תנור שנטמא, כיצד מטהרין אותו, חולקו לשלשה , וגורר את הטפלה עד שיהא בארץ.רבי מאיר אומר אינו צריך לגרור את הטפלה, ולא עד שיהא בארץ, אלא ממעטו מבפנים ארבעה טפחים .רבי שמעון אומר, וצריך להסיעו.חלקו לשנים, אחד גדול ואחד קטן, הגדול טמא והקטן טהור.חלקו לשלשה, אחד גדול כשנים, הגדול טמא, ושנים הקטנים טהורין.

How to purify an oven that had become impure? Divide it into three sections, and then scrape the inner lining down to the ground. Rabbi Meir says that it is unnecessary to scrape the lining, and not to the ground, but rather just to reduce it within by four hand breadths. Rabbi Shimon says, he must separate [the three sections]. If [the oven] is divided in two parts, one large and the other small, the large part remains impure, but the small part is pure. If [the oven] is divided in three parts, one that is larger than the other two combined, the large part is impure, and the small ones are pure.

Comments

The final division of the Mishnah, Tohorot, deals with extremely arcane rules of ritual purity and impurity. The first and largest tractate, Kelim (utensils) examines the different levels of purity and impurity, how they affect various substances and are transmitted. When an earthen vessel is contaminated, the only way to purify it is to break it, so that it is no longer a functional vessel. Ovens in the Talmudic era were often made of stones set on the ground and coated with plaster inside. This Mishnah reviews how thoroughly the oven should be disassembled before being considered pure. If one section remained large enough to function as a separate oven, it apparently required further disassembly.

Questions

1. If we can treat this oven as a metaphor for moral purity, what does it teach about the stages necessary for purification?
2. This protocol for purification differs from that of kashering utensils, which are typically scoured and heated. What does the difference indicate about the separate concerns of purity and kashrut?

כל הנגעים אדם רואה, חוץ מנגעי עצמו. רבי מאיר אומר, אף לא נגעי קרוביו. כל הנדרים אדם מתיר, חוץ מנדרי עצמו. רבי יהודה אומר, אף לא נדרי אשתו שבינה לבין אחרים. כל הבכורות אדם רואה, חוץ מבכורות עצמו.

A person [i.e., a priest] may examine anyone’s skin afflictions, except for his own. Rabbi Meir adds, nor [may he inspect] the afflictions of his relatives. A person [i.e., a sage] may release anyone from faulty vows, except for his own vows. Rabbi Yehudah adds, nor may he [release] the vows between his wife and others. A person [i.e., an animal specialist] may inspect anyone’s firstborn animals except for his own firstborn.

Comments

The three cases cited in this mishnah all describe situations in which an expert is disqualified from diagnosing his own situation. Negaim, or skin afflictions, are specific types of discolorations on a person or his possessions that can have major ritual and financial consequences. Nedarim, or vows, are promises that can sometimes be disqualified based on technical flaws in their execution. Bekhorot, or firstborn animals, must be turned over to the kohen unless they bear certain permanent blemishes, in which case they may be kept by the owner. Obviously the thematic connection is that an expert may not rule on cases affecting him.

Questions

1. Do you think that the mishnah’s concern is primarily technical (i.e., it is hard to evaluate one’s own situation), or moral (i.e., it will be tempting for the expert to be either too lenient or, perhaps, too severe with himself)?
2. Is this teaching comparable to the medical adage that a “physician who treats himself has a fool for a patient”? What is the primary hesitation regarding doctors treating themselves or their relatives?

אדם אינו מטמא, עד שתצא נפשו. ואפלו מגיד, ואפלו גוסס, זוקק ליבום ופוטר מן היבום, מאכיל בתרומה ופוסל בתרומה. וכן בהמה וחיה אינן מטמאין, עד שתצא נפשם. התזו ראשיהם, אף על פי שמפרכסין, טמאין, כגון זנב שללטאה שהיא מפרכסת.

