mishnah

Vessels finished in purity, etc. Finished by whom? If a learned and observant man has finished them, why should they be dipped? but if a common person has finished them, how is it that the Mishnah calls them "finished in purity?" Rabbah bar Shela said that R. Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means, in case that a learned and observant man has finished them; yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it, it is treated as unclean. "May have fallen upon it," when? If we should say, before it is completed, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or, after it is completed, but then he takes good care of it. By all means in the case of the vessel before it is completed; yet perhaps at the moment that it was made, it was still liquid. It is a case for dipping, but not for the going down of the sun. This Mishnic teaching does not agree with R. Eliezer. For there is a canonical Mishnah, When one has cut out a pipe for the ashes of purification for sin, R. Eliezer says, Let him forthwith dip. R. Joshua says, Let him be rendered unclean and afterwards let him dip (Parah, v. 4). And we discuss the question, Who is it that is cutting it out? Perhaps it is a learned and observant man, who has cut it out. But then, why should I dip? Or, a common person has cut it out. But then would R. Joshua have said, He shall be made unclean and shall be dipped? Nay, for he is already unclean and continues so. And Rabbah bar Shela said that Rab Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means let it be the case that a learned and observant man has cut it out, yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it—When? If we should say, before he cut it out, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or after he cut it out, but then he takes good care of it. By all means it is so before he cut it out; yet perhaps at the moment that he cut it out, it was still liquid. It is all right as to what R. Joshua says, This is by way of a test for Sadducees. For we have a canonical Mishnah, They used to make unclean the priest who burns the heifer, in order to protest against the view of the Sadducees (Parah, iii. 7); for they used to say, This act is included among the sunset ones. But thou art in accord with the teaching of R. Eliezer, if thou sayest, It is all right to say that in every case we require the sunset rule, for this is a protest against the Sadducees. But if thou sayest, In every case we do not require the sunset rule, how is it a protest against the Sadducees? Rab said,

Vessels finished in purity, etc. Finished by whom? If a learned and observant man has finished them, why should they be dipped? but if a common person has finished them, how is it that the Mishnah calls them "finished in purity?" Rabbah bar Shela said that R. Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means, in case that a learned and observant man has finished them; yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it, it is treated as unclean. "May have fallen upon it," when? If we should say, before it is completed, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or, after it is completed, but then he takes good care of it. By all means in the case of the vessel before it is completed; yet perhaps at the moment that it was made, it was still liquid. It is a case for dipping, but not for the going down of the sun. This Mishnic teaching does not agree with R. Eliezer. For there is a canonical Mishnah, When one has cut out a pipe for the ashes of purification for sin, R. Eliezer says, Let him forthwith dip. R. Joshua says, Let him be rendered unclean and afterwards let him dip (Parah, v. 4). And we discuss the question, Who is it that is cutting it out? Perhaps it is a learned and observant man, who has cut it out. But then, why should I dip? Or, a common person has cut it out. But then would R. Joshua have said, He shall be made unclean and shall be dipped? Nay, for he is already unclean and continues so. And Rabbah bar Shela said that Rab Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means let it be the case that a learned and observant man has cut it out, yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it—When? If we should say, before he cut it out, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or after he cut it out, but then he takes good care of it. By all means it is so before he cut it out; yet perhaps at the moment that he cut it out, it was still liquid. It is all right as to what R. Joshua says, This is by way of a test for Sadducees. For we have a canonical Mishnah, They used to make unclean the priest who burns the heifer, in order to protest against the view of the Sadducees (Parah, iii. 7); for they used to say, This act is included among the sunset ones. But thou art in accord with the teaching of R. Eliezer, if thou sayest, It is all right to say that in every case we require the sunset rule, for this is a protest against the Sadducees. But if thou sayest, In every case we do not require the sunset rule, how is it a protest against the Sadducees? Rab said,

