A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 19: Tebul Yom and Yadayim (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity) [Reprint ed.] 9781597529433, 1597529435

Citation preview

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES PART NINETEEN

STUDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER

VOLUME SIX

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES PART NINETEEN

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES BY

JACOB NEUSNER University Professor Professor of Religious Studies and The Ungerleider Distinguished Scholar of Judaic Studies Brown University

PART NINETEEN

TEBUL YOM ANDYADAYIM

Wipf&Stock UBLI Eugent',

ERS

Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 W 8th Ave, Suite 3 Eugene, OR 97401 A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 19 Tebul Yom and Yadayim By Neusner, Jacob Copyright©1977 by Neusner, Jacob ISBN 13: 978-1-59752-943-3 ISBN 10: 1-59752-943-5 Publication date 3/19/2007 Previously published by E. J. Brill, 1977

For my first teachers in Talmud Seymour Siegel, Hayyim Z,tlman Dimitrovsky, Moshe Zucker, Shraga Abramson, and Shelomo Schreiber in gratitude and m memory of Hyman Klein

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface

XI

Correction

xv

Abbreviations and Bibliography

XVII

Transliterations .

XXII

TEBUL YOM I. Intwduction to Tebul Y om

3

II. Tebul Yorn Chapter One .

11

III. Tebul Y om Chapter Two . IV. Tebul Y om Chapter Three .

21

V. Tebul Yorn Chapter Four . VI. Mishnah-'fosefta Tebul Yorn. Translation VII. Tebul Yorn: Literary Problems . i. Introduction . 11. Mishnah and Tosefta . 1. The Relationship between Mishnah and Tosefta 2. The Organization and Redaction of Tosefta . 3. Tosefta as Commentary to Mishnah . 4. Tosefta as a Corpus of Autonomous Materials . 5. The Two Sources of Tosefta. 6. The Two Sources of Tosefta: Literary Traits . 7. The Two Sources of Tosefta: Attributional Traits . 8. Cumulative Summary 9. Conclusion 111. Forms and Formulary Patterns 1. Forms: Lists 2. Forms: Stories, Narratives, and Precedents 3. Forms: Disputes and Debates 4. Formulary Patterns: Apocopation 5. Formulary Patterns: The Declarative Sentence. A. Formally Disciplined and Balanced Sentences in a Major Unit of Tradition

40 52 60 76 76 76 76 77 77 78 78 79 81 82 82 82 83 83 83 85 85 85

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

6. Formulary Patterns: The Declarative Sentence. B. Mishnah's and Tosefta's Glosses of Mishnah 7. Formulary Patterns: The Declarative Sentence. C. Miscellaneous 8. Conclusion VIII. Tebul Yorn: Historical Problems . 1. Introduction 11. Attributions 1. Unattributed Pericopae . 2. Attributions . 111. The \XI eaving of the Law 1. The Thematic Units of Tebul Yorn 2. The Uncleanness of the Tebul Yorn 3. Connection and the Tebul Yorn. 4. Conclusion

86 86 86 86

87 88

88 88

88 89 91 91 91 94 99

YADAYIM IX. Introduction to Yadayim

103

X. Yadayim Chapter One

109

XI. Yadayim Chapter Two XII. Yadayim Chapter Three

120

XIII. Yadayim Chapter Four

136

145

156 XIV. Mishnah-Tos.efta Yadayim. Translation . 177 XV. Yadayim: Literary Problems . 177 1. Introduction 177 . 11. Mishnah and Tosefta 177 1. The Relationship between Mishnah and Tosefta 177 . Tosefta of Redaction and 2. The Organization 178 3. Toscfta as Commentary to Mishnah . 179 4. Tosefta as a Corpus of Autonomous Materials . 179 S. The Two Sources of Tosefta. 180 6. The Two Sources of Tosefta: Literary Traits . 181 . Traits Attributional Tosefta: 7. The Two Sources of 182 8. Cumulative Summary 183 9. Conclusion 183 111. Forms and Formulary Patterns 183 1. Forms: Lists Precedents and Narratives, 2. Forms: Stories, 183

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IX

3. Forms: Disputes and Debates

183 185 185

4. Formulary Patterns: Apocopation 5. Formulary Patterns: The Declarative Sentence.

A. Formally Disciplined and Balanced Sentences in a Major Unit of Tradition. 6. Formulary Patterns: The Declarative Sentence. B. Mishnah's and Tosefta's Glosses of Mishnah 7. Formulary Patterns: The Declarative Sentence. C. Miscellaneous 8. Conclusion XVI. Yadayim: Historical Problems i. Introduction . ii. Attributions 1. Unattributed Pericopae 2. Attributions iii. The Weaving of the Law Appendix: The Deposition of Gama.lie! II: An Examination of the Sources . Robert Goldenberg, Wichita State University Index .

185 186 186 186 186 187 188 188 188 188 189 190

197

• 225

PREFACE We deal with two short tractates, each containing four chapters of Mishnah. The exercises in connection with the literary and historical aspects of the tractates are carried out exactly as before, although the exegesis is as abbreviated as possible. There are no changes whatsoever, except for including the two in a single part of the project. To be sure, both ( and cuq~in as well) are young, ,es1sentiallyUshan in origin. Furthermol'e, the fundamental conception in regard to Tebul Yorn, the person or object which has immersed and awaits sunset to co1nplete the process of purification, and Yadayim, the hands, is that both deal with uncleanness in the second remove; both the Tebul Yom and the unclean hands therefote impart unfitness to heave-offering. But each of the tractates is occupied with its own problems and conceptions. Tebul Yorn is primarily interested in the aspect of connection, in the theory that what is connected for the transmission of all sorts of uncleanness is not connected for the transmission of the unfitness to heave-offering imparted by the Tebul Yorn. Yadayim focuses upon the washing of the hands for the purposes of purification .and how hands become unclean, not principally on the transmission, by the hands, of unfitness to heave-offering. Tebul Yorn in Tosefta is followed by cuq~in, another tractate on the law of connection, and this is logical. For, as we shall see in Part XX, cuq~in in some measure interests itself in connection, though in the main, its subject is undeanness of foods in general. Tosefta's Yadayim follows Zabim, and, given the concluding unit of Zabim, M. Zab. 5:12, with its interest in persons and things jn the second remove of uncleanness, we may regard it as an equivalently appropriate location. But putting the tra.ctates together here is merely for the sake of convenience, and not because of an intrinsic relationship between them. Each tract.ate enjoys its own introduction. Two peculiarities of the translation are to be noted. First, I do not translate Tebul Yom. It would have become unwieldy to repeat, ''he who has immersed that selfsame day" in every place in which Tebul Y om is used. Second, only where the context requires it do I distinguish between NTL, and NTN in the pouring of water onto the hands. In general both verbs are ,translated, pom water ( for purposes of rendering hands dean) or, as the context requires, rinse.

XII

PREFACE

This work, covering two tractates, is offered as a token of thanks to my several teachers in the subject of Talmud during my years as a student at The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1954 through 1960, including the year, 1957-1958, when I was a Fulbright Scholar in Talmud at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and also studied Talmud with Rabbi Shelomo Schreiber at Mir Yeshiva and, further, with Dr. Hyman Klein. Since I have given my life to the subject first encountered in those years, it is obvious that I had teachers who so interested me that I wa,smoved to do so. The first was Professor Seymour Siegel, certainly the teacher in. my entire education who expressed greatest dedication to the intellectual progress and personal welfare of his students. With saintly patience and complete devotion to his task, Rabbi Siegel taught a small group of beginners in such a wiaythat Talmud became the most challenging and engaging document we had ever studied. His personal commitment to his students, who became his disciples then and thereafter, knew no limits. Professor J:Iayyim Zalman Dimitrovsky came next in succession. He did not treat us like beginners, but imposed upon us, therefore drew from us, the responsibilities of mature sh1dents. As an interpreter of the text, he has no peer. Third in line was Professor Shraga Abramson, now at Hebrew University, Jerusalem, whose classroom was surely the most pleasant I have ever known. He taught with abundant love both for the Talmud anim beme:>ah hashsheniyah vehashshelishit," Divre haqqongres hacoJami hashshishi lemadace hayyahadut (Jerusalem, 1976), pp. 51-57. Sanhedrin Samson hen Abraham of Sens, ca. 1150-1230. From reprint of Mishnah Seder Tohorot in Babylonian Talmud, ed. Romm. (Vilna, 1887). Shabbat Shabucot ShebiCit Sifra or Torat Kohanim. According to Codex Assemani LXVI. With a Hebrew Introduction by Louis Finkelstein (N.Y., 1956). Sifra, With the Commentary of Hillel b. R. Eliaqim. Ed. by Shakhna Koleditzky (Jerusalem, 1961). Vol. II. Sifra, ed. Isaac Hirsch Weiss (Repr. N.Y., 1947). Sotah Samuel hen Joseph Strashun, 1794-1872. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm, as at Sens. Jon Michael Stubblefield, Mark 7:1-23 in Light of the First Century Understanding of Clean-Unclean. Doctoral Dissertation. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, 1975). Sukkah Sidre Mishnah. Neziqin, Qodoshim, Tohorot. Ketav Y ad Yerushalayim, 1336. Ketav Y ad beniqud lefi Massoret Teman. (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1970). Introduction by S. Morag. Tosefta TaCanit Y. N. Epstein, Mevo'ot LeSifrut HaTanna'im. Mishnah, Tosefta uMidrashe Halakhah. Edited by E. Z. Melamed (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1957). Temurah Terumot Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, ed., Rabbinische Texte. Erste Reihe. Die Tosefta. Text, Vbersetzung, Erklarung. Herausgegeben von Gerhard Kittel und Karl Heinrich Rengstorf. Band 6. Seder Toharot. Text, Vbersetzung, Erklarung, Kelim, Ahilot, Edited by Walter Windfuhr. Toharot-Uksin, Edited by Gerhard Lisowsky, Gunter Mayer, Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, and Emanuel Schereschewsky. (Stuttgart, 1953-1967).

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Tos. Zuck.

TR T.Y.

TYT TYY

Uqs. V

y.

Y.T. Yad. Yeivin

Yeh. ZA Zab. Zeb.

XXI

Tosephta. Based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices, 11Jith parallels e1nd Vilrimzts, by M. S. Zuckermandel (Reprint Jerusalem, 1963). See Lieberman, TR. Tevul Yom Tosafot Yom '[ov. Yorn Tov Lipmann Heller, 1579-1651. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Tif erct YisraJel, Yakhin. Isrncl ben GeM; see Epstein, Nusalp, pp. 1030-1). Following Bert. and others, Fishman expresses this view in the following aug-

YADAYIM CHAPTER ONE 1 :3·5

117

mented translation: "Even if he intended to soak his bread in one water and it fell in another water ( do you still consider the other water to be invalid? In such a case I consider that the other water) is valid." A. Wetter which has been made rmjit for a cattle to drinkB. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, "[If] it is on the ground, they immerse [in it], but they do not pour from it water for hands." T. 1 :lOA, p. 382, ls. 12-13 (B. Hul. 106a)

A = M. 1:3A. Simeon rejects M. 1:3C. The interesting side is Simeon's explicit statement that what serves as an immersion-pool does not serve for water for hands. This is a development of the analogy between purification-water and water for deaning hands.

1:4 A. [If] he rinsed utensils in it, B. C. D. E.

F. G. in it].

or scrubbed measures in it, it is unfit. [If] he rinsed in it vessels which had already been rinsed, [K: BI:IDSYMJ or new [utensils], it is fit. R. Yose declares unfit in [ the case of rinsing] new [ utensils

M. 1:4

The point is the same as at M. l :3. Vessels which have been rinsed now are clean and \vill not spoil the water. Y ose's view is that new vessels usually are rinsed, and therefore an act of labor is performed with the water if it is used for rinsing new vessels as much as for rinsing dirty ones (Bert., Rosh, Sens) .

1:5 A. The water in whid1 the baker dips loaves of fine bread is unfit [as at M. l:3F}. B. And when he rinses his hands in it [ and wets the bread with his hands], it is fit. C. All are fit to pour water on hands, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor. D. One places the jar between his knees and pours [ out water on his hands]. E. One sets the jar on its side and pours [ out water]. F. And the ape pours water for hands. G. R. Yose declares unfit in these two cases [E, FJ. M. 1:5

118

YADAYIM CHAPTER ONE

1:1-5

A-B complete the foregoing matter. Dipping loaves into the bread constitutes an act of labor performed with the water. If the baker uses the water to rinse l1is hands in the water, then moistens the loaves with his hands, the water remains fit. No work has been done with it (Rosh, Sens, among all commentaries). C stands by itself, a familiar rule. D-G deal with the principle that the water must be poured on the hands by a deliberate action. D defines the matter. If the water is poured out by the man, but with his knees, not with his hands, it is suitable. E carries this a step further. Since the man set the jar on its side, the pouring is deemed to be the result of human action, even though the water pours out on its own. F has action, but not human action. Yose rejects the latter two. Human action is required and not present either at E, since the action is indirect, or at F, for obvious reasons. C. Water which is before the baker, even though its color has not changed-they do not pour from it water for hands. D. And when he takes it with his hands and pours it on loaves, E. if its color changes, it is unfit. F. And if not, it is fit. T. l:lOB, p. 352, ls. 13-16

C augments M. l :5A, and D-F, M. 1 :5B. T. contributes the issue of color-change (M. Miq. 7:3-5), since, if the baker uses the water, it will not be discolored; we do not know that it has not been used. A. Water which is before the smith, B. even though its color has not changedC. they do not pour from it water for hands, D. for it is certain that work has been done in it. E. Water which is before the scribe, if its color has changed, ts unfit, and if not, is fit. T. 1:11, p. 352, ls. 17-19

T. now adds to M.'s case, stating its reason, D. In the case of the scribe's water, if the color has not changed, we know that the water has not been used. A. All are fit to pour out water for hands, even a person unclean by reason of corpse-contamination, even a man who has had intercourse with a menstruating woman. B. Whoever does not impart uncleanness to water when he carries it is fit to pour out water for hands. T. 1:12, p. 353, ls. 1-2

YADAYIM CHAPTER ONE

1 :5

119

T. has its own version of M. 1 :5C. On the reading, see TR IV, pp. 146- 7. The two named at A do not impart uncleanness through carriage. A. [If] the one who takes the water intends and the one who pours out the water does not intend [that by his act the water will clean the hands], B. [ if] the one who pours out the water intends, and the one who takes the water does not intend [that the water should clean the hands], C. his hands are deemed clean. D. R. Yose says, "His hands are unclean." T. 1:13, p. 353, ls. 3-6

Yose's position at M. 1:5G in respect to M. 1:5F's ape is clarified. He requires appropriate intention throughout.