A person does not render [unsealed objects in the room] ritually impure until his life departs. Even if he is lacerated, or terminal, [his legal status remains alive, and] he can obligate for yibum or release from yibum, and entitle [a relative] to eat terumah, or disqualify her from eating terumah. And so too wild and domesticated animals do not render objects impure until their life departs. Once they are decapitated, even though they still quiver, they are [immediately] impure; it is like the [severed] tail of a newt that quivers [without being alive].

Comments

The laws of ritual purity are an extremely complex topic in Judaism. When a person dies, objects in the room (or ohel, meaning tent) are rendered tamei, impure. Determining this consequence requires the rabbis to clarify the precise moment of death. Even a grievously injured person is considered legally alive until his life departs. Death is usually equated with the cessation of respiration. Until that point, even a terminally ill person continues to affect the legal status of others. Yibum is the obligation of a man to marry the widow of his childless brother. Terumah refers to tithes given to the priest and his family by Israelite farmers. While this man is alive, his sister-in-law is linked to him by the law of yibum, and, if he is a kohen, his widowed Israelite mother is still entitled to eat terumah. The postscript indicates that death is determined not by the cessation of movement, but by respiratory arrest or decapitation. This text supports the halakhic status of brain death (as argued in my responsum, “Contemporary Criteria for the Declaration of Death”).

Questions

1. Judaism teaches that death casts a spiritual power upon the people and objects nearby. Does this concept resonate with your own experience?
2. Should a premodern text like this have legal significance in modern bioethical contexts?

האשה שאמרה הרי עלי קן כשאלד זכר, ילדה זכר, מביאה שתי קנים, אחת לנדרה ואחת לחובתה. נתנתם לכהן, והכהן צריך לעשות שלש פרידים מלמעלן ואחת מלמטן, לא עשה כן, אלא עשה שתים למעלן ושתים למטן ולא נמלך, צריכה להביא עוד פרידה אחת ויקריבנה למעלן, ממין אחד. משני מינין, תביא שתים. פרשה נדרה, צריכה להביא עוד שלש פרידים, ממין אחד. משני מינין, תביא ארבע. קבעה נדרה, צריכה להביא עוד חמש פרידים, ממין אחד. משני מינין, תביא שש. נתנתם לכהן ואין ידוע מה נתנה, הלך הכהן ועשה ואין ידוע מה עשה, צריכה להביא עוד ארבע פרידים לנדרה, ושתים לחובתה, וחטאת אחת. בן עזאי אומר: שתי חטאות. אמר רבי יהושע: זה הוא שאמרו כשהוא חי קולו אחד, וכשהוא מת קולו שבעה. כיצד קולו שבעה, שתי קרניו שתי חצוצרות, שתי שוקיו שני חלילין, עורו לתוף, מעיו לנבלים, בני מעיו לכנורות. ויש אומרים: אף צמרו לתכלת. רבי שמעון בן עקשיא אומר: זקני עם הארץ, כל זמן שמזקינין, דעתן מטרפת עליהן, שנאמר (איוב יב) מסיר שפה לנאמנים וטעם זקנים יקח. אבל זקני תורה אינן כן, אלא כל זמן שמזקינין דעתן מתישבת עליהן, שנאמר (שם) בישישים חכמה וארך ימים תבונה.

Rabbi Joshua teaches: There is a saying that when [an animal such as a ram] is alive, it has one voice, but when it dies it has seven voices. How does it have seven voices? Its two horns become two trumpets; its two thigh-bones become two flutes; its hide becomes a drum [head]; its intestines are used for wind instruments; its sinews for string instruments. Some say: its wool is also used for tekhelet.

Rabbi Shimon ben Akashya teaches: The elderly among the common folk grow senile as they age, as it says, “[God] removes language from the faithful and takes sense from the elderly” (Job 12:20). But it is not so with the elders of Torah. Rather, as they age their sense remains with them, as it says, “With the elderly is wisdom, and with long days is insight” (Job 12:12).

