions). And in it, he spoke about all of the commandments that bring an obligation of excision [if one transgresses them], and all that accompanies that topic. And the reason because of which he arranged this category in Holy Things is because anything that has an obligation of excision for its volitional transgression, has an obligation of a sin-offering for its accidental comission, with little exception, as will be elucidated there.
  And after Keritot, he brought Meilah (Misappropriation), as the things for which one is obligated for misappropriation are less severe than the ones for which one is obligated a sin offering.
  And he brought Tractate Tamid (Perpetual [Sacrifice]) after Tractate Meilah. And he left it for the end because there is not [any] talk about the way of wisdom or about the forbidden and about the permissible in it. Rather, it is a description that speaks about how they would offer the perpetual (daily) sacrifice, in order to do so perpetually.
  And after Tamid, he brought Middot (Measurements). And its only topic is a description of the measurement of the Temple and its shape and its building. And all of the topic and the purpose of this category is so that when the Temple will be built  – soon, in our days – there is a need to preserve and to [replicate] that model, and its shapes and its forms and its size; because it was given with the holy spirit, as it states (I Chronicles 28:19), "All this that the Lord made me understand by His hand on me, I give you in writing."
  And when he finished speaking about the animal sacrifices and everything that accompanies them and the shape of the House within which we sacrifice them, he arranged Tractate Kinnim (Nests) after it. And there is no topic in this tractate besides speaking about mixtures of birds when bird sacrifices would get mixed up, these with those. And he left this topic for last because it is not definitive, since it is possible that they will get mixed up or [that] they will not get mixed up; and also the talk about it is very little, as will be elucidated in its place. And with them, he concluded the Order of Holy Things, and the sections of the material in the Order of Holy Things came to eleven tractates.
  Afterwards, he divided the material in Purities, and he started with Tractate Kelim (Vessels). And its topic is to group all of the main categories of impurity and to remember all that acquires impurity and that does not acquire impurity – as when it reminds us [of] that which acquires impurity, we will know all of the things that acquire impurity and that do not acquire impurity.
  And he brought Oholot (Tents) after Kelim, and its topic is to speak about the impurity of a corpse. And he had this tractate precede, since it is the most severe of all of the impurities.
  And after it is Negaim (Blemishes), and its topic is that it speaks about the blemishes of tsaraat (a type of skin disease) – as one with tsaraat gives off impurity in a tent, and it has some similarity to the impurity of a corpse, as will be elucidated in its place.
  And when he finished [with the] impurity of a corpse and that which is similar to it, he came to speak about the topic of purification – and that is [effected by] the red cow (heifer). And [so,] he brought Tractate Parah (Cow) after Negaim.
  And when he finished speaking about severe impurities and the nature and manner of their purification, he spoke about the topic of the lighter impurities that only [require] the setting of the sun [before they can be purified]; and [so,] he arranged Tractate Tahorot (Purities) after Parah. And he called its name Tahorot as a euphemism, as the talk in it is about the purification of impurity; and also since knowledge of impurities requires [one] to know the topic of purity.  
  And lest one will think that the matter of calling the name of the Order, the Order of Purities, and that he called one tractate from it, Purities, is a glitch of the author's – we say that it is not a glitch for the sages of logic to call the specific category by the name of the general category that includes it.
  And when he finished [the topic of] severe impurities and the manner of their becoming pure and he spoke about the lighter impurities, he brought afterwards the laws of purification; and [so,] he arranged Mikvaot (Ritual Baths) after Tahorot. 
  And he left Niddah (Menstruant Woman) after all of these [other] impurities because it is not a general impurity for all of the human species. And [so], he arranged Niddah after Mikvaot.
  And after Niddah is Makhshirin (Preparations). And the correct thing would have been to arrange Niddah after Zavim (People with Discharges), but he had Makhshirin precede Zavim like Scripture had it precede – as behold preparations [for impurity] are in Parshat (Vayehi Bayom Ha)Shmini, and people with discharges are in Parshat (Zot Tihiye Torat Ha)Metzora.
  And after Zavim is Tevul Yom (One Immersed that Day) as Scripture stated (Leviticus 15:32), "This is the law concerning he who has a discharge and he who has an emission of semen." And all of these initial impurities include the body; meaning to say when a person contacts them, all of his body becomes impure. And because of this, he [now] came to speak about the impurity of each and every limb, on its own. 
  And [so,] he arranged Yadayim (Hands) after Tevul Yom.
  And after Yadayim is Oktzin (Stems). And he left it for last, because they extrapolated it by the ways of reasoning and it does not have any source in Scripture [itself]. And with it did he conclude his book. And the divisions of the material in Tahorot came to twelve tractates.
  And the number of all of the tractates of the Mishnah were sixty-one and the chapters, five hundred and twenty-three.
  
