meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה ידים
  Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Yadayim
  
  Introduction
  
  According to Torah law a person becomes impure only through contact with a "father of uncleanness" and not through contact with something that only has first degree or lesser uncleanness. However, the rabbis decreed that if a person touches something with first degree uncleanness his hands become defiled with second degree uncleanness. If he then goes and touches terumah he disqualifies it such that a kohen could not eat it. At a later period in history, the rabbis added to this and stated that even if one is not sure if he touched something that was impure, his hands are impure. People tend to touch many things (in Hebrew this is phrased—hands are busy) and it would be virtually impossible to prevent one's hands from ever touching something that was impure. To remedy this problem the rabbis decreed that one should always wash one's hands before eating any food. This is the source of the custom that remains to this day to ritually wash one's hands before eating. Today we only do this before eating bread, but originally they would have washed their hands ritually before eating any food.
  The issue of washing hands was quite contentious in the ancient world and there are even some passages in the New Testament in which the Pharisees object to the fact that Jesus's student don't wash their hands before eating (see Mark 7 and Matthew 15). Furthermore, people were often meticulous about washing their hands without any ritual connection—it was done purely out of cleanliness. Thus there are many theories as to how the rabbis came up with the idea of ritual hand-washing and the possibility that hands could be purified or defiled as if they were not a part of the body. It is a fascinating topic, one which I partially addressed in my book, The Schechter Haggadah. In my commentary on this tractate we will not explore the origins of ritual hand-washing. Rather we will focus on how these rules manifest themselves in the Mishnah itself.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The first mishnah of Yadayim is about how much water is necessary for the ritual washing of one's hands. A log is about 1/2 a liter of water. So the basic amount of 1/4 log works out to about 100 grams of water, a third of a can of Coke for those who drink that stuff.
  We should note that the Mishnah expresses washing one's hands by referring to a servant doing the work. The servant literally gives water to the diner's hands. This is expressive of the setting of a formal banquet. In other words the Hebrew phrase "netilat yadayim" or "notnim leyadim" used in this Mishnah are translations of common Greek words.  It shows how much influence eating customs had on the Jews of the period.
  [A minimum of] a quarter [of a log] of water must be poured over the hands for one [person] and even for two.  For two people it is sufficient to have one quarter log of water. Although there won't be this amount left for the second person who has water put over his hands, since the second pouring comes from an amount that was originally sufficient, and the original amount was used to purify, the lesser amount of water still remaining is effective. We should note that 1/4 of a log is really a very little amount of water. It would not be effective to truly clean one's hands. It seems to have ritual function only.
  A minimum of half  a log must be poured over the hands for three or four persons.  For three or four persons they must double the amount to half a log.
  A minimum of one log [is sufficient] for five, ten, or one hundred persons.  According to this opinion, once we get to a higher number, even 100, one log is sufficient. There need not be 1/4 of a log per person.
  Rabbi Yose says: as long as there is not less than a quarter of a log left for the last person among them.  Rabbi Yose disagrees with the previous three sections. There must always be 1/4 of a log left over for each person. Many people could wash from the same washing cup (or whatever they used) but there has to be 1/4 of a log for each and every one.
  More [water] may be added to the second water, but more may not be added to the first water.  When one pours water over one's hands their need to be 2 pourings. For the first pouring the water must go up to the joint, which is interpreted either as the second joint of the fingers or the joint attaching the fingers to the hand (we will see this in 2:3). The problem is that his fingers now defile the water that is on them. To fix this problem he then washes off the water with more water. We will learn more about this process in chapter two. If the first washing didn't reach all the way to the joint, he is not allowed to pour the second pouring in a place where the first one didn't reach. Rather, he would have to redo the whole thing. But if the second pouring didn't reach the joint, he can just add water to the spots he missed.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with what kind of vessel can be used to pour water over one's hands.
  Water may be poured over the hands out of any kind of vessel, even out of vessels made of animal dung, out of vessels made of stone or out of vessels made of clay.  Any kind of vessel can be used for the ritual washing of hands, even vessels that are not susceptible to impurity such as vessels made of dung or stone (see Kelim 10:1). In other words, one might have thought that since these vessels are not susceptible to impurity they do not count as vessels, therefore the mishnah teaches that they do count as vessels and can be used for handwashing.
  Water may not be poured from the sides of [broken] vessels or from the bottom of a ladle or from the stopper of a jar.  All of these objects do not count as "vessels" and therefore cannot be used for handwashing.
  Nor may one pour [water] over the hands of his fellow out of his cupped hands.  Cupped hands are also no good (I'll fess up I've tried this a few times when I couldn't find a cup).
  Because one may not draw, nor sanctify, nor sprinkle the water of purification,   nor pour water over the hands except in a vessel.  The mishnah now lists water rituals that require a vessel. Most of these involve the purification ritual of the red heifer ashes. The first is drawing water from a live spring to be used in the red heifer ritual. The second is putting the ashes into the water this must be done in a vessel. The third is sprinkling the waters of purification (the water which has the ashes of the red heifer) on the impure person. The fourth is handwashing.
  And only vessels closely covered with a lid protect [their contents from uncleanness].  If an earthenware vessel with a tight-fitting lid is found in a tent with a corpse in it, the vessels contents are not defiled (neither is the vessel). However, only a real vessel acts in this manner.
  And  only vessels protect [their contents from uncleanness] inside earthenware vessels.  Furthermore, if there is a vessel with food in it and it is in an earthenware vessel in which there is also a sheretz (a creepy crawly defiling thing) the vessel protects the food inside it from becoming impure (see Kelim 8:3). But this protection is only if the inside vessel is really a vessel.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  The next three mishnayot deal with the water used for netilat yadayim.