A. If one broke open the caldron and poured out water for hands from a pipe which contains a piece capable of containing a quarter-log ofwaterB. his hands are clean. C. And R. Yose says, "His hands are unclean." D. And R. Yose agrees that if he left a jar between his knees or in the crook of his arm and poured out water, his hands are clean. T. 1:14, p. 353, ls. 5-8 The final case illustrates the matter of M. 1 :5E, in which only indirect action, not the direct human deed, produces the flow of water. Then at D we have Yose's explicit agreement with M. 1:5D.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

YADAYIM CHAPTER TWO This chief chapter, with only four units, is exceptionally rich in Toseftan expansions of various sorts. It carries forward at M. 2:1-2 the implications of the distinction between the first rinse-water, which is made unclean by the hands, and the second rinse-water, which cleans the first-rinse water poured onto the hands, but, it is stressed, that water alone. M. 2:1 returns us to M. 1:1, the disagreement between Meir and Y ose about how much water is to be used and how many rinsings are required. M. 2:lA maintains that if one washes a single hand with a single rinsing, the hand 'is clean. Two rinsings are required only for both hands. At M. 2:lB-C Meir then rules that a quarter/a g of water is required in particular when one washes both hands with a single rinsing. Water poured out the first time around, D maintains, is clean. It follows that one may therefore add to 'it ( as in Sens' version of T. 1: 1). Yose says that the first water is made unclean by the hands. If a loaf of bread made of heave-offering flour falls into that water, the loaf is made unclean. T. 1 :1 (Tos. Reng.) has told us that Y ose permits adding to the first water and not to the second, so the present rule assigned to Yose conflicts with the picture of T. 1 :1, and this surely accounts for the diverse versions of T. 1: 1. M. 2:2 proceeds to illustrate the conception that first water is unclean, second, clean. If, therefore, a loaf of heave-offering falls on the first, it is unclean, and if it falls on the second, it is clean. The interesting development follows from here. If the first and second water fall on the ground together, the loaf which afterward falls on the puddle is unclean. Why? Because what the second water cleans is first water-and only when the first water is located on the hands. But first water situated elsewhere than on the hands is not cleaned by the second water. M. 2:2E-G have a further interest, the matter of interposition. What interposes on the hands prevents the hands from being made clean. But M. 2 :2F explains, "For the second water cleans only the water which is on hand," which means that the interest in interposition is joined to the matter of uncleanness of the first

YADAYIM CHAPTER TWO

2:1

121

water remo,ved by the second water. The second water does not dean the interposing object or the first water located on it. This union of two separate conceptions recurs at M. 2: 3. M. 2: 3A maintains that the arena for the hands' cleanness and uncleanness is the area up to the wrist. M. 2:3B-F forthwith introduce the issue of first water and second water, now concerning the rule vd1ich applies 'if the first water flows up to the wrist and the second beyond the wrist, with the second then returning to the wrist. M. 2: :'>GH deal with drying hands off. Here, too, the complicating factor is whether the set is autonomous or carries forward the distinction between first and second rinsings. T. 's discussion is most interesting, especially because it contrasts rinsing the hands with immersing them in an immersion-pool. The difference, of course, is that in the latter case, the water is not made unclean by the hands, since water of an immersion-pool purifies but itself is not made unclean. The further question is whether intention is required in the process of cleaning the lrnnds ( as at T. 1: 13). M. 2:4, with its expected articulation, T. 1:15-18 (parallel to T. Toh. 6:4f, and T. Mi(J. 2:6ff.), deals with matters of doubt in connection with hands, already adumbrated by M. Toh. 4:7, 11. The basic rule is that doubts in connection with hands, as to whether the hands ( 1) are unclean, ( 2) have imparted uncleanness, or ( 3) have been made clean--all are resol,ved in favor of cleanness. Yose maintains that matters of doubt on whether the hands have been made clean are ruled to be unclean, because it is his established conception (M. Miq. 2:1-2) that we confirm an object in the status which already is certain. The formal articulation of the issue of doubt is what is of primary interest here, since there is not a single unfamiliar conception. M. 2 :4 is certainly one of the formal triumphs of Mishnah, a large and perfect unit in exquisite balance throughout. It is hardly surprising to observe that all authorities, both for attributions and for attestations, are Ushan.

2:1 A. [ If] one poured water for one hand [ alone J ,vith a single rinsing, his hand is clean. [Two rinsings are not needed for one hand (MA).} B. [If he poured water} for two hands with a single rinsingC. R. Meir declares unclean unless he will pour a quarter-log [ of water]. [In the case of two hands, two rinsings are not required if the first is of the volume of a quarter-log (MA).}

122

YADAYIM CHAPTER TWO 2:1

D. [If] a loaf of heave-offering fell [ on the water, a quarter-log in quantity, which has been poured on the hands in a single rinsing], it is clean. E. R. Y ose declares unclean. M. 2:1 (B. Git. 15b)

Once more the issue of how much ,vater is required for ,vashing hands is worked out in such a way that the conflict is stated only by indirection. 1vfeir and Yose disagree, but the pericope is formulated as two separate matters, A+ B-C, with no contrary opinion, and the dispute at D-E. The rule of A concerns washing only one hand. The 'single rinsing' means that the man has poured water only one time. Even though there has not been a second rinisng, the hand is clean. There is no reference to the requ:irement to use a quarter-log of water. B-C then raise the question of the dual rinsing. If one washes both hands only one time, Meir maintains that the hwds do require a quarter-log. Accordingly, it is his view that a quarter-log is required, but only in connection with washing both ha.nds, a.nd ( only) in connection with doing so one time only. Rosh says Meir's view is that the second pouring is required only when the first has involved less than a quarterlog, which surely follows from B. T. 1 :1 (Tos. Reng.) has given us the notion that Meir docs not require a quart-er-log in this matter. Sens' version of T. l: 1 of course conforms to M. 2 : 1C. What is the status of the water which is poured out the first time? D holds that it is clean. May one therefore add to it? Of course one may do so. There is no reason, along the lines the opposite of M. l: 1G's reasoning, not to add to it. Y ose maintains that the first water is made unclean by the hands. Since we have had only one rinsing, therefore speak of only the first water, if a loaf of heave-offering falls into the water, e.g., when it is on the ground, after the man has rinsed his hands in it, Y ose rules that it is unclean. It has been made unclean by the hands. T. 1: 1 ( Tos. Reng.) says Y ose maintains one may add to the first water and not the second, so M. 2:l's picture of Yose's view is different from that at T. 1:1 (Tos. Reng.) Sens' Meir at T. 1:1 says we may add to the first and not the second, in which case there is no conflict. W/e further surmised (following T. 1: 2A) that Meir maintains ,ve may add to the second but not the first water, while Y ose (T. 1: 1, Tos. Reng.) says they add to the first and not to the second, so the positions of both authorities appear to be different from those imputed at M. 1:1/T. 1:1 (Tos. Reng.). If Chad Yose, then it would

YADAYIM CHAPTER TWO

2:1-2

123

accord with M .1 : 1, since there it is Y ose who requires the quarter-log; and if E had Meir, then it would accord with T. 1:1 (Tos. Reng.), which has Y ose allow adding water to the first, not the second, water. The problem of T.'s readings clearly is solved by Sens. Maimonides (Pools 11:3) deals with D-E as follows: If a man wishes to wash his hands for heave offering, he must wash them again a second time with other water to remove the water on his hands, since the water with which he washes them first-which is called 'the first water'-is rendered unclean by his hands. Therefore if a loaf of heave-offering falls in the water with which he first washes his hands, it becomes unclean; but if it falls in the second water, it is not rendered unclean ... [M. 2:2A-CJ.

Maimonides thus interprets M. 2:lD-E as dealing with the second water, with the law in accord with D. His conception (Comm.) of A-Chas now to be specified. If one washes both hands with a single rinsing, Meir holds that the act of cleaning is of no effect. Why not? The water used for the one hand is made unclean and afterward the second, washed in the same water, is washed in the ,vater used for the first. Therefore the man has to wash both hands in a quarter-log because it will dean both. Meir at C and D speaks of the second washing, at which point he requires the quarter-log because of the uncleanness of the water used for the single rinsing (B) the first time around. Then, if the heave-offering falls into the water used for the second washing, it is clean, since the second water used for the hands is clean. Y ose maintains that the second water renders the loaf unclean just as the first water does. \XThy?The first water was a single rinsing for both hands. E. "He who pours water on his hands with a single rinsing has to wash with a quarter-log [of water]," the words of R. Meir. F. R. Yose says, "In the case of both hands, he has to pour a quarter-log. In the case of one hand, even if he washed with the remnant of the quarter-log of water, it is fit." T. l:3B, p. 351, ls. 5-7 (B. Git. 15b)

E = M. 2:lB-Cl. T. simply spells out the implication of M. Yose does not speak of one or two rinsings. But he clearly refers to one only, and holds that the measure of the quarter-log applies to two hands. T. therefore gives us two autonomous sayings, not a dispute. 2:2 A. [If] one poured out the first [water] in one place and the second in another place, 9

124

YADAYIM CHAPTER TWO

2:2

and a loaf of heave-offering fell on the first, it is unclean. And [ if it fell] on the second, it is clean. D. [If] he poured out the first [water] and the second in one place, and a loaf of heave-offering fell [ on it], it is unclean. E. (1) [If] he poured out the first [water], (2) and [if] a splinter or pebble was found on his hands, his hands are unclean, F. for the second water cleans only the water which is on the hand. G. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "Whatever originates in water is clean [ = does not interpose]." M. 2:2 (G: M. Miq. 6:7, M. Kel. 17:13, 14) B.

C.

The pericope works out the principle that the first water is unclean, the second water clean, and that the second water cleans the first water but nothing else. The pericope is in two parts, on the hands-that A-C, D, and E-F + G's gloss. The point of the opening rule is simple. The first water is by itself on the ground. A loaf of heave-offering has fallen on it. It is unclean. The second water is clean; it therefore does not contaminate the loaf, C. The second rule, D, underlines the conception that the second water cleans only the first water, and does so only when the first water is on the hands. If the first water is on the ground and the second water is with it on the ground, the second water has no purifying affect upon the first, which is unclean. The loaf is therefore unclean. The interpretation of E depends upon our assessment of the importance of the opening clause, NTL 'T HR'SWNYM. This phrase serves A and D1. At El it clearly links into a single construction an autonomous rule, E2 + G, to the foregoing. But it is hardly integral to the meaning of what follows. If a splinter or pebble is on the hands, the hands are unclean. Why? Because the splinter interposes, and the hands are not completely washed. That is surely the case whether we speak of the first or the second rinsing. [If] he poured o!ft the first therefore is redactional and bears no weight on the meaning. But F argues to the contrary. It wants to read the rule on the interposition specifically in the present context. The first water leaves the hands unclean, because the second water serves to clean the water on the hands, not that which is on the splinter. In F's view, applying both to D and E, therefore, the issue is not interposition. F is disturbed by the presence of still-unclean first water on the splinter. My guess is that the matter of interposition is primary, and that the consideration of first and second water is secondary, added by redactor-tradents at the po,int at which the rule for the pebble was

YADAYIM CHAPTER TWO

2:2

125

given its location in the present construction. Simeon b. Gamaliel's gloss is hardly called for; all he says is that something which originates in water is not deemed to interpose. That gloss surely bears no relationship to the present matter of first and second water and strongly suggests that primary to the construction before its inclusion here is A splint.er or pebble ... the hands are unclean + Simeon b. Gamaliel. A. Whatever interposes in the case of the body interposes in the case of the hands, B. with reference to the sanctification [washing] of the hands and feet for the Temple-House. T. 1:4, p. 351, ls. 8-9

A is relevant to M. 2 :2E, placed here because the issue of M. is interposition, without regard to the issue of the first or second rinsing. On other versions, see TR IV, p. 144. E. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "[If] one poured out the first [ water J and on his hand was found a red insect which originates in the water, his hands are clean." T. 2:3B, p. 355, ls. 10-12

T. restates the point of M. 2:2E, now adding the matter of hands. A. [If] one poured out the first water and one of his hands was made unclean, B. lo, this one pours out the second water on the second hand and does not scruple in the matter. C. [If] he poured out the first water and it flowed beyond the wrist, and then he poured out the second water on it, and a loaf of bread fell [ onto the areaJ from the wrist and inward, it is unclean. If it fell from the wrist and outward, it is clean. T. 2:5, p. 355, ls. 19-20, p. 356, ls. 1-2

The second washing, as at T. 2 :4, is acceptable even for one hand, if at the outset both are involved. C is revised by GRA (TR IV, p. 153): "If he poured out the first water beyond the wrist, and then he poured the second water on it .... " The meaning 'is that the man began by pouring the first water beyond the wrist. Then he does so with the second water. A loaf of heaveoffering bread falls on the water which has dripped to the ground. The water on the ground below the area beyond the wrist is clean, since it has never been made unclean. Only the hands render the water unclean. The rest of the body does not. But the water on the ground below the hand up to the wrist is unclean, for the second water cleans only the water on the wrist, just as at M. 2:3D, M. 2:2A-B.

126

YADAYIM CHAPTER TWO

2:2-3

A. [If] he poured out the first water and the second water beyond the wrist, and a loaf of heave-offering bread fell, it is unclean. B. But logic requires that it be clean: C. Now if the (first) [GRA:] rain water, which does not impart cleanness to water which is on the hand, imparts cleanness to water which is on the ground, D. the second water, which does impart cleanness to the water which is on the hand, logically should impart cleanness to water which is on the ground. T. 2:6, p. 356, ls. 3-7

A goes over the ground of M. 2 :2D. GRA's emendation makes sense of C, drawing on T. Makh. 2: 11 (Part XVII, p. 83). Rain-water is less powerful than second water in cleaning. But of course M. 2:2 is clear on the rule.

2:3 A. The hands become unclean and are rendered clean up to the wrist. B. How so? C. [If} one poured the first [water] up to the wrist, and the second beyond the wrist and it went back to the hand, it [the hand] is clean. D. [If] he poured out the first and the second [pouring of water] beyond the wrist and it {the water} went back to the hand, it [the hand] is unclean. [GRA: The second water purifies the first water only up to the wrist. The second is made unclean by the first (beyond the wrist) and goes back and renders unclean the water on the hand.] E. [If} he poured out the first water onto one hand, and was reminded and poured out the second [water] onto both hands, they are unclean. [Fishman, p. 553, n. 2: If he poured the first water over each hand separately and then poured the second water over both hands held together.-The first water on each hand becomes unclean on coming into contact with the unclean water on the other hand and so conveys uncleanness to each hand. The second w,tter therefore does not cleanse them since each hand is still unclean. Maimonides explains that he poured the first water on one hand only and poured the second water over both hands held together. The second water becomes unclean on being poured over the other unclean hand and therefore does not cleanse the hands.] F. [If] he poured out the first water onto both hands and was reminded and poured out the second [water] onto one hand, his hand [ which has been washed twiceJ is clean. G. [If] he poured out water onto one hand and rubbed it on the other, it is unclean.

YADAYIM CHAPTER TWO

2:3

127

H. [If he rubbed his hand} on his head or on the wall, it is clean. I. They pour out [ water on the hands of} four or five people side by side, or above one another, J. on condition that they [ the hands J lie loosely so that the water will come [ flow J among them.

M. 2:3 (B. Sot. 46) There are three units, A-F, G-H, and I-J. A's rule is carefully illustrated at B-D, with C closely balanced against D. E is balanced against F, continuing the foregoing but irrelevant to A, a major construction in disciplined articulation. G is matched against H, with less obvious balance, syllable and phrase against syllable and phrase. I- J are distinct from the foregoing, a declarative sentence exhibiting no distinctive formulary traits. A's rule, by itself, would not have led us to expect the exempl'ifications of C-D, E-F. Its point is simply that the area subject to the rules of cleanness and uncleanness of hands is up to the wrist ( Albeck: The middle knuckle of the fingers). But the conception of a first and a second washing is invoked to make the point of persistent interest. If one washed the hand up to the wrist, then poured on second water, wh:ich flowed beyond, is the hand clean? Yes, for the second water has taken away the first, and it itself is clean, so when it flows back from beyond the wrist, it does not contaminate the hand. The second water is not made unclean beyond the wrist, because the hands' area of uncleanness extends only to the wrist. At D, by contrast, the first and second water flows beyond the wrist. The first water, which has gone beyond the wrist, has not been cleaned by the second beyond the wrist. The hands are made clean-therefore, the water used for cleaning them as well---only up to the wrist. When the first water flows back to the wrist, it still is unclean. The second set, E-F, in no vrny illustrates A. It has a separate problem in hand. The man washes one hand only (M. 2:1). Then he pours second water on both. It is assumed that he has rubbed his hands together-the link to G. The hand not washed the first time around of course is unclean; therefore both are unclean. At F, by contrast, the hand washed twice is clean. In the first case the second water is made unclean by the water which has not been washed. In the second case it is not made unclean, for both hands have been washed. Maimonides ( Pools 11 :4-5) states the present mle as follows: The hands incur uncleanness and are restored to cleanness as far up as the wrist. Thus if a man pours the first w,itcr as far up as the

YADAYIM CHAPTER TWO

128

2:3

wrist and pours the second water beyond the wrist, and the second water flows back to his hands from beyond the wrist, his hands become dean, since the second water is clean; but if he pours both the first water and the second water beyond the wrist, and the water flows back to the hand, his hand remains unclean, since the first water beyond the wrist becomes unclean because of the water on his hands, and the second water does not render clean the first water beyond the wrist. And since the water beyond the wrist flows back to his hands, it renders them unclean. If he pours the first water over one hand and reminds himself and pours the second water over both hands, his hands remain unclean, since the second water becomes unclean because of the hand that has not been washed with the first water, so that it returns and renders the other hand unclean. If he pours the first water over both hands and then pours the second water over one hand only, the one hand becomes dean.

G-H are to be interpreted as an autonomous rule. By itself, G maintains that if one washed only one hand and rubbed it on the other, the hand is unclean. The unclean (obviously) makes the clean hand unclean ( = Joshua, M. 3:2). We are not told whether we have had one rinsing or two. If there was only one rinsing, then, in accord with the principle that the first water is made rmclean by the hand, the present rule is hardly of much interest. If there have been two rinsings of the one hand, then the hand is clean; when it is rubbed against the unclean hand, it self-evidently is made unclean. H completes G. Rubbing the hand on the head or wall will leave it clean. Maimonides (Pools ll:5B) states tnis set as follows: If he pours water over one hand and rubs it on the other, the water on it becomes unclean because of the other hand which has not yet been washed, and it again renders unclean the hand that has been washed. But if he rubs it on his head or on the wall to dry it, it remains clean.