Comments 

This volume deals primarily with birds designated for sacrifice, for example, by women who have given birth. The final mishnah ends with several apparent non sequiturs. The organizing principle seems to be that aging and even death need not be viewed as the diminution of capacity for either animals or people. Animals are understood to have a “voice” both in life and in death. The precise use of various animal body parts to construct ancient musical instruments is unknown, but the care to avoid wasting these materials is apparent. The claim made here that Torah wisdom fends off senility may seem wistful, yet it is true that maintaining an active mind through life-long study can preserve vigor into old age. In the realm of Seder Kodashim that this mishnah concludes, animals are valued not only for their physical utility but also for the spiritual power that their life and death conveys to the Temple and its worshippers.

Questions

1. Is the ritual use of animal bodies as sacrifices or even sacred musical instruments dignifying, or simply primitive?
2. Does contemporary culture cultivate elder-wisdom or diminish it?

כל הנכנסין להר הבית נכנסין דרך ימין ומקיפין ויוצאין דרך שמאל, חוץ ממי שארעו דבר, שהוא מקיף לשמאל. [מה לך מקיף לשמאל], שאני אבל, השוכן בבית הזה ינחמך. שאני מנדה, השוכן בבית הזה יתן בלבם ויקרבוך, דברי רבי מאיר. אמר לו רבי יוסי: עשיתן כאלו עברו עליו את הדין. אלא השוכן בבית הזה יתן בלבך ותשמע לדברי חבריך ויקרבוך.

All who enter the Temple mount would enter by the right [Hulda gate], circle, and exit the left way, except for one who had suffered an incident, who would circle from the left. [People would ask this person why he was going the wrong way. He would reply:] “Because I am bereaved.” [They would say:] “May the One Who dwells in this house comfort you.” [Or he would say:] “I have been banned.” [They would say:] “May the One Who dwells in this house put in their hearts to bring you close again”—according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yossi said to him, “[You imply] that the [Sages] treated him unjustly!” Rather, they would say, “May the One Who dwells in this house put in your heart to heed your colleagues, and then they will bring you close again.”

Comments

The Jerusalem Temple was the great gathering place of the Jewish people for many centuries. According to a midrash, Solomon designed the gates in a way that highlighted the status of bridegrooms, who would be congratulated, and mourners, who would be consoled. This mishnah identifies another situation requiring attention—the person banned for misconduct. The very structure of the Temple and its operating procedures were thus designed for social bonding—to identify and comfort a person struck by tragedy, and to identify and correct a person who literally stepped out of line.

Questions

1. Can you defend Rabbi Meir’s position from Rabbi Yossi’s critique?
2. What values are reinforced by the design of your synagogue or school building?
3. Does God dwell in our houses too or only in the Jerusalem Temple?

אמר להם הממנה, צאו וראו אם הגיע זמן השחיטה. אם הגיע, הרואה אומר ברקאי. מתיא בן שמואל אומר: האיר פני כל המזרח עד שהוא בחברון, והוא אומר הין.

The one appointed [to give out roles in offering the morning sacrifice] would say to them, “Go look [up on the roof to see] if the time to slaughter has arrived.” If it had arrived, the one who saw [the sunrise] would say, “Morning has broken.” Matya son of Shmuel says [that they would announce], “The eastern horizon is all lit up.” [The leader would ask], “Until Hebron?” He would say, “Yes.”

Comments

The first rite of morning and the final rite of the afternoon in the Jerusalem Temple was the presentation of the communal burnt offering (olah tamid). This tractate of Mishnah provides great detail about the many tasks involved in the preparation of the altar, utensils, and sacrifice. Read two thousand years after the Temple altar was demolished, this Mishnah gives a sense of the intense focus and power experienced by those involved in the Temple service (avodah).

Questions

1. A sense of eagerness to perform the sacrifice at the earliest permitted time pervades this mishnah. When are you eager to do a mitzvah?
2. Do you think that eagerness leads to intensity or to superficiality?

הנהנה שוה פרוטה מן ההקדש, אף על פי שלא פגם, מעל, דברי רבי עקיבא. וחכמים אומרים: כל דבר שיש בו פגם, לא מעל עד שיפגום. וכל דבר שאין בו פגם, כיון שנהנה, מעל. כיצד, נתנה קטלא בצוארה, טבעת בידה, שתתה בכוס של זהב, כיון שנהנית, מעלה. לבש בחלוק, כסה בטלית, בקע בקרדום, לא מעל עד שיפגום. תלש מן החטאת כשהיא חיה, לא מעל עד שיפגום. כשהיא מתה, כיון שנהנה, מעל.

If one makes even a prutah (i.e., a cent’s) worth of profit from sanctified property, even if he does not diminish its value, he is guilty of ����’a��(misappropriation), according to Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages say, if it is a type of property that could be diminished, he is not guilty of misappropriation until it is diminished. But for any type of property that is not diminished [in value by being used], he is guilty of ����’a�� the moment he benefits. How so? If [a woman] put a [consecrated] necklace on her neck or a ring on her finger, or drank from a golden goblet, once she benefited [from the use] it is ����’a�� [even though the value is not diminished by her use]. But if [a man] wore a [consecrated] cloak, or garment, or chopped with a [consecrated] ax, it is not ����’a��until the item was diminished [from the use]. If he plucked [wool] from a purification offering that was alive, it is not ����’a�� unless he diminished its value. If it were already dead, any benefit would be ����’a��.

Comments 

Ancient societies considered Temple property to be strictly off-limits for personal use. In Jewish law, even an unintentional transgression required the person to restore the property with a 20 percent penalty and to bring an asham (sin) offering. What if he or she did no harm? This mishnah makes an interesting distinction—only if normal use would cause damage does it matter if in fact such damage occurred.

Question

How would you estimate the value of “borrowing” jewelry belonging to the Temple?
 

האשה שיש עליה ספק חמש זיבות וספק חמש לידות מביאה קרבן אחד, ואוכלת בזבחים, ואין השאר עליה חובה. חמש לידות ודאות, חמש זיבות ודאות, מביאה קרבן אחד, ואוכלת בזבחים, והשאר עליה חובה. מעשה שעמדו קנים בירושלים בדינרי זהב, אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל: המעון הזה, לא אלין הלילה, עד שיהיו בדינרין. נכנס לבית דין ולמד, האשה שיש עליה חמש לידות ודאות, חמש זיבות ודאות, מביאה קרבן אחד, ואוכלת בזבחים, ואין השאר עליה חובה. ועמדו קנים בו ביום ברבעתים.

If a woman has had five ambiguous cases of vaginal bleeding or miscarriages, she brings one [purification] sacrifice, may eat from sacrificial meat, and has no further liability. If she has had five certain cases of miscarriage or vaginal bleeding, she brings one sacrifice, may eat from the sacrificial meat, but is liable for the rest [i.e., four more offerings]. There was a case in which the cost of pigeons [used for these sacrifices] stood at a gold dinar. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, “By this Temple! I will not sleep tonight until their price is [reduced to] a silver dinar.” He entered the court and instructed: “A woman who has five certain miscarriages or five certain cases of vaginal bleeding shall bring one sacrifice, eat from the sacrificial meat, and have no further liability.” That very day the price of pigeons fell to a fourth of [a silver dinar].

Comments

This mishnah is a window into the complex interaction between ritual purity and physical conditions, especially various genital discharges. What is fascinating is the awareness shown by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel (who lived in the late Second Temple period) of the impact of his court’s rulings on the economic situation of the people. A gold dinar was worth twenty-five silver dinarim; hence it seems that the rabbinic action caused a precipitous decline in the market price of pigeons. Rabban Shimon apparently considered the financial well-being of the people to be of greater concern than the quantity of sacrifices offered at the Temple.

Question

What can we do to make living a full Jewish life more affordable today?