  Water which had become so unfit that it could not be drunk by a beast: If it was in a vessel it is invalid, But if it was in the ground  it is valid.  If the water that he wants to use for netilat yadayim was so dirty that even a cow or other beast wouldn't drink it, it can't be used if the water has been put in a vessel. Note that this water would have to be pretty dirty, or at least it seems so to me. But if the water is still pooled on the ground, he can use it to immerse his hands for this pool has the status of a mikveh. If he could immerse his whole body in such a pool, all the more so he can immerse his hands.
  If there fell into [the water], dye, or gum or sulphate of copper and its color changed, it is invalid.  If any inks or dyes fall into the water and thereby change its color, the water can no longer be used.
  If a person did any work with it or soaked his bread in it, it is invalid.  Water that has used for work (perhaps as a weight on a balance) or for soaking bread, is no longer considered water and cannot be used for netilat yadayim.
  Shimon of Teman says: even if he intended to soak his bread in one water and it fell into another water the water is valid.  Shimon of Teman (Yemen) holds that the water is disqualified for use only if he intentionally soaked his bread in it. His statement implies that it is obvious that if he didn't intend to soak his bread in the water and the bread simply fell in, the water is still valid for use. He goes one step further. Even if he did intend to use water to soak the bread, but he intended to put the bread in one vessel and it went into another vessel, the vessel with the bread in it can still be used. The water is disqualified only if the bread goes directly into the vessel into which he intended to put it.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If he cleansed vessels with the water or scrubbed  measures with it, [the water] is invalid.  If he used the water to clean vessels or scrub measures the water is invalid. This is because the water is considered "waste water" which shouldn't be used to ritually clean hands. Furthermore, he has used the water for work, and therefore it can't be used.
  If he rinsed with it vessels which had already been rinsed or new vessels, it is valid. Rabbi Yose declares [the water] invalid if they were new vessels.  If the vessels didn't need to be washed or scrubbed because they were either clean or new, then the water remains valid because it didn't need to be used. Rabbi Yose says that if the water was used to wash new vessels it is still disqualified since it is customary to wash off new vessels. In other words, something that is customary to do is considered work, even if it is isn't strictly speaking necessary.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Water in which the baker dips his loaves is invalid; But if he moistened his hands in the water it is valid.  If the baker dipped his loaves into the water, the water is invalid. This is the same as the rule in yesterday's mishnah. Today's mishnah adds that if the baker just uses the water to moisten his hands, and then from his hands he puts the water onto the loaves, the water remains valid because he didn't put the loaves directly into the water.
  All are fit to pour water over the hands, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor.  After having discussed rules concerning the vessel and the water the mishnah now turns its attention to the person or power that pours the water over the hands. As we shall see, the requirement is that some power should cause the water to be poured over the hands. Water which flows on its own, for instance rainwater coming out of a drainage pipe, cannot be used for netilat yadayim. There is no requirement for intention (kavvanah) for netilat yadayim. Therefore, even people who legally are not considered to have kavanah can pour the water.
  A person may place the jug between his knees and pour out the water Or he may turn the jug on its side and pour it out.  A person puts a jug with water in it between his legs and then tilts it to the side. This is a valid way of performing netilat yadayim because his legs count as having caused the water to be poured onto his hands. He can even tilt the jug on its side and then put his hands under the water pouring out. Even though the water is currently (no pun intended) coming out of the jug on its own, since he tilted the jug on its side, it counts as an outside power.
  A monkey may pour water over the hands.  Even a monkey could pour water over someone's hands. In other words, there must be an outside power, but that power need not be human.
  Rabbi Yose declares these [latter] two cases invalid.  Rabbi Yose says that the final two cases are invalid because the water needs to be poured by a force initiated by a person. So if the water flows from the barrel on its own or a monkey pours the water, the hand-washing is invalid.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  If he poured water over one of his hands with a single rinsing his hand becomes clean.  The person poured water over only one hand, because he intended to eat with only one hand. He also only poured one pouring, and not two. His hand is pure even if he didn't pour the full 1/4 log because the water comes from a vessel with a pure 1/4 log. However, if the water came from a vessel with a lesser amount, his hand would not be pure.
  If over both his hands with a single rinsing: Rabbi Meir declares them to be unclean until he pours a minimum of a quarter of a log of water over them.  If he tries to do this with both hands, meaning pour water over them only once, there must be at least 1/4 of a log poured over the two hands. Rabbi Meir holds that if one uses the full 1/4 log, he doesn't need to wash off the first water that he poured onto his hands. However, if he pours water twice over his hands, then his hands are pure even if he didn't pour a full 1/4 log as long as they came from a vessel with at least 1/4 of a log in it.
  If a loaf of terumah fell on the water the loaf is clean. Rabbi Yose declares it to be unclean.  If a loaf of terumah falls on the water that he used to wash his hand, the first opinion holds that the loaf is still clean. According to this opinion the water is clean. Rabbi Yose holds that the water purified the hands, but it itself has become impure.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If he poured the first water over his hands [while standing] in one place, and the second water over his hands [while standing] in another place, and a loaf of terumah fell on the first water, the loaf becomes unclean. But if it fell on the second water it remains clean.  The first water that pours off his hands is impure. Therefore, if a pure loaf of terumah falls onto this water, it is impure. But the second water is pure and purifies the water on his hands. Therefore if the loaf falls onto this water, it is pure.
  If he poured the first and the second water [while standing] in one place, and a loaf of terumah fell onto the water, the loaf becomes unclean.  In this case, both the first and second water fall onto the same place on the ground. If a loaf falls into this water, it is defiled because the second water cleanses only the water that is on his hands. It does not cleanse the water that is on the ground.