The final statement, I-J, limits the foregoing. We do not take account of the possibility that the hands of the several men will make one another unclean. A. B. C.

D.

One who pours water on his hands must rub [ dry] his hands off. [ If] he rubbed one hand on the other, it is unclean. [If] he rubbed it on his head or on the wall, it is (un)clean. [If he] went and touched it, it is unclean. T. 1:3A, p. 351, ls. 3-4

B-C = M. 2:3G-H. A sets the stage and proves that T. reads M. 2: 3G-H as autonomous of their antecedent rules. But in the context

y ADA YIM

CHAPTER

rwo

2:

3

129

of M., which after all, is cited, T. says that, if one rinsed both hands and dried one on the other, they are unclean. If he dried them on the wall, it is clean. If he then touched the water on the wall, it is unclean, since the second rinsing cleans the first water on the hand; drying off does not clean the first water (TR IV, p. 143). A. The priests sanctify {wash J in the sanctuary, in regard to the hand, up to the wrist, and in regard to the foot, up to the calf. B. He who pours out water on his hands should not say, "Since the first [ water is unclean, lo, I shall pour out unclean [ water in the first pface]." C. If he did so, lo, he must dry off his hands. D. He who pours out water on his hands must dry his hands. E. But he who immerses his hands [in an immersion-pool] does not have to dry off his hands. T. 2:1, p. 354, 1. 19, p. 355, ls. 1-4

r

A is clear. B's point is to reject the view that, since the hands make the first water unclean, one might as well use unclean water to begin with (TR IV, p. 150). Zuckermandel's reading, followed for C, is that, if one did so, he must dry off his hands. That is, if one did pour unclean water, the second rinsing is of no effect, since the second water now is made unclean by the first. Therefore one has to dry off the unclean water first used and pour out clean water. If ( again following Zuckermandel) one immersed his hands in unclean water, he does not have to dry them off, for the unclean water is made clean in the immersion-pool. The reading given above, D-E, by contrast, makes a fresh point, which is clear as stated (TR IV, pp. 15 0-151) . A. He who pours water on his hands must raise his hands so that the water does not flow beyond the wrist and go back and render his hands unclean. B. But he who immerses his hands docs not have to raise his hands. T. 2:2, p. 355, ls. 5-7 (B. Sot. 46) C. He who pours out water on his hands, if he had proper intention, his hands are clean, and if not, his hands are unclean. D. But he who immerses his hands, one way or the other-his hands are clean. T. 2:3A, p. 355, ls. 8--10 (B. Hag. 186)

A does not specify whether we speak of the first or second rinsing, but if T. corresponds to M., then it is surely the second, as at M. 2:3D. Immersion-water cleans and is not made unclean, B. On intention in regard to washing hands, see T. Makh. 2 :8 (Part XVII, p. 78). T. here holds it is required for rinsing but not for immersion of hands.

130

YADAYIM CHAPTER TWO

2:3

A. He who pours water on his handsB. if the water goes up to the wrist, his hands are clean, and if not, his hands are unclean. C. [If] he poured out the first water on this [hand] by itself and on that hand by itself and changed his mind and poured out the second water on both hands simultaneously, D. they render one another unclean. E. [If] he poured out the first water on both hands, and changed his mind and poured out the second, this on this hand by itself and that on that hand by itself, F. if he had proper intention in the matter, his hands are clean, and if not, his hands are unclean. T. 2:4, p. 355, ls. 13-18

A-B concur with M. 2:3A. The point of C-D is that, since the man has rinsed each hand by itself, the hands are deemed totally separate from one another, and the second water, applied to both together, does not clean off the first water (GRA, TR IV, p. 152). E reverses the case. The first time around the man washes both hands at once. Then he pours the second water on each hand separately. If at the outset the man had the explicit intention to put water on both hands at once, we are not interested in the fact that afterward he has treated them separately to the second rinsing. In this case the earlier rule is reversed. If, however, he did not clearly intend at the outset, but simply washed the hands at once, then the final d'isposition -the separated second rinsings--establishes the man's intent in the original situation, and each is regarded as separate from the other, and the hands contaminate one another (TR IV, p. 152). A. They pour out water for four or five people, one beside the other, B. and they do not scruple on account of four things: C. (1) lest it be made unclean; D. (2) lest work have been done with it; E. (3) lest it not be poured from a utensil; F. ( 4) and least a quarter-log not be poured out on a hand. G. But he who takes and he who pours out for his fellow with his cupped hands-H. his [the fellow's] hands are unclean [ = M. 1:20]. I. For in the first place the water has not been poured from a utensil. T. 2:7, p. 356, ls. 8-12 Since we have a group, the hands of all are regarded as if there was one person only. M. 2:31 is augmented. Since the process is completed all at once, we do not maintain that one man's hands

YADAYIM CHAPTER TWO

2:3-4

Ul

render the water on the other men's hands unclean. We do not regard the water as having been used-by the first. We do not deem the water as deriving from cupped hands and not from a utensil. We do not maintain that the water is insufficient ( GRA). G-1 are obvious. The rule of E cannot apply at G. At E the water started out from a utensil. As I says, that is not the case for G-H. A. Two who poured out water for two hands, this one from an eighth of a log [measure], and this one an eighth of a log, B. even though it goes and is mixed together in a spoutC. their hands are unclean, D. for in the first place it was not poured from a quarter-log. T. 2:8, p. 356, ls. l3-15

T. completes the foregoing rule. The water to begin with must be a quarter-log. The two eighth-log measures of water are not deemed joined for the two men.

2:4 A. ( 1) [If it is in J doubt that work has or has not been done with it [the water], B. (2) [if it is in] doubt that it contains or does not contain the requisite measure, C. (3) [if it is in] doubt whether it [the water] is unclean or clean-D. a matter of doubt concerning it is clean. E. For they have said: A matter of doubt concerning the hands, ( 1) whether [ they are to be regarded as] unclean, or (2) whether [they are to be deemed] to have imparted uncleanness, or (3) whether [they are to be deemed] to have been made clean, is resolved as clean. F. R. Yose says, "(A matter of doubt concerning whether the hands have been] made clean is resolved as unclean." G. How so? H. (1) [If] his hands were clean, and before him were two unclean loaves of bread, I. [if it is in] doubt whether or not he touched them}. [if] his hands were unclean, and before him were two clean loaves of bread, K. [if it is in] doubt whether or not he touched themL. ( 3) [if] one of his hands was unclean and one of his hands was clean, and before him were two clean loaves of bread, M. [ and if] he touched one of them, N. [if it is in] doubt whether he touched with the unclean or whether he touched with the clean [hand]O. ( 4) [if] his hands were clean, and before him were two loaves of bread, one of them unclean and one of them clean--

132

YAD/IYIM CHAPTER TWO

2:4

P. [and if] he touched one of them, Q. [if it is in} doubt whether he touched the unclean or whether he touched the dean [loaf of bread]R. ( '5) [ if] one of his hands was unclean and one was clean and before him were two loaves [of bread], one of them unclean and one of them dean, S. [ if] he touched both of them, T. [ if it is in] doubt whether the unclean [hand touched] the unclean [loaf of bread] and the clerrn [hand touched] the clean [loaf of bread} or [whether] the clean [hand touched] the unclean [loaf of bread] and the unclean [hand touched] the clean [loaf of bread]U. the hands remain as they were before [ in their former status, that is, unclean or clean], and the loaves of bread remain as they were before [in their former status, that is, unfit or fit]. M. 2:4

The elegant formal complexity of this set is the sole point of interest. The rule itself is simple. A-D augment E, which is familiar from M. Toh. 4:7, 11 (Part XI, pp. 112-118). E-F, by themselves, comprise a dispute, in such balance as is possible, given what is to be said. The illustrative materials of A-C, three items, concern the water used for washing hands, thus E3. The five illustrations, G-U, are out of phase, concerning only the status of the hands, not of the water, El, E2. But all together, the illustrations cover the legal themes of the' tractate, and the whole therefore shows considerable tradental care. There is not a single false step in the whole construction, a fine conclusion. The illustrations, five in all, follow a single formulary pattern. H-I illustrate the matter of El, whether the hands have become unclean; J-K take up E2, whether the hands have imparted uncleanness; L-N remain with E2, and O-Q come back to El. The fifth entry has the choice of going on to E3, whether the hands have been made clean, or to illustrate the combination of El and E2. It handsomely accomplishes the latter. What then has happened to E3, a doubt on whether the hands have been made dean? For that we return to A-C. Whose position is illustrated? Yose concurs with El and E2. These doubts are resolved as clean. The sole issue is whether the hands have been made dean in a case of doubt, and Y ose hold that they have not. Accordingly, he cannot concur at A-D. The illustrative materials by contrast serve E and F alike, which is why A-D are kept separate. U formulates matters somewhat differently from the pattern we should have expected on the basis of E. E tells us if there is doubt, the hands are deemed clean. We should have expected U to say, They

YADAYIM CHAPTER TWO

2:4

133

are clecm, meaning the hands. But U obviously cannot say so, for in some instances, the hands remain as they were, which is 1mclean;

and U has also to deal with the loaves of bread. Accordingly, U simply concludes the matter with a generalization serving each item of each case in tum. We confirm the established status of the several items (M. Miq. 2:1-2). If tbe hands were clean, they remain so at I. If the hands were unclean and the bread was dean, the bread remains so at K. L-N leave the bread clean. O-Q leave the hands clean. R-T is best served by U, of course, but, as we see, the first four entries are satisfactorily concluded as well. A. [If} there were before him two glasses [of water}B. with one of them work had been done, and with one of them work had not been done--C. [ if] he poured [water] from one of them onto both of his hands and prepared foods requiring cleanness-D. they arc held in suspense. E. [If he poured out water} from the second and prepared foods requiring cleanness, [they are clean]. F. [If he poured out water] from the first and did not prepare foods requiring cleanness, G. [if he poured out water} from the second and did preparethey are clean. H. [if he poured out water} from the first and prepared, I. from the second and prepared, J. [if} these and those are lying [before him], K. these and those are clean. T. I :15, p. 353, Is. 9-14

Note the parallels of T. Miq. 2:6ff. and T. Toh. 6:4ff. (Parts XIII, pp. 57-67, and XI, pp. 1 B-4). There is no doubt at A-D that some· thing is unclean; we do not know what. Since, at D, the first cup produces a decision of suspension, in the second case, E, we assume the fit water has been used. At F-G we deem doubt to be clean. F is the unfit water, G the fit. H-I rule in the same lenient way. A. [If} one poured out [water] from one of them on to one of his hands and prepared foods rec1uiring cleanness, they are held in suspense. B. [If he Jid so} from the second and prepared foods requiring cleanness, they are clean. C. [If he did so} from the first and did not prepare, D. from the second and did prepare [food requiring cleanness], they are clean. E. [If he poured out water} from the first and prepared, F. from the second and prepared,

134

YADAYLM

G. H.

CHAPTER

TWO

2:4

[if] these and those are lying [before him], these and those are clean. T. 1:16, p. 353, ls. 15-18

T. goes over the foregoing, now with reference to washing only one hand. Otherwise the rules of T. 1: 15 are duplicated. A. [If] there were before him two glasses [ of water], one unclean and one clean, B. and he poured out [water] from one of them for one of his hands and prepared foods requiring cleanness, C. they are held in suspense. D. [If he did so] from the second and prepared [foods requiring cleanness], they are clean. [We assume the first was made unclean.] E. [If he did so J from the first and did not prepare, F. from the second and prepared [TR: they are clean. (If he did so) from the first and prepared, from the second and prepared JG. [if] these and those are lying before him, H. lo, they determine [the status of one another]. I. [If] he ate the first [ foods which he had prepared], or they were made unclean, or they were lost, before the second [foods requiring cleannessJ were prepared, they are clean [by contrast to G-HJ. J. [If this took place] after the second were prepared, the second are kept in a state of suspense. K. [If] he poured out water from one of them onto one of his hands and prepared foods. requiring cleanness, they are kept in suspense. L. [If he poured out] the second and prepared [ foods requiring cleannessJ, they are dean [ since K produces suspension]. M. [If he did soJ with the first and did not prepare, N. with the second and did prepare, 0. [if] these and those are lying [before him}, P. [ supply by analogy to E-H: / o, they determine (the status of one another).] T. 1:17, p. 353, I. 19, p. 354, ls. 1-9

At A + H, we invoke a strict rule in the case of uncleanness. One of them has surely been made with unclean water. K-P go over the ground of the opening unit, now with one hand and unclean water, rather than two hands and unclean water. A. [If] one of his hands was unclean, and one of his hands was clean, B. and before him were two glasses, one unclean and one clean, C. and he poured out water from one of them onto both his hands and prepared foods requiring cleanness, they are kept in a state of suspense.

YADAYIM CHAPTER TWO

2:4

135

D. R. Yose says, "The unclean one remains in its established status of uncleanness." E. [If} one of his hands was unclean, and one was clean, F. and before him were two loaves of bread, one unclean and one clean, G. and if his two hands touched one loaf, whether simultaneously or in succession, H. or one of his hands touched both of the loaves, in succession, I. the hands and the loaves are kept in a state of suspense. J. {If} one of his hands touched the two loaves simultaneously, K. the hands remain as they were, and the loaves of bread are to be burned [ as definitely unclean}. T. 1:18, p. 354, ls. 10-17

D is in accord with M. 2:4F. The point of E-I is that if the two hands touched one loaf, we are in doubt about the hands. They may have touched the clean loaf. And even if the loaf is now made unclean, having touched both hands, in any event the loaf, made unclean because of the hands, cannot impart unclea'.nnessto the clean hands (M. 3:1-2, sages). As to the loaves, they may have touched only the unclean loaf, and the clean loaf remains clean. As to J-K, the loaves are burned, because the hand touched both loaves. The hand was made unclean in any event, for the loaf was already unclean. It is not unclean because of the hands. It then imparts uncleanness to the clean hand, and it renders the clean loaf unclean. But as to the hands, we suppose that the unclean touched the unclean, as at M., and the clean remains clean (Sens, TR IV, p. 150).

CHAPTER TWELVE

YADA YIM CHAPTER THREE A fresh and interesting conception comes to the fore at the start of Chapter Three, M. 3:1-2. Until now we have assumed that hands, when unclean, invariably are unclean in the second remove and affect only heave-offering. cAc1iva,however, challenges this point. His view is that the hands can be unclean in the first remuve. The basic problem in his mind is the fact that hands transmit uncleanness to the body and share in the uncleanness of the body. Accordingly, if the body is unclean in the first remove, hands also should be unclean in the first remove under certain specified circumstances, even when they alone, and not the body, become unclean. There ,uc two versions of the same matter, M. 3:lA-C and M. 3:lD-F + debate. Hands in the house afflicted ,vith a negac are made Lmdean in the first remmre, so cAqiva. Sages say they are in the second remove. Whatever imparts uncleanness to clothing, when in contact with hands, imparts uncleanness to hands in the first remove, so cAqiva (as against Joshua, M. Zab. 5:1). Sages hold they are in the second remuve. cAqiva's view is that the hands cannot become unclean without the entire body's being made unclean, except in the cases specified here, in which, he maintains, hands enter the first remove even when the body is not affected. The next issue, M. 3:11-L, has Joshua state the view that if hands touch food and utensils made unclean by liquids-an Offspring of uncleanness--they are in the second remove, a rerun of Joshua's view at M. Toh. 8:7 (consistent with his conception at M. Toh. 2:2). Sages maintain that only something made unclean by a Father of uncleanness, thus in the first remove, imparts uncleanness to the hands, but something made unclean by an Offspring of uncleanness-thus which then is in the second remove--is in the second remove and does not impart uncleanness to hands. Joshua's view is stated once more is, at M. ) : iA-B: Whatever imparts unfitness to heave-offering-that in the second remove-imparts uncleanness to hands, putting them in the second remove; and one hand makes another unclean, the same thing in a more concrete formulation. Sages maintain, responding to M. 3 :2A, "\What is unclean in the second remove does not put something else into the state of uncleanness at the second remove."

