2:
Our present mishnah concerns a foot bath, which seems to have been a common household item in mishnaic times and came in many sizes. These foot baths were large bowls which were attached in one piece to a seat. Thus the user could sit on the seat and have his or her feet in the water in the bowl. It may well be that bathing the feet was something that one did habitually when coming home at the end of the day: the water would remove from the feet the sand and dirt that the open sandals had allowed to get onto them and also to soothe their soreness.

3:
Our mishnah mentions foot baths of various sizes. If we translate the measures of volume mentioned in our mishnah we get a small bath that contained as little as three-quarters of a litre and a large bath that contained more than 17 litres.

4:
The Torah [Leviticus 15:2-7] gives detailed instructions which, it seems reasonable to assume, are designed to prevent the spread of venereal diseases.

6:
The main thing for our present study is the fact that if a man is suffering from such an indisposition then 'everything he sits on shall be unclean...and he who sits on anything whereon the man who has the discharge sat shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening'. Since this was, of course, a great inconvenience, care was taken to prevent such people from sitting on seats which might be used by other people.

7:
Which brings us to the question which underlies our present mishnah: 'when does a foot bath become a seat'? Tanna Kamma says that a foot bath is considered a seat for the purposes of contracting impurity from a man suffering from a genital discharge when it ceases to function as a foot bath and is only good for sitting on generally. This would happen when it has been cracked to such an extent that it can no longer hold enough water to bathe even one foot. On the other hand, Rabbi Akiva is of the opinion that a damaged foot bath does not become a seat: it becomes a damaged foot bath. In other words, even though it can no longer fulfill its function it still retains its characteristic. Before it was damaged it was a foot bath and as such could not contract impurity; now that it is damaged the only thing that has changed is the fact that it cannot function as a foot bath, but it still is a foot bath and as such does not contract impurity.

8:
'On that very day' a vote was taken and Rabbi Akiva was overruled. Since he had already won a vote in a matter that was very dear to his heart (Song of Songs) he presumably accepted his defeat in this issue pragmatically: 'you win some and you lose some'.

Joshua Peri suggests that Kalba Savu'a means 'full granary', which shows that it is a nickname. (Joshua does not indicate how he has arrived at this translation of 'kalba'.) This is different from the explanation of the name given in the famous story in the Gemara [Gittin 56a]. There we are told that the man was so rich that 'anyone who went into his house as hungry as a dog [kalba] left it completely satisfied [savu'a]'.

Bayla Singer has another suggestion:

Perhaps it was Kalba Savu'a who died, and his widow married Yehoshu'a, who already had a grown son, Yochanan? One might even impute some wisdom to Kalba Savu'a's widow, who replaced the materialistic husband with one whose own son had become learned, presumably with his father's support.

She then adds:

I am also an incurable romantic, and nevertheless feel that Akiva was not fit to kiss his wife's shoes: not a word, not a shekel, in all those years, even after he began to prosper?! This is worse than Joseph's unfilial behavior. That tiara doesn't begin to make up for it.

I respond:

Such vehemence! How do we know that he didn't try to make it up to her? However, Rachel herself would never have agreed with you. According to the story when he returned after 12 years of study she was heard to say that if he were to heed her opinion he would continue his studies for another 12 years!

In a previous shiur I mentioned that some rabbis have the custom of permitting the 'Torah Wrap' described by Bayla if the handlers wear surgical gloves. Art Werschulz writes:

I'll back this up with a 'ma'aseh'. On Simhat Torah 5759, our shul did a Torah Wrap. Surgical gloves were issued to all the scroll handlers.

I also received a message from the Rabbi of Art's congregation in which he gently castigates me for not leaving such matters to the discretion of the local rabbi. He told Art that he thought that I was speaking as an academic (which is correct) and as the rabbi of my own congregation (which is wrong). In these shiurim, for almost six years, I speak as a rabbi and teach Torah and halakhah as I understand it. I pray that God will keep me in that path.

2:
Our mishnah divides into three sections. The first section [reisha] states the view of Tanna Kamma which is, of course, accepted halakhah. The second section [emtza'ita] states the view of Rabbi Eli'ezer, which adds one item to the list accepted by Tanna Kamma. The last section [seifa] states the view of Shim'on ben-Azzai as to what was decided at Yavneh. It is superfluous to note that neither of the latter two views were accepted (as is stated specifically in the case of ben-Azzai).

3:
Tanna Kamma states a simple rule. Any sacrifice which was not slaughtered for the specific purpose it was brought for - let's say because of a bureaucratic mixup between the intention of the person bringing the sacrifice and the intention of the priest actually slaughtering the animal - is not invalidated thereby. This means that its meat may be eaten by whoever is entitled to eat it. However, the person or persons bringing the sacrifice have not fulfilled their duty, and must bring another sacrifice. (This could get to be an expensive business!) Tanna Kamma refers to two items where this rule does not hold good, but the sacrifice is completely invalidated by such an error.

4:
The first item is the Paschal Lamb. This had to be offered on the afternoon of 14th Nisan, the afternoon preceding the Seder Service. If it were slaughtered at any other time it is considered to be a voluntary offering: its meat may be eaten but its owners will have to bring another lamb at the right time in order for it to be valid for use at the Seder Service. (If the lamb were slaughtered at the right time for a mistaken purpose - which is highly unlikely! - it is completely invalidated.