The addition was only necessary for the rest of the meat-offering. For the teaching of the Law is, What stands in need of a vessel, the vessel includes it; what does not stand in need of a vessel, the vessel does not include it. But our Rabbis went farther and ordained that although a thing do not necessarily belong to a vessel, the vessel includes it. This will be all right as regards flour, but what is to be said about incense and frankincense? R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, It is as though men heaped things up upon a large piece of leather. According to the Law if it have an inside, it includes them; if it have not an inside, it does not include them. But our Rabbis went farther and ordained that although it have no inside, it includes them. And the view of R. Chanin differs from that of R. Chia bar Abba. For R. Chia bar Abba says that R. Jochanan says, This Mishnah is taught from the testimony of R. Akiba.

And in the case of heave-offering, though one of his hands be unclean etc. R. Shezbi says, It is in case of contact that this teaching holds, but in case there is no contact, it does not hold. Abai replied to him, A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean, so far as to make unclean for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. These are the words of Rab. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, This is the case so far as to disqualify, but not to render unclean. If thou sayest, No doubt this is so in cases of non-contact, then here comes in the importance of the word "wiped;" but if thou sayest, In case of contact, yes; in case of non-contact, no; then what is the importance of the "wiped" hand? It has been reported also that Resh Lakish said, The Mishnah refers only to his own hand

and not to the hand of his companion; but R. Jochanan said, Whether it be his own hand or the hand of his companion, with that same hand he may disqualify, but not render unclean. Whence did he learn this? From the fact that it has been taught in the latter portion of the Mishnah, for the hand makes its fellow unclean in the case of hallowed things, but not in the case of heave-offering.

Why am I told this again? Lo, it was taught in the preceding clauses of the same Mishnah. But do you not think that one should learn from it that it is for the purpose of bringing in the hand of his companion? And moreover so powerful was it that Resh Lakish changed his view about it, for R. Jonah said, that R. Ami said, that Resh Lakish said, Whether it be his own hand, or the hand of his companion, with that same hand he may disqualify but not render unclean.

And to shew that there are things which can disqualify without rendering unclean, here is a teaching. For there is a canonical Mishnah, All that disqualifies for a heave-offering, renders the hands unclean, so as to be of secondary impurity. And a hand renders its fellow unclean. These are the words of R. Joshua. And other wise men say, The hands themselves are only of secondary uncleanness, and that which is secondary does not produce a second in the case of ordinary things (Yadaim, iii. 2). Do you think that it cannot make a second? Nay, you say, it makes a third. Or perhaps it makes neither a second nor a third. But moreover we have a Baraitha to quote on our side. For there is a Baraitha, A wiped hand renders its fellow unclean, so far as to render unclean for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. These are the words of Rabbi. R. Jose in the name of R. Jehudah says, With that same hand he may disqualify, but not render unclean.

We have a canonical Mishnah elsewhere, viz., The house of Shammai and the house of Hillel agree, that we are to investigate a field in which a person is buried, for those who are keeping the Passover, but we do not investigate for those who desire to eat heave-offering (P'sachim 92b, i. 1). What is the meaning of investigate? R. Jehudah said that Samuel said, A man blows upon the unclean place as he walks along. And R. Chia bar Abba in the name of Ola said, An unclean place of this sort that is trodden is clean. For those keeping Passover they did not insist upon their decisions, as it was a case of cutting off, but for those who desired to eat heave-offering they did insist on their decisions, as it was a case of death. It was a question for them, In the case of a man who has investigated for his Passover, what about his eating his heave-offering. Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is free to eat his heave-offering, but Rabbah bar Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is forbidden to eat his heave-offering. That old man said to him, Do not thou contradict Ola's assertion, for there is a canonical Mishnah which bears him out, viz., But if he say, I have separated and put into the midst of it a fourth part of something consecrated for hallowed things, he is believed (Chag. 24b, ii. 15). Consequently, seeing that he is believed about hallowed things, he is believed also about heave-offering; and so here too, seeing that he is believed about passover, he is believed also about heave-offering.