  If he poured the first water over his hands and a splinter or a piece of gravel is found on his hands, [his hands] remain unclean, because the latter water only makes the first water on the hands clean.  In this case there is something on his hands when he washes them. The second washing purifies only the water that is on his hands, not the water that is on something else, such as a splinter or piece of gravel. This water remains impure and it would go back and defile his hands.
  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if any creature from the water [was on the hands while they are being cleaned] they are clean.  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel seems to think that creatures that are from the water, like a little worm, count as if they were water. So if one finds a worm on his hand after washing, the water that's on the worm doesn't go back and defile his hands. It might be a bit yucky though.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Hands become unclean and are made clean as far as the joint.  For matters of purity, the hand goes up to the "joint." There are two explanations of this. The first is the middle joint of the fingers and the second is the joint where the fingers join the hand. Below, I will simply use the word "joint."
  How so? If he poured the first water over the hands as far as the joint and poured the second water over the hands beyond the joint and the latter flowed back to the hands, the hands are clean.  The mishnah now explains some ramifications of this ruling. If he pours water the first time over his hands as far as the joint and then the second time beyond the joint, and the second water goes back onto his hand, his hands are pure. This is because beyond the joint the hand is not impure. So the second water was not made impure by going beyond the joint.
  If he poured the first and the second water over the hands beyond the joint and they flowed back to the hands, the hands remain unclean.  In this case he pours both beyond the joint and then the water flows back onto his hands. His hands remain impure because the first water that went beyond the joint wasn't purified by the second water that was also beyond the joint, because this water is only purified when it is on the hand. When the water goes back it defiles his hand again.
  If he poured the first water over one of his hands and then changed his mind and poured the second water over both his hands, they are unclean.  The mishnah now deals with a different subject one who changes his mind about how many hands to wash. If the first time he washes, he washes only one hand and then the second time he washes both hands and the water from the second hand goes on to the first hand, the first hand is defiled. This is because the water that went on the second hand was only there for the first time.
  If he poured the first water over both his hands and then changed his mind and poured the second water over one of his hands, his one hand becomes clean.  However, in the opposite case, where he first washed both hands and then only one, the one hand that was washed twice is pure.
  If he poured water over one of his hands and rubbed it on the other hand it remains unclean.  If he washes one hand (even twice) and then rubs it on the other, the water becomes impure on the second hand. This water then goes back and defiles the first hand.
  If he rubbed it on his head or on the wall it is clean.  However, if he rubs his hands on his head or the wall, the water is not defiled. The water that then goes back onto his hands does not defile them again.
  Water may be poured over the hands of four or five persons, each hand being by the side of the other, or being one above the other, provided that the hands are held loosely so that the water flows between them.  One can pour water over several people's hands at once and we are not concerned that one person's hands would defile another person's. The only important rule is that the hands shouldn't be tightly clenched with one another. Water must be allowed to flow in-between.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  This long mishnah is about cases of doubtful impurity involving hands. While the mishnah is quite long, it is not actually too difficult.
  If there was a doubt whether any work has been done with the water or not, A doubt whether the water contains the requisite quantity or not, A doubt whether it is unclean or clean, In these cases the doubt is considered to be clean because they have said in a case of doubt concerning hands as to whether they have become unclean or have conveyed uncleanness or have become clean, they are considered to be clean. Rabbi Yose says: in a case [of doubt as to] whether they have become clean they are considered to be unclean.  There are three types of "doubts" that could cause the water not to have purified his hands. As we learned in 1:3, if work was done with the water it cannot be used to wash his hands. There must be a quarter of a log (1:1) and the water must be pure. In all of these cases, if there is a doubt as to whether his hands were purified, the law is lenient and we treat them as pure. Below the mishnah will explain the meaning of "become unclean" and "convey uncleanness." To become pure means that if he isn't sure whether he effectively purified his hands, they are considered pure. This refers to the cases in the beginning of the mishnah cases where there was a doubt whether the water he used could purify his hands. Rabbi Yose disagrees with the ruling concerning doubt over whether his hands have become pure. Because his hands are presumed to be impure, they cannot be considered pure unless we are sure that they have been purified. The status quo remains.