5:
The other exception mentioned by Tanna Kamma is the Sin-Offering: whenever the Sin-Offering is slaughtered under a mistaken identity (as described above) in is completely invalid.

6:
The contribution to our mishnah of Rabbi Eli'ezer is simply the addition of the Guilt-Offering: he is of the opinion that the same rule applies to the Guilt-Offering as applies to the Sin-Offering as stated by Tanna Kamma. His view is not accepted halakhah.

7:
The caveat of Rabbi Shim'on ben-Azzai is different. He says that at Yavneh the decision was only concerning sacrifices that were eaten. As our mishnah explicitly points out, this would exclude the Burnt-Offering: if it was mistakenly offered it was invalid according to ben-Azzai; the sages did not accept this recollection of ben-Azzai.

Bayla returns to the subject:

Whether Rachel willingly suffered her husband's neglect is to me beside the point, as is his 'making it up to her' after the fact. Atonement doesn't erase the transgression, it only allows forgiveness. What remains is her saintliness, and his reprehensible behavior for 24 years. The moral gap between them is enormous. My vehemence is related to the details of the legend as I know it: Even when he 'returned' after 12 years, he didn't come directly to her but hid himself, and left without a word when he overheard her say he should study another 12. No word of appreciation or thanks for her continuing support! No word to let her know he was alive and well, that he was progressing in his studies, that her sacrifices were bearing fruit, that he didn't need all the money she continued to send him ... no hug, no kiss, no loving touch. No, he saves up for a return in triumph and his disciples don't even know of his wife's sacrifices until one of them tries to spurn her away from the Great Man because of her rags. Perhaps I've received a defective version of the legend? I would much rather believe that such a man as Akiva is reputed to be, wouldn't treat his wife so badly, even if she was enduring it willingly.

I respond:

This comment is so important that I shall devote a special shiur to providing the facts, direct quotation from the sources.

2:
We must recognize certain facts. The study of a student of the sages (literally: Talmid ĥakham) was long and arduous. The study was not book study as we are used to today but information was passed from teacher to student orally and the traditions that the teacher passed on had to be memorized exactly by constant repetition (literally: Mishnah). If the student wanted to have a varied education he would have to be the student of several sages, and this meant living with them in their homes. (For instance, Akiva studied with both Rabbi Eli'ezer and Rabbi Yehoshu'a and also considered himself to be the student of an older contemporary, Rabbi Tarfon. We also read that he studied with Naĥum of Gamzu and Rabbi Neĥunya ben-Hakanah.) The students learned everything from their teacher not only formally but also informally by watching their every move quite literally for 24 hours a day. Lest this be seen as an exaggeration let us quote from the Gemara (Berakhot 62a):

3:
This constant and arduous study took a very long while and the distances involved were such that the students could not just 'pop home' every now and then, so they were expected to remain with their teacher most of the time. The story quoted above suggests that while he was studying, Rav Reĥumi paid one visit annually to his wife, arriving regularly on Erev Yom Kippur. That she was pining for him is obvious from the story. That the teller of the story disapproves of Reĥumi's behaviour is also clear from the moralizing at the end of the story. What is not clear is what was Reĥumi's sin in the eyes of the storyteller. Was it his cavalier treatment of his wife generally or his disappointing her on this occasion? I suspect that it was the latter.

5:
The implied criticism in the story of Ĥamma bar-Bisa is even more strict. He had spent twelve years away from home studying, did not even recognize his own son - and yet his son, who had remained at home, had managed to become so fine a scholar that Ĥamma himself would have been proud to have him as his son. So what had he gained from his studies away from home?

7:
When Rachel first met Akiva he was completely illiterate. Only someone who was completely unlearned would tend the sheep. But she perceived that somewhere hidden deep down inside this uncouth lad was a brilliant mind if only it could be released. This was her greatest gift to the Jewish people. The key to releasing this mind was education. To begin with Akiva had to learn to read and write, and he found it so difficult that he gave up. The story is told how one day in his acute frustration he ran away and threw himself down beside a stream. Suddenly he noticed that some stones in the middle of the stream had been warn away by centuries of water flowing over them. He said to himself that if water can make such an impression on stone surely something could be got into his thick head! (To realize this thought is an indication of his quality.) Rachel was patient. Their son was born and Akiva had to take him to learn his letters. He studied together with his little son until he had mastered the art of reading. It was probably then that Rachel sent him off to study Torah.

8:
Rachel's father had vowed in his anger that she would have none of his wealth. He was probably furious that she had made such a union when he had plans to marry her off to some rich fop. She had married a shepherd who did not know 'even one chapter, even one halakhah!' It is not correct to suggest that Akiva did not appreciate his wife's suffering so that he could become a great rabbi. He publicly admitted that what he had achieved was only because of her.