We have a canonical Mishnah elsewhere, viz., The house of Shammai and the house of Hillel agree, that we are to investigate a field in which a person is buried, for those who are keeping the Passover, but we do not investigate for those who desire to eat heave-offering (P'sachim 92b, i. 1). What is the meaning of investigate? R. Jehudah said that Samuel said, A man blows upon the unclean place as he walks along. And R. Chia bar Abba in the name of Ola said, An unclean place of this sort that is trodden is clean. For those keeping Passover they did not insist upon their decisions, as it was a case of cutting off, but for those who desired to eat heave-offering they did insist on their decisions, as it was a case of death. It was a question for them, In the case of a man who has investigated for his Passover, what about his eating his heave-offering. Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is free to eat his heave-offering, but Rabbah bar Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is forbidden to eat his heave-offering. That old man said to him, Do not thou contradict Ola's assertion, for there is a canonical Mishnah which bears him out, viz., But if he say, I have separated and put into the midst of it a fourth part of something consecrated for hallowed things, he is believed (Chag. 24b, ii. 15). Consequently, seeing that he is believed about hallowed things, he is believed also about heave-offering; and so here too, seeing that he is believed about passover, he is believed also about heave-offering.

We have a canonical Mishnah, viz., vessels of wine and vessels of oil which are mixed, why should they not be mixed as regards heave-offering? Those of the house of R. Chia say, Mixed as regards hallowed things. But how can there be a mixture as regards hallowed things. Those of the house of R. El'ai say, Yes, in the case of one who is in the act of purifying his untouched produce, to take out of it the libations.

But against this I adduce the following Baraitha, viz., In the case of the tax-collectors who have gone into the midst of the house, the house is wholly unclean. There is no difficulty. The one is when there is a stranger with them, the other, when there is not a stranger with them. For there is a canonical Mishnah, If there is a stranger with them, they are believed, when they say, We did not enter, but they are not believed, when they say, We entered but we did not touch (Tahăroth, vii. 6). But, it is asked, What does this mean, "if there is a stranger with them"? Behold, R. Jochanan and R. El'azar reply. The one says, When a stranger stands beside them; and the other says, When the government official stands beside them. What is the difference between them? There is this difference between them. A stranger is not of importance.

And so too the thieves, who have restored the vessels. But against this I adduce the following Baraitha, viz., In the case of the thieves who have gone into the midst of the house, only the place where the thieves' feet trode is unclean. R. Phinehas said in the name of Rab, They are to be believed only in case they have repented. You can even press it out from the language of the Mishnah, for the teaching is, Who have restored the vessels. Learn it thence.

R. Ami and R. Isaac Naphcha sat at the portico of R. Isaac Naphcha. One began and said, What is the meaning of the words, He shall keep it for another festival? He said to him, Every one's hand has been handling it, and dost thou say, He shall keep it for another festival? He said to him, Nay, but hitherto as well has not every one's hand been handling it? He said to him, That is quite true; yet hitherto the uncleanness of a common person in a festival the Merciful One cleanseth. But now it is a case of uncleanness. Shall we say so? For we have one Baraitha which teaches, He shall leave it for another festival, and another Baraitha, He shall not leave it for another festival. Is not this a non-canonical Mishnah? Nay, it is older. Lo, the Baraitha, "He shall leave it," is identical with the teaching of R. Jehudah, and the Baraitha, "he shall not leave it," with that of our Rabbis. But bring your reasoning powers to bear. Lo, R. Jehudah said, Let him finish; but this, which is equivalent to the Baraitha, "let him not leave," is identical with the teaching of R. Jehudah; and the other, which is equivalent to the Baraitha, "let him leave," is identical with the teaching of our Rabbis. And why shall he not leave it? Because it is not necessary to leave it.