  How so? If his hands were clean and there were two unclean loaves before him and there was a doubt whether he touched them or not; Or if his hands were unclean and there were two clean loaves before him and there was a doubt whether he touched them or not; Or if one of his hands was unclean and the other clean and there were two clean loaves before him and he touched one of them and there was a doubt whether he touched it with the unclean hand or with the clean hand; Or if his hands were clean and there were two loaves before him one of which was unclean and the other clean and he touched one of them and there was a doubt whether he touched the unclean one or the clean one; Or if one of his hands was unclean and the other clean and there were two loaves before him one of which was unclean and the other clean, and he touched both of them, and there is a doubt whether the unclean hand touched the unclean loaf or whether the clean hand touched the clean loaf or whether the clean hand touched the unclean loaf or whether the unclean hand touched the clean loaf The hands remain in the same state as they were before and the loaves remain in the same state as they were before.  The mishnah now goes through a long list of cases in which an impure hand might have touched a pure loaf of terumah or vice versa. Note that this is a different type of doubt than in section one. In section one, the doubt was whether his hands had been purified. Here the doubt is whether he defiled a loaf of terumah. The mishnah rules that in all of these cases his hands and the loaves remain in their previously assumed state. The hand or hands that were pure remain pure and the loaf or loaves that were pure remain pure. In other words, in cases of doubt the status quo remains.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness.Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness.They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness].Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, "My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel."  He said to her: "My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?"  But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands.Section one: In Tractate Negaim we learned about the house that has some sort of scale disease. Rabbi Akiva says that if someone puts just his hands into such a house, the hands have first degree uncleanness. The other sages say that his hands only have second degree uncleanness.Second two: There is a similar dispute concerning a person who defiles garments. This is a about whom the Torah says that he must wash his clothes: for instance one who touches a zav or one who touches something a zav lied upon, or who touches a zavah or a menstruant. According to Rabbi Akiva when such a person is touching the source of uncleanness, another person who touches him will get first degree uncleanness in his hands. The other sages say that he will get second degree uncleanness.Section three: The other sages now argue with Rabbi Akiva, asking him where we find that hands can have first degree impurity.Rabbi Akiva responds that in essence they are right. Hands can only have first degree impurity if the whole body also has first degree impurity. However, these cases in sections one and two are exceptions for in these cases the body wasn't defiled at all. Only in these cases can someone's hands have first degree impurity while the rest of his body remains pure.Section four: We find a similar dispute regarding foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids. These foods now have second degree impurity (see Zavim 5:12). According to Rabbi Joshua they defile hands such that the hands have second degree impurity. The other rabbis say that only foods or vessels that were defiled by a father of uncleanness and thereby have first degree impurity can defile hands. But if foods have only second degree impurity, they don't defile hands at all.Section five: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel now cites a story about a woman who came in front of Rabban Gamaliel, his father. The woman's hands had gone into the air-space of an impure earthenware vessel. Such vessels convey impurity through their air-space. Rabban Gamaliel asks her if the vessel had received its impurity from contact with a father of uncleanness or whether the vessel was defiled by something with first degree uncleanness? Unfortunately, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel never heard the response (those kids, they're never listening!).The sages say that their halakhah from section four is applicable here. If the earthenware vessel had received impurity from a father of uncleanness then her hands would have second degree uncleanness. But if the vessel had been defiled by something with first degree uncleanness, her hands would be pure.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah continues with a dispute between Rabbi Joshua and the sages. As part of their argument they mention the concept that the Holy Scriptures, meaning the Tanakh or Bible, defile the hands. This is a topic that will be discussed throughout the remainder of the chapter. There are two explanations for this halakhah. The traditional explanation is a bit strange and convoluted but it goes like this. People used to store their terumah near the same place that they stored holy scrolls (the Tanakh). Mice would come to eat the terumah and would also eat through the scrolls. To prevent this, the rabbis declared that the scrolls would defile the terumah. This would discourage people from storing terumah near their scrolls. One can clearly sense that this simply does not seem likely to have been the origins of this idea.
  Recently, academic scholars have explained that according to some laws in the Torah holiness can "rub off" on an item with which it has contact. This rubbing off on the item works a little bit like impurity, except the terminology is not that the item becomes "impure" rather it becomes "holy." The rabbis inherited the concept that scrolls of Scripture were so holy that anything they touched would become "holy" as well. Since this was the only such situation that the rabbis encountered, they used the normal term for such "rubbing off" which is impurity. In other words, what really seems to happen is that the hands become holy by virtue of contact with the scrolls. Nevertheless, by the time of the Mishnah these laws are part of the general purity system.
  Anything which disqualifies terumah defiles hands with a second degree of uncleanness.  Anything that has even second degree uncleanness will defile the hands so that they too have second degree uncleanness. This accords with Rabbi Joshua's opinion in yesterday's mishnah. The other rabbis disagree.
  One [unwashed] hand defiles the other hand, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has second degree of uncleanness cannot convey second degree of uncleanness.  An unwashed hand has second degree uncleanness and therefore it disqualifies terumah. According to Rabbi Joshua this means that if one hand is unwashed and it touches a washed hand it will defile it. The sages reject his opinion, as they did in yesterday's mishnah, holding that something that has second degree impurity cannot convey impurity to anything else. All it can do is disqualify terumah.
  He said to them: But do not the Holy Scriptures which have second degree of uncleanness defile the hands? They said to him: the laws of the Torah may not be argued from the laws of the scribes, nor may the laws of the scribes be argued from the laws of the Torah, nor may the laws of the scribes be argued from [other] laws of the scribes.  Rabbi Joshua uses the concept of the Holy Scriptures defiling the hands as proof for his opinion that anything with second degree uncleanness conveys uncleanness to hands. According to the rabbis, the Tanakh has second degree uncleanness and it defiles the hands. Therefore, everything that has second degree uncleanness should similarly defile the hands. The other rabbis reject learning from one category of rabbinic law to another. The idea that the Tanakh defiles the hands is a "law of the scribes" it is of rabbinic origin. Similarly, the halakhah that unwashed hands defile terumah is also of rabbinic origin (see the introduction). One cannot use one halakhah of rabbinic origin to prove another halakhah.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  The straps of the tefillin [when connected] with the tefillin [boxes] defile the hands.  Tefillin boxes have scrolls of Scripture in them. Therefore, they clearly would defile the hands. According to the first opinion, the straps do as well, as long as they are tied to the tefillin boxes.
  Rabbi Shimon says: the straps of the tefillin do not defile the hands.  Rabbi Shimon says that the straps do not defile the hands, since they are only connected to the boxes they don't have the scrolls in them.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  The margin on a scroll   which is above or below or at the beginning or at the end defiles the hands.  Although there is nothing written in the margins of the Tanakh scrolls, they still defile the hands because they are part of the scroll.