9:
I have included the second half of Rachel's quote from Proverbs because it is often the way of the Gemara to quote on the beginning of a verse when it is its continuation that contains the point. Akiva, a saint, would accept his wife however she was dressed, and all she had willingly suffered on his behalf was better than the mercies of her neighbours who were 'wicked' compared with him. The saying that went the rounds after their daughter acted similarly towards ben-Azzai is a play on words: 'Rachel' in Hebrew means 'a lamb'.

10:
I will leave this famous story with one further comment. If Israel had produced over the centuries a Shakespeare or a Verdi the whole world would have known by now the greatness of this noble woman, one of the greatest of Israel's mothers.

12:
In Amoraic times Shemu'el and Rabbi Yoĥanan each had a different take on this issue. Shemu'el, in Babylon, states categorically that everyone must first marry and only after he has married (and has 'bread in his basket' as it were) should he embark upon Torah study. Rabbi Yoĥanan, on the other hand, is amazed: How can one study Torah when his mind is on his duty to provide for his wife and children?! But the Gemara states that they are not in disagreement. One of them is talking to 'us' Babylonian Jews, while the other is talking to 'them', the Jews of Eretz-Israel.

13:
The Tosafot interpret as follows. In those days everyone went to Eretz-Israel to study. The Babylonian Shemu'el is referring to the Jews of Eretz-Israel, who can marry and support their families at the same time (unlike their modern counterparts it would seem). Rabbi Yoĥanan is referring to his students who arrive from Babylon: how can they marry and then leave their wife and children behind in order to come to Eretz-Israel to study? They should not so so!

15:
I have received the following comment from Jim Feldman: I realize that you are not advocating this piece of Gemara, but I am appalled at the misogyny that underlies these stories. Along with Bayla Singer, let me say that I cannot accept global wisdom from or the teachings of someone so shockingly inhumane to his own family. Why would men behave this way? Were I to look at these tales through the eyes of modern understanding of the origins of behavior, I can not but conclude that we are studying people whose basic problem was dealing with unresolved homosexual impulses. What a wonderful excuse to run away from an act that is repulsive to them! Else why would R. Reĥumi return only on the day before Yom Kippur? He would then have relations with his wife, and spend the next 24 hours repenting and purging himself before escaping again. Women were chattel and without power, but not without the right of commentary. With the background you have provided, Rachel's comments should now be read as pure sarcasm.

2:
In Tannaitic times certain dues were paid by the farmers from the produce of their land.

A certain amount (depending on the generosity of the farmer) usually around 2.5% was made over directly to a priest [kohen] of the farmer's choice. This is the famous 'terumah which we have mentioned so often in this tractate.

After that, 10% of what remained was made over to a Levite of the farmer's choice. This is called 'ma'aser rishon, First Tithe.

After that, a further 10% of what now remained was set aside as 'ma'aser sheni, Second Tithe. This Second Tithe was intended to bolster the economy of Jerusalem and it was either eaten there or exchanged for its value which was then spent in Jerusalem.

In every cycle of seven years the Second Tithe was taken to Jerusalem in the years 1, 2, 4 and 5. In the years 3 and 6 the Second Tithe was replaced with the Destitutes' Tithe [Deuteronomy 14:28-29], which was made available to the poverty-stricken.

The 7th year of every cycle was Shemittah Year in which the land was to lie fallow and no tithes at all were exacted.

3:
Everything that we wrote in the previous paragraph applied by Torah law only to Eretz-Israel. However in earliest times the Shemittah law was applied to 'Syria' - probably what we now call the Golan. This territory was so near to Eretz-Israel that the Shemittah law was applied to it to prevent farmers moving there during Shemittah year - and then failing to return. During the period of the second commonwealth Terumah and Tithes were applied first to Babylonian Jewry and later to Egyptian Jewry - the two largest concentrations of Jews outside Eretz-Israel. As far as Babylon was concerned the application of these laws was probably done soon after the exile to Babylon and was attributed to the prophets of the time. When Alexandria in Egypt became a thriving Jewish centre the Terumah and Tithe laws were applied to Egypt as well by an enactment of the Sages. Shemittah year, however, was never applied to either centre.

4:
Since the Shemittah year was not applied outside Israel, in that year the farmers of Babylon and Egypt were required to separate Terumah and Tithes in that year. In Babylon, the ancient prophetic tradition required that in the 7th year of the cycle Second Tithe was to be separated off from the produce. However, when the sages extended the tithes to Egypt they decided that in Egypt the 7th year would be a year for separating the Destitutes' Tithe. (It was comparatively easy for the destitute of Eretz-Israel to get to Egypt during a Shemittah year and this would help them get over a difficult period.)

5:
Our present mishnah records a new extension. This time the extension was to lands east of the Jordan river. If Jewish farmers in Transjordan were to separate Terumah and Tithes the question was which tithe were they to separate during the 7th year? - Second Tithe as in Babylon or Destitutes' Tithe as in Egypt. This was, it would seem, a thorny issue in Yavneh and it was not resolved until 'that day', when Rabban Gamli'el was replaced (temporarily) by Rabbi El'azar ben-Azaryah.