YADAYIM CHAPTER THREE

3:1

137

Joshua argues that sacred scriptures render hands unclean in the second remove, a point on which sages agree. Their reply is that no analogy is to be drawn from the particular decree. The reference to sacred scriptures then explains the continuation of the chapter, M. 3:3-5, which goes over the rules of the contamination by sacred scriptures of the hands. The main issue is the definition of those scriptures which impart uncleanness in hands, first, appurtenances of tefillin, ,vhich contain scriptural citations, then appurtenances of the scrolls themselves, and finally, diverse biblical passages and books, with specific reference at the end, to Qohelet and Song of Songs. The passage, of course, is much cited with reference to the issue of the biblical canon, which, Leiman persuasively argues, is not before us. His discussions of specific pericopae are cited briefly; his extended analysis of the canonical question in the present context should be consulted. The issue is not important for our inquiry. The net result is that the diverse passages and biblical books do contaminate hands, putting them into the second remove, thus an appendix to Joshua's argument at M. 3:2. Chapter Four resumes the matter at M. 4:5, with its appendix, at M. 4:6-8, organized along formal lines, but referring to the fact that sacred scriptures contaminate hands (M. 4:6).

3:1 A. He who pokes his hands into a house afflicted with negac [ a Father of uncleannessJB. "his hands are in the first remove of uncleanness," the words of R. cAqiva. C. And sages say, "His hands arc in the second remove of uncleanness." D. \Vhoever imFuts uncleanness to clothes, when in contact [with them], imparts uncleanness to the handsE. "So that they are in the first remove of uncleanness," the words of R. cAqiva. F. And sages say, "So that they are in the second remove of uncleanness." [ = M. Zab. 5:1, Joshua.] G. Said they to R. cAqiva, "\Vhen do we find that the hands are in the first remove of uncleannessunder :rnycirrnmstanceswhatsoever?" H. He said to them, "And how is it possible for them to be in the first remove of uncleanness without his [ wholeJ body's [being] made unclean, [Fishman, p. 555, n. 5: For to suffer first grade uncleannness one must have contracted it from a Father of uncleanness, but if the hands had come into contact with such a grade of uncleanness, the whole body becomes unclean.J

YADAYIM CHAPTER THREE 3:1

138

"outside of the present case [ which is exceptional]?" [In all other cases, the hands are unclean along with the whole body (Bert.).] I. "Food and utensils which have been made unclean by liquids [which food and utensils are in the second remove] impart uncleanness to the hands so that they are in the second remove of uncleanness," the words of R. Joshua. J. And sages say, "That which is made unclean by a Father of uncleanness [ and so is in the first remove} imparts uncleanness to the hands [up to the wrist (Maimonides, Other Fathers of Uncleanness 8: 1) J.

"[That which has been made unclean} by an Offspring of uncleanness [ = made unclean by something in the first remove and so itself is in the second remove} does not impart uncleanness to the hands." K. Said Rabban (Simeon b.) Gamaliel [Gamaliel: K, P, PB, Pa, Yeivin #61, C, M. Simeon b. Gamaliel: N, T, V}, "McsH B: A certain woman came before father. "She said to him, 'My hands entered the [ unclean J contained airspace of a clay utensil.' "He said to her, '.My daughter, By what had it been made unclean [a Father or an Offspring]?' "But I did not hear what she said to him." L. Said sages, "The matter is clear. That which has been made unclean by a Father of uncleanness imparts uncleanness to the hands. [That which has been made unclean} by an Offspring of uncleanness does not impart uncleanness to the hands." M. 3:1 (B. Hul. 33b, Y. Hag. 2:8; A-C: M. Neg. J 3:8; K [Simeon b.]: Nusaf;;

p. 1151) The complex is in the following units: A-C, D-F + the debate disputes involving cAqiva, which state at G-H, 1-J, and K+L--two with Joshua; and finally (Simeon b.) one then the same point twice; Gamaliel's story about [Simeon b. J Gamaliel I, which places him, L, among sages of J. cAqiva's point is that the hands may become unclean in the first remove if contaminated by something which is a Father of unclean. ness. This is stated twice. Both disputes are in acute balance. In the first case we have hands in a house afflicted with negaC,that is, which imparts uncleanness as a Father. cAqiva maintains that the hands, made unclean by themselves, are in the first remove, sages, in the second. D of course brings us back to M. Zab. 5:1, at which Joshua says, "Whoever imparts uncleanness to clothes when he is in contact imparts uncleanness to food and drink, so that they are in the first remove, and the hands, so that they are in the second remove." So Joshua

YADAYIM CHAPTER THREE

3:1

139

concurs with sages. D gives only the matter of hands, a fine protasis for the dispute. E and F repeat the point of B-C, with slight revisions required by the context. G simply states the obvious. Sages deny that hands ever enter the first remove. H is the important side to the debate. What troubles cAqiva is that if the hands touch a Father of uncleanness, then the body is made unclean and is in the first remove. Can hands, which transmit uncleanness to the body in that remove, not also be in the first remove? A is ref erred to at H, since he who pokes his hands into the house afflicted with nege1cis not wholly unclean; and the one who imparts uncleanness to clothing when in contact with the clothing is a Father of uncleanness and imparts uncleanness to food and drink but does not make man unclean. Thus the hands touching him function as does a Father of uncleanness, but the body is not made unclean. Accordingly, the force of H is to insist that A and D are special cases. But in all other cases in which the whole body is made unclean, the hands share in the uncleanness of the body and therefore are in the first remove along with it. Consistent with his view at M. Toh. 8:7, Joshua then holds that food and utensils made unclean by liquids, which are in the second remove of uncleanness ( liquids being unclean in the first and make the hands unclean in the second remove). Sages, however, insist that the hands are made unclean only by a Father of uncleanness, not by an Off spring, such as food and utensils which have been made unclean by lic1uids. Liquids always arc unclean in the first remove and impart uncleanness in the second. This is the other side of the ruling at A-C, D-F. The hands, made unclean, are made unclean at the second remove. But the hands are made unclean, at A and D, only by a Father of uncleanness. Presumably had Joshua formulated A-H, he would have referred also to a situation in which an Offspring of uncleanness is involved. Sages' find support in (Simeon b.) Gamaliel's saying. Since the father, [Simeon b.] Gamaliel, asked how the utensil had been made unclean-e.g., by unclean liquid or by a dead creeping thing-it follows that we make a distinction between contamination of hands by a Father of uncleanness and by an Offspring. Was the clay utensil made unclean by a Father of uncleanness or by unclean liquids, in the first remove, which also are able to make a clay utensil unclean? Accordingly, sages at J who distinguish between something made unclean by a Father of uncleanness and something made unclean by an Offspring obviously will be pleased with (Simeon b.) Gamaliel's story. 10

140

YADAYIM CHAPTER THREE

3:1-2

A. These spoil hands [ for heave-offering]: B. (1) food in the first remove and (2) maddaf-objeets [unclean in the first remove], and ( 3) [unclean] liquids. T. 2:9A, p. 356, I. 16 (y. Shab. 7:2) Food in the first remove spoils hands for heave-offering; that in the second does not, that is, in accord with sages of M. 3: 1. Maimonides ( Other Fathers of Uncleanness 8:1) states the pericope as follows: Whosoever touches with his hands anything that has incurred firstgrade uncleanness,whether it be a person or a utensil or foodstuff or unclean liquid-his hands alone becomeunclean as far as the wrist. 3:2

A. "Whatever imparts unfitness to heave-offering imparts uncleanness to hands, putting them into the second remove of uncleanness. B. "One hand [which is made unclean] imparts uncleannessto the second," the words of R. Joshua. C. And sages say, "That which is unclean in the second remove does not put [ something else into a state of uncleanness at] the second remove." D. He said to them, "And do not sacred scriptures, unclean in the second remove, impart uncleannessto hands?" E. They said to him, "They do not draw inferences about rulings of the Torah from rulings of scribes, nor about rulings of scribes from rulings of Torah, nor about rulings of scribes from rulings of scribes." M. 3:2 (B. Shab. 146, Hag. 246, Pes. 19a, Y. Hag. 2:8) The rules about how hands become unclean are continued at A. What makes heave-offering unfit is in the second remove. That same thing will make hands unclean in the second remove. Only Joshua, at M. 3: 1, can concur in this rule, which is to be assigned to him along with B ( Rosh, Sens). The dispute, B-C, with the debate, D-E, then goes over the same issue. The hand is unclean in the second remove and it makes heaveoffering unfit. Accordingly, in Joshua's view, one hand can make the other unclean. Sages' position shows that the issue is as much A as B. Joshua, C, takes for granted both that sacred scriptures impart uncleanness to hands, and that sacred scriptures spoil heave-offering, thus a fine example of his position at A, B. The reply is that while that may be so ( M. Zab. 5: 12), the rule is particular to scriptures and has no bearing upon other things which are unclean in the second remove. That Joshua indeed draws inferences about rulings of the

YADAYIM CHAPTER THREE

3:2-4

141

Torah from rulings of the scribes is noted by Yose, T. T.Y. 1: 10, above, p. 28, in the context of M. Toh. 8:7 /T. T.Y. 1 :8-9. Joshua's position is that the uncleanness of the hands is analogous to the uncleanness of holy scriptures, both of which are unclean by decree of scribes.

3:3 A. The straps of tefillin [ while they are still attachedJ to the tefillin impart uncleanness to hands. B. R. Simeon says, "The straps of tef illin [ under any circumstances} do not impart uncleanness to hands." M. 3:3

The dispute is based on the fact that tefillin contain sections of Scripture. If hands touch holy scriptures, they are made unclean, as at M. :',:2D, on which all parties agree. The position of A is that the :straps, tightly sewn to the tefillin, are connected and thus convey the uncleanness imputed to the tefillin itself. Simeon rejects the view that connection applies in the present circumstance. C. R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, "He who touches the strap is dean, unless he touches the knot." D. R. Zakkai says in the name of R. Jacob, "He who touches the strap is clean, unless he touches the box." T. 2:9B, p. 356, 1. 17, p. 357, ls. 1-2

The position of Simeon, M. 3:3B, is qualified, C. Jacob, says one must touch the sections of Scripture themselves ( GRA).

3:4 A. The blank spaces [ i.e., in the margins J in a scroll [ or Scripture), whether above or below or at the beginning or at the end impart uncleanness to hands. B. R. Judah says, "That which is at the end does not impart uncleanness unless one will affix the roller to it." [Danby, p. 711, n. 12: Only then does this blank section count as an essential part of the scroll.J

M. 3:4 Once we know that holy scriptures impart uncleanness to hands, we ask about the blank parts of the scroll, A. Judah's position is clear. Since, without the roller, the blank part may be detached, it is not deemed connected unless it is affixed and so formally part of the scroll. Judah's position is familiar in diverse contexts: since one may change his mind, connection depends on an irreversible deed.

142

YADAYIM CHAPTER THREE

3:4-5

A. R. Judah says, "The blank sp,ice which is at the beginning of the scroll and is the breadth of the entire [scroll] imparts uncleanness to the hands." B. He who writes Hallel and the Shemac for a child's practice-even if it is not permitted to do so-C. it imparts uncleanness to hands. T. 2:11, p. 357, ls. 9-12

A augments M. 5 :4B. B-C add that the rule for Scriptures in tefillin applies to other passages. 3:5 A. A scroll which was erased and in which remam eighty-five lettersB. such as the paragraph, And it cmne to pass when the ark set forward [Num. 10:35f.], C. imparts uncleanness to hands. D. A scroll in which eighty-five letters are written, E. such as the paragraph, /lnd it cmne to pass when the ark set forward, F. imparts uncleanness to hands. G. All sacred scriptures impart uncleanness to hands. H. The Song of Songs and Qohelet impart uncleanness to hands. R. Judah says, "The Song of Songs imparts uncleanness to hands, I. but as to Qohelet there is dispute." R. Yose says, "Qohelet does not impart uncleanness to hands, J. but as to Song of Songs there is dispute." K. R. Simeon says, "Qohelet is among the lenient rnlings of the House of Shammai [ it does not impart uncleanness to hands] and strict rulings of the House of Hillel [ it does impart uncleanness to · hands]." L. Said R. Simeon b. 'Azzai, "I have a tradition deriving from the [testimony of] the seventy-two elders, M. "on the day on which they seated R. Eleazar b. cAzariah in the session, N. "that the Song of Songs and Qohelet do impart uncleanness to hands." 0. Said R. 'Aqiva, "Heaven forbid! No Israelite man ever disputed concerning Song of Songs that it impart uncleanness to hands. [ It certainly does.] P. "For the entire age is not so worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel. Q. "For all the scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is holiest of all [ "holy of holies"]. R. "And if they disputed, they disputed only concerning Qohelet." S. Said R. Yo]:ianan b. Joshua, the son of R. cAqiva's father-inlaw, according to the words of Ben cAzzai, "Indeed did they dispute,

YADAYIM CHAPTER THREE

3:5

143

and indeed did they come to a decision [ that both impart uncleanness to hands]." M. 3:5 (K: M. Ed. 5:3) Since we have referred to holy scriptures' imparting uncleanness to hands, the matter is now worked out in further detail. A-C and D-F are perfectly matched. G. is autonomous. H 'introduces all that follows. H is unequivocal. Then there is a dispute, I-J, in fine balance. K supplies diverse attributions to the matter, supporting the view of J. L-N are autonomous of the foregoing, but go over the ground of H. 0-R present a further, rather repetitious saying, assigned to cAqiva, in four units. P and Q are certainly intruded, since. R continues 0. Then S completes 0-R, the contrary view. For further discussion, see Leiman, pp. 102-109; the issue is whether or not the books in question originate in divine inspiration, as we shall see at T. As to the traditions pertinent to M-surely intruded, since it has nothing to do with L or N-see Goldenberg, Appendix. A. A scroll which wore out, if one can gather from it eighty-five letters, C. such as the paragraph, And it came to pass when the ark set forward (Num. 10:35f.), D. imparts uncleanness to hands. E. A scroll in which are written eighty-five letters, F. such as the paragraph, And it came to pass when the ark set forward, G. does (not) impart w1cleannessto hands. H. [If] one attached to it other sheets, it imparts uncleanness to hands. I. But the remainder [ added on J does not impart uncleanness to hands. T. 2:10, p. 357, ls. 3-8 B.

A-D augment M. 3:5A-C. On G's negative, see TR IV, p. 155. A. The. thongs and the straps which one sewed onto a scroll, even though it is not permitted to keep them, impart uncleanness to hands. B. The container of a scroll and the box of a scroll and the wrappings of scrolls, when they are dean, impart uncleanness to hands. C. The [ segments used for J blessings, even though they contain letters of the divine name [Leiman: abbreviated forms of God's name] and of many passages which occur in the Torah, do not impart uncleanness to hands. T. 2:12, p. 357, ls. 13-17

Since, A, the named items are connected, they impart uncleanness. Lieberman explains B (TR IV, p. 156): When the named items are

144

YADAYIM ·CHAPTER THREE

3:5

clean, they impart uncleanness to hands, but if made unclean by liquid, they do not, as at M. 3: 1. The decree in regard to scrolls applies so that heave-offering will not be kept with scrolls. There is no interest in unclean heave-offering. If, to be sure, the wrappings and boxes are unclean by means of a Father of uncleanness, they impart uncleanness to hands because of the uncleanness they have received, not because of the uncleanness imparted to hands in the present context, that is, by scriptures. and books of heretics do not A. The Gospels (GYLYWNYN) impart uncleanness to hands. B. And the books of Ben Sira and all books written thence-forward do not impart uncleanness to hands. T. 2:13, p. 358, ls. 1-3

See TR IV, pp. 156-7, and Leiman, p. 109, pp. 190f., n. 511, on GLYWNYN as Gospels. Thenceforwct1'.drefers to the time after the cessation of prophecy. A. R. Simeon b. Menassia says, "The Song of Songs imparts uncleanness to hands, because it was said through the Holy Spirit [Leirnan: "Composed under divine inspiration"}. B. "Qohelet does not impart uncleanness of hands, because it is [merely] the wisdom of Solomon." C. They said to him, "And did he write only this alone? Lo, it says, And Solomon littered three thousand proverbs and his songs were a thousand and five (I Kings 5:12). D. "And it says, Do not add to his words lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar (Prov. 30:6) ." T. 2:14, p. 358, ls. 4-9

Sec Leiman, p. 106. Simeon b. Menassia concurs with cAqiva, M. 3:5R.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

YADAYIM CHAPTER FOUR The first pa.rt of the present chapter forms an appendix to ·the reference at M. 3:5M to "that day ( on which they seated R. Eleazar b. cAzariah in session)." The first four units, M. 4:1-4, are joined by redactional language, On that day. Otherwise the several items are wholly autonomous of one another and have no common principle or even theme. M. 4:5 completes the discussion of Chapter Three, now with reference to whether Aramaic portions of Scripture impart uncleanness to hands. They do. But translations of Aramaic into Hebrew or translations of Hebrew into Aramaic do not. The final set, M. 4:6-8, matches the opening one, another group of four autonomous items put together on the basis of common formal traits. This time the redactional formulary is Say Sadducees, We complain against you, Pharisees. The first and the third also supply debates, the second and the fourth allow the Pharisees to pofot to an equivalent paradox in Sadducean law. The fourth, moreover, varies the redactional formulary by ref erring to a Galilean min-heretic-rather than Sadducee ( all MSS except T). Chapters organized around redactional, rather than substantive, principles are familiar, of course, e.g., M. Par. Chapter Eight, M. Nid. Chapters Five-Six, but the range of issues introduced here is far broader than that to which we are accustomed. The reason that the whole is set here, for the first group, is the redactional formulary ( not uncleanness, despite M. 4:1); and, more significantly, for the second, at M. 4:6, is that Holy Scriptures impart uncleanness to hands. Accordingly, the second set forms a fitting appendix to M. 3:5 + M. 4:5, and the first set presents an unwelcome intrusion. 4:1 A. On that day did they vote and decide concerning B. a footbathC. which holds from two logs to nine qabs and which was cracked, D. that it is susceptible to uncleanness through midras-uncleanness. E. For R. cAqiva says, "A footbath is according to its name." M. 4:1

After the redactional superscription, A, we have a standard dispute. Can the footbath, no longer useful in holding water, now serve for a

146

YADAYIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:1-2

bench? D holds that it is susceptible to midras, therefore deems it to serve as a bench. cAqiva maintains that the footbath remains just that. It is not deemed a bench. That secondary function does not come under consideration (Rosh, Sens, Bert., TYY, etc.). M. Kel. 20:2 has a plain trough of the same size and declares it susceptible to midras-uncleanness. T. Kel. B.M. 11 :1 has a secondary dispute along these same lines. See Part II, pp. 171-178. Albeck (pp. 482, 607-608) interprets cAqiva's saying differently: Whatever is called a footbath, even if it holds more than nine qabs, which is suitable for a seat is susceptible to midras-uncleanness. Then cAqiva is made to disagree with C, not D, which I think unlikely. The issue is not the size of the trough, but the fact that it is cracked. Since it no longer serves for one purpose, do we deem it to serve another one, as a seat? cAqiva denies this view. 4:2 A. On that day they said: B. All sacrifices which were slaughtered not for their own name are fit. C. But they do not go to their owner's credit in fulfillment of an obligation, D. except for the Passover and the sin-offeringE. the Passover at its season, and the sin-offering at all times. F. R. Eliezer says, "Also the guilt-offering. G. "The Passover at its season, and the sin-offering and guiltoffering at all times." H. Said R. Simeon b. cAzzai, "I have a tradition of the seventy-two elders "on the day on which they seated R. Eleazar b. c Azariah in session, that: I. "All sacrifices which are eaten, which have been sacrificed not for their own name, are suitable. J. "But they do not go to their owner's credit in fulfillment of an obligation, K. "except for the Passover and the sin-offering." L. Ben cAzzai added only the whole-offering. M. But the sages did not agree with him. M. 4:2 (B-G: M. Zeb. 1:1)

A is redactional. For B-G, see my Eliezer b. Hyrcam1s. The Tradition and the Man (Leiden, 1973 ), I, pp. 222-226, II, 188-9, etc.; I, 332-4, II, 345. For H, see M. 3:SH. I-K go over the matter of B-D, and L corrects K; M is a subscription, conflicting with H. The point is that sacrifices offered up for some other purpose than

YADAYllvI CHAPTER FOUR

4:2·3

147

the correct one, e.g., a burnt-offering offered as a peace-offering, are fit. Their blood therefore may be sprinkled and their meat eaten, with the stated exceptions. If the Passover or sin-offering i5 offered for some other purpose, it is unfit. E qualifies D and is restated at G to conform to F. That these are secondary is shown by K, which lacks the explanatory language.

4:3 A. B. C.

On that day they said: What of Ammon and Moab in the Sabbatical year? R. Tarfon decreed [ that they give J poor man's tithe. And R. Eleazar b. cAzariah decreed [that they give] second

D. tithe. E. 1. Said R. Ishmael, "Eleazar b. cAzariah: You must bring forth proof, since you give a stringent ruling. 2. "For everyone who gives a stringent ruling must bring forth proof." F. Said to him R. Eleazar b. cAzariah, "Ishmael, my brother, I have not changed the order of the years. 2. "Tarfon, my brother, changed it, and he must bring forth proof." G. R. '.farfon answered, "Egypt is outside the Land [ of Israel], and Ammon and Moab are outside the Land. Therefore [just as in] Egypt, poor man's tithe [must be given] in the Sabbatical year, so [ in J Ammon and Moab, poor man's tithe [ must be given J in the Sabbatical year." H. R. Eleazar b. cAzariah answered, "Babylonia is outside the Land [ of Israel], and Ammon and Moab are outside the Land. Therefore, [just as in J Babylonia, second tithe [ must be given J in the Sabbatical year, so [in] Ammon and Moab second tithe [ must be given J in the Sabbatical year." I. Said R. Tarfon, "Egypt, which is near [the Land), have they made liable for poor man's tithe, so that the poor of Israel may depend upon it in the Sabbatical year. So too Ammon and Moab, which are near [the Land] have they made liable for poor man's tithe, so that the poor of Israel may depend upon them in the Sabbatical year." J. R. Eleazar b. cAzariah said to him, "Lo, you are (like) one who would bestow [ on them) worldly gain, yet you arc (like) one who would cause them to perish. 2. "You would close up the heavens so that they send down neither dew nor rain, 3. "for it is written, 'Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me.' Bttt you say, 'Wherein have we robbed you?' 'In tithes and heave-offering' (Malachi 3:8)." K. [K, C, P, PB, N, M, Pa: Responded R. Tarfon.] L. 1. Said R. Joshua, 2. "Lo, I am (Iike) one who will respond on behalf of Tarfon, my

148

YADAYIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:3

brother, but not according to his reasoning. 3. "[The rule concerning] Egypt is a new decision, and that concerning Babylonia is an old decision, and the issue before us is .a new decision. Let that which involves a new decision be derived from that which involves a new decision, but let not that which involves a new decision be derived from that which involves an old decision. 4. "The rule concerning Egypt is the decision of the elders. But the rule concerning Babylonia is the decision of the prophets. And the issue before us involves a decision of the elders. "Let the rule concerning a decision of the elders be derived from the rule concerning a decision of the elders, and let not the rule concerning a decision of the elders be derived from a rule concerning a decision of the prophets." J'vf. They voted and decided: N. Ammon and Ivfoab give poor man's tithe in the Sabbatical year. 0. And when R. Yose the son of the Damascene came to R. Eliezer at Lydda, he [Eliezer] said to him, "What new thing have you [learned] in the bet hamrnidrash today?" P. L He said to him, "They voted and decided: 2. "Ammon and Moab give poor man's tithe in the Sabbatical year." Q. R. Eliezer wept, saying, "The secret of the Lord is with those that fear him, and he will show them his covenant (Ps. 25:14). "Go and tell them, 'Do not be anxious about your vote. I have received a tradition from Rabban Y ol)anan b. Zakkai, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, a law given to Moses at Sinai, that poor man's tithe in the Sabbatical year." "Ammon and Moab M. Yael. 11:3, translated by Joel Gereboff

The comment which follows is by Joel Gereboff. A is redactional language which joins the pericope to a series of other independent traditions (M. Yad. 3:5-4:3) (Epstein, Nwalp, pp. 424 f.). The remainder of the pericopc consists of the following units: B-D, E-F, G-K, L, .l'vf-N, and 0-Q. Our discussion focuses upon the sections relevant to 'f arfon. B-D are a well-balanced dispute between 'farfon and Eleazar. The attributive formula for the sayings is GZR ( decreed) and not )\'VMR (says), the only use of this formula in M.-Tos. The brief debate E-F, which interrupts the dispute and debate between Tarfon and Eleazar, consists of a challenge, E, to the opinion attributed to Eleazar in D, and Fl, a response to this c1uestio11.The appearance of Ishmael in E is odd; generally the parties to a debate are the same as those in the preceding dispute. F2 returns us to the exchange between 'f arfon and Eleazar. The debate, G-J, opens with extremely well b;llanccd arguments, G and H, and continues with supporting arguments in I and J. Yose has the last word. K is no more than an attributive formula which introduces an argument. Either the saying which follows K has been

YADAYIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:3

149

lost, or it simply is a scribal error. The fact that L presupposes that Eleazar wins the debate suggests that K is a mistake. L reopens the discussion. It is an argument in support of Tarfon's analogy, G, and thereby it reverses the outcome of the debate, G-J. The attribution of L to Joshua, like that of E to Ishmael, is odd. N, a ruling in the form of a simple declarative sentence, has been joined to the above by .M. M also links the pericope to its larger context, M. Yad. 3:5-4:3. M. Yad. 3:5 and 4:1 contain expressions similar to M. 0-Q comment upon M-N by supporting this decision. The climax of the pericope, therefore, comes at N. A-L lead up to it; 0-Q reinforce it. The question discussed in the dispute, B-D, that of the tithes which the people in Ammon and Moab give during the Sabbatical year, is an intermediate case. The obligation to tithe crops and to observe the Sabbatical year generally applies to what, according to the rabbis, is considered the Land of Israel. In the opinion of all of the authorities mentioned in this pericope, although the inhabitants of Ammon and Moab do not observe the Sabbatical year, they still should give tithes during this year. Thus Ammon and Moab are sufficiently part of the land of Israel so that the laws of tithing apply there, but are sufficiently not part of the Land of Israel so that the laws of the Sabbatical year do not apply there. The masters in this pericope disagree about the type of tithes these people must give during the Seventh year. The reason for this disagreement is that, since the inhabitants of the Land of Israel do not tithe during the Sabbatical year, there is no precedent for deciding what the people in Ammon and Moab should give. Tarfon and all the other authorities in the pericope, except for Eleazar, rule that the inhabitants of these lands give poor man's tithe during the Sabbatical year. Poor man's tithe is normally set aside during the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle. In all other years, except the seventh itself, one gives second tithe. Tarfon apparently treats the Sabbatical year as an extension of the sixth year; accordingly, the inhabitants of Ammon and Moab set aside poor man's tithe. Tarfon's ruling may also be based upon the fact that Ammon and Moab are an intermediate case. One may therefore apply a more lenient ruling to them. It is easier to give poor man's tithe than second tithe. The former may be eaten anywhere, while second tithe must be consumed in Jerusalem. Eleazar rules that these people give second tithe during the Sabbatical year. He reasons that poor man's tithe is set aside only in a year following one in which second tithe is given. Since in the sixth year the inhabitants of Ammon and Moab give poor man's tithe, they must set aside second tithe during the Sabbatical year. As noted E-F is an intrusion between the dispute + deb:1te of Tarfon and Eleazar. Ishmael argues that since, as we have explained, Eleazar rules more stringently than ':farfon, he must supply a proof for his opinion. Eleazar in Fl responds that he does not have to prove his point, for it is based on the regular sequence of years for tithing. Rather, as F2 states, Tarfon, who changes the secruence, must present

150

YADAYIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:3

evidence in support of his view. F2 thus provides a bridge to ':farfon's argument in G. But on the basis of F 1 we do not expect any further arguments by Eleazar in support of his view. In H and J, however, Eleazar gives such arguments in his debate with 'farfon. Thus E-Fl presuppose the dispute, B-D, but not the debate, G-J. In the debate, G-J, 'farfon compares Ammon and Moab to Egypt, while Eleazar draws an analogy between the former and Babylonia. Tarfon in I spells out the appropriateness of his analogy. Egypt, like Ammon and Moab, but unlike Babylonia, is near the Land of Israel. Eleazar responds not by offering an argument similar to I but by pointing out the implications of 'farfon's ruling. Adherence to 'farfon's opinion does not allow the inhabitants of these lands to fulfill the obligation of offering second tithe. Eleazar thus has the last word. Joshua, however, reopens the issue and demonstrates, on grounds different from those in I, the appropriateness of 'farfon's analogy, G.

A. Ammon and 2\foab give poor man's tithe in the Sabbatical year. B. And [in} all other lands and in Babylonia, one tithes [ second tithe]. C. [ As to] Ammon and Moab and all other lands during the other years of the septennial cycle, if [in the Land they give] poor man's tithe, [they are to give] poor man's tithe, and if [in the Land they give] second tithe, [ they are to give] second tithe. T. 2:15, p. 358, ls. 10-13 A = M. 4:3N. T. augments M.'s rule. A. Said R. Y ose the Damascene, "I was with the former elders [going thereafter} from Yavneh to Lud, and I came and found R. Eliezer. B. "For: "he was sitting in the stall of bakers in Lud. C. "He said to me, 'What new thing was there in the bet hammidrash ?' D. "I said to him, 'Rabbi, We are your disciples and drink from your water.' E. "He said to me, 'Even so-what new thing [ did you hear] ?' F. "I reported to him the laws and responsa and the vote. G. "And when I came to this matter, his eyes filled with tears. He said, 'The secret of the Lord is with those that fear him (Ps. 25:14). And it says, Surely the Lord God does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7). H. "'Go and say to them, Do not be anxiotts about your vote. l have a tradition from Rabban Yo&anan h. Zakkai, which he received from the pRirs, and the pairs from the prophets, and the prophets from Moses, a law [revealed] to Moses at Sinai: " 'They tithe the tithe of the poor man in the Sabbatical year.' " T. 2:16, p. 358, ls. 13-19, p. 359, ls. 1-6 (B. Hag. 3b)

YADAYIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:3-4

151

C = M. 4:3/0; H = M. 4:3Q, as indicated. In my Development of a Legend. Studies on the Traditions Concerning Yo,f?ananben Zakkai (Leiden, 1970), pp. 58-60, I interpret the present rule as pertinent to the inhabitants of Moab and Ammon in general, not solely to the Jews: "The revolutionary government was staking out its territorial claims--claims which could only be realized over the dead bodies of the predominantly gentile inhabitants of Ammon and Moab." The rule concerns Jews, and there is no reason to suppose the gentiles would have objected to the Jews' disposition of their crops. Accordingly, 'in the earlier discussion I err and am glad to correct the matter. Dr. Joseph M. Baumgarten kindly pointed out this error.

4:4 A. On that day: B. Judah an Ammonite proselyte came and stood before them in the bet hammidrash. C. He said to them, "Am I allowed to enter the congregation ?" D. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "You are forbidden [to enter the congregation}." E. R. Joshua said to him, "You are permitted." F. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "Scripture says, An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord, even to the tenth generation (Deut. 23:4)." · G. R. Joshua said to him, "And are there Ammonites and Moabites in their place? H. "Already has Sennacherib, king of Assyria, come up and mixed up all the nations. I. "As it is said, I have removed the bounds of the peoples and have robbed their treasures and have brought down as a valiant man them that sit on thrones (Is. 10:13)." J. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "Scripture says, But afterward I will bring again the captivity of the children of Ammon (Jer. 49:6). "And indeed they have returned." K. R. Joshua said to him, "Scripture says, And I will return the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, says the Lord (Amos 9:14). "And as yet they have not returned." L. And they permitted him to enter into the congregation. M. 4:4

On that day: Judah an Ammonite proselyte stood up before them in the bet hammidrash. He said to them, "Am I allowed to enter the congregation?" Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "You are prohibited." R. Joshua said to him, "You are permitted." Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "Lo, it is written, An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the A. B.

152

YADAYIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:4-5

assembly of the Lord [ even to the tenth generation] (Deut. 23:4). R. Joshua said to him, "And are Ammon and Moab still standing in their place? Already has Sennacherib, king of Assyria, come up and mixed up all the nations, as it is said, And I have removed the bounds of the people and have robbed their treasures and have brought down as a valiant man them that sit on thrones (Is. 10:13)." Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "Scripture says, But rJjterward I will bring cigctin the cc1J7tivityof the children of Ammon (Jer. 49:6). And h,we they not ·ret rettmzed ?" · Said to him R. Joshua, "Script11resc1ys,And I will return the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, s,1ysthe Lord (Amos 9:14). C. "Just as these have not yet returned [to their homeland}, so those [Ammonites and Moabites] have not yet returned [to their homeland]." T. 2:17, p. 359, ls. 7-18

M. 4:4. The only important revision in language is at C. T. On the textual problems see TR TV, pp. 158-159. A. Judah the Ammonite proselyte said to them, "What shall I do?'' B. They said to him, "You have already heard the ruling of the elder. Lo, you are permitted to enter into the congregation." C. Rabban Gamaliel said to them, "Also an Egyptian proselyte is in the same status as this one." D. They said to him, "In the case of the Egyptians [in any event], it [ scripture J has set a limit to the matter for them, as it says, At the end of forty years I shctll gather together Egyl7t (Ezek. 29: 13) ." T. 2:18, p. 360, ls. 1-5

T. now completes the matter.

4:5 A. The Aramaic [passages J which are in Ezra and Daniel impart uncleanness to hands. B. The Aramaic [passages contained in Scriptures} written in [translated into} Hebrew, or a Hebrew [version] written in [translated into J Aramaic or [passages written in archaicJ Hebrew script do not impart uncleanness to hands. C. [Holy Scriptures] impart uncleanness to hands only if written in Assyrian characters, on parchment and with ink. M. 4:::,

The issue begun at M. 3:3-5 is completed here, after the intrusion of the on thctt clay-set. See Leiman, pp. 109 and 190, n. 50: "Assyrian characters are the Hebrew script derived from the Aramaic cursive script of the late Persian and early Greek periods."

YADAYIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:6-8

153

4:6-8

I. A. Say Sadducees: B. "We complain against you [Leiman: "We have a quarrel to pick with you"), Pharisees. C. "For you say, 'Holy scriptures impart uncleanness to hands, but the books of Homer do not impart uncleanness to hands.' " D. Said Rabban Yo];ianan b. Zakkai, "And do we have against the Pharisees only this matter alone? E. "Lo, they say, 'The bones of an ass are clean, but the bones of Yol;ianan, high priest, arc unclean.'" F. They said to him, 'According to their preciousness is their uncleanness. [Leiman: "Their uncleanness corresponds to their preciousness."] G. "So that a man should not make the bones of his father and mother into spoons." H. He said to them, "So too holy scriptures: According to their preciousness is their uncleanness. L "But the books of Homer, which are not precious, do not impart uncleanness to hands." M. 4:6

II.

A. Say Sadducees: "We complain against you, Pharisees. C. "For you declare clean an unbroken stream of liquid." D. Say Pharisees, "We complain against you, Sadducees. E. "For you declare clean a stream of water which comes from a cemetery." B.

III. F. Say Sadducees, "We complain against you, Pharisees. G. "For you say, 'My ox and my ass which do injury are liable, but my man- servant and my maid-servant who do injury are clear. H. "Now if in respect to my ox and my ass, concerning which I am not obligated in regard to commandments, lo, I am liable for damage which they do, in respect to my man-servant and my maidservant, concerning whom I am obligated in regard to commandments, logically should I [not} be liable for damage which they do?" I. They said to them, "No. H you have so stated concerning my ox and my ass, which are not possessed of intelligence, will you say so concerning my man-servant and my maid-servant, who are possessed of inteliigencc? J. "For if I should anger him, he will go and light a fire in someone else's stack of wheat, so that l am liable to pay restitution." ivL 4:7 IV. A. Said a Galilean Sadducee [Min: Pa, N, PB, P, K, V, C, Yeivin #63, M. Sadducee: T}, "I complain against you, Pharisees. B. "For you write the name of the rule1· with the name of Moses in a writ of divorce.''

154

YADAYIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:6-8

C. Say Pharisees, "We complain against you [singular], Galilean Sadducee. D. "For you [plural] write the name of the ruler with the name [of God] on the [same] page [of the Torah]. E. "And, moreover: F. "For you [ evenJ write the name of the ruler above, and the name [ of God] below. G. "As it is said, And Pharaoh said, Who is the Lord, that I should hearken unto his voice to let Israel go (Ex. 5:2). H. "And when he was smitten, what did he say? I. "The Lord is righteous (Ex. 9:27)." M. 4:8

On M. 4:6C, see Leiman, pp. 107, 190, n. 507. On M. 4:7A-E, see Albeck, p. 609. He identifies the N.$WQ with the QTPRS of M. Toh. 8:9, T. Oh. 4:6, M. Oh. 'J:3. This seems to me persuasive. After four pericopae introduced with the redactional connector, On that day, we have four pericopae joined by the complaint-formulary as follows: (1) M. 4:6A-I, (2) M. 4:7A-E, (3) M. 4:7F-J, and (4) M. 4:8, which revises the formulary somewhat and marks the conclusion of the whole. M. 4:6 is highly developed, as shown by the model of M. 4:7A-E. The formal pattern should call for a conflict of 'complaints' rather than the extended debate, D- I. We have no contrary complaint of Pharisees, who do not occur. The point of the unit is clear as stated. M. 4:7A-E brings us back to M. Makh. 5:9. If a person pours out liquid from a clean to an unclean utensil, what remains in the clean utensil is clean. The uninterrupted flow does not form a connector. Sadducees then are alleged to maintain that a stream of water flowing out of a graveyard is clean, even though the water is connected to the cemetery. Accordingly, the reply is that the same paradox affects the Sadducean position on a related matter. This is a good version of the primary formal pattern, because it exploits the paradox by posing a contrary one, rather than by explaining away the one posed by the Sadducees. The third item, M. 4:7F-J, gives the Sadducees a sound argument, which the Pharisees are able to overturn, along the lines of the formal pattern of M. 4:6. The final unit, M. 4:8, involving the Galilean heretic, reverts to the model of the second. That is, the paradox of B is matched by the paradox of D. E-G are appended, and H-I form the final gloss, allowing the tractate to end on a suitable note. The point of B is that

YADAYIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:6-8

155

the date, stated in the year of the rule of the reigning king, begins the writ of divorce, which ends with reference to Moses. The contrary paradox is not quite to the point, since Scripture, not distinctive sectarian practice, is invoked. The answer is that the practice of B is not derogatory; Scriptures do the same thing, mentioning Pharaoh before God. A. Said to them Rabban Yof:;ananb. Zakkai, "The preciousness of Holy Scriptt1reaccount for their 11ncleanness, B. "so that a man should not make them into bedding for his cattle." T. 2:19, p. 360, ls. 6-7

A = M. 4:6H. See Leiman, pp. 188, 190, n. 508. T. cites and completes M. along the lines of M.'s theory at M. 4:6G. The Boethusians say, "We complain against you, Pharisees: "Now if the daughter of my son, who inherits on the strength of my son who inherits on my account, lo, she inherits me-my daughter, who comes [ directly} on my account, logically should inherit me." C. Say Pharisees, "No. If you have said so in regard to the daughter of the son, who shares [inheritances} with the brothers [ of her father}, will you say so of the daughter, who does not share with the [ = her own J brothers?'' D. Those who immerse at dawn say, "\Ve complain against you, Pharisees. E. "For you mention the divine name at dawn without first immersing." F. Say Pharisees, "We complain against you, who immerse at dawn. G. "For you make mention of the divine name in a body which contains uncleanness.'' T. 2:20, p. 360, ls. 8-16 A. B.

T. preserves two more such debates as are in M., A-C and D-G. On the morning-bathers, see Lieberman, TR IV, p. 160. On G, compare M. Ber. 3: 5-6.

11

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

MISHNAH-TOSEFTA YADAYIM TRANSLATION Yadayim Chapter One 1:1 A. [To render hands clean] a quarter-log of water do they pour for hands, B. for one, C. also for two. D. A half-log [is to be used] for three or four. E. A log [is to be used] for five and for ten and for a hundred. F. R. Yose says, "And on condition that for the last among them, there should not be less than a quarter-log." G. They add [to the water used] for the second [pouring] but they do not add [to the water used] for the first [pouring of water over the hands]. M. 1:1 A. "[To render hands clean], a quarter-log of water do they pour for one, but not for two. B. "A half-log of water do they pour for three, but not for four. C. "A log of water do they pour for five, but not for ten, and not for one hundred. D. "They add [to the water used] for the first [pouring] but they do not add [to the water used for] the second," the words of R. Yose. E. R. Meir says, "A quarter-log of water do they pour for hands, even for two, and half a log for three, even for four, a log for five and ten and a hundred." T. 1:1 A. They add to the second but they do not add to the firstB. How so? C. [If] one poured the first [water] and rubbed off [his hands] and went and poured the second, D. and it [the water] is not sufficient to reach the wrist, lo, this one adds to it. E. All the same is one who washes one of his hands and one who washes two of his hands, F. [ all the same isJ the hand of a large person and the hand of a small one-

YADA YIM CHAPTER ONE

157

G. he must pour out a quarter-log [ of water]. H. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "Two hands of two individuals are regarded as if they were of two men." I. How so? J. If two people washed their two hands with a quarter-log, the second one should not go and wash his hands with what is left of the quarter-log.

T. 1:2

A. He who washes his hands [ for unconsecrated food prepared in accord with cleanness required for] Holy Things must pour out a quarter-log of water. B. And as to the sanctification [washing] of hands and feet, there is no fixed measure. T. 1:5

1:2 A. With all sorts of utensils do they pour [water] for hands, B. even with utensils made of dung, utensils made of stone, utensils made of [unbaked] clay. C. They do not pour [ water J for hands either with the sides of [broken] utensils, or the bottom of a ladling-jar, or with the plug of a barrel. D. Nor should a man pour [water] for his fellow with his cupped hands. E. For they draw, and they mix [water with the ash of the red cow], and they sprinkle purification-water, and they pour [water] for hands only with a utensil. F. And only utensils afford protection with a tightly fitted cover, and nothing affords protection from the power of a clay utensil ['.inthe Tent of a corpse] except utensils. M. 1:2 A.. A stopper which one made into a utensil-they pour out from it water for hands. B. The waterskin and the tub, even though they are broken downthey pour out from them water for hands. C. The sack and the basket, even though they hold [liquid)they do not pour out from them water for the hands. D. A chest, box, and cupboard, when they hold [requisite measure to be insusceptible to uncleanness}, even though they are not deemed as Tents-they do not pour out water from them for hands. T. 1:6

158

TRANSLATION

Priests sanctify in the sanctuary only with a utensil. And they force the suspected wife to drink, and they purify me1oracs [ only with a utensil]. C. The sides of a wooden utensil and a bone utensil and glass utensil-they do not pour out from them water for hands. D. [If] one smoothed them, sanded them, and made them into utensils and they can hold a quarter-log of water, they do pour out from them water for hands. A. B.

T. 1:7 A. Sherds of earthenware utensils which can hold a quarter-log of water-they pour out from them water for hands. B. Sherds of metal utensils, even though they can hold a quarterlog of water-they do not pour out from them water for hands.

T. 1:8 A. He who hews out a water-channel and made in it a receptacle, even though the water uprooted it and attached itB. they do not draw with it water for the purification-rite, C. and they do not mix in it, D. and they do not sprinkle from it [purification-water on to someone made unclean by the corpse J, E. and it does not require a tightly-sealed cover, F. and they do not pour out water for hands from it. G. [If] one uprooted it and affixed it and gave thought to it to make use of it as a utensil after its uprootingH. they do draw ·with it, I. and they do mix in it, J. and they do sprinkle from it, K. and it does require a tightly sealed cover [ in the tent of the corpse], L. and they do pour water for hands from it.

T. 1:9

1:3

A. Water which was unfit for cattle to drink B. [ when it is located J in utensils, is unfit. C. [When it is located} on the ground, it is fit. D. [If] there fell into it ink, gum, or copperas, and its color changed, it is unfit. E. [HJ one did work with it, F. or if he soaked his bread in it, G. it is unfit. H. Simeon of Teman says, "Even if he intended to soak [bread] in this and it fell into the second, it [ the secondJ is fit." M. 1:3

159

YADAYIM CHAPTER ONE

A. Water which has been made unfit for a cattle to drinkB. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says, "If it is on the ground, they immerse (in it}, but they do not pour from it water for hands." T. 1:lOA

1:4

[If} he rinsed utensils in it, B. or scrubbed measures in it, A.

it is unfit.

C.

D. [If} he rinsed in it vessels which had already been rinsed, E. or new [vessels}, F.

it is fit.

G. R. Yose declares unfit in [the case of rinsing} new [vessels in it}.

M. 1:4 1:5 A. The water in which the baker dips loaves of fine bread is unfit. B. And when he rinses his hands in it, it is fit. C. All are fit to pour water on hands, even a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor. D. One places the jar between his knees and pours [ out water on his hands}. E. One sets the jar on its side and pours [ out water}. F. And the ape pours water for hands. G. R. Yose declares unfit in these two cases. M. 1:5 C. Water which is before the baker, even though its color has not changed-'-:--they do not pour from it water for hands. D. And when he takes it with his hands and pours it on loaves, E. if its color changes,it is unfit. F. And if not, it is fit.

T. l:lOB

Water which is before the smith, even though its color has not changedC. they do not pour from it water for hands, D. for it is certain that work has been done in it. E. Water which is before the scribe, if its color has changed, is unfit, and if not, is fit. T. 1:11 A.

B.

160

TRANSLATION

A. All are fit to pour out water for hands, even a person unclean by reason of corpse-contamination, even a man who has had intercourse with a menstruating woman. B. Whoever does not impart uncleanness to water when he carries it is fit to pour out water for hands. T. 1:12

A. [If} the one who takes the water intends and the one who pours out the water does not intend [that by his act the water will clean the hands], B. [if] the one who pours out the water intends, and the one who hikes the water does not intend [ that the water should clean the hands], C. his hands are deemed clean. D. R. Yose says, "His hands are unclean." T. 1:13 A. If one broke open the caldron and poured out water for hands from a pipe which contains a place capable of containing a quarter-log of waterB. his hands are clean. C. And R. Yose says, "His hands are unclean." D. And R. Yose agrees that if he left a jar between his knees or in the crook of his arm and poured out water, his hands are clean. T. 1:14

Y adayim Chapter Two 2:1

A. (If] one poured water for one hand with a single rinsing, his hand is clean. B. (If he poured water] for two hands with a single rinsingC. R. Meir declares unclean unless he will pour a quarter-log (of water]. D. (If] a loaf of heave-offering fell ( on the water a quarter-log in quantity which has been poured on the hands in a single rinsing], it is clean. E. R. Y ose declares unclean . M. 2:1 E. "He who pours water on his hands with a single rinsing has to wash with a quarter-log [ of water]," the words of R. Meir. F. R. Yose says, "In the case of both hands, he has to pour a quarter-log. In the case of one hand, even if he washed with the remnant of the quarter-log of water, it is fit." T. 1:3B

YADAYIM CHAPTER TWO

161

2:2

A. [If] one poured out the first [water] in one place and the second in another place, B. and a loaf of heave-offering fell on the first, it is unclean. C. And [if it fell] on the second, it is clean. D. [If] he poured out the first [water} and the second in one place, and a loaf of heave-offering fell [ on it}, it is unclean. E. [If} he poured out the first [water}, and a splinter or pebble was found on his hands, his hands are unclean, F. for the second water cleans only the water which is on the hand. G. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "Whatever originates in water is clean." M. 2:2 A. Whatever interposes in the case of the body interposes in the case of the hands, B. with reference to the sanctification of the hands and feet for the Temple House. T. 1:4 E. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, "[If] one poured out the first [water] and on his hand was found a red insect which originates in the water, his hands are clean." T. 2:3B A. [If] one poured out the first water, and one of his hands was made unclean, B. lo, this one pours out the second water on the second hand and does not scruple in the matter. C. [If] he poured out the first water, and it flowed beyond the wrist, and then he poured out the second water on it, and a loaf of bread fell from the wrist and inward, it is unclean. If it fell from the wrist and outward, it is clean. T. 2:5 A. [If] he poured out the first water and the second water beyond the wrist, and a loaf of heave-offering bread fell, it is unclean. B. But logic requires that it be clean: C. Now if the (first) [rain] water, which does not impart cleanness to water which is on the hand, imparts cleanness to water which is on the ground, D. the second water, which does impart cleanness to the water which is on the hand, logically should impart cleanness to water which is on the ground. T. 2:6

TRANSLATION

162

2:3

A. The hands are susceptible to uncleanness and are rendered clean up to the wrist. B. How so? C. [If] one poured the first [ water J up to the wrist, and the second beyond the wrist and it went back to the hand-it is clean. D. [If} he poured out the first and the second [pouring of water] beyond the wrist and it went back to the hand, it is unclean. E. [If] he poured out the first water onto one hand, and was reminded and poured out the second [water} on to both hands, they are unclean. F. [If] he poured out the first water on to both hands and was reminded and poured out the second [water] on to one hand, his hand [ which has been washed twice J is clean. G. [If] he poured out water on to one hand and rubbed it on the other, it is unclean. H. [If he rubbed his hand] on his head or on the wall, it is clean. They pour out [ water on the hands of] four or five people I. side by side, or above one another, J. on condition that they [the hands] lie loosely so that the water will flow among them. M. 2:3 A. B. C. D.

One who pours water on his hands must rub his hands off. [If] he mbbed one hand on the other, it is unclean. [If he rubbed it] on his head or on the wall, it is clean. [If] he went and touched it, it is unclean. T. l:3A

A. The priests sanctify in the sanctuary, in regard to the hand, up to the wrist, and, in regard to the foot, up to the calf. B. He who pours out water on his hands should not say, "Since the first [water} is unclean, lo, I shall pour out unclean [water]." C. If he did so, lo, he must dry off his hands. D. He who pours out water on his hands must dry his hands. E. But he who immerses his hands does not have to dry off his hands.

T. 2:1 A. He who pours water on his hands must raise his hands so that the water does not flow beyond the wrist and go back and render his hands unclean. B. But he who immerses his hands does not have to raise his hands.

T. 2:2

YADAYIM CHAPTER TWO

163

C. He who pours out water on his hands, if he had proper intention, his hands are clean, and if not, his hands are unclean. D. But he who immerses his hands, one way or the other-his hands are clean. T. 2:3A

A. He who pours water on his handsB. if the water goes up to the wrist, his hands are clean, and if not, his hands are unclean. C. [If] he poured out the first water on this [hand] by itself and on that hand by itself and changed his mind and poured out the second water on both hands simultaneously, D. they render one another unclean. E. [If] he poured out the first water on both hands and changed his mind and poured out the second, this on this hand by itself and that on that hand by itself, F. if he had proper intention in the matter, his hands are clean, and if not, his hands are unclean. T. 2:4 A. They pour out water for four or five people, one beside the other, B. and they do not scruple on account of four things: C. Lest it be made unclean; D. lest work have been done with it; E. lest it not be poured from a utensil; F. and lest a quarter-lognot be poured out on a hand . . G. But he who takes and he who pours out for his fellow with his cupped handsH. his [the fellow's] hands are unclean, I. for in the first place the water has not been poured from a utensil.

T. 2:7 A. Two who poured out water for two hands, this one from an eighth of a log, and this one from an eighth of a log, B. even though it goes and is mixed together in a spoutC. their hands are unclean, D. for in the first place [the water] was not poured from a quarter-log.

T. 2:8

2:4 A. [If it is in] doubt that work has or has not been done with it, B. [if it is in] doubt that they contain or do not contain the requisite measure, C. [ if it is in] doubt whether it is unclean or cleanD. a matter of doubt concerning it is clean.

164

TRANSLATION

E. For they have said: A matter of doubt concerning the hands, whether ( they areJ unclean, or whether [ they are deemed] to have imparted uncleanness, or whether [they are deemed] to have been made clean, is resolved as clean. F. R. Y ose says, " [ A matter of doubt concerning whether the hands have] been made clean is resolved as unclean." G. Howso? H. (If] his hands were clean, and before him were two unclean loaves of bread, I. ( if it is in J doubt whether or not he touched themJ. [if] his hands were unclean, and before him were two clean loaves of bread, K. ( if] one of his hands was unclean and one of his hands was dean, and before him were two clean loaves of bread, M. ( and if] he touched one of them, N. [if it is in J doubt whether he touched with the unclean or whether he touched the clean [hand]O. [if] his hands were clean, and before him were two loaves of bread, one of them unclean and one of them clean, P. [and if] he touched one of them, Q. [ if it is in J doubt whether he touched the unclean or whether he touched the clean [loaf of bread]R. [ if] one of his hands was unclean and one was clean, and before him were two loaves [ of bread], one of them unclean and one of them clean, S. [ if] he touched both of them, T. [if it is in] doubt whether the unclean [hand touched} the unclean [loaf of bread} and the clean [hand touched] the clean [loaf of bread], or [whether] the dean [hand touched] the unclean [loaf of bread] and the unclean [hand touched] the clean [loaf of bread]U. the hands remain as they were before [ in their former status}, and the loaves of bread as they were before [ in their former statusJ. M. 2:4 A. [If) there were before him two glasses [ of water)B. with one of them work had been done, and with one of them work had not been done-C. [ if] he poured [water) from one of them on to both of his hands and prepared foods requiring cleannessD. they are held in suspense.

YADAYIM CHAPTER 1WO

165

E. [If he poured out water] from the second and prepared [foods requiring cleanness], they are clean. F. [If he poured out water] from the first and did not prepare foods requiring cleanness, G. [if he poured out water] from the second and prepared [foods requiring cleanness], they are clean. H. [If he poured out water] from the first and prepared, I. from the second prepared, J. [if] these and those are lying [before him], K. these and those are clean.

T. 1:15 A. [If] one poured out [waterJ from one of them on to one of his hands and prepared foods requiring cleanness, they are held in suspense. B. [If he did soJ from the second and prepared [ foods requiring cleanness], they are clean. C. [If he did soJ from the first and did not prepare, D. from the second and did prepare [foods requiring cleanness], they are clean. E. [If he poured out water] from the first and prepared, F. from the second and prepared, G. [if] these and those are lying [before him], H. these and those are clean.

T. 1:16 A. (If] there were before him two glasses [of water], one unclean and one clean, B. and he poured out [ water J from one of them for one of his hands and prepared foods requiring cleanness, C. they are held in suspense. D. [If he did so] from the second and prepared [foods requiring cleanness], they are clean. E. [If he did so] from the first and did not prepare, F. from the second and prepared [they are clean. (If he did so) from the first and prepared, from the second and prepared]G. [if] these and those are lying before him, H. lo, they determine [the status of one another]. I. [If] he ate the first [foods which he prepared], or they were made unclean, or they were lost, before the second [ foods requiring cleannessJ were prepared, they are clean. J. [If this took placeJ after the second were prepared, the second are kept in a state of suspense. K. [If] he poured out water from one of them on to one of his hands and prepared things requiring foods requiring cleanness, they are kept in suspense. L. [If he poured out] the second and prepared [foods requiring cleanness], they are clean. M. (If he did soJ with the first and did not prepare,

166

TRANSLATION

N. 0. P.

with the second and did prepare, [if] these and those arc lying [before him], [supply: lo, they determine (the status of one another).]

T. 1:17 A. [If} one of his hands was unclean, and one of his hands was dean, B. and before him were two glasses, one unclean and one dean, C. and he poured out water from one of them on to both his hands and prepared foods requiring cleanness, they are kept in a state of suspense. D. R. Yose says, "The unclean one remains in its established status of uncleanness." E. [If] one of his hands was unclean, and one was clean, F. and before him were two loaves of bread, one unclean and one clean, G. and if his two hands touched one loaf, whether simultaneously or in succession, H. or one of his hands touched both of the loaves, in succession, the hands and the loaves are kept in a state of suspense. I. J. [If} one of his hands touched the two loaves simultaneously, K. the hands remain as they were, and the loaves of bread are to be burned. T. 1:18

Yadayim Chapter Three 3:1 He who pokes his hands into a house afflicted with negacB. "his hands are in the first remove of uncleanness," the words of R. cAqiva. C. And sages say, "His hands are in the second remove of uncleanness.'' D. Whoever imparts uncleanness to clothing, when in contact [ with them J, imparts uncleanness to the handsE. "So that they are in the first remove of uncleanness, the words of R. cAqiva. F. And sages say, "So that they are in the second remove of uncleanness.'' G. Said they to R. cAqiva, "When do we find that the hands are in the first remove of uncleanness under any circumstances whatsoever?" H. He said to them, "And how is it possible for them to be in the first remove of uncleanness without his body's [being] made unclean, outside of the present case?" A.

YADAYIM CHAPTER THREE

167

I. "Food and utensils which have been made unclean by liquids impart uncleanness to the hands so that they are in the second remove of uncleanness," the words of R. Joshua. J. And sages say, "That which is made unclean by a Father of uncleanness imparts uncleanness to the hands. [That which has been made unclean J by an Offspring of uncleanness does not impart uncleanness to the hands." K. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, "McSH B: A certain woman came before father. "She said to him, 'My hands entered the contained airspace of a clay utensil.' "He said to her, 'My daughter, By what had it been made unclean?' "But I did not hear what she said to him." L. Said sages, "The matter is clear. That which has been made unclean by a Father of uncleanness imparts uncleanness to the hands. [That which has been made unclean] by an Offspring of uncleanness does not impart uncleanness to the hands." M. 3:1 A. B.

These spoil hands [ for heave-offering]: food in the first remove, maddaf-objeets, and liquids.

T. 2:9A 3:2 A. "\Vhatever imparts unfitness to heave-offering imparts uncleanness to hands, putting them into the second remove of uncleanness. B. "One hand imparts uncleanness to the second," the words of R. Joshua. C. And sages say, "That which is unclean in the second remove does not put [ something else into uncleanness at J the second remove." D. He said to them, "And do not sacred scriptures, unclean in the second remove, impart uncleanness to hands?" E. They said to him, "They do not draw inferences about rulings of the Torah from rulings of scribes, nor about rulings of scribes from rulings of Torah, nor about rulings of scribes from rulings of scribes." M. 3:2 3:3 A. The straps of tefillin [while they are still attached] to the tefillin impart uncleanness to hands.

168

TRANSLAnON

B. R. Simeon says, "The straps of tefillin [ under any circumstances] do not impart uncleanness to hands." M. 3:3 C. R. Simeon b. Judah says in the name of R. Simeon, "He who touches the strap is clean, unless he touches the knot." D. R. Zakkai says in the name of R. Jacob, "He who touches the strap is clean, unless he touches the box." T. 2:9B

3:4

The blank spaces in a scroll, whether above or below or at the beginning or at the end impart uncleanness to hands. B. R. Judah says, "That which is at the end does not impart uncleanness unless one ·will affix the roller to it." M. 3:4 A.

A. R. Judah says, "The blank space which is at the beginning of the scroll and is of the breadth of the entire [scroll] imparts uncleanness to the hands." B. He who writes Hallel and the Shernac for child's practice-even if it is not permitted to do soc. it im.parts uncleanness to hands.

T. 2:11

3:5

A. A scroll which was erased and m which remain eighty-five lettersB. such as the paragraph, And it came to pass when the ark set fonMrd [Num. 10:35f.], C. imparts uncleanness to hands. D. A scroll in which eighty-five letters are written, E. such as the puagraph, And it Ci/me to pc1ss when the ark set forward, F. imparts uncleanness to hands. G. All sacred scriptures impart uncleanness to hands. H. The Song of Songs and Qohelet impart uncleanness to hands. R. Judah says, "The Song of Songs imparts uncleanness to I. hands, but as to Qohelet there is dispute." R. Yose says, "Qohelet does not impart uncleanness to hands, J. but as to Song of Songs there is dispute.'' K. Rabbi Simeon says, "Qohelet is among the lenient rulings of the House of Shammai and strict rulings of the House of Hillel."

YAD.AYIM CHAPTER THREE

169

L. Said R. Simeon b. cAzzai, "I have a tradition from the testimony of the seventy-two elders, M. "on the day on which they seated R. Eleazar b. cAzariah in the session, N. "that the Song of Songs and Qohelet do impart uncleanness to hands." O. Said R. cAqiva, "Heaven forbid! No Israelite man ever disputed concerning Song of Songs that it impart uncleanness to hands. P. "For the entire age is not so worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel. Q. "For all the scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is holiest of all. R. "And if they disputed, they disputed only concerning Qohelet." S. Said R. Yol:ianan b. Joshua the son of R. cAqiva's father-inlaw, according to the words of Ben cAzzai, "Indeed did they dispute, and indeed did they come to a decision." M. 3:5 A. B.

A scroll which wore out, if one can gather from it eighty-five letters, C. such as the paragraph, And it came to pass when the ark set forward [Num. 10:3Sf.J, D. imparts uncleanness to hands. E. A scroll in which are written eighty-five letters, F. such as the paragraph, And it came to pass when the ark set

forward, G. does (not) impart uncleanness to hands. H. [If} one attached to it other sheets, it imparts uncleanness to hands. I. But the remainder does not impart uncleanness to hands.

T. 2:10 A. The thongs and the straps which one sewed onto a scroll, even though it is not permitted to keep them, impart uncleanness to hands. B. The container of a scroll and the box of a scroll and the wrappings of scrolls, when they are clean, impart uncleanness to hands. C. The [ segments used for} blessings, even though they contain letters of the divine name and of many passages which occur in the Torah, do not impart uncleanness to hands.

T. 2:12 A. The Gospels (GYLYWNYN) and books of heretics do not impart uncleanness to hands. B. And the books of Ben Sira and all books written thence-forward do not impart uncleanness to hands. T. 2:13

170

TRANSLATION

A. R. Simeon b. Menassia says, "The Song of Songs imparts uncleanness to hands, because it was said through the Holy Spirit. B. "Qohelet does not impart uncleanness to hands, because it is [ merely J the wisdom of Solomon." C. They said to him, "And did he write only this alone? Lo, it says, And Solomon uttered three thousand proverbs and his songs were d tho11sand and five (I Kings 5:12). D. "And it says, Do not add to his words lest he reb11ke yon and yo11 be found a liar (Prov. 30-6) ." T. 2:14

Y adayim Chapter Four

A. B. C.

D. E.

4:1 On that day did they vote and decide concerning a footbathwhich holds from two logs to nine gabs and which was cracked, that it is susceptible to uncleanness through midras-uncleanness. for R. cAqiva says, "A footbath is according to its name." M. 4:1 4:2

A. On that day they said: B. All sacrifices which were slaughtered not for their own name are fit. C. But they do not go to their owner's credit in fulfillment of an obligation, D. except for the Passover and the sin-offering, E. the Passover at its season, and the sin-offering at all times. F. R. Eliezer says, "Also the guilt-offering. G. "The Passover at its season, and the sin-offering and guiltoffering at all times." H. Said R. Simeon b. cAzzai, "I have a tradition of the seventy-two elders "on the day on which they seated R. Eleazar b. cAzariah in session, that: "All sacrifices which are eaten, which have been sacrificed not I. for their own name, are suitable. J. "But they do not go to their owner's credit in fulfillment of an obligation, K. "except for the Passover and the sin-offering." L. Ben cAzza:iadded only the whole-offering. M. But the sages did not agree with him. M. 4:2

YADAYIM CHAPTER FOUR

171

4:3 A. On that day they said: B. What of Ammon and Moab in the Sabbatical year? C. R. Tarfon decreed [that they give] poor man's tithe. D. And R. Eleazar b. cAzariah decreed [ that they give] second tithe.· E. 1. Said R. Ishmael, "Eleazar b. cAzariah: You must bring forth proof, since you give a stringent ruling. 2. "For everyone who gives a stringent ruling must bring forth proof." F. Said to him R. Eleazar b. cAzariah, "Ishmael, my brother: I have not changed the order of the years. 2. "Tarfon, my brother, changed it, and he must bring forth proof." G. R. Tarfon answered, "Egypt is outside the Land [of Israel], and Ammon and Moab are outside the Land. Therefore [just as in] Egypt, poor man's tithe [must be given] in the Sabbatical year, so [in] Ammon and Moab, poor man's tithe [must be given in the Sabbatical year.]" H. R. Eleazar b. cAzariah answered, "Babylonia is outside the Land, and Ammon and Moab are outside the Land. Therefore, [just as in] Babylonia, second-tithe [ must be givenJ in the Sabbatical year, so [in] Ammon and Moab second tithe [must be given] in the Sabbatical year." I. Said R. Tarfon, "Egypt, which is near [the Land], have they made liable ,for poor man's tithe, so that the poor of Israel may depend upon it in the Sabbatical year. So too Ammon and Moab, which are near [the Land] have they made liable for poor man's tithe, so that the poor of Israel may depend upon them in the Sabbatical year.'' J. R. Eleazar b. cAzariah said to him, "Lo, you are like one who would bestow [ on them] worldly gain, yet you are like one who would cause them to perish. 2. "You would close up the heavens so that they send down neither dew nor rain, 3. "for it is written, 'Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me.' But you say, 'Wherein have we robbed you?' 'In tithes and heave-offering' (Malachi 3:8)." K. Responded R. Tarfon. L. 1. Said R. Joshua, 2. "Lo, I am like one who will respond on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not according to his reasoning. 12

172

TRANSLATION

3. "[The rule concerning] Egypt is a new decision, and that concerning Babylonia is an old decision, and the issue before us is a new decision. Let that which involves a new decision be derived from that which involves a new decision, but let not that which involves a new decision be derived from that which involves an old decision. 4. "The rule concerning Egypt is the decision of the elders. But the rule concerning Babylonia 'is the decision of the prophets. And the issue before us involves a decision of the elders. Let the rule concerrting a decision of the elders be derived from the rule concerning a decision of the elders, and let not the rule concerning a decision of the elders be derived from a rule concerning a decision of the prophets." M. They voted and decided: N. Ammon and Moab give poor man's tithe in the Sabbatical year. 0. And when R. Yose the son of the Damascene came to R. Eliezer at Lydda, he [Eliezer] said to him, "What new thing have you [learned] in the bet hammidrash today?" P. 1. He said to him, "They voted and decided: 2. "Ammon and Moab give poor man's tithe in the Sabbatical year." Q. R. Eliezer wept, saying, "The secret of the Lord is with those that fear him, and he will show them his covenant (Ps. 25:14). "Go and tell them, 'Do not be anxious about your vote. I have received a tradition from Rabban Y o]:ianan b. Zakkai, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, a law given to Moses at Sinai, "that Ammon and Moab give poor man's tithe in the Sabbaticalyear." M. Yad. 4:3 A. Ammon and Moab give poor man's tithe in the Sabbatical year. B. And [in} all other lands and in Babylonia, one tithes [ second tithe}. C. [ As to] Ammon and Moab and all other lands during the other years of the septennial cycle, if [in the Land they give] poor man's tithe, [ they are to give} poor man's tithe, and if [ in the Land they give} second tithe. T. 2:15

A. Said R. Y osethe Damascene, "I was with the former elders [going thereafter} from Yavneh to Lud, and I came and found R. Eliezer. B. "For he was sitting in the stall of bakers in Lud. C. "He said to me, 'What new thing was there in the bet hammidrash ?' D. "I said to him, 'Rabbi. We are your disciples and drink from your water.'

YADA YIM CHAPTER FOUR

173

E. "He said to me, 'Even so. What new thing [ did you hear] ?' F. "I reported to him the laws and responsa and the vote. G. "And when I came to this matter, his eyes filled with tears. He said, 'T'he secret of the Lord is with those that fear him (Ps. 125:14). And it says, Surely the Lord God does nothing 11;ithout revealing his secret to his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7). H. "Go and say to them, Do not be anxious abottt yottr vote. I have a tradition from Rabban Y olpanmz b. Zakkai, which he received from the pairs, and the pairs from the prophets, and the prophets from Moses, a law [revealed] to Moses at Sinai: "'They tithe the tithe of the poor man in the Sabbatical year.' " T. 2:16

4:4

A. On that day: Judah an Ammonite proselyte came and stood before them in the bet hammidrash. C He said to them, "Am I allowed to enter the congregation?" D. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "You are forbidden [to enter the congregation J." E. R. Joshua said to him, "You are permitted." F. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, 'Scripture says, An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the cmembly of the Lord, .even to the tenth generation {Deut. 23 :4) ." G. R. Joshua said to him, "And are there Ammonites and Moabites in this place? H. "Already has Sennacherib, king of Assyria, come up and mixed up all the nations. I. "As it is said, I have removed the bozmds of the peoples and have robbed their treasures and have brought down as a valiant man them that sit on thrones ( Is. 10: 13)." J. Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "Scripture says, But afterward I will bring again the captivity of the children of Ammon (Jer. 49:6). "And indeed they have returned." K. R. Joshua said to him, "Scripture says, And I will ret1.un the captivity of my people Israel cmd Judah, .Mys the Lore! (Amos 9:14). "And as yet they have not returned." L. And they permitted him to enter into the congregation. M. 4:4 · B.

On that day: B. Judah an Ammonite proselyte stood ttp before them in the bet hammidrash. He said to them, "Am I ct/lowed to mter the congreA.

174

TRANSLATION

gation?" Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "You are prohibited." R. foshua said to him, "You are permitted." Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "Lo, it is written, An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord [ even to the tenth generation] (Deut. 23:4). "R. Joshua said to him, "And are Ammon and Moab still standing in their place? Already has Sennacherib, king of Assyria, come up and mixed up all the nations, as it is said, And I have removed the bounds of the people and have robbed their treasures and. have brought down as a valiant man them that sit on thrones (Is. 10:13). Rabban Gamaliel said to him, "Scripture says, But afterward I will bring again the captivity of the children of Ammon (!er. 49:6). And have they not yet returned?" Said to him R. Joshua, "Scripture says, 'And I will return the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, says the Lord' (Amos 9:14). C. "Just as these have not yet returned '[to their homeland}, so those [ Ammonites and Moabites} have not yet returned to their homeland." T. 2:17 A. Judah the Ammonite proselyte said to them, "What shall I do?" B. They said to him, "You have already heard the ruling of the elder. Lo, you are permitted to enter into the congregation." C. Rabban Gamaliel said to them, "Also an Egyptian proselyte is in the same status as this one." D. They said to him, "In the case of the Egyptians [in any event}, it [Scripture} has set a limit to the matter for them, as it says, At the end of forty years I shall gather together Egypt (Ezek. 29:13)." T. 2:18

4:5 A. The Aramaic [passages] which are in Ezra and Daniel impart uncleanness to hands. B. The Aramaic [passages contained in ScriptQ.res] written in Hebrew, or a Hebrew [version] written in Aramaic or [passages written in archaic] Hebrew script do not impart uncleanness to hands. C. [Holy Scriptures] impart uncleanness to hands only if written in Assyrian characters, on parchment, and with ink. M. 4:5 4:6-8

A. Say Sadducees: B. "We complain against you, Pharisees. C. "For you say, 'Holy scriptures impart uncleanness to hands, but the books of Homer do not impart uncleanness to hands.' "

YADAYIM CHAPTER FOUR

175

D. Said Rabban Yo]:tanan b. Zakkai, "And do we have against the Pharisees only this matter alone? E. "Lo, they say, 'The bones of an ass are clean, but the bones of Y ol;ianan, high priest, are unclean.' '' F. They said to him, "According to their preciousness is their uncleanness. G. "So that a man should not make the bones of his father and mother into spoons.'' H. He said to them, "So too holy scriptures: According to their preciousness is their uncleanness. I. "But the books of Homer, which are not precious, do not impart uncleanness to hands." M. 4:6

A. Say Sadducees: B. "We complain against you, Pharisees. C. "For you declare clean an unbroken stream of liquid." D. Say Pharisees, "We complain against you, Sadducees. E. "For you declare clean a stream of water which comes from a cemetery." F. Say Sadducees, "We complain against you, Pharisees. G. "For you say, 'My ox and my ass which do injury are liable, but my man-servant and my maid-servant which do injury are clear. H. "Now if in respect to my ox and my ass, concerning which I am not obligated in respect to commandments, lo, I am liable for damage which they do, in respect to my man-servant and my maidservant, concerning whom I am obligated in respect to commandments, logically should I [not] be liable for damage which they do?" I. They said to them, "No. If you have so stated concerning my ox and my ass, which are not possessed of intelligence, will you say so concerning my man-servant and my maid-servant, who are possessed of intelligence? J. "For if I should anger him, he will go and light a fire in someone else's stack of wheat, so that I am liable to pay restitution." M. 4:7 A. Said a Galilean Min, "I complain against you, Pharisees. B. "For you write the name of the ruler with the name of Moses in a writ of divorce." C. Say Pharisees, "We complain against you [singular], Galilean Min.

176

TRANSLATION

D. "For you [plural] write the name of the ruler with the name [ of God J on the [ sameJ page. E. "And, moreover: F. "For you write the name of the ruler above, and the name [ of God] below. G. "As it is said, And Pharaoh said, lf7ho is the Lord, that I should hearken unto his voice to let Israel go (Ex. 5:2). H. "And when he was smitten, what did he say? "The Lord is righteous (Ex. 9:27)." I. M. 4:8 A. Said to them &bban Yol;anan b. Zakkai, "The preciousness of Holy Scriptttres accomzts for their uncleanness, B. "so that a man should not make them into bedding for his cattle." T. 2:19 A. The Boethusians say, "\XI e complain against you, Pharisees. B. "Now if the daughter of my son, who inherits on the strength of my son who inherits on my account, lo, she inherits me-my daughter, who comes on my account [ directly], logically should inherit me." C. Say Pharisees, "No. If you have said so in regard to the daughter of the son, who shares with the brothers, will you say so of the daughter, who does not share with the brothers?" D. Those who immerse at dawn say, "We complain against you, Pharisees. E. "For you mention the divine name at dawn without first immersing." F. Say Pharisees, "We complain a.gainst you, those who immerse at dawn. G. "For you make mention of the divine name in a body which contains uncleanness."

T. 2:20

CHAPTER FIFTEEN

YADAYI.M: LITERARY PROBLEMS 1.

INTRODUCTION

We deal with Mishnah-Toscfta-relationships an d\vith the forms used in both documents. Because these exercises are abundantly familiar, the discussion is brief. 11.

l.

M1sHNAHAND

TosEFTA

The Relationship between Mishnah and Tosefta

Unlike the tractates examined to this time, Tosefta to Yadayim contains not a single pericope which we may confidently declare to stand autonomous of Mishnah. All forty-two distinct entries bear a single relationship to Mishnah: commentary or supplement, closely tied, for meaning, to Mishnah itself. We cannot suppose that our Tosefta has lost relevant autonomous materials, since Mishnah' s four chapters are served by exactly the number of entries we should have predicted on the basis of the earlier tractates, ten per chapter of Mishnah. I cannot explain why Tosefta should lack what heretofore has been an essential component of its construction. Comment,wy

Kelim Ohalot Negaim Parah Tohorot Miqvaot Niddah Makhshirin Zabim Tcbul Yom Yadayim

2.

Autonomo11.r Units

60% 70% 60% 79% 83% 79% 74%

34% 36% 40% 30% 40% 21% 17% 21% 26%

63f/{-,

37~;:{)

66'j{;

61r;{i

100%

The Organization and Redaction of Tosefta

T.'s organization in respect to M. is somewhat confusing. The fact that there are only two chapters, against M.'s four, is not important. What is striking is that T. is remarkably uninterested in M.'s order,

178

YADAYIM: LITERARY PROBLEMS

even while systematically commenting upon, or otherwise carefully augmenting, M.'s rules. Specifically, T. breaks at M. 2:4, but it starts its new chapter with materials pertinent to M. 2:3, then works backward to M. 2:2. This "arrangement" is out of all relationship to the order of M. T. furthermore treats M. 2:3, 2:1, and 2:2 right at the beginning of its opening chapter. But it then goes on systematically to deal with M. 1:1-5 at T. 1:5-14, a well-arranged unit. Clearly, M.'s Chapter Two is the problem. Once we reach M .Chapter Three/T. 2:9, we move fairly smoothly, and there is no further confusion of M.'s chapters in T.'s order. Essentially, therefore, the problem is with the location of T. 1:3-4, which is completely inexplicable, on the one hand, and the peculiar arrangement of T. 1:15-18, 2:1-8, in relationship to M. Chapter Two, on the other. T.

M.

T.

M.

1:1 1:2 1:3A 1:3B 1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8 1:9 l:lOA 1:lOB 1:11 1:12 1:13 1:14 1:15 1:16 1:17 1:18 2:1

1:1 1:1 2:3 2:1 2:2 1:1 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:3 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:3

2:2 2:3A 2:3B 2:4 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:8 2:9A 2:9B 2:10 2:11 2:12 2:13 2:14 2:15 2:16 2:17 2:18 2:19 2:20

2:3 2:3 2:2 2:3 2:2 2:2 2:3 2:3 3:1 3:3 3:5 3:4 3:5 3:5 3:5 4:3 4:3 4:4 4:4 4:6 4:7-8

3. Tosefta as Commentary to Mishnah The reason each of T.' s items is deemed a commentary to M. is specified here. 1. 2. 3.

T. 1:1: T. augments M. 1:1 by spelling out the several positions. T. 1:2: T. cites M. 1:lG and explains the rule. T. 1:5: T. augments M. 1:1.

4-7. T. 1:6-9: T. enriches M.'s principle on utensils. Its materials expand M. 8. T. 1:lOA: T. cites M. 1:3A.

179

MISHNAH AND 'J\OSEFTA

9-13. T. lOB-14: T. in all instances adds to M.'s rules and exemplifies some of them in fresh formulations. 14. T. 1:3B: T. spells out M.'s implications. 15. T. 1:4: T. correlates with M. 16. T. 2:3B: T. restates M. 17-18. T. 2:5-6: T. illustrates the principle of M. 19. T. 1:3A: T. cites M. 20-23. T. 2:1, 2:2, 2:3A, 2:4: T. illustrates M.'s principle. 24-25. T. 2:7-8: T. goes over and augments M.'s rule. 26-29. T. 1:15-18: T. illustrates M.'s principle. 30. T. 2:9A: T. states the view of sages, M. 3:1. 31. T. 2:9B: T. qualifies M. 32. T. 2:11: T. augments M. 33. T. 2:10: T. augments M. 34. T. 2:12: T. extends M.'s rule. 35. T. 2:13: T. adds to M. 36. T. 2:14: T. augments M. 37. T. 2:15: T. cites M. 38. T. 2:16: T. cites M. 39. T. 2:17: T. cites M. 40. T. 2:18: T. finishes M.'s story. 41. T. 2:19: T. cites M. 42. T. 2:20: T. augments M.

4.

Tosefta as a Corpus of Autonomous Materials

There are no relevant pericopae. 5.

The Two Sources of Tosefta

The relationship of T. in accord with M.'s order is now specified. M

B

1:1 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5

1:1, 2, 5 1:6, 7, 8, 9 1:lOA

2:1 2:2 2:3 2:4

l:3B 1:4, 2:3B, 2:5, 6 l:3A, 2:1, 2:2, 2:3A, 2:4, 2:7-8 1:15, 16, 17, 18

3:1 3:2 3:3 3:4 3:5

2:9A

l:lOB, 11, 12, 13, 14

2:9B 2:11 2:10, 12, 13, 14

C

180

YADAYIM: LITERARY PROBLEMS

C

B

M. 4:1 4:2 /l; 3

6.

1:4

2:15, 16 2:17, 18

4:5 4:6 1i:7-8

2:19 2:20

The Two Sources of Tosefta: Literary Traits Forms of Column B

I. Citation and Gloss of lviis!mah A. B.

Before 70:--Yavneh

1. T. 2:16: T. cites M. 4:3/0, Q. 2-3. T. 2:17-18: T. cites M. 4:4. 4. T. 2:19: T. cites M. 4:6H.

C.

Usha

l.

T. 1: 1: T. cites M. l: lC, D, E, and attributes them to Meir.

2. 3.

T. 1:2: T. cites M. l:lG. T. 1: 10A: T. cites M. I: 3A:

D. After Usha:-E. Unattributed L

2.

T. 1:3A: T. cites M. 2:3G-H. T. 2:15: T. cites M. 4:3N.

II. Oeclarative Sentences Before 70:Yavneh:C. Usha

A. B. I. 2.

T. 2:3B: Simeon b. Gamaliel says.... T. 2:11: Judah says.... D.

E.

/lfter Usha:Unattributed

T. I : 5: Simple sentences. 2-5. T. 1 :6-9: Simple declarative sentences. T. 1 :9 1s a large, balanced construction. 6-8. T. 1:lOB, 11, 12: Simple sentences. 9. T. I :4: Simple declarative sentences. 10-11. T. 2:5-(i: Long but simple declarative sentences. 1.

181

MISHNAH AND TOSEFTA

12. T. 2:1: Simple sentences. 13-14. T. 2:2-2:3A: This set contains two units, carefully balanced against one another. 15. T. 2:4: Simple sente11ees. 16. T. 2:7: Major unit in careful balance. 17. T. 2 :8: Simple sentences. 18-21. T. 1: 15-18: All in perfect baLrnce. 22. T. 2:9A: List. 23. T. 2:12: Good balance for a major unit. 24. T. 2:13: Simple sentences.

III. Disputes A. l.

Before 70

T. 2:20: Complain-form

(2 x).

B. Yavneh:--C.

Usha

1. T. 1:1: Yose vs. Meir. 2-3. T. 1:13, 14: Anonymous rule glossed by Yose. 4. T. 1: 3B: Formally a dispute, actually two simple sentences. 5. T. 2:9B: Good balance. 6. T. 2:14: Dispute, no balance.

D.

After Usha:-

E.

Unattribt✓ted:-

B Citation and gloss of Scripture Yavneh Usha Unattributed Declarative Sentences Usha Unattributed

21%

26

62%

2 2

24

Disputes Before 70 Usha

7.

9 if 3

7

17