  Section 16
  
  Afterwards, he saw [fit] to suffice with the names of those that received [the tradition] of those close [in time] to him, [starting] from Shimon the Righteous. And his words in the Mishnah were terse words that included many matters. And it was all lucid to him, due to the sharpness of his intellect – though for someone less than him, the content is complex in his eyes – as the early sages would only write for themselves.
  Therefore, one of his students saw [fit] – and that is Rabbi Chiya – to compose a book and to follow after his teacher in it, and to explain what had become garbled in the words of his teacher. And that is the Tosefta, and its purpose is to elucidate the Mishnah. And it is possible to extrapolate the Tosefta's explanation from the Mishnah [itself] after great exertion, but he extrapolated them to teach us how to engender and bring out matters from the Mishnah. And so [too] did Rabbi Oshaya.
  And Rav composed the Bereita – and it is Sifra and Sifrei. And [also] many others [did the same]; like they said, "When Rabbi x came, he brought a teaching in his hand."
  And nonetheless, these [texts] were not smooth like the words of the Mishnah, and their matter was not as organized or terse in their words. And therefore it – I mean to say the Mishnah – was the main [text] and all of the [other] compositions go up after it and are secondary to it, and it is the most honored by all. And when they compared it to those compositions, 'the maidens saw her and acclaimed her.'
  And everyone that came after this honored composition only came to devote his attention and effort to reflecting upon the words of the Mishnah. And one generation after another did not cease from reflecting upon it, and investigating and explaining it – every sage according to his wisdom and his understanding.
  And they disagreed about the explanation of some laws in it, due to the many years [that intervened]. And there was no group [of sages] that did not reflect on the Mishnah and reveal novel understandings and make comparisons to other matters, until it came the time of Ravina and Rav Ashi, who were the last of the sages of the Talmud. And Rav Ashi secluded himself to compose the Talmud and saw [fit] for himself to do for all the words of those that came after our Holy Rabbi, what our Holy Rabbi had done for the words of all that came after Moshe. 
  And he included all of the words of the speakers and the intellect of those that reflect and the explanations of the commentators, and collected them; and he compressed it all with his wisdom and with the straightforward soul and honor for wisdom that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him, and he composed the Talmud.
  And his intention with it was four things:
  And the [first] was the explanation of the Mishnah and everything that came out of it, which encompasses many matters of disagreement among the commentators and the claim of each commentator against his fellow and the exhibition of the true claim; and that was the first of the intentions that he intended.
  And the second was [to establish] the legal decision with one of the two disputants that disagreed about the words of the Mishnah or its explanation or novel understandings that developed from it and became attached to it. 
  And the third is regarding novel matters that the sages of each generation extrapolated from the Mishnah; and the exhibition of the essence and the proofs that the teachers of the Mishnah taught and relied upon in their words in the Mishnah, such that their words were Ordered as they were Ordered; and the ordinances and decrees made after the Holy Rabbi until this author.
  And the fourth is [the inclusion of] homilies (<i>drashot</i>) that are fitting according to the topic of each section that happens to have a homily.
  And [about] this fourth matter – I mean to say the homily that is found in the Talmud – it is not fitting to think its value to be little and its purpose to be lacking. Rather there is great understanding in it, as it contains amazing riddles and beautiful wonders. 
  As when one observes these homilies with intellectual observation, [matters] of the true good – about which there is nothing higher – are understood from them. And from them are revealed theological matters and true things that the men of wisdom would keep away and did not want to reveal, and all that the philosophers attained over the generations. And if you glance at it according to its simple meaning, you will see matters about which nothing is farther from the intellect than them.  
  And they did this thing for wondrous ends: One of them it to sharpen the ideas of their students and to draw their hearts. 
  And also to blind the eyes of fools who will never illuminate their hearts. And if they had shown them the illumination of truths, they would have turned their faces [away] from them, according to the shortcomings of their natures. As it is stated about them and those similar to them, "We do not reveal the secret to them" – because their intellect is not complete in order to accept the truths with according clarity.
  And likewise, some of the sages did not want to reveal the secrets of wisdom to some [other sages]. And they already mentioned (Chagigah 13a) that an honored man of the sages initiated with men who were experts in the wisdom of the Story of Creation (<i>maaseh bereishit</i>) whereas he was an expert in the Story of the Chariot  (<i>maaseh merkavah</i>): He said to them, "Teach me the Story of Creation and I will teach you the Story of the Chariot"; and they said to him, "The  matter is good." And when they taught him the Story of Creation, he abstained from teaching them the Story of the Chariot. 
  And God forbid that he did this because of an evil heart to prevent [them from] wisdom or to have an advantage over them; as these traits are ugly in one of the silly ones – all the more so, with these honored pious ones. Rather, he did this thing because he saw himself to be fitting to receive that which was with them and that they were not fitting to receive that which was with him.
  And he brought the words of Shlomo about this matter (Song of Songs 4:11), "honey and milk under your tongue." And they, peace be upon them, explained and said that the sweet wisdoms that a soul finds pleasant – just like the palate finds honey and milk pleasant – must be hidden; and they should not be spoken about and they should not be raised to the lips or tongue in any fashion. And this is [the meaning of] what he said, "under your tongue" – that these matters are not from what is fitting to teach and to analyze in the gatherings of wisdom.
  And nonetheless, they should hint hidden hints in writing. And when the Holy One, blessed be He, removes the mask of foolishness from the heart of the one that He wants – after he has exerted himself and accustomed himself to wisdoms – then he will understand [something] of them, according to his wisdom.
  And a person has no [access] to wisdom and its pursuit and its efforts, but rather [must] leave its realm to the Creator and pray to Him and supplicate that He make him understand it and teach him and reveal to him the hidden secrets of Scripture; as we found with David, peace be upon him, who did this when he said (Psalms 119:18), "Open my eyes, that I may perceive the wonders of Your Torah." And when the Holy One, blessed be He, opens the eyes of a person and shows him what He shows him, it is fitting for him to conceal it, as we have said. 
  And if he hints to them, he should hint [only[ slightly to one who has a complete intellect and is known [as a man of] truth, as they elucidated and revealed in many episodes in the Talmud. And hence, it is not fitting for a wise man to reveal that which he has known from the secrets, except to someone who is greater than him or like him. As if he reveals it to a fool, even if [the latter] will not disdain it, it will not find favor in his eyes. And hence the sage said (Proverbs 23:9), "Do not speak to a fool, for he will disdain your sensible words."
  And also as teaching to the masses requires that it be by way of a riddle and a parable – so that it includes the women, the youths and the children before their intellects mature; and then they will reflect upon and comprehend the matters of these hints. And about this matter, Shiomo, peace be upon him, hinted when he said (Proverbs 1:6), "To understand a proverb and an expression, the words of the wise and their riddles."
  And on account of these causes, the sages, peace be upon them, arranged their words in homilies – in a manner that will push off the intellect of the fool, according to his thinking. 
  And it is not fitting to attribute the lack to that homily, but rather one should think that the lack comes from his intellect. And when he sees one of their parables that is very hard to comprehend even its simple meaning, it is fitting for him to be very perturbed by his intellect that did not understand the matter – to the point that there would be a lack in matters of faith, that it be completely foreign in his eyes. As behold, minds have meliority – one over the other – according to the meliority of temperaments. And [just] like we find the temperament of one man to be more straight then another man, so [too], the intellect of one man is more complete than the intellect of another man.
  And there is no doubt that the intellect of one who knows an illustrious thing is not like the intellect of one is [trying to] comprehend that thing. As the one is called actual intellect and the [other] is called potential intellect. And because of this, there are things that are absolutely true and lucid in the eyes of some men; and for another man, they are foreign and impossible – in accordance with [their] level of wisdom.
  And behold, I will give you a lucid parable: For example, if we would ask one of the learned men of medicine and mathematics and music who is swift in natural science and wise and learned, but he is uninitiated and devoid of the wisdom of geometry and astronomy, and we would say to him, "What do you say about a man who claims that the mass of the sun that we see as if it is a small circle, and he says that it is the mass of a sphere and the size of that sphere is one hundred and sixty six and three eighths (166.375) times the size of the sphere of the earth; and that the sphere of the earth according to which we have made these measurements is a sphere the circumference of which is twenty-four thousand (Roman) miles"; and that in this way, he be able to come to know how many miles there are in the measurement of the size of the sphere of the sun, 
  there is no doubt that this man of clear thought who is learned in all of the wisdoms that we said will not find it in himself to maintain such a belief, and all of this will be far-fetched in his eyes and unfathomable.
  And his learned question that will come to him at first thought is that this claim is null; as how is it possible for a man standing on one (small) measure of the earth to know the size of the mass of the sun and its circumference and the measure of its surface, until his mind encompasses it, [just] like it encompasses the measurement of a part of the earth?
  And he will also say, "How is this possible? And behold, the mass of the sun is extremely far, and even the correct sight of the mass of the sun is impossible for us; and we only perceive its radiance alone. And how can a man come to the level that he is able to measure it and be exact in its measurement to three eighths [of a Roman mile]? This thing is worthless like nothing else." And there will be no doubt in his heart that this claim is null and that it cannot be. 
  But when he accustoms himself to the study of the books of measurements and the wisdoms of what is fit – spheres and the rest of values that are evaluated one against the other – and he goes from there to the organized book about this matter and that which is similar to it – I mean to say, the well-known book of the properties of the planets: the book of Almagest – then this claim will become clear to him and it will be considered a true claim that has no doubt and that has proof to it.
  And there will be no difference for him between the mass of the sun being this size and the sun existing. And his mind will accustom itself to believe the thing that if first strongly pushed off and he will [now] believe it with complete belief.
  Behold this can be. And we did not agree about this man to whom we asked this matter that he should be lacking from the other wisdoms, but [rather] that he be well learned and of a clear nature and wise; and that the question that we asked him be from the questions of scholastics, which is a [only] step through which to get to theology.
  All the more so will the matter be with one who has no wisdom at all and has not accustomed himself to any of the ways of scholastic wisdom, but [rather] 'has gone from the intellect of his mother to the intellect of his wife,' when we ask him one of the theological questions that are hidden in the homilies. There is no doubt that they [will be] far-fetched in his eyes, like the distance of the heavens from the earth, and his mind will be too small to understand any part of them.
  And therefore it is fitting that we judge these homilies favorably and that we investigate them well. And we should not hasten to distance any of their matters, but [rather] when one of their words is far-fetched in our eyes, we should train ourselves in the wisdoms until we can understand their content in that thing – if our hearts can encompass this great thing. As behold, the sages – even though they had a desire to learn and they were good in thought and effort, the company of pious and honored men and the distancing of everything that there is in the world – would attribute the lack to themselves, when they evaluated themselves according to [those who were] before them.
  And that is [the meaning of] what they said (Eruvin 53b), "The hearts of the early ones are like the opening of a hall, and of the later ones are [not] even like a needle for crevices."
  And all the more so, us; as wisdom has disappeared from us. And [it is] like the prophet informed us (Isaiah 29:14), "And the wisdom of its wise shall fail, and the understanding of its sage shall vanish" – the verse identified each one of us with four things: weakness of intellect; strengthening of desire; laziness in seeking wisdom and alacrity in benefit from the world – 'the four bad afflictions.' And how can we not attribute the lack to ourselves when we evaluate [ourselves in comparison] to them?
  And since they, peace be upon them, knew about this matter that all of their words were clear and immaculate and that there was no dross in them, they commanded about them and warned that a person should not mock them. And they said (Gittin 57b), "Anyone who mocks the words of the sage is judged in burning excrement, etc." – and you do not have any greater burning excrement than the foolishness that brought him to mock [them].
  And therefore, you will not ever find one who distances their words except for a man seeking desire and who gives precedence to tangible pleasures, who has not enlightened his heart with any of the bright lights.
  And since they knew the truth of their words, they spent all of their days in this occupation, and commanded to pore over it all of the night and part of the day, and considered it to be the end of wisdom. And so it is.
  And they said (Berakhot 8a), "The Holy One, blessed be He, only has in His world the four cubits of the law (halakha) alone." And put your heart to this thing – since if you examine it according to its simple meaning, you will find it very far from the truth; as if the four cubits of the law alone are the appropriate focus and the other wisdoms and traits are thrown behind His back. And at the time of Shem and Ever and after it, when there was no halakha, can we say the there is no share in the world to the Holy One, blessed be He, at all?
  But if you investigate this matter intellectually, you will see in it a wonderful thing from the wisdoms, and it will add a great principle about the disciplines. And I will elucidate them for you in order that it be an example for the rest of what comes to your hand. And hence, place your heart to it as is fit.
  