6:
Our present mishnah gives us an insight into the mechanics of a discussion in the Bet Midrash at Yavneh. Therefore, apart from trying to understand the content of the discussion it will also be interesting to follow the human dynamics. Since the discussion is taking place on 'that day' it is Rabbi El'azar ben- Azaryah who is presiding. But we note that no deference is paid to him. Rabbi Yishma'el, an older contemporary, does not even give him the honorific title of 'Rabbi' but simply addresses him by his name and patronymic as if he were a humble student. Possibly El'azar ben-Azaryah is hinting at this when he pointedly refers to Rabbi Yishma'el as 'my brother'. Rabbi Tarfon refers to him as his 'brother' and holds a different opinion: he would never have dared contradict the now disgraced Rabban Gamli'el! Poor El'azar ben-Azaryah is now probably acutely ware that he is a puppet, and when the vote was finally taken it went against him.

When you first began the discussion of Tractate Yadayyim, you indicated that since the ritual of the 'Red Heifer' is totally nonexistent in our day and age making all of us who have come into contact with a corpse permanently contaminated, why then the custom of 'netilat yadayyim' after attending a funeral or visiting a cemetery?

I respond:

This is purely a matter of simple hygiene. Those in attendance may have come into physical contact with the corpse. (Remember in ancient times - and in Eretz-Israel to this day - the dead are not buried in coffins or caskets, but only in their grave clothes.) This washing of the hands is not a ritual washing and no Berakhah is recited.

8:
Rabbi Tarfon was of the view that it was the Destitutes' Tithe that was to be exacted, while Rabbi El'azar ben-Azaryah was of the view that it should be the Second Tithe (designed to bolster the economy of Jerusalem). It would seem that this issue had been a bone of contention between the sages for some time previously, since the opportunity was now taken to resolve the matter once and for all 'on that very day'.

9:
The initial claim of Rabbi El'azar ben-Azaryah is that it is logical that the seventh year should be a year for the Second Tithe because of 'the order of the years'. The third year of the seven-year cycle was a year for the Destitutes' Tithe (by Torah law); this was always followed by a Second Tithe in the fourth year. So, is it not logical that the Destitutes' Tithe of the sixth year should be followed by a Second Tithe?

10:
Rabbi Tarfon responds with some logical reasoning of his own. Egypt and Transjordan share a particular characteristic: neither of them are a part of Eretz-Israel. We know that in Egypt it was the Destitutes' Tithe that was exacted during the 7th year; is it not logical that the same tithe should be exacted in Transjordan? Rabbi El'azar ben-Azaryah points out a weakness in this line of argument: Babylon is just as much not Eretz-Israel as Egypt is not, and in Babylon it was the Second Tithe which was exacted - which proves his point.

11:
Rabbi Tarfon returns to the fray. It is logical that both from Egypt and Transjordan they should require the Destitutes' Tithe since both countries bordered on Eretz-Israel; this meant that in time of want the poor of Eretz-Israel could find sustenance near to home (when in Eretz-Israel little was to be had because of the Shemittah). Babylon, which was too far away for this purpose, was irrelevant.

12:
For some reason Rabbi El'azar ben-Azaryah cannot find a logical refutation to this and so resorts to Midrash. The prophet Malachi condemns Israel for cheating God out of 'His' dues by not paying tithes properly. (God's dues cannot include a tithe destined exclusively for the destitute.) The prophet promises drought as a punishment for this. Rabbi tarfon, says his colleague, thinks that he is being generous to Israel's poverty-stricken, but in fact he is dooming them to suffer a drought.

13:
Probably realizing that this argument was getting nowhere, the older Rabbi Yehoshu'a enters the fray. Tarfon is right for the wrong reasons. The Second Tithe was instituted in Babylon more than six centuries previously by prophets. We are not prophets and cannot claim prophetic privileges. The Destitutes' Tithe in Egypt was established only a couple of centuries ago by sages like us. We do share their rights and privileges. Therefore, we should decree that in Transjordan the same tithe should be exacted as is done in Egypt. A vote was taken on this and the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshu'a was adopted by majority vote.

14:
When a certain sage visited the equally great colleague of Rabbi Yehoshu'a, Rabbi Eli'ezer (not Rabbi El'azar ben-Azaryah), the latter was astounded that the matter had to be decided by vote. Did they not know that this was an ancient tradition that in Transjordan the Destitutes' Tithe was exacted? Their great teacher, Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai, had taught them both that this was a tradition going all the way back 'to Moses at Sinai', so logical reasoning was quite unnecessary and quite inappropriate. (Rabbi Eli'ezer was famous for the claim that he had never forgotten anything that he had learned from his teachers, and, indeed, his teacher Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai had described him as 'a well-sealed cistern that never loses a drop' [Avot 2:8].

DISCUSSION:

'That very day' happened some 60 years after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. What sacrifices are they discussing about? Is it just an academic question?

I respond:

Yes, it is. And Juan-Carlos is wrong that this discussion is taking place 'some 60 years after the destruction'. It is taking place during the last decade of the 1st century, only 30 years after the destruction when hopes were still high that the Bet Mikdash would soon be rebuilt.

Josh Greenfield notes the statement in our mishnah that 'everyone who takes the more stringent view must prove his case'. He asks:

To what extent (and, I suppose, under what circumstances) does the halakhic debate generally accept the principle enunciated here by R. Yishma'el? (I.e., when is the burden of proof on the stricter opinion to justify itself, as opposed to the more lenient opinion?) I am wondering if this notion is limited to cases such as this that have direct impact on the economic well-being of the nation of Israel (or the poorer members thereof).