  Rabbi Judah says: the margin at the end does not render unclean [the hands] until a handle is fastened to it.  Rabbi Judah says that the margin at the end of the scroll doesn't defile because it could always be cut off. It only defiles once they have used that extra piece of scroll to attach a handle. Once a handle has been attached the end margin has become a necessary part of the scroll and it too defiles.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward" (Numbers 10:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, "And it came to pass when the ark set forward", defiles the hands.All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands.The Song of Songs and Kohelet ( defile the hands.Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet.Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs.Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel.Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands.Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet.Rabbi Yohanan ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision.Today's mishnah contains a fascinating argument over whether two books from the Tanakh, Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) and the Song of Songs (Shir Hashirim) defile the hands. This is basically an argument over whether these books should be included in the Biblical canon. We cannot be certain why there was an argument over these specific books. Probably the content of these books caused certain sages to wish to cut them out of the canon. Kohelet is a deeply skeptical work, one which frequently questions whether the world works justly. One central message of the book is that the righteous and the evil receive the same lot in this world. Sometimes life is even worse for the righteous than it is for the evil. Song of Songs seems to be a love song between a man and a woman. What place does such literature have, some rabbis asked, in the biblical canon? In the end, both books were accepted into the canon and have been found in Jewish (and non-Jewish) bibles ever since.Section one: The smallest "parsha" in the Torah is Numbers 11:35-36. These two verses, which contain 85 letters, are set off as a "parsha" in the traditional writing of the Torah. The mishnah uses this number as a paradigm for what constitutes a "scroll" such that it would defile the hands. There either have to remain 85 letters from a scroll that used to have more, or a new scroll has to already have 85 letters. Less than 85 letters and the scroll will not defile the hands.Sections 2-9: The remainder of the mishnah is an extended discussion/argument over whether two books, Kohelet and Shir Hashirim (Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs) defile the hands (i.e. are they part of the canon).Ultimately, we know that both of these books were accepted into the Jewish Bible, and indeed were rich sources for rabbinic midrashim. There are probably several reasons why they were accepted. First and foremost, Shir Hashirim is explicitly attributed to King Solomon and Kohelet is ascribed to a king in Jerusalem, traditionally understood as King Solomon. While modern scholars do not accept the historical accuracy of these ascriptions, rabbis certainly didn't doubt them. Being ascribed to an ancient king certainly helps if you want to be part of the Bible!Secondly, Shir Hashirim merited a metaphorical interpretation. The love story was not between a man and a woman but rather between the people of Israel and God. It is this metaphorical, mystical and at times erotic poetry between God and Israel that causes Rabbi Akiva to call it the holiest book.And while Kohelet does express deep skepticism concerning justice in the world, it ultimately ends with the famous verse, "The sum of the matter, when all is said and done: Revere God and observe His commandments! For this applies to all mankind." The rabbis too certainly would have ascribed to this directive.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Yesterday's mishnah ended with the statement that the sages voted on whether to include Kohelet and Shir Hashirim in the canon. This is taken as referring to a vote that occurred in the academy in Yavneh on a momentous day in history. Today's mishnah continues with other momentous issues they voted on on that famous day.
  On that day the votes were counted and they decided that a footbath holding from two logs to nine kavs which was cracked could contract midras  uncleanness.  You just have to love this transition. In yesterday's mishnah we hear of a vote over whether a book should be part of the Bible. It's hard to think of a more fateful issue than this if the vote had turned the other way, these two books might have been lost, or at least cut out of the Jewish tradition. The second issue was over the purity of a cracked footbath and whether it can still receive midras uncleanness. Since it can no longer hold liquids, it doesn't count as a vessel for bathing. But since people could still sit in it, it is still susceptible to "midras" uncleanness, the kind of impurity that is given to items that are meant to be sat or laid upon.
  Because Rabbi Akiva said a footbath [must be considered] according to its designation.  Rabbi Akiva holds that anything that is called "a footbath," even if it can hold more than nine kavs, is still susceptible to midras impurity.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Most of this mishnah is found word for word in Zevahim 1:1 and 1:3. Most of my commentary here is the same as that there. It is brought here as well because according to this mishnah, those halakhot from Zevahim originated on that same famous day.
  On that day they said: all animal sacrifices  which have been sacrificed under the name of some other offering  are [nevertheless] valid,  but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations,  with the exception of the pesah  and the sin-offering.  For most sacrifices, if the priest offering them thinks that he is offering a different sacrifice than he is really supposed to be offering, the sacrifice is still valid. This means that its blood can be spilled on the altar and the sacrifice can be eaten by those who would have been able to eat it had it been offered properly. However, the sacrifice does not count as far as fulfilling the obligation of its owner. Thus if the owner was obligated to bring an olah, for instance, and it was sacrificed with the intent of it being another sacrifice, the owner must bring another olah in its place. The exception to this is the pesah and the hatat. If either of these two sacrifices is offered with the intent of its being a different type of sacrifices, not only does it not count for the owner who brought it, it is completely disqualified. Its blood cannot be spilled on the altar, nor can it be eaten.
  [This is true of] the pesah in its correct time and the sin-offering at any time.  The pesah is only disqualified if it is slaughtered with the wrong intent at the time that it is supposed to be slaughtered, on second half of the day on the fourteenth of Nissan. If it is slaughtered on the wrong day, for the wrong purpose, then paradoxically, it is valid, although it would obviously not count for its owner. Its as if the mishnah is saying that in this case, two negatives can make a positive. When it comes to the hatat, there is no specific time in which it must be offered. Therefore, no matter when it is offered, if the intention is for the wrong sacrifice, it is disqualified.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: [with the exception] also of the guilt-offering; [so that this refers to] the pesah in its correct time and to the sin- and guilt-offerings at any time.  Rabbi Eliezer argues that the same rule that applies to the hatat applies to the asham, also a sacrifice brought to atone for sin. If it is slaughtered for the sake of it being a different sacrifice, it is disqualified.
  Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the college that all animal sacrifices which are eaten and which have not been sacrificed under their own name are nevertheless valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. Ben Azzai only added [to these exceptions] the wholly burnt-offering, but the sages did not agree with him.  This section is found in Zevahim 1:3. My commentary here is the same as it is there.
  [This is true of] the pesah in its correct time and the sin-offering at any time.  In section two we learned that the two exceptional sacrifices that are disqualified if offered with the wrong intent are the pesah and the hatat. All other sacrifices are valid if slaughtered with the intent of their being different sacrifices. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai quotes this tradition as being true only for sacrifices that are eaten. This would not include the olah, which is wholly burnt. According to ben Azzai’s tradition, the olah is disqualified if it is slaughtered with the intent of it being a different sacrifice. The final line of the mishnah notes that ben Azzai added the olah to the pesah and hatat, but that the sages (whose opinion is found in mishnah one) did not agree with this tradition. Rabbi Shimon Ben Azzai states that he received this tradition on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was appointed a member of the yeshiva (academy). This seems to be a famous day in rabbinic recollection and there is a significant amount of aggadah concerning the background to this appointment. The most expansive version of this aggadah is found in Bavli Berakhot 27b, where Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah is appointed head of the academy after Rabban Gamaliel is deposed. The historical accuracy of that legendary account is a bit suspect, but here in the Mishnah we can see that although we might not know exactly what happened that day, it was a memorable day, one which later rabbis used as a reference point.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  In today's extraordinarily long mishnah there is a dispute concerning what tithes are given from produce grown in the land of Ammon and Moab on the sabbatical year. Inside the land of Israel seventh year produce is ownerless and no tithes are separated. Ammon and Moab are borderline lands. The sabbatical year is not operative in them but the rabbis did decree that one has to separate tithes from produce grown there. This creates the question of what type of tithes must be separated in the sabbatical year.
  As further background, we should remember that there are two tithes. First tithes are given to the Levites. This tithe would be separated in Ammon and Moab during the sabbatical year. The other tithe alternates between second tithe, which is taken to Jerusalem and eaten there by its owners and the poor tithe which is given to the poor. Second tithe is taken out in the 1, 2, 4 and 5 years of the seven year cycle and poor tithe on the 3 and 6 year. This is the tithe that is debated in our mishnah.
  Along with the particular content discussion, the argument in this mishnah reveals an unusual amount concerning rabbinic discourse. It offers us a fascinating glimpse into the inner workings of the early rabbinic academy.
  On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe.  Rabbi Tarfon rules that in these two lands they should separate poor tithes on the sabbatical year, whereas Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah rules that they should separate second tithe.
  Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof.  Rabbi Yishmael seems to act as a sort of moderator for the dispute. He tells Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah that the burden of proof is upon him, for he rules strictly. The reason that his opinion is considered "strict" is that second tithe is treated as holy, whereas poor tithe is not holy. As far as how much is given, there is no difference both are tithes.
  Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof.  Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah responds that the burden of proof should be upon Rabbi Tarfon, and not upon him. In the third and sixth years one gives poor tithes. The year that immediately follows is second tithe (at least in the fourth year).  Therefore, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah has not deviated from the normal order of second tithe always following after a year of poor tithe. So Rabbi Tarfon must first give proof for why we should deviate from the normal order. [This section kind of reminds me of the coin flip at the beginning of a football game arguing over who starts.]
  Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year,   so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.  Having lost the coin flip, Rabbi Tarfon kicks off. He compares Ammon and Moab with Egypt. Just as Egypt gives poor tithes in the seventh year, so should Ammon and Moab. Later in the Mishnah we shall see that everyone agrees that the earlier sages decreed that Egypt should give poor tithe.
  Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year.  Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah responds by saying that the laws outside of Israel are not all the same. Babylon is also outside of Israel and there they separate second tithe during the seventh year, not poor tithe. So if you're going to compare Ammon and Moab to something, compare them to Babylon!
  Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year.  The fight is truly getting brutal my friends! Rabbi Tarfon now explains why he compared Ammon and Moab to Egypt and not Babylon. Ammon, Moab and Egypt are both close to the land of Israel. Therefore the sages declared that they should give poor tithes so that the poor of Israel could benefit. In other words, Rabbi Tarfon feels that the sages adjusted the halakhah so that it would most benefit the poor.
  Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend?   As it is said, "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings" (Malakhi 3:8).  Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah counterattacks. Giving tithes to the poor might provide them with some temporary relief. But if people should really be giving second tithe then they in the end will be causing destruction and death. For the verses from Malakhi state that people have cheated God by not bringing tithes. As a punishment, God will stop the rains and dew (this is made even more explicit in v. 10, not quoted in the Mishnah). Thus, perverting tithe laws in order to give to the poor ultimately will cause drought.
  Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets.  Rabbi Joshua now jumps into the debate. He defends Rabbi Tarfon but using different reasoning. That Egypt should give poor tithe is a "new act," decreed by the sages of the Second Temple period, when Egypt again flourished as a center for Judaism. That Babylon should give second tithe is an "old act," decreed by the prophets. Since Ammon and Moab are both new acts, they should be like the other "new act" and give poor tithe. A related factor is that Egypt is a "decree of the sages," whereas Babylon is a "decree of the prophets." Since Ammon and Moab will obviously be a decree of the sages, they should be like the other decree of the sages and give poor tithe.
  The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.  After all of the arguments have been made, the sages take a vote and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Tarfon win.