  Section 17
  
  Know that the ancients investigated a great investigation – in that they were given wisdom and proper thought – until it became established for them that everything that exists, perforce, requires a purpose for which it has its existence. As it is not for an empty thing that what exists, exists.
  And when this general rule became established for them, they began to discern all of what exists to know the purpose of all of the species in existence.
  And they saw that anything that exists which is crafted – [by which] I mean to say it was made for a craft (for a specific use) – its purpose is known and there is no need to investigate about that thing; since the craftsman would not not do the work unless its purpose was sketched in [his] heart.
  And the example of this is like it is said that the blacksmith only makes a saw after he has thought in his heart how he can separate the wood's bonds, until the form of the saw becomes revealed to his heart and he begins to make it in order to cut with it. If so, we know that the intention of the saw is to raise it to the wood (to cut it); and the intention of the axe is to [chop] with it; and the intention of the needle is to connect one garment with another garment; and [so, too] with all things that exist, the existence of which is crafted.
  But that which was created by Divine crafting and natural wisdom – for example, types of trees and grasses and types of quarries in the ground and types of stones and types of animals – there are some of them for which the purpose of their existence is hidden and no one knows it at all; unless it is made known by prophecy or with the power to know the future, but it is impossible with rational investigation. 
  [This is] because it is not within man's ability to investigate to the point that he will understand and know for what reason nature produced some ants with wings and some without wings; and the reason it also produced [insects] with many legs and others with few legs; and what is the purpose of this [insect] and that ant.
  But with things that are larger than this – [that] their action is more revealed – however, the advantage of the men of wisdom in knowing the purpose of their creation is revealed. And according to one being wiser and [more] impassioned and of clear thought, so will his knowledge be more complete.
  And therefore, when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to Shlomo the wisdom He promised him, he knew from the secrets of the creation of these types that are possible for a person to know, [but only] inasmuch as he is a person. 
  And he spoke about the purpose of the creation of trees and grasses and types of life, as Scripture stated (I Kings 5:13), "He spoke about trees, from the cedar in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of the wall; and he spoke about beasts, birds, creeping things, and fishes." And this was testimony that he had a Divine spirit within him. And it stated afterward, "And they came from all of the nations to hear Solomon’s wisdom."
  However, in general, one should know that all of what exists under the sphere of the moon came into existence only for man.
  And [with regards to] all types of animals, there are some of them for his food – like sheep and cattle and the rest of them; and there are some for his use, for [things] other than foods – like the donkey to carry upon it that which he cannot bring in his hand, and horses to reach with them the path of a long journey in a few days; and there are types of them that we do not know their purpose, but they have a use for man and we [just] don't recognize [it].  
  And so [too with] trees and plants: some of them are for his food and some of them are for his healing from his illnesses; and so [too with] grasses and other species.
  And [regarding] everything that you find from the animals and the plants that does not have a use [for] nourishment, and there is no [other use] for it according to your thinking, know that this thing is from the weakness of our intellects. And it is impossible for any grass or for any fruit of for any type of animal – from the elephants to the worms – that it not have a use for man. And the proof to this is that, behold, in each and every generation, grasses and types of fruit that were not known to those before us are revealed to us, and they have great uses.
  And it is not in the ability of man for his mind to encompass the use of every plant of the earth. However, the matter becomes revealed over the generations, by means of experimentation. 
  However if you will say, why were the lethal plants created – for example the grass that is called <i>byish</i> and 'blood grass' – which a man can die from and they do not have a use; it is fitting for you to know that they do have a use. For if they kill when [people] eat it, they do not kill when they use it as a salve on the surface of the body. And when you recognize that there is great use for man in the viper and in the snakes, all the more so [should we expect usefulness] from that which are less damaging than they.
  And when they found that the purpose of all of these matters was for the existence of man, we needed to likewise investigate why man exists and what was the intention of his creation.
  And when they spent much time investigating this matter, they found that man has very many activities. As, behold, all types of animals and trees have only one activity or two activities; just as we see that palm trees have no activity besides putting out dates, and so [too with] the other trees. And so [too with] the animals, you will find among them one that only weaves like the spider and one that builds like the <i>shemaimit</i> – which is small wild bird that nests in homes during the hot season – and one that devours like the lion.  
  But man does many actions – one differing from the other. And they investigated his activities – [each] activity – to know the purpose of his creation, from these activities. And they found that his purpose is one activity alone, and that because of it, he was created. And the rest of his activities are to maintain his support so that he perfect himself in that activity.
  And that activity is to depict for himself the intellectual secrets and to know the truths, according to what they are. As it is to be reasoned that it be worthless and false that the purpose of man is for eating and drinking and sexual intercourse or to build a wall, since all of these events that recur to him do not add to his inner power; and also since he shares this with most of the animals.
  And wisdom is that which adds to his inner power and takes him from the level of disgrace to the level of honor – as behold, he was a man in potential and he became a man in actuality, [since] before man understands and knows, he is considered like an animal. He is only distinguished from other types of animals by [his] reasoning – as he is [unique in being] a reasoning life-form – meaning to say through the reasoning with which he depicts ideas to himself.
  And the most honored of the ideas to depict to himself is the unity of the Holy One, blessed be He, and all that accompanies that matter from the theological. As the other wisdoms are only to train him in them, until he reaches the knowledge of Divinity. And discussion about this to its end would be very lengthy.
  However the depiction of ideas necessitates the distancing of most bodily pleasures; as the beginning of understanding will depict that the ruin of the soul [comes] from the enhancement of the body, and the enhancement of the soul [comes] from the ruin of the body.
  As when a man pursues desires and increases the physical over the intellectual and turns his intellect to his desires until, he returns to being like an animal that only depicts for itself eating, drinking and intercourse, the Divine power [in man] – meaning to say, the intellect – is no longer known.
  And he then returns to being as if he were a reduced and lowly creature in a sea of hyle – and the explanation of a sea of hyle is emptiness (<i>tohu</i>). And it has become clear from these introductions that the purpose of the world and all that is in it is the wise and good man. 
  And when it becomes clear to a man that he is from the type of men that are of mind and deed – I mean to say with mind, to depict with his intellect the truth of things according to what they are, and to grasp all that is possible for a man to grasp; and the deed is the enhancement and regulation of the natural things and that he not be drowning in [physical] pleasures and that he not partake of them except for that which is for the care of his body and the regulation of all the character traits – and so, the man that accords with this is the purpose and the aspiration.
  And this thing is not known only from the prophets, but [rather] the sages of the transitory nations that did not see the prophets nor hear their wisdom – they too – already knew that a man is not complete unless he encompasses mind and deed.
  And let the words of the famous sage among the philosophers who said, "God desires from us to be pious wise men," be enough for you. As when a man is a wise sage that pursues desires, he is not truly a sage; since the beginning of wisdom requires that a person not partake of bodily indulgences, except that which is for the care of the needs of his body. And when we explain Tractate Avot, we will complete this matter and elucidate it according to what is fit.
  And so [too] have we found that the prophet accuses and considers a sin the one who boasts that he is a sage that rebels against a commandment and pursues his personal desire. And this is [the meaning] of what he said (Jeremiah 8:8), "How can you say, 'We are sages, and the Torah of the Lord is with us'"?
  And so [too], if a man is likewise a servant [of God] and a nazarene and pushes off indulgences besides what is needed for the care of his body and he goes in all of the natural ways according to the straight path and he attaches himself to all of the pleasant traits but does not have wisdom, this one too is lacking completeness. But he is more complete than the first – still, the deeds that he does are not in the correct way and the true path. 
  Therefore the sages said (Avot 2:5), "A boor cannot fear sin and an ignorant person cannot be pious," as we have elucidated. And anyone who says about an ignorant person that he is pious belies the sages, who were most definitive about this matter. And he likewise belies the intellect.
  And therefore you find the command in all of the Torah, "and study them[...] and do them," bringing wisdom before action. As, with wisdom, he will arrive at [proper] action, but with [proper] action, he will not arrive through it to wisdom. And this is [the meaning] of that which they, peace be upon them, said (Kiddushin 40b) that study brings [one] to [proper] action. 
  But there remains one question, and that is that a man could say, you have already said that the Divine wisdom did not create a thing for naught, but rather for substance; and that of all of the creations under the sphere of the moon, the most glorious of all of them is man; and that the purpose of man is to depict ideas for himself. But if so, why did the Holy One, blessed be He, create all the people that do not depict ideas for themselves?
  And we see that most people are bereft of cunning and devoid of wisdom [and] seek desire; and that the wise man who reviles the world, he is [only] one of many – you will only find one in a generation, among the generations. 
  The answer to this is that these people came into existence for two reasons: The first is that they serve that one [that is wise]. As were all the people to pursue wisdom and philosophy, the care of the world would be obliterated and [this] species of animal would become lost from the world in a few days.
  Since man is very lacking and would need many things, he would have to study plowing and reaping and to thresh and to grind and to bake and to fasten tools for these crafts in order to complete the production of his sustenance with them. And so [too], he would need to study spinning and weaving in order to weave that which he wears; and to study building to build a place in which to have shelter; and to make the tools for all of these crafts. And there is not enough in the life [span] of Methushelach to study all of these crafts that a man perforce requires for his livelihood. And when would he find free time to study and to acquire wisdom?
  Therefore, these other people came into existence to take care of these activities that are required for the country, such that the sage will find his needs at hand and that the earth will be inhabited and wisdom be found.
  And how well-spoken was the one that said, "Were it not for the lunatics, the world would remain barren." And there is no lunacy in the world comparable to the lunacy of man – as he is weak in his soul and of slight physique and he travels from the beginning of the second district of the seven districts of inhabitation to the end of the sixth; and he crosses seas in the wintertime and goes through arid lands in the dry season and the summer, and puts himself in danger from the animals of the field and from snakes in order to earn dinars (money).
  When he gathers all of the golden coins for which he sold the strength of his complete soul and he [acquires] a portion from them, he begins to divide them among the craftsmen to build him a foundation upon the [bedrock] of the earth with plaster and stones in order to put up a wall upon it that will stand many years. And [yet] he knows that there do not remain in the years of his life that which would wear out a building made from reeds. Is there [any other] idiocy and lunacy like this?
  And so [too], all of the pleasures of the world are wildness and complete silliness, yet they are the cause for the inhabitation of the earth. And therefore, the sages, peace be upon them, called one who does not have wisdom, 'people of the earth (<i>am haarets</i>),' meaning to say that they only come into existence for the inhabitation of the earth. Therefore they associated their name with the earth.
  And if a man will say that behold, we see an idiot and fool and he is disengaged from the world – he does not exert himself in it and others serve him and busy themselves with his affairs; and it is [even] possible that the one that runs his affairs is a wise and sage man – the matter is not like one might think, since the leisure of this fool likewise makes and prepares this bounty for the man that the Creator desires to give it to.
  And even though he rests because of his abundant money or property, he commands his servants to build a palace that is of perfect beauty and to plant a notable vineyard like the kings and all who are similar to them do. And it is possible that this palace is prepared for a pious man who will come at the end of days and be sheltered one day by the shade of one of these walls and it will be the cause through which he will be saved from death. [It is] as it is stated (Job 27:17), An evildoer "prepares [it], but the righteous wears [it]."
  Or they will take a cup of wine from that vineyard to make a balm called <i>taryaka</i> from it and a pure and complete man bitten by a viper will escape death through it. And this is the practice of the Holy One, blessed be He and His wisdom, in which he uses nature for 'distant plans, [like] the work of a master craftsman.'
  And the sages, peace be upon them, elucidated this matter (Berakhot 58a): [They] said that Ben Zoma would stand upon the Temple mount and would see Israel going up to celebrate and say, "Blessed is the One that created all these to serve me," as he, peace be upon him, was singular in his generation.
  And the second reason for the existence of one who has no wisdom is because men of wisdom are very few, and this thing is required by Divine wisdom. And when it was required by the primordial wisdom, one cannot say, "Why was it so?" Just like one cannot ask why there are nine spheres and seven planets and four fundamental elements, as all of these and that which functions like them, were required to be that way by the first existence.
  And the sages, peace be upon them, already elucidated this, and Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said about the men of his generation – and even though most of them were honorable – (Sukkah 45b), "I have seen the sons of ascent and they are few. [...] If they are two, they are me and my son." And therefore, the masses were created to give company to the sages, that they not be desolate.
  And maybe you will think that this purpose is small, yet it is more necessary and fitting than the first. As behold, the Holy One, blessed be He, maintained evildoers in the Land of Israel in order to give them company and to remove desolation from the pious souls. This is [the meaning of] that which is stated (Exodus 23:29), "I will not drive them out before you in a single year, lest the land become desolate."
  And the sages explained this matter also and said (Berakhot 6b), "What is 'for this is all of man' (Ecclesiastes 12:13)? The whole world was only created to join with this one" – the explanation [of which] is, to remove sadness and desolation from His solitary one.
  And, if so, it has become elucidated from all that we have said that the intention in the creation of all that there is in the present and transitory world is only for the man who is complete in wisdom and in deed, as we said. And when you reflect and study these two matters from their words, peace be upon them – I mean to say wisdom and deed – from that which they elucidated and hinted, you will know that what they said, "The Holy One, blessed be He, only has in His world the four cubits of the law (halakha) alone," was correct.
  And we have [digressed] from the matter that we were involved in. But I brought [up] these things because they edify faith and stimulate the pursuit of wisdom, and they are not trifling, according to what I see.
  And behold, I return to our topic. And when Rav Ashi finished writing the composition of the Talmud according to what it is, the greatness of his composition and its powerful utility were testimony 'that the spirit of the Holy God was in him.'
  And that which is found in the composition of Rav Ashi in the Talmud is thirty-five tractates. And we only found something in the Order of Seeds (Zeraim) on Berakhot alone. [And we do not find anything] on Tractate Shekalim in the Order of Appointed Time (Moed), and [also] not on Tractate Eduyot in the Order of Damages (Nezikin) and [also] not on Tractate Middot and Tractate Kinnim in the Order of Holy Things (Kodashim). And we also only found Tractate Niddah alone in the Order of Purities (Tohorot).
  Afterwards Rav Ashi passed away in Babylonia – after he finished the Talmud, as we mentioned.
  And so [too], did the sages of the Land of Israel do what Rav Ashi did – they wrote the Jerusalem Talmud (Yerushalmi); and its author was Rabbi Yochanan. And the Jerusalem Talmud is found to be five complete orders.
  But there is not found Talmud on the Order of Purities in any manner – not in the Bavli and not in Yerushalmi – except for Tractate Niddah, as we have mentioned. However a person can explain that Order after great exertion and toil and can have the Tosefta and the bereitot assist him; and he can collect all of the laws that come on this topic in all of the Talmud and produce in his mind the essential principles of the tractates and their topics from these laws, as you will see that we will explain in that Order, with God's help.
  And when all of the sages, peace be upon them, died – the last of which [were] Ravina and Rav Ashi – and the Talmud was already finished, the goal of the intention and all of the wherewithal of all who came after it, was only to understand their words that they wrote. And one should not add to it nor take away from it.
  And the Geonim (early post-Talmudic scholars) wrote many commentaries, but not one of them was able to complete a commentary of the whole Talmud according to his opinion. There are those that were prevented by the shortness of the days of his life, and some of them that were prevented by the affairs of men in [adjudicating] their legal cases.
  And many of them wrote compositions of legal decisions – some of them in the Arabic language and some of them in the Holy Tongue – for example, the Halakhot Gedolot, the Halakhot Katanot, the Halakhot Pesukot, the Halakhot of Rav Acha of Shabacha, and the other ones.
  But the Halakhot that the great Rabbi Yitschak (Alfasi), may his memory be blessed, produced, suffices in place of all of those compositions. As [the former] includes all of the purpose of the legal decisions and laws that one needs in, this, our times – [by which] I mean to say the time of the exile. And there in his legal decisions, he elucidated all of the mistakes that were found in those that were before him. And there is only an objection against him in a few laws – they do not [even] reach ten, in any event. 
  But the commentaries that are found by all the Geonim make known the preeminence of each one according to the preeminence of the intellects of their authors. And the wise man who looks into the Talmud is able to understand the intellect of each and every Gaon from his words and from his explanations. 
  And when the time came to us, we followed the custom of those that passed regarding investigation and interpretation and effort according to our ability, in order to recieve what we hope will benefit in reward from the Creator. And [so], I collected everything that came to my hand of the explantions of my master, my father – may his memory be blessed – and others, unitl our teacher, Rabbi Yosef HaLevi. Since the heart of that man in the Talmud is startling to the one that looks at his words and the depth of his intellect in investigation, unitl it can almost be said about him, 'and there was no king like him before him' in his way and approach. And I also gathered what I found of his laws in what he explained to himself; and also explanations that appreared [correct] to me according to the weakness of our ability, and that which we have learned from wisdom. And I have composed a commentary in three Orders: Moed, Nashim and Nezikin, besides four tractates which I now plan to compose but have not found the time to speak about.
  And I likewise composed a commentary on Chullin due to the great need for it. And this is the pursuit that we have been involved in with all of the investigations that we have been investigating. And afterward, I found [fit] to write a composition about the Mishnah, since there is a great need for it, according to the matter that I will elucidate in the end of my words [here]. 
  
  
  Section 18
  
  And that which called me to write this composition is that which I saw that the Talmud does to the Mishnah something which is impossible to arrive at by reasoning ever. As it brings fundamental principles and it says that this mishnah is testifying about such and such a matter, that this mishnah is lacking words and the correction of the words should be like so, or that this mishnah is from x and his opinion is such; and it also adds to its words and removes from them and reveals its reasons. And I saw that when [the present] composition will be done on all of the Mishnah according to the matter that I will elucidate, four great purposes will [be accomplished].
  The one is that we teach the correct explanation of the Mishnah and the meaning of its words. As if you were to ask the greatest of the Geonim about the explanation of a law of the Mishnah, he would not be able to tell you anything unless the knew the Talmud of that law by heart; or he would say to you, "I will see that which is [written] about it in the words of the Talmud." As it is not possible for a man – unless he is an expert in reseach – to know all of the Talmud by heart; and all the more so in that one law of the Mishnah is explained in four or five pages – since one matter leads to another and [to] arguments and objections and rebuttals – to the point that he will not know [how] to choose the concise [conclusion] from the [Talmud's] explanation of the Mishnah.
  And behold, what will he do about a law the explanation and legal decision of which is only completed in two or three tractates?
  And the second purpose is the decisions, since I will tell you in the explanation of each law, according to [which of the various opinions] is the law.
  And the third goal is to be like an introduction to anyone who is a beginner to the research of wisdom. And he can gather from it a path to check speech and its clarification, and he will then be like one who encompasses all of the Talmud in his mind. And it will be a great assistance to him in all of the Talmud.
  And the fourth goal is that it be a mnemonic for the one who [studied] and knew [the Talmud, such that] all that he read will always be present in front of his eyes, and his [knowledge of] Mishnah and Talmud will be arranged in his mouth.
  And when I depicted these matters to myself, 'I shook my garment' (hastened) to write that which I proposed to do. And my interest in this composition of the Commentary of the Mishnah is like [that of its] explanation by the Talmud. And [so,] I choose the true explanations and push off the explanations that appear to be rejected in the Talmud; and I will reveal the causes and the reasons for which a disagreement between the disputants occurred in some of the disagreements, and according to who is the law as it is elucidated in the Talmud. 
  And in all of this matter, I will keep to being short in [my wording], so as not to confound the reader – as our commentary is not [meant] to give understanding to stones, but  [rather] to those that have a heart with which to understand. 
  And I saw [fit] that my composition be arranged according to the custom that all of the commentators practiced. And that is that I will write the words of the Mishnah until the end of [a] law, [and] afterward, I will speak about the explanation of that law, according to that which we envision and arrange. And afterwards, I will take the second law – likewise – until the end of the mishnah. And [regarding] any law that is streamlined and elucidated, I will [only] write it and we will not need to speak about it.
  And you should know that in all places wherein the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagree, the law is always like the House of Hillel, besides in well-known [exceptions] when the law is like the House of Shammai. And only in those do I say to you that the law is like the House of Shammai when I explain them.
  And so [too], the law is as it is stated by every undifferentiated (when no author is identified) mishnah that does not contain a disagreement, besides once among the [very] many. And in those unusual laws, I say to you that this undifferentiated [mishnah] was rejected and is not the law. But in other disagreements, I will not require you to spend much thought about them, but [rather] I say to you according to who the law is, immediately. And even if there will be an individual and the many, I say to you, the law is like the many.
  And God should teach us to be in front of the truth and distance us from its opposite, with His help, the high and elevated God.
  
  Section 19
  
  And I saw fit to bring ten [appendices] before I begin [the Commentary]. And they, in God's faith, do not have in them a great benefit with regard to the matter that we are dealing with. [But] it will benefit one who masters them [if] he wants to be complete in his Mishnah.
  The first [appendix] relates to the count of the sages that are mentioned in the Mishnah and that the laws are called according to their names; the second is regarding the count of the sages that are mentioned in the Mishnah because of a story that happened at one time or for an ethic that they learned from him or from a homily that he said; the third is to make known that which was disseminated about the lineage of the sages in the Mishnah; the fourth is regarding the sages that were in the same generation and the generations that some of the sages overlapped with others of them; the fifth is regarding the elucidation of the name of the students and their teacher, according to what is disseminated; the sixth is regarding the making known of the names [of the authors] of the undifferentiated ones, and to add to their acquaintance; the seventh is regarding the mention of their levels, according to that which was done by the redactor; the eighth is regarding their relation to lands and crafts and people and families; the ninth is regarding the people that disagreement occurred about must of their words; the tenth is regarding the distribution of their laws, [to whom is attributed] many or few. 
  
  Section 20
  
  The first is regarding the count of the sages that are mentioned in the Mishnah and that the laws are called according to their names there. We have already said in the introduction to our words that the redactor of the Mishnah abridged his words in the recounting of the names of the people that received [the tradition], to start [only] from Shimon the Righteous and his companions, and that the entire transmission [that he records] goes back to Shimon. And the number of these people according to whose name all of the laws and the challenges and the rectifications and the decrees were written in all of the Mishnah is ninety-one men. And these are them: 
  Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkanos, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yose HaGalili, Yehoshua ben Perachiah, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Horkanos, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah the man of Bartota, Rabbi Elazar bar Tsadok, Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, Rabbi Elazar ben Chisma, Rabbi Elazar ben Parta, Rabbi Elazar beRebbi Shimon, Rabbi Elazar ben Pavi, Rabbi Yehudah ben Elaai, Rabbi Yehudah ben Betira, Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava, Rabbi Yehudah ben Abba, Rabbi Yehudah ben Tabai, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, Rabbi Shimon the Twine-spinner, Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas, Rabbi Shimon ben HaSagan, Shimon ben Shetach, Shimon HaTeimani, Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai, Rabbi Shimon ben Zoma, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah, Rabbi Shimon ben Beteira, Rabbi Shimon the brother of Azariah, Rabbi Chaninah the Deputy of the priests, Rabbi Chaninah ben Antigonus, Rabbi Chananiah ben Chakhinai, Rabbi Chananiah ben Gamliel, Rabbi Nechuniah ben Elinatan the man of Kfar HaBavli, Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Nechemiah, Nechemiah the man of Beit Deli, Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, Rabbi Yochanan the High Priest,  Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, Rabbi Yochanan ben Baroka, Yochanan ben Gudgada, Rabbi Yochanan the Shoemaker, Rabbi Yochanan ben Yeshua the son of Rabbi Akiva's father-in-law, Rabbi Yose ben Meshullam, Rabbi Yose ben HaChotef Efrati, Rabbi Yose HaGalili, Yosef ben Yoezer, Yosef ben Yochanan, Rabbi Yose Bar Yehudah, Rabbi Yose the Priest, Yosef ben Choni, Rabban Gamliel, Rabban Gamliel the Elder, Dostai the man of Kfar Dima, Rabbi Dostai beRebbi Yannai, Abba Shaul, Rabbi Tarfon, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Chutspit, Rabbi Natan, Nachum the Scribe, Rabbi Mayasha, Rabbi Tsadok, Nachum the Mede, Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas, Rabbi Elaai, Rabbi Kuvri, Papias, Rabbi Matia ben Cheresh, Natai HaArbeli, Shemayah and Avtalyon, Hillel and Shammai, Rabbi Zechairah ben HaKatzav, Admon, Chanan ben Avshalom, Rabbi Yadua the Babylonian, Akavia ben Mehalalel. Rabbi Yakim the man of Chadir, Menachem ben Seganai, Rabbi Yaakov. And we did not keep [the chronological] order in the [list] of their names .
  
  Section 21
  
  The second [appendix] relates to the count of the sages that are mentioned in the Mishnah because of a story that happened at one of their times or for an ethic with which they rebuked or a verse about which he said a homily.
  The Mishnah has already brought the name of many of the sages, and not because there is reliance upon them them for something of the laws about the prohibited and the permitted. But rather they are mentioned because of something that happened in one of their times or he taught ethics – for example, those that are mentioned in Avot. And from him we learned that ethic or that homily that he expounded, [that] does not teach the prohibited and the permitted, and they wrote the matter in his name. And the number of people whose mention comes upon one of these matters that we mentioned – and that which is similar to them – are thirty-seven men. And these are they:
  RabbI Yehoshua ben Levi, Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh, Rabbi Eliezer HaModaai, Yehudah ben Teima, Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel, Rabbi Shimon ben Akashia, Rabbi Shimon ben Chalafta, Chaninah ben Dosa, Chananiah ben Chizkiah ben Garon, Rabbi Chananiah ben Teradyon, Rabbi Nechunia ben HaKaneh, Rabbi Yishmael ben Pavi, Yochanan ben HaChorani, Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah the man of Kefar HaBavli, Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit, Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi, Rabbi Shimon the man of HaMitspeh, Choni the Circle-maker, Rabbi Horkanos, Rabbi Yannai, Rabbi Nechorai, Antigonos the man of Sokho, Rabbi Chalafta the man of Kfar Chananiah, Rabbi Levitas the man of Yavneh, Rabbi Yonatan, Shmuel the Little, Ben Bag-Bag, Ben Heh-Heh, Rabbi Elehoeinai ben HaKof, Chanme'el the Egyptian, Rabbi Shimon ben Menasia, Abba Shaul ben Botnit, Zechariah ben Kevutal, Bava ben Buta, Rabbi Yishmael the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka, Rabbi Yishmael beRebbe Yose.
  And likewise [here], I did not intend to mention these in [chronological] order. If so, the total number of sages mentioned in the Mishnah is one hundred and twenty-eight.
  And there are two [other] men the mention of which was brought in the Mishnah, and they are Elisha the other (Acher) – and we did not number him in the category of these pure ones because of the matter that was known about him – and Menachem, the colleague of Shammai – and likewise we did not number him, as there is not found anything about him in the Mishnah in any way, such that he should be escorted by one of all of the things that we recounted.
  
  Section 22
  
  The third [appendix] relates to when it is made known about the lineage of the sages of the Mishnah. Among them are [that] Rabban Gamliel is the son of Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi and Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi is the son of Rabban Gamliel the son of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel the Elder, [Gamliel the elder being] the son of Rabban Shimon ben Hillel HaNassi. And [that Hillel] is Hillel the Babylonian upon which a group of the later sages relied upon and [went] according to his opinion. And [this group] was called the House of Hillel.
  And this Hillel is from the [descendants] of Sheftiah the son of Avital the son of David. And [about] these seven sages it has already been made clear that they are from the seed of David.
  And among them are four that are from the congregation of converts. And they are Shemayah and Avtalyon and Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Meir.
  And among them are priests: Shimon the Righteous, to whom all the laws go back, to fulfill that which is stated (Deuteronomy 33:10), "They shall teach Your laws to Yaakov"; and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah is also tenth [generation in the line] of Ezra; and Shimon his uncle, and he is known [as] Shimon the brother of Azariah; and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua; and Rabbi Chaninah the Deputy of the priests; and Rabbi Shimon his son, and he is known [as] Rabbi Shimon the Deputy; and Yishmael ben Pavi; and Yochanan the High Priest and Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai; and Yose ben Yoezer; and Rabbi Yose the Priest; and Rabbi Tarfon; Rabbi Elehoeinai ben HaKof, Chanme'el the Egyptian. 
  And the rest of them are from Israel and no lineage about them that I know about is known.
  
  Section 23
  
  The fourth [appendix] relates to the sages that were in the same generation and the generations that some of the sages overlapped with others of them: Shimon the righteous and Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas were in one generation, and Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas had length of days, to the point that he reached Rabbi Akiva and the men of his generation. And that is the first group.
  But the second [one] was Antigonos the man of Sokho and and rabbi Elazar ben Charsom.
  And the third group was Yose ben Yoezer the man of Tsereidah, and Yose ben Yochanan the man of Jerusalem.
  And the fourth group was Yochanan be Matityah and Yehoshua ben Perachiah and Nitai of Arbel.
  And the fifth group was Choni the circle-maker and Rabbi Elehoeinai ben HaKof and Yehudah ben Tabai and Shimon ben Shetach.
  And the sixth group was Akavia ben Mehalalel and Shemaya and Avtalyon and Admon and Rabbi Mayasha.
  And the seventh group was Shammai, Hillel, Menachem, Yehudah ben Batirah, Rabbi Pappias, Rabbi Yochanan ben Bag-Bag, Channaniah ben Chizkiah ben Garon, Nechuniah ben Hakaneh, Baba ben Buta, Rabbi Yochanan ben HaChurani, Rabban Gamliel the Elder and Nachum the Scribe. And these seven groupings [lived during the time of] the second Temple – from its beginning to its end – and did not see the destruction.
  But the group that was after these, that saw the destruction was Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, Rabbi Tsadok, Rabbi Eliezer his son, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai and his students, Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha the High Priest, Abba Shaul, Rabbi Eliezer HaModai, Rabbi Chaninah the Deputy of the priests, Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Shimon his son, Rabbi Chaninah ben Antigonos, Rabbi Chaninah ben Dosa, Rabbi Chananiah ben Teradyon, Shmuel the Little, Rabbi Eliezer ben Parta, Rabbi Elazar ben Dimah, Chananiah ben Chakhinai and Rabbi Yehudah ben Baba.
  And the second grouping after the destruction was Rabbi Tarfon, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Elazar HaModai, Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karcha, Chaninah the man of Ono, Shimon ben Nanas, Yochanan ben Baroka, Rabbi Yishmael his son, Rabbi Yochanan ben Gudgada, Rabbi Elazar Chisma and Rabbi Yehudah ben Teima. 
  And the third grouping was Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehudah, Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Natan, Rabbi Yochanan the Shoemaker, Rabbi Yose HaGalili, Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, Shimon ben Azai, Shimon ben Zoma and Rabbi Chutspit the Translator.
  And the fourth grouping was Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi, Rabban Gamliel, Rabban Shimon his son, Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, Rabbi Eliezer his son, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, Rabbi Yishmael beRebbe Yose and Rabbi Yonatan. And this group was the last of the groups of the Mishnah.
  
  Section 24
  
  And the fifth [appendix] relates to the elucidation of the name of the student and their teacher, as is made known: We have already prefaced in our introduction of our words that the Holy Rabbi, the redactor of the Mishnah, was a student of his father. And so [too] each one of his elders, peace be upon them, was a student of his father to Hillel [back] from Shimon the Righteous, as we mentioned. And so [too, up to] Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai [back] from Hillel.
  And the students of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai were five: Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkanos – known for his affair, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah, Rabbi Yose the Priest, Rabbi Shimon ben Netanel and Rabbi Eliezer ben Arakh. And this is the grouping that was proclaimed for life in the world to come, as is made known in the Talmud (Chagigah 14b) – they and the students of their students.
  And Rabbi Akiva was a student of Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkanos and he was his prime teacher. And Rabbi Akiva did some study with Rabbi Tarfon, but he was not his teacher, but rather his colleague. Yet Rabbi Akiva would honor Rabbi Tarfon and say to him, "My teacher," and Rabbi Tarfon would say to Rabbi Akiva, "Akiva." And Rabbi Akiva had said to him, "Permit me to speak to to you from that which you have taught me," as is elucidated.
  And Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai were students of Rabbi Akiva and he was their prime teacher. And Rabbi Meir did some study with (Rabbi Akiva) [Rabbi Yishmael] and others.
  And Rabbi Yehudah called Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, "Ben Azariah," but he was his prime teacher.
  And whenever you find in the Mishnah, "Rabbi x said in the name of Rabbi y," know that he is his student. Therefore, he received [the teaching] from him. 
  And our Holy Rabbi did some study in front of Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua.
  And Sumkhos was a student of Rabbi Meir. And he thought to study in front of Rabbi Yehudah after [Rabbi Meir's] death, but it was not to be.
  
  Section 25
  
  The sixth [appendix] is to reveal from their names that were hidden and to add celebrity to them, until they would be [more] clearly recognized: The undifferentiated Rabbi Eliezer that is mentioned in the Mishnah is Rabbi Eliezer ben Horkanos, the student of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai.
  And the undifferentiated Rabbi Yehoshua is Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah, the student of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai.
  And the undifferentiated Rabbi Yehudah is Rabbi Yehudah ben Elaye, about whom it is stated, "There was a story about one pious man." And that is his name that was well-known among them.
  And the undifferentiated Rabbi Elazar is Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua the Priest that was in the generation of Rabban Gamliel – that our Holy Rabbi wanted to read in front of, but his students only let him read a little in front of him (Yevamot 84a).
  And Rabbi Shimon that is mentioned in the Mishnah anonymously (without his father's name) is Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai the student of Rabbi Akiva, whose incident with the Roman emperor is known, and Rabbi Elazar [son of Rabbi Shimon] was his son (Shabbat 33b).
  And Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma and Ben Nannas are Shimon ben Azai and Shimon Ben Zoma and Shimon ben Nannas [respectively]. And Ben Beteira is Rabbi Yehoshua ben Betira. And Ben Bag-Bag is Rabbi Yochanan. And Yonatan the High Priest is the well-known Yonatan ben Matitya mentioned in the prayers about the wars of the kings of Greece. 
  And Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan wanted to embarrass Rabban Gamliel the father of our Holy Rabbi about something – it would take long to mention the affair – and Rabban Gamliel distanced them from his academy (Horayot 13b – Chapter 3). And when they would say laws in the name of one of them, if it was in the name of Rabbi Meir, they would say, "Others say"; and if it was in the name of Rabbi Natan, they would say, "There are those that say."
  However that which Rabbi said in the Mishnah, "One student said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael in front of Rabbi Akiva," was [also a reference to] Rabbi Meir.
  And that which they said, "Who deliberated in front of the sages," is [a reference to] five men: Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai, Rabbi Shimon ben Zoma, Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas, Chanan and Chananiah the man of Ono.
  And Rabbi Meir is also called Rabbi Nehorai and the matter is one [in that both names refer to light]. And his primary name is Rabbi Nechemiah.
  But that which it states in the Mishnah, "The sages" – I mean to say that sometimes he used the term, 'the sages,' for one of the men whose names we have already mentioned and sometimes he will want to say it for the whole multitude of the sages and sometimes the Talmud will elucidate and say, "Who are 'the sages?' Rabbi x" – he will do this in that many received the transmission from that sage, and in that the men of that opinion are many, he calls them 'the sages,' even though it is that of one man.
  Nonetheless, that which they said, "the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel," [is because] he wanted to mention the group that inclined to the opinion of Shammai and the group that inclined to the opinion of Hillel, as the students of a man are the people of his household.
  And Rabbi is our Holy Rabbi, who is Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi, the sixth [generation] from Hillel the Elder. And he is the redactor of the Mishnah.
  And everyplace that it is stated in the Mishnah, "In truth they said," it is a law of Moshe from Sinai (<i>halacha le'Moshe me'Sinai</i>).
  But an undifferentiated mishnah (teaching) is one that the opinion of the many agreed to, and their analysis was identical and no disagreement occurred about it, or the many received this [transmission] from the many [going] back to Moshe, according to that which we delineated in the introduction of our words.
  And the closest receiver of the transmission that the statement is referring to is Rabbi Meir. And this is [the meaning of] the matter that they stated, "An undifferentiated mishnah is Rabbi Meir." However in some undifferentiated [cases], it is possible that they are from Rabbi Meir by himself and there is a disagreement about them or that it is of another man besides Rabbi Meir – and the Talmud will elucidate them.  
  And when it is determined who the law is according to, in each law of the laws of the Mishnah, you will then arrive at the resolution to your question about this matter.
  
  Section 26
  
  And the seventh [appendix] relates to the order of their levels; as the redactor did, [to] divide the level of men mentioned in the mishnah – which are one hundred and twenty-eight – into three divisions.
  As anyone who would be very honored in his level – above all the other levels – in [the redactor's] eyes, he called by his name; for example, Hillel and Shammai and Shemaya and Avtalyon. And that is [an indication of] their greatness, as it is impossible to find a title that is fitting for them [with which] to honor their names, just as there is no title for the prophets.
  But the sages that were below this level in his eyes, he gave them the title, 'Rabban'; for example, Rabban Gamliel and Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. 
  And those that were below this level in his eyes, he called their [title], 'Rabbi' – as when he said, "Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah." And he also called the people of this level, 'Abba,' as when he said, "Abba Shaul." And sometimes, he removed the title from them and was not concerned – for example, when he says "Shimon the brother of Azariah and Elazar the man of Bartota." 
  And the group of the people that were called by their names by way of honor and who were not given a title were these: Shimon the Righteous, Antigonos the man of Sokho, Yose ben Yoezer, Yose ben Yochanan the High Priest, Yehoshua ben Perachiah, Nitai HaArbeli, Choni the Circle-maker, Elehoeinai ben HaKof, Chaname'el the Egyptian, Yehudah ben Tabai, Shimon ben Shetach, Shamayah and Avtalyon, Chanan and Admon and Akavia ben Mehalalel, Hillel and Shammai, Nachum the Scribe, Chananiah ben Chizkiah ben Garon and Baba ben Buta. And anyone who is mentioned by name besides these is one whose title is removed from his name and [the redactor] was not particular about.
  
  Section 27
  
  The eight [appendix] relates to their association with lands and with crafts and with people and families.
  The redactor of the Mishnah added information and fame according to [various] matters to all of these men that received the transmission. There are some of them that he associated with a craft to publicize his name; for example, when he said, "Nachum the Scribe," and "Rabbi Shimon the Twine-spinner."  
  There are some of them that he associated with his land; for example, when he said, "The man of Chadid" and "The man of Bartota"; and the matter that he said, "The man of Tsereidah" and "The man of Jerusalem," and the others of the places – because he is known in that place and that is his honor. This means to say, that this this man who is from the men of that place, is truly fitting to be called a man.
  And there are some of them that he made known by the name of his father or his brother; for example, his statement, "Rabbi x, the son of y," or Rabbi x, the brother of y" – and [there are] many [like] this. And there are some of them that he made known by his family; for example, when he said, "X the Priest."
  
  Section 28
  
  The ninth appendix relates to men between which disagreement occurred in most instances. These are the men in the Mishnah that you will find disagreement between in most things:
  Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yose – disagreement occurred among these four, between each two of them and among [all] four of them, as well. You will also find Rabbi Elazar disagreeing with each one of these four, but less than the disagreement that occurs among the [other] four.
  And so [too with] Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, you will find disagreement between each one of them and among [all] three of them, as well; but less than the disagreement of the four previous ones. And you will likewise find the disagreement between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah to be less than the disagreement among those with which we began. 
  And after them in [the order of] decreasing disagreement is the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel.
  And after them in disagreement are Raban Gamliel or Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel or Rabbi, with each of the [other] ones mentioned now. And among these men, disagreement is mostly in the Mishnah, except in unusual cases.
  
  
  Section 29
  
  The tenth [appendix]: relates to the distribution of laws between the many and the few: The sages that received the Mishnah who we have divided – some of them had many laws written in their name, such as Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehudah. And some of them had few laws written in their names, such as Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov – as they said, "The teaching of Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov is straight and clean," meaning to say, sparse and the law is according to [his teachings]. 
  And the order of the many laws and the few is according to that which we mentioned in the previous [appendix] about [those that encountered] many disagreements or few.
  And there are some of whom were only named in one law in the Mishnah and their name was not repeated in any of the judgements of the commandments, and they are thirty-seven:
  The man Nachum the scribe and Rabbi Mayasha are in Tractate Peah (Mishnah Peah 1:6) only and there is nothing else taught by them in any other place. 
  And Chananiah ben Chakhinai and Rabbi Yose ben HaChotef Efrati are only in Kilayim (Mishnah Kilayim 3:7 and Mishnah Kilayim 4:8)
  And Rabbi Elazar Chisma and Rabbi Yose ben Meshulam are in Terumot only (Mishnah Terumot 3:5 and Mishnah Terumot 4:7).
  And Rabbi Chutspit is in Sheviit only (Mishnah Sheviit 10:6).
  And Rabbi Eliezer ben Yehudah the man of Bartota and Dostai the man of Kfar Dima are only in Orlah (Mishnah Orlah 1:4 and Mishnah Orlah 2:5).
  Nachum the Mede is only in Shabbat (Mishnah Shabbat 2:1). 
  And Rabbi (Elazar) [Elaai] and Rabbi Dostai beRebbe Yannai are in Eruvin (Mishnah Eruvin 2:6 and Mishnah Eruvin 5:4).
  And Rabbi Shimon ben HaSagan and Ben Bukhari are only in Shekalim (Mishnah Shekalim 1:4 and Mishnah Shekalim 8:5).
  And Yehudah ben Tabai, Shimon ben Shetach, Yose ben Yoezer, Yose ben Yochanan, Nitai HaArbeli and Yehoshua ben Perachiah are only in Chagigah (Mishnah Chagigah 2:2). 
  And Shimon HaTeimani and Nechemiah the man of Beit Deli are only in Yevamot (Mishnah Yevamot 4:13 and Mishnah Yevamot 16:7).
  And Rabbi Elazar the son of Rabbi Yose HaGalili and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Horkanos are only in Sotah (Mishnah Sotah 7:9). Yedua the Babylonian is only in Metzia (Mishnah Bava Metzia 7:9).
  Rabbi Shimon ben Yehudah is only in Shevuot (Mishnah Shevuot 1:5).
  And Rabbi Shimon ben Beteira, Rabbi Nechuniah ben Elinatan man of Kfar HaBavli, Rabbi Yose the Priest, Rabbi Yakim man of Chadid and Menachem ben Seganai are only in Eduyot (Mishnah Eduyot 6:2, Mishnah Eduyot 7:5-8 and Mishnah Eduyot 8:1-2).
  And Shimon the brother of Azariah and Yose ben Choni are only in Zevachim (Mishnah Zevachim 1:2).
  And Rabbi Elazar beRebbe Shimon is only in Temurah (Mishnah Temurah 4:4),
  And Rabbi Yaakov is only in Negaim (Mishnah Negaim 4:10).
  And Rabbi Elazar ben Pavi is only in Tractate Tahorot (Mishnah Tahorot 7:9). 
  And Rabbi Yochanan ben Yeshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva is only in Yadayim (Mishnah Yadayim 3:5).
  All of these men enumerated here only had one law in all of the laws of the Mishnah, in the tractates that we mentioned.
  And we have already completed the matter that we wanted to preface. And now we will begin to explain [the Mishnah] according to what we planned.