I respond:

In Talmudic times the principle was phrased as 'Ko'aĥ de-Hetera Adif' - greater value should be placed on the view that is less stringent where there are two conflicting views. This principle seems to have been forgotten in modern times in some rabbinic quarters where people vie with each other to discover 'the ĥumra of the week'.

2:
You will recall that Rabban Gamli'el was a very autocratic figure who ruled the Sanhedrin with a very firm hand. On one occasion he had clashed with Rabbi Yehoshu'a, who was one of the most venerable and most beloved of the sages - a very humble and poverty-stricken man. In order to prevent a discussion on a certain issue Rabban Gamli'el had kept the aged Yehoshu'a on his feet and confronted him, even though it was quite clear that Yehoshu'a did not want to fight the issue. Gamli'el's treatment of Yehoshu'a enraged the sages who decided to depose him. (As a further humiliation they selected as his replacement Rabbi El'azar ben-Azaryah, a very young and very inexperienced sage. We have already seen (in mishnah 3) that even on 'that day' El'azar ben-Azaryah lost a vote and his view was rejected.)

3:
The Gemara takes pains to point out the noble side of the character of Rabban Gamli'el: he accepted the chastisement of his colleagues. In a different context he soliloquizes: 'Sovereign of the Universe, You know that I did not act for my own honour or for the honour of our dynasty; it was for Your honour, so that there should not be many [halakhic] arguments in Israel' [Bava Metzi'a 59b]. Rabban Gamli'el did not take himself off in a huff to nurse his wounded pride; he stayed in the Bet Midrash as an 'ordinary' sage. The drama in our present mishnah is that these two giants, Yehoshu'a and Gamli'el, now clash 'on that very day' when Gamli'el has no status to bolster his view. He does not flinch from expressing his view.

4:
A certain man, Yehudah, who had been born an Ammonite but was now a Jew, came before the assembled sages on that day to clarify his right to marry a Jewish woman. The Torah [Deuteronomy 23:4-7] states quite clearly that no Ammonite may ever marry into the Jewish fold:

5:
His argument is more or less like this:

It is true that the Torah prohibits a person born an Ammonite to marry a Jewish woman. However, how can we say that this person before us is really an Ammonite? True, he lives in the territory that is called Ammon, but that does not mean that he is of pure Ammonite stock! Some 850 years ago the mighty Assyrian Empire completely obliterated all the nations of the time and dispersed their inhabitants throughout their empire. The prophet Isaiah [10:13] even confirms this. So there is no valid reason to assume that Yehudah is an Ammonite by descent, and therefore no valid reason for disbarring him from marriage in Israel.

Neat.

6:
Rabban Gamli'el accepts the reasoning but not the conclusion, entering into a kind of contest: any verse you can quote I can quote a better:

It is true that the Ammonites were dispersed from their original home, but the prophet Jeremiah says that they have been restored. He quotes Jeremiah 49:6

7:
Rabbi Yehoshu'a turns the tables, proving that there is no guarantee that the prophetic promise has already been fulfilled. The prophet Amos [9:14] gives a similar undertaking to restore the Israelite exiles - a promise of redemption which, as we all know, has yet to be fulfilled! (The Assyrians destroyed the northern Kingdom of Israel in the summer of 722 BCE and exiled most of its inhabitants to the far reaches of their empire where they eventually intermingled with the local population and were lost forever to Jewish history. Throughout the ages attempts have been made to identify various ethnic groups as 'the lost ten tribes'. I do not think that anyone will be surprised that I cast grave doubt on any ethnic connection between the Israelite exiles and the Indians of North America, or the original Mormons. If any genetic testing were possible in this matter I would be far more inclined to think that genetic traces of Israelite identity would be more likely to be found among the modern Samaritans than among the Indians of North America.)

8:
Rabbi Yehoshu'a won the day and the sages permitted Yehudah to marry a Jewish woman. (It was probably the loss of this argument that persuaded Rabban Gamli'el to make a private visit to Rabbi Yehoshu'a in order to make peace.) I think that it is noteworthy that Rabbi Yehoshu'a defuses a biblical text based on the theory of racial purity by proving that now there is no such thing as a racially pure people.

I am intrigued by the 'poverty-stricken' of which you spoke. Were these landless people, or did the promise of Lev. 25:20-22 not always come true? If the former, presumably, the people would require help every year; if the latter, why was there a need for the Destitutes' Tithe in the third year of the 7- year cycle?

I respond:

It was the landless people who were entitled to freely enter the fields of others during the Shemittah year in order to take what they needed. Since, during that year, all land was technically ownerless everyone had the same rights to its produce. Obviously, enough produce grew 'wild' in the fields to feed a lot of people, but I would also be very surprised if the promise 'I will ordain My blessing for you in the sixth year, so that it shall yield a crop sufficient for three years' was always observed to have been fulfilled.