There is a Baraitha, Be ye clean, lest ye touch the table or the lamp. And yet we have a Baraitha to this effect, viz., What is the reason that we are not taught this with reference to the lamp? It is because the table is called in Holy Writ perpetual, the lamp is not called in Holy Writ perpetual. And another says, Since Holy Writ says, "and the lamp over against the table" (Ex. xxvi. 35), it is as though it were called in Holy Writ perpetual. But another says, It was only to fix its place that it comes. But you may get it out for me in this way. For it is a vessel of wood which is made to rest; and every vessel of wood which is made to rest, is not liable to uncleanness. What is the reason then that it is liable to uncleanness? Because it is like a sack in this respect, and therefore can contract uncleanness. As a sack is moveable, whether empty or full, so also everything which is moveable whether empty or full is liable to cleansing. This also is moveable, whether empty or full. As is the teaching of Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the passage, "upon the clean table?" (Lev. xxiv. 6) Undoubtedly it implies that it might be unclean. And why? It is a vessel of wood made to rest, and as such it does not receive uncleanness; but it informs us that they raise it up, and exhibit the shewbread on it to those who come up to the festival, and one says to them, Look at the love of God in giving you food. Its end was like its placing. For R. Joshua ben Levi said, A great miracle was wrought in the shewbread. As its placing was miraculous, so was its end; for it is said, "to put hot bread in the day that it was taken away" (1 Sam. xxi. 6). But you may get it out for me in this way. It is because it is overlaid. For lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, The table or the tripod table, which have had a piece broken off, or have been covered with marble, and there has been left on them a place to rest cups, may become unclean. R. Jehudah says, A place to rest cakes (Kelim, xxii. 1). And if thou sayest, It is a different matter with shittim wood, which is esteemed highly, and is not valueless, this is all right according to what Resh Lakish says. For he said, Their teaching only refers to tables made of woods that come from the province of the sea. But in the case of a vessel of Mismim it is not valueless. This is very good. But according to R. Jochanan who says, Even in the case of a vessel of Mismim also it is valueless, what is there to say? And if thou sayest, The one is the case of an overlaid article which stands, and the other, of an overlaid article which does not stand. Lo, Resh Lakish asks from R. Jochanan, Does the Mishnah treat of an overlaid article which stands, or of an overlaid article which does not stand? of one which has its extremities covered, or of one which has not its extremities covered? And he said to him, There is no difference in this respect between an overlaid article which stands and an overlaid article which does not stand. There is no difference in this respect between one which has its extremities covered, and one which has not its extremities covered. But it is the table itself which makes the difference.

There is a Baraitha, Be ye clean, lest ye touch the table or the lamp. And yet we have a Baraitha to this effect, viz., What is the reason that we are not taught this with reference to the lamp? It is because the table is called in Holy Writ perpetual, the lamp is not called in Holy Writ perpetual. And another says, Since Holy Writ says, "and the lamp over against the table" (Ex. xxvi. 35), it is as though it were called in Holy Writ perpetual. But another says, It was only to fix its place that it comes. But you may get it out for me in this way. For it is a vessel of wood which is made to rest; and every vessel of wood which is made to rest, is not liable to uncleanness. What is the reason then that it is liable to uncleanness? Because it is like a sack in this respect, and therefore can contract uncleanness. As a sack is moveable, whether empty or full, so also everything which is moveable whether empty or full is liable to cleansing. This also is moveable, whether empty or full. As is the teaching of Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the passage, "upon the clean table?" (Lev. xxiv. 6) Undoubtedly it implies that it might be unclean. And why? It is a vessel of wood made to rest, and as such it does not receive uncleanness; but it informs us that they raise it up, and exhibit the shewbread on it to those who come up to the festival, and one says to them, Look at the love of God in giving you food. Its end was like its placing. For R. Joshua ben Levi said, A great miracle was wrought in the shewbread. As its placing was miraculous, so was its end; for it is said, "to put hot bread in the day that it was taken away" (1 Sam. xxi. 6). But you may get it out for me in this way. It is because it is overlaid. For lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, The table or the tripod table, which have had a piece broken off, or have been covered with marble, and there has been left on them a place to rest cups, may become unclean. R. Jehudah says, A place to rest cakes (Kelim, xxii. 1). And if thou sayest, It is a different matter with shittim wood, which is esteemed highly, and is not valueless, this is all right according to what Resh Lakish says. For he said, Their teaching only refers to tables made of woods that come from the province of the sea. But in the case of a vessel of Mismim it is not valueless. This is very good. But according to R. Jochanan who says, Even in the case of a vessel of Mismim also it is valueless, what is there to say? And if thou sayest, The one is the case of an overlaid article which stands, and the other, of an overlaid article which does not stand. Lo, Resh Lakish asks from R. Jochanan, Does the Mishnah treat of an overlaid article which stands, or of an overlaid article which does not stand? of one which has its extremities covered, or of one which has not its extremities covered? And he said to him, There is no difference in this respect between an overlaid article which stands and an overlaid article which does not stand. There is no difference in this respect between one which has its extremities covered, and one which has not its extremities covered. But it is the table itself which makes the difference.