  And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit  visited Rabbi Eliezer  in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: "The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covenant, to make them know it" (Psalms 25:14).  Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.  There is a fascinating epitaph to this story. Rabbi Eliezer was evidently not there when this vote was taken. According to later legends he was excommunicated. Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit, an otherwise unknown sage, goes to Rabbi Eliezer to report to him about what happened in the academy. Rabbi Eliezer agrees with the content of the vote, but vehemently seems to disagree with the process. Rabbi Eliezer is saying I don't need your vote because I have a tradition that goes all the way back to Sinai that Ammon and Moab give poor tithe on the sabbatical year. The argument here is between Rabbi Eliezer's way of determining halakhah and that of the other rabbis. The other rabbis, at whose forefront stands Rabbi Joshua, hold that whenever a new situation arises sages must argue about it, present opposing points of view, and then bring the matter up for a vote. There are indeed innovations in halakhah and they are arrived upon through a process of dispute and voting. Rabbi Eliezer is the arch-conservative. Even obviously new situations such as this, Jews living in the lands of Ammon and Moab, were addressed at Sinai. There is no need for a vote and no need for argumentation.  Everything that ever will be was already there in the original revelation.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Deuteronomy 23:4 states that an Ammonite or Moabite "cannot enter the assembly of the Lord." The rabbis interpret this to mean that even if an Ammonite or Moabite convert, they still cannot marry a regular Israelite.
  Our mishnah, whose discussion also occurred "on that day," deals with an Ammonite convert who comes before the sages asking if he is part of this prohibition. It sounds like the story was probably placed in this chapter because the previous mishnah also discussed Ammon and Moab.
  On that day Judah, an Ammonite convert, came and stood before them in the house of study. He said to them: Do I have the right to enter into the assembly? Rabban Gamaliel said to him: you are forbidden. Rabbi Joshua said to him: you are permitted.  Judah the Ammonite, who seems to have already converted to Judaism, comes in front of Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua asking to be allowed to marry an Israelite woman (not another Ammonite convert).
  Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, "An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord: even to the tenth generation" (Deuteronomy 23:4).  Rabban Gamaliel refuses to allow him to do so based on the verse from Deuteronomy. This would seem to be an open and shut case. Deuteronomy prohibits Ammonites from marrying into the assembly, so Judah should have to go marry someone else.
  R. Joshua said to him: But are the Ammonites and Moabites still in their own territory? Sanheriv, the king of Assyria, has long since come up and mingled all the nations, as it is said: "In that I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants" (Isaiah 10:1.  However, Rabbi Joshua responds by saying that those who identify today (i.e. in his day) as Ammonites are no longer the same Ammonites of yore. King Sanheriv, the same Assyrian king who destroyed the northern kingdom, came and mixed up all of the peoples, forcibly transferring them from one place to another, as he did with the 10 northern tribes. Therefore, the rules of the Torah that applied to the Ammonites back then, no longer apply now.
  Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, "But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon," (Jeremiah 49:6) they have already returned.  Rabban Gamaliel actually accepts Rabbi Joshua's argument but responds that there is another verse that shows that God brought back the Ammonites from their exile. According to Rabban Gamaliel the verse from Jeremiah does not refer to the "end of days" as do the verses regarding the Moabites (Jeremiah 48:47) and Elam (49:39). Rather, God has already restored the Ammonites, so the prohibition from Deuteronomy applies again.
  Rabbi Joshua said to him: [another] verse says, "I will return the captivity of my people Israel and Judah" (Amos 9:14).  Yet they have not yet returned.  The argument now turns on the meaning of a verse that says, "And I have returned" a certain people to their place. The prophet Amos uses the same language with regard to Israel and nevertheless Israel has not returned to its homeland, at least not all of Israel. So too, when it comes to Ammon, just because someone is currently an "Ammonite" does not mean that they are prohibited by the verse in Deuternomy.
  So they permitted him to enter the assembly.  The mishnah concludes with good news for our friend Judah. He is allowed into the community, meaning he can go find himself a good Yiddishe mamma! Sign the boy up for JDate!
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah returns to the subject of scrolls defiling the hands.
  The Aramaic sections in Ezra and Daniel defile the hands. If an Aramaic section was written in Hebrew, or a Hebrew section was written in Aramaic, or [Hebrew which was written with] Hebrew script, it does not defile the hands. It never defiles the hands until it is written in the Assyrian script, on parchment, and in ink.  There are some portions of the book of Ezra and the book of Daniel that are in Aramaic, not Hebrew. These sections defile the hands just as do other portions of the Bible. The fact that they are in Aramaic does not make them less holy.
  This section seems to teach that Aramaic and Hebrew are not inherently holy languages such that they should defile the hands. If a portion of the Bible that is in Hebrew was translated into Aramaic (targum) it doesn't defile the hands. Neither do Hebrew translations of the Aramaic parts of the Bible. The Hebrew script we use is called Assyrian script. The older script is called by scholars  "Phoenician script" and is called by the rabbis "Hebrew script." According to the Talmud, Ezra switched the script from the ancient Hebrew to the Assyrian. If a scroll of the Tanakh was written in this ancient script, it does not defile the hands.
  Only Tanakh scrolls written with the proper script, Assyrian, on parchment (made from the hides of an animal) and with ink are valid as ritual objects. Therefore, only these scrolls defile the hands.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  The final three mishnayot of the tractate contain disputes between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Our knowledge of these groups is quite vague. We know that the rabbis sided with the Pharisees, although the rabbis don't exactly see themselves as Pharisees. Assumedly this is because this division mostly ceased after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Josephus, the first century historian, divides the Jews into three "philosophies" Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. The New Testament mentions both the Pharisees and Sadducees. And there is a bitter argument over who the Dead Sea Sect was some believe they were Sadducees, but this is not generally accepted.
  In these mishnayot the Sadducees complain against various halakhot of the Pharisees. There is an echo of this in a text called "The Halakhic Letter" found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In this letter, the Jews living in Qumran write of their halakhic disagreements with those Jews running the show in Jerusalem. There is some affinity between the halakhot of the writers living in Qumran and the Sadducees as presented in rabbinic literature. Rather than conclude that this means that these Jews were "Sadducees" I think it is more appropriate to say that these Jews had a halakhic system similar to the Sadducees. They may indeed have been Essenes (this is the general consensus); the differences between Essenes and Sadducees may be based on other issues besides halakhah.
  In any case, these three mishnayot are fascinating because they afford us a glimpse into what kinds of things Second Temple religious leaders were arguing about.
  The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer  do not defile the hands.  The reason these complaints against the Pharisees are found in tractate Yadayim is that the first of the Sadducees' complaints is the subject at hand (pun intended). The Sadducees seem to know of two types of books, the works of Homer (not Simpson) and the Holy Scriptures. Clearly the latter are holy while the former are not. So why then do the Pharisees say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands whereas the works of Homer do not?
  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this?   Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yohanan the high priest are unclean.  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai explains by playing devil's advocate. All agree that the bones of a donkey do not defile. Only the flesh of a dead impure animal defiles, not the bones (see Toharot 1:4). Interestingly, Rabbi Yohanan seems to mention the "donkey" because in Hebrew "donkey" is "hamor" which sounds like Homer pun intended! In any case, a donkey's bones do not defile but human bones, even those of one's parents do. Why should this be, he rhetorically asks?
  They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother.  Rabbi Yohanan's words force the Sadducees to admit to a principle. Defilement is a way to force people not to make profane use out of a beloved object. If human bones were ritually clean, people might make spoons out of the bones of their parents (okay, I admit this sounds strange would people really do such a thing?).
  He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands.  Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai now uses that very principle to respond to the Sadducees. Homer's works are not beloved and therefore they don't defile the hands. But clearly the Holy Scriptures are beloved and therefore they do. This is similar to how I explained the prohibition at the outset of this issue (3:2).
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean. The Pharisees say: we complain against you, Sadducees, that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean?  The Sadducees complain that the Pharisees declare that an uninterrupted flow is clean. What this means is that if one pours from a clean vessel into an unclean vessel what remains in the clean vessel is still clean (see Makhshirin 5:9). Interestingly, this very issue is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Pharisees respond with a precedent showing that water connected to a source of impurity does not necessarily become impure. Water that flows out of a cemetery is pure, even though it is still attached to the source. So too with the flow from one vessel to the other, even though the water is attached to something unclean, the upper vessel is still clean.
  The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you say, my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable, yet my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable. Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties, yet I am responsible for their damages, in the case of my male or female slave for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot, how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages?  The second argument in this mishnah compares damages or injury done by one's animals with injury or damage done by one's slaves. According to rabbinic law, a master is liable for damages done by his animals but not his slaves (see Bava Kamma 8:4). The Sadducees complain that this is illogical, for one is not liable to make sure that his animals perform mitzvoth, whereas one is liable to make sure that his slaves perform mitzvoth, such as brit milah (see Genesis 17:12) and eating the pesah sacrifice (Exodus 12:44).
  They said to them: No, if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding, can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding? So that if I were to anger either of them and they would go and burn another person's stack, should I be liable to make restitution?  The Pharisees respond that a master's liability for his animals is only because animals have no intelligence/understanding. Since an animal has no intelligence, at least legally speaking, his master is usually liable for damages performed by the animal. In contrast, a slave may be owned by his/her master, but the slave has intelligence and independent will. Even if one angers his slave and the slave damages some property, the owner is not liable. We should note that this Pharisaic law was probably unusual and perhaps even their own invention. Most law systems of the time, including other ancient near eastern laws, would have held a master liable for damages done by a slave. But for the rabbis, the operative principle in many matters of law is "legal awareness" or "understanding." Since slaves have such capacity, they are independent and liable for damages they perform.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  In this mishnah the argument is no longer with a Sadducee but a Galilean "min." The word "min" is found in manuscripts of this mishnah, although in printed editions it says "Sadducee." A "min" is somewhat akin to heretic. The "min" is clearly a Jew, but is part of a group that is opposed to the rabbis/Pharisees. In later literature it could be used to refer to a Christian but it clearly does not refer to a Christian here. Nevertheless, Christian censors in the Middle Ages did not like this word and therefore they forced the Jews to change it.
  A Galilean min said: I complain against you Pharisees, that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document.  The "min" complains against the Pharisees that they write the name of Moses and the current Roman ruler together in the divorce document, the get. What this means is that they would date the document by referring to the year of the ruling of the current king (see Gittin 8:5) and at the end, they would write, "as is the religion of Moses Israel." This "min" seems to be attacking the Pharisees for accommodating themselves to Roman rule. Interestingly, this "min" is found in the Galilee, where the rabbis seemed to have lived in harmony with the Romans after the destruction of the Temple.
  The Pharisees said: we complain against you, Galilean min, that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page [of Torah]? And furthermore that you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below? As it is said, "And Pharoah said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?" (Exodus 5:2) But when he was smitten what did he say? "The Lord is righteous" (Exodus 9:27).  The Pharisees offer a cynical response. In Torah scrolls not only is the name of God and the name of Pharaoh written on the same page, but the name of Pharaoh comes first. Obviously, this is unavoidable, as can be shown from the verse in Exodus 5:2. So too, it is not a problem to write Moses's name in the same document as the Roman ruler's name. Our mishnah concludes with another verse "The Lord is righteous." This verse is brought here so that the tractate does not conclude with a verse that says, "Who is God." It is missing in some manuscripts. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Yadayim! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Yadayim was interesting, wasn't it? Among all of the issues in Seder Toharot this may have been the most practical. In addition, this last chapter was simply fascinating (and I think I'm going to teach it in my Mishnah class tomorrow!). The issue of hand-washing and the impurity of scrolls were both innovations of the sages or their predecessors, the Pharisees. So we get to learn some Second Temple halakhic history on the side. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Oktzin the last tractate of the Mishnah!