Lynn Segal writes:

I have often heard in fund raising circles in the US about the tithe as a target for voluntary charitable contributions. It is positioned as the ancient target. (Never mind current tax levels and the degree to which they serve the same purpose.) Based on your comments, however, it would seem that the then tax rate was about 22.5%. Two 'tithes' plus another 2.5% Did I follow your commentary?

I respond:

Almost. The tax rate was actually about 21.025% if you read my explanation carefully. However, I suspect that the tithe you have heard of for charitable donations is a different (more modern) tithe. The sages of the Middle Ages said that a person should set aside one tenth of their free (spending) income for charitable purposes. A person may set aside more than that if they wish, but on no account may the amount exceed 20%.

2:
There are parts of the Bible that are not in Hebrew, but in Aramaic. Aramaic is a north Semitic language akin to Hebrew but certainly very distinct from it. (Let us say that they are akin to each other rather as Italian and Spanish are akin to each other.) From the time that the exiles returned from Babylon, approximately, until well after the mishnaic period, Aramaic was the language of daily intercourse for the whole region stretching from the southern border of Eretz-Israel to the northern reaches of what is now Syria.

3:
The parts of the Bible which are in Aramaic are as follows: there is one Aramaic expression (two words) in Genesis [31:47], and there is one verse in Jeremiah [10:11]; but the main biblical sections that are in Aramaic are Ezra 4:8-6:18, Ezra 7:12-26, and Daniel 2:5-7:28.

4:
What our mishnah means to indicate is not only that these texts written in Aramaic are perfectly acceptable, but more that they are the original language of these texts and not translations. Therefore these portions must be in Aramaic and as such they 'contaminate the hands'. Our mishnah goes further: if these Aramaic sections are translated into Hebrew the book loses its sacred character because the Hebrew translation is not part of the received text. Translating Aramaic in Hebrew is the same as translating Hebrew into Aramaic: it ceases to be a sacred text which can be used for liturgical purposes. (It can, of course, be used for didactic and educational purposes.)

5:
Another requirement for our sacred scriptures is that they be written in 'square characters' [Ktav Ashuri], which is the Hebrew alphabet that we know today. Our mishnah knows that there were original Hebrew characters that were eventually replaced by the 'square characters' in which Aramaic was written. Many examples of the ancient Hebrew script have survived. They include a child's slate for learning the seasons of the year [the Gezer inscription], a stele set up by Mesha, King of Moab, to commemorate a victory over the forces of the King of Israel [the Moabite stone], a plaque to commemorate the completion of the excavation of the Siloam tunnel [the Siloam inscription] and a whole correspondence between an army officer and his superiors [the Lachish Letters]. This list is by no means exhaustive. The ancient Hebrew characters were those used by the Canaanites [i.e. Phoenicians]; this people of sea-faring business entrepreneurs taught the Greeks how to write with these characters; the Greeks taught the Romans and the Latin alphabet is that which we use today to write English. We can also see how that alphabet would have developed naturally over the centuries, for the modern texts of the Samaritan scriptures are still written in the ancient Hebrew characters. One last word on this matter for those who do not know: Hebrew, Canaanite, Pheonician, Moabite - they are all the same language to all intents and purposes. There was no greater difference between ancient Hebrew and ancient Moabite that between modern 'American' and what the quaint British islanders call 'the Queen's English'. (I think it was George Bernard Shaw who said that the Americans and the English were one people divided by a common language!)

6:
The Talmud [Sanhedrin 21b] tells us about this changeover from one alphabet to another. (Historically speaking, the change was probably connected with the major effort made to make as great a distinction between the Jews and the Samaritans as possible.)

No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord; none of their descendants, even in the tenth generation, shall ever be admitted into the congregation of the Lord... You shall never concern yourself with their welfare or benefit as long as you live.' [Deuteronomy 23:4-7] It is on this clear statement of the Torah that Rabban Gamli'el bases himself when he tells Yehudah that although he is a Jew he cannot marry a Jewish woman. Josh Greenfield writes:

In the absence of some additional explanation, this seems problematic - as a Jew, he certainly cannot marry a non-Jew, hence who can he marry? My guess is that by 'a Jewish woman,' Rabban Gamli'el means a woman born Jewish (so perhaps marrying a fellow convert would be allowed). But even so, a further problem suggests itself - if an Ammonite or Moabite can never be admitted into the people of Israel, how is it that this man Yehudah was converted at all? What is the basis for the distinction between allowing people to convert vs. allowing them to marry Jews?

I respond:

The basis is the Torah. Anyone who accepts the Torah (in the widest sense of the term) can become a part of the Jewish people. But not every Jew could marry every Jew (and this is still true today). We discussed this thoroughly when we studied the first mishnah of the fourth chapter of Tractate Kiddushin. I think the basis of Josh's misunderstanding is the phrase 'admitted into the people of Israel'. This does not mean the impossibility of conversion but the impermissibility of marrying a woman born Jewish and of unstained lineage. I am sure that the sages related to the Ammonites just as they related to Mamzerim: they became permitted once no one knew about their lineage any more.

2:
The bone of contention which lies at the basis of our present mishnah is the Pharisaic (i.e. rabbinic) decision that those books which were considered to be a part of the sacred canon were to be considered as 'contaminating the hands' - i.e. as requiring those who would handle them to do 'netilat yadayyim' beforehand.