GEMARA: Why does the Mishna ask 'How do witnesses become false witnesses?' [since this is not the topic of the Mishnah] and furthermore, later on we learn [the definition of a false witness] But they [different witnesses come and] say to them [the false witnesses]. 'How can you testify? On that day and in that place, you were with us [in a different place, and therefore lying].

...[now our Mishnah continues] and [then] there are false witnesses who are not given [this kind of] punishment at all, rather they receive forty lashes. How so? Witnesses testify that this person is a son of a divorcee or a son of a Levirite marriage. We don't say that they [the false witnesses] become like a son of a divorcee or a son of a Levirite marriage, rather they are lashed forty times.

This is what R' Papa came to solve, R' Papa asked [whether] Rav learnt one kortov minus three logs in the first clause [of the Mishnah] then a Tanna who holds this, holds the mikvah is ineffectual and R' Yochanan came to say, 'everything goes by it's appearance', and Rav says like R' Yochanan b. Nuri.

Or alternatively, Rav did not learn [anything] missing from the kortov in the first clause [of the Mishnah] and when R' Yochanan b. Nuri disagreed, he disagreed only the last clause,

MISHNAH: Witnesses testify this person owes his friend two hundred zuz and they are found to be false, they are lashed and made to pay because the category of lashes is not of payment. These are the words of R' Meir, and the Rabbis say everyone who pays does not receive lashes.

Mishnah: These are the exiles: One who kills someone accidentally. One was rolling with a roofer and it fell on him [a passerby] and killed him; one who was pulling up a barrel and it fell on him and killed him; one who was descending a ladder and it fell on him and killed him—[in all these cases] behold he is exiled. However, if he was pulling with a roofer and it fell on him [a passerby] and killed him; or he was lowering a barrel and the rope broke and it [the barrel] fell on him and killed him;

Mishnah: If the iron axe head slipped from its handle and it killed someone, Rebi says he isn't exiled, and the Sages say that he is exiled. If [a wood chip] from the tree broke off [and that wood chip killed someone], Rebi says he is exiled, and the Sages say that he isn't exiled.

Rav Pappa said: One who threw a clod of dirt at a palm tree, and [the clod of dirt] knocked dates, and the dates fell and killed someone—[in this case] we have arrived at the disagreement between Rebi and the Sages! But this is obvious! Since you might have said that [the death in this instance is] like a case of secondary force, therefore this teaches you that this is not the case [and that this is a case where the death is a result of primary force, and therefore this case is parallel to the Mishnah].

Mishnah: The one who throws a stone into the public domain and killed [someone], behold, he is exiled. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: If, from when the stone left his hand, another person stuck out their head and received [the stone and was killed], behold, he is exempt [from exile].

Mishnah: A father is exiled because of [killing accidentally] his son and the son is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] his father. Any person is exiled by way [killing accidentally] an Israelite and an Israelite is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] them except for a foreign resident. A foreign resident is only sent to exile for a [killing a fellow] foreign resident.

Gemara: "The father is exiled for his son." But didn't you say (in an earlier Mishnah) that a father who strikes his son is not exiled? But he was learned (which is why he would be exiled, since it was not a hit of a Mitzvah). But you said, even when he is learned, it actually is a Mitzvah that he is doing [so he would not be exiled]. [Here, we're talking about when the father is a carpenter and his son] is a carpenter's apprentice [so he is just teaching him a trade—and he would not be exiled].

For the Rabbis who say beheading is more severe than strangulation: one who inadvertently kills his father, this is inadvertent sin [that would be punished, if done intentionally, with] beheading, so such an inadvertent sin would be given atonement [through exile—so this is the opinion of our Mishnah].

"Everyone gets exiled for killing an Israelite accidentally, and vice versa] except through [killing accidentally] a foreign resident." Therefore, a foreign resident is [considered] an idol worshiper! But read the end [of the Mishnah]! "A foreign resident is exiled on account of [killing accidentally] a foreign resident [which would imply that they aren't like idol worshipers as they actually get exiled]! Rav Kahanah said: This is not a difficulty. Here [where the punishment is exile] is where a foreign resident kills a foreign resident, and here [where he does not get exile] is where a foreign resident kills an Israelite.

Mishnah: "The blind person is not exiled—words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir says: He is exiled. The hater is not exiled. Rabbi Yose says: "The hater is put to death because he is like a forewarned [ox]". Rabbi Shimon says: "There are haters which are exiled and haters which are not. This is the rule: Anyone for whom it is possible to say that they knew they were killing is not exiled; that they didn't know they were killing, behold they are exiled."

"Rabbi Yose says: The hater is killed." etc. But they didn't warn him? [In order to be executed in Jewish law, one has to be warned that their action is punishable by death by two witnesses]. Our mishnah is Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah, as it is taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah says: "A colleague does not need warning because warning was only given to distinguish between accidental and intentional." [And we assume that colleagues know the law and are thus, if sinning, sinning intentionally].

Rabbi Shimon says: There is a hater that is exiled... etc. It was taught [in a baraita]: How [is it that] Rabbi Shimon said there are haters which are exiled and haters which are not exiled? If the rope breaks—he is exiled. If the rope slips—he is not exiled. [These seem to refer to cases in the first mishnah of the chapter].

Mishnah: "To where are they exiled? To the cities of refuge—to the three that are across the Jordan, and to the three that are in the land of Canaan. As it is said, 'The three cities you will make across the Jordan and the three cities you will make in the land of Canaan' (Numbers 35:14). While they hadn't chosen the three [cities] in the land of Israel, the three across the Jordan were not effective at providing refuge, as it is said: 'Six cities of refuge will be for you' (Numbers 35)—when there are all six, they are effective at providing refuge as one.

It was taught [in a Mishnah]: "They handed him [the manslayer] over to two students of the Sages lest he [the blood avenger] kill him on the road, and they will speak to him." Is it not so that they are warning him that if he kills [the manslayer] he would be liable for the death penalty?

They asked him [Rebbi Yochanon] Did you say this? [that any prohibition preceded by a positive commandment is subject to flogging i.e. a lo saseah s'kedmu asseah]... He responded to them, No. [I retract what I said.] Rabbah said, By God! He said it. And it is backed by a posuk [verse] and a mishnah. It is written (Numbers 5,2) "And they shall send forth from the camp. etc. And they shall not defile their camps" [which is a lo saseah s'kedmu asseah] and it was taught in a mishna "One who enters the temple whilst impure [receives lashes].