On 3:3 I wrote:

3:
It seems that the Sadducees considered this Pharisaic invention to be a slight on the sacred literature. (We have already seen that this issue of the sacred books 'contaminating the hands' was indeed a rabbinic innovation, freely admitted.) A concomitant element to the utter rejection of the Pharisaic Unwritten Torah (oral tradition) was a heightening of the inviolable sanctity of the Written Torah in Sadducean ideology. How could something so utterly holy, delivered to Israel through the intermediacy of Moses, from the Divine hand itself, be considered as 'contaminating the hands'?! To the Sadducees this was an obvious self contradiction.

4:
Our mishnah describes them as mocking the Pharisees, taunting them with what seemed to them to be the illogicality of their halakhic stance. According to the Pharisees, taunted the Sadducees, the works of the Greek poet Homer are pure and do not contaminate the hands, whereas the works of Moses, Isaiah and the psalmist are impure and contaminate the hands! This, for the Sadducees, was self-evident nonsense.

5:
I do not think that it is pure chance that prompted the Sadducees to choose the blind poet Homer as their example of non-sacred literature. The rift between the two sects was not only ideological, but it was also social, economic and cultural. The Pharisees originally came from the non-priestly elements in Judean society, the middle and lower classes. The Sadducees were the priestly elite, the governing and moneyed classes. The Sadducees were based entirely on the idea that the Bet Mikdash in Jerusalem represented the sole legitimate expression of Divine worship for Israel; the Pharisees were based in the synagogues and schoolrooms all over the country. Culturally, the Pharisees were more nationalistic, rejecting for the most part the predominant Greek and Roman culture as being 'un-Jewish'. The Sadducees on the other hand were avid hellenizers and saw nothing untoward in maintaining the general culture alongside the Jewish religious ideology. I dare say that any and every educated Sadducee knew the works of Homer, the Iliad and the Odyssey, and could probably quote them at will just as could any educated Greek or Roman. This is probably the main thrust of their taunt: can our sacred scriptures be less worthy that the 'sacred scriptures' of the western world, the divine poetry of Homer?

6:
Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai was probably the most influential of the sages in the immediate post- destruction decade. According to Avot de-Rabbi Natan [14:1] he was the least of all the students of the great sage Hillel. Be that as it may, he was the greatest of the immediate post destruction age and it is probably thanks to him that Judaism survived that catastrophe at all. Since in our present mishnah he is presented as arguing with the Sadducees it may well be that this took place some time before the destruction, when the Sadducees were still a force to be reckoned with.

7:
Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai uses a simple strategy. He points out that the Pharisees (his own group) also declared the bones of a parent to be impure while the bones of an animal are not impure. (I suspect that he chose the ass as his example of an animal because in Hebrew the two terms 'ass' and 'Homer' sound vaguely similar.) The Sadducees respond (as he knew they would) that the reason is to prevent someone exhuming his parent's remains and using them as a utensil.

8:
I do not know whether this is exaggeration or not. But do remember that people then were buried on niches in caves; at the end of a year the bones were collected and buried permanently in an ossuary. I suppose very poor people might have found a use for such human remains, so the declaration that they are impure is in order to protect them from desecration. Now Rabban Yoĥanan ben-Zakkai can respond in kind: that is exactly the same reason for 'us Pharisees' declaring that holy scriptures contaminate the hands. We respect them so much that we want to prevent people storing them with their foodstuffs, where rodents can have a field day with them. He adds, rather gratuitously I think, that the Pharisees couldn't care less what happens to copies of the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Richley Crapo writes:

Can you give an approximate date - year or decade - in which this occured, and is there a good source that gives dates to various other parts of the Mishnah?

I respond:

The last decade of the first century CE or at the very latest the first decade of the second century CE seems the best time for this discussion. The Mishnah is a very composite work. I pointed out at the beginning of Tractate Tamid that it was probably a very early tractate - possibly antedating even the destruction or composed immediately afterwards. We are told that the text of Tractate Eduyot was formalized 'on that very day' [Berakhot 27a]. Apart from that I don't think we can 'date' elements in the mishnah. Rabbi, the editor, died in the year 217 CE - so there is your latest date.

I wrote: 'No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord; none of their descendants, even in the tenth generation, shall ever be admitted into the congregation of the Lord, . . .'

Richley also asks:

Was 'even in the tenth generation' equivalent to 'never'?

I respond:

Yes - or until the family's origin had become completely forgotten.

Both Dan Werlin and Art Werschultz ask a similar question. Here is Dan's phrasing:

I had always learned that the meaning of 'contaminate the hands' in this context has to do with the Rabbinic decree that Torah scrolls can make things impure. This decree being enacted because people were storing the scrolls with other holy objects, namely terumah, and the rats were eating the scrolls. By declaring Torah scrolls capable of transmitting impurity, they could no longer be stored with terumah. Further, I had always learned that Torah scrolls are not capable of being impure. Otherwise I suppose it would be very difficult for Torah scrolls to be handled and manufactured in the post-Temple, post-parah adumah period.

I respond:

All this is correct. See explanation # 2 in today's shiur.

2:
Ritual impurity is conceived as travelling from the impure to the pure. That means that contact between something that is ritually impure with something that is ritually pure will render the latter ritually impure as well (and not the other way around). Accordingly, logic would have it that if I pour a liquid (let's say that it is water) from a ritually pure jug into a ritually impure basin the stream of water connecting the two receptacles would transfer the ritual impurity of the basin to the jug and anything it contains. And yet a mishnah [Makhshirin 5:9] specifically states that a stream of liquid does not transfer ritual impurity. And this inconsistency is what the Sadducees point out - probably gleefully, since their purpose is to ridicule the Unwritten Torah of the sages.

3:
The Pharisees counter attack by pointing out that the Sadducees do exactly the same kind of thing! They declare that a water conduit (an open pipe for supplying water) which originates in a spring of water which is inside a cemetery is ritually pure - even though it originates in a place that by its very nature is completely full of the prime source of ritual impurity, the human corpse. The Sadducees, who reject the possibility of human 'interpretation' of the Torah text, are forced to say this because of an explicit Torah text. We have mentioned on many occasions that the most distinguishing feature of the rabbinic attitude to the text of the Written Torah is that the 'interpretation' enshrined in their Unwritten Torah can be used to make the text say something that it did not intend to say. Such 'interpretation' was anathema to the Sadducees. The Torah states [Leviticus 11:31-36]:

6:
The slave who is the subject of our mishnah is the non-Jewish slave (though, as just explained, the term refers to the slave's origins not necessarily to his present religious and ethnic affiliation). The Sadducees, who mainly belonged to the conservative aristocracy, looked upon the Eved Kena'ani as 'property', different from other elements of their property only in that the slave could move and speak etc. Slaves could be bought and sold on the open market and thus, for the Sadducees, their slaves were no different from their real estate or their animals. Therefore, to them, the decision of the Pharisees that a master was not legally responsible for damage caused by his slave was completely lacking in logic.

7:
The responsibility of the owner of an animal for damage caused by the animal is enshrined in the Torah [Exodus 21:28-36]. As long as their was no reason to assume that the animal was harmful the owner is not required to restrain him, but once a court has declared that the animal could be dangerous the owner must take steps to restrain the animal and becomes legally responsible for damage the animal may cause. The Sadducees reason that is this is the case with one kind of animal ('my ox or my donkey') why should it be any different in the case of another, human, animal? The response of the Pharisees, though couched in legal terms, displays the completely different way in which the viewed the human being subject to ownership by another. They were still 'people'; they were not objects, another item in the inventory of 'my property'.

8:
A major difference between the other animals and the human animal is awareness of self. Another animal must be restrained by its owner only when it is declared by a court as being capable of doing harm. The Hebrew term is 'mu'ad'. However, the Mishnah [Bava Kamma 2:6] states quite categorically that a human being is always seen as being capable of doing harm, and therefore is responsible for his actions at all times (and not only after being warned by the courts). 'Adam le-olam mu'ad'.

9:
The Sadducees try to convince the Pharisees by use of 'logical comparison' - one of the Pharisaic implements of logic by which they expounded the Torah. If the law concerning something is unknown (because the Torah is silent on the subject) but the law concerning a cognate subject which is of lesser severity is known, then surely whatever applies to the lesser case must at least apply also to the more sever case. This form of logical induction is termed 'kal va-ĥomer' [Inference from minor to major]. The Sadducees say: I am not required to observe personal mitzvot as regards my animals (I do not have to have them circumcised, for example] but I am responsible for the damage they cause. Is it not obviously logical that I should be liable for damage caused by my slaves because I am responsible for their observance of mitzvot?

10:
The Pharisees declare that there is here a lack of logical inference. The point of comparison should not be 'mitzvot' but self-awareness.

11:
The Pharisees also point out, rather mischievously, that there is also common sense in this legal difference which even the more materialistically minded Sadducees should be able to appreciate. My ox and my donkey, if I discipline them, will not try to 'get their own back'. A slave might certainly try to do so, because he is a 'person' with understanding and self-awareness, not a 'dumb brute'. There is a great danger that if I discipline my slave he will get his own back on me by causing damage to someone else's property, hoping thereby to cause me monetary damage.

On this matter, when we studied Tractate Berakhot, I wrote:

3:
The Pharisees do not even bother to respond to this ridiculous charge. Instead, mockingly, they make a counter charge, whose sole intent is to make clear the ridiculous nature of the Galilean's complaint. The Galilean does worse, they say, for he writes not the name of Moses after the name of a wicked gentile ruler, but even makes the Divine Name cede pride of place to a wicked gentile ruler! Where does the hapless Galilean do so? When he reads or copies the text of the Torah! For The Torah itself [Exodus 5:2] reads:

4:
The last sentence of our mishnah is also the last sentence of the tractate. It really has nothing to do with the context and obviously has been added so that the tractate should not end on such an impious note as Pharaoh mocking God. It is quite possible that this addition is not a later one but was added by Rabbi Yehudah the President of the Sanhedrin and the compiler of the Mishnah himself. The last sentence merely points out that later on [Exodus 9:27] Pharaoh changes his tune completely: