Commentary for Yadayim 4:12

בו ביום – This refers to the chapter above regarding the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai, that speaks of the day when they appointed Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy [as the Nasi/president]. And every place where it states, "בו ביום" /on that day, in the Mishnah, it is regarding that day which is spoken of.

Introduction Yesterday's mishnah ended with the statement that the sages voted on whether to include Kohelet and Shir Hashirim in the canon. This is taken as referring to a vote that occurred in the academy in Yavneh on a momentous day in history. Today's mishnah continues with other momentous issues they voted on on that famous day.

נמנו (they were counted – i.e., the votes were taken [and they decided]) – they stood for the count, to whom the number of those defile and the number of those who purify, and they decided the law according to the majority.

On that day the votes were counted and they decided that a footbath holding from two logs to nine kavs which was cracked could contract midras uncleanness. You just have to love this transition. In yesterday's mishnah we hear of a vote over whether a book should be part of the Bible. It's hard to think of a more fateful issue than this if the vote had turned the other way, these two books might have been lost, or at least cut out of the Jewish tradition. The second issue was over the purity of a cracked footbath and whether it can still receive midras uncleanness. Since it can no longer hold liquids, it doesn't count as a vessel for bathing. But since people could still sit in it, it is still susceptible to "midras" uncleanness, the kind of impurity that is given to items that are meant to be sat or laid upon.

עריבת הרגלים – tub made for washing the feet.

Because Rabbi Akiva said a footbath [must be considered] according to its designation. Rabbi Akiva holds that anything that is called "a footbath," even if it can hold more than nine kavs, is still susceptible to midras impurity.

שנסדקה –[which was cracked] near its bottom, and it doesn’t hold water in order to wash his one foot.

טמאה מדרס – for a tub made for a foot-bath prior its becoming cracked also was customary to sit in it, and it served [as a place] to sit while working.

שר' עקיבא – he would dispute and saw that the tub for a foot-bath is like its name (i.e., for washing the feet only, and not for sitting), that is, that like its name, so it is, that there is no מדרס/Levitical uncleanness arising from someone with gonorrhea having immediate contact through treading or leaning upon it. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Akiva.

כל הזבחים שנזבחו שלא לשמן כשרים – this Mishnah is taught from the beginning of Tractate Zevakhim [Chapter 1, Mishnah 1] and there we have explained it.

Introduction Most of this mishnah is found word for word in Zevahim 1:1 and 1:3. Most of my commentary here is the same as that there. It is brought here as well because according to this mishnah, those halakhot from Zevahim originated on that same famous day.

On that day they said: all animal sacrifices which have been sacrificed under the name of some other offering are [nevertheless] valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. For most sacrifices, if the priest offering them thinks that he is offering a different sacrifice than he is really supposed to be offering, the sacrifice is still valid. This means that its blood can be spilled on the altar and the sacrifice can be eaten by those who would have been able to eat it had it been offered properly. However, the sacrifice does not count as far as fulfilling the obligation of its owner. Thus if the owner was obligated to bring an olah, for instance, and it was sacrificed with the intent of it being another sacrifice, the owner must bring another olah in its place. The exception to this is the pesah and the hatat. If either of these two sacrifices is offered with the intent of its being a different type of sacrifices, not only does it not count for the owner who brought it, it is completely disqualified. Its blood cannot be spilled on the altar, nor can it be eaten.

[This is true of] the pesah in its correct time and the sin-offering at any time. The pesah is only disqualified if it is slaughtered with the wrong intent at the time that it is supposed to be slaughtered, on second half of the day on the fourteenth of Nissan. If it is slaughtered on the wrong day, for the wrong purpose, then paradoxically, it is valid, although it would obviously not count for its owner. Its as if the mishnah is saying that in this case, two negatives can make a positive. When it comes to the hatat, there is no specific time in which it must be offered. Therefore, no matter when it is offered, if the intention is for the wrong sacrifice, it is disqualified.

Rabbi Eliezer says: [with the exception] also of the guilt-offering; [so that this refers to] the pesah in its correct time and to the sin- and guilt-offerings at any time. Rabbi Eliezer argues that the same rule that applies to the hatat applies to the asham, also a sacrifice brought to atone for sin. If it is slaughtered for the sake of it being a different sacrifice, it is disqualified.

Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the college that all animal sacrifices which are eaten and which have not been sacrificed under their own name are nevertheless valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. Ben Azzai only added [to these exceptions] the wholly burnt-offering, but the sages did not agree with him. This section is found in Zevahim 1:3. My commentary here is the same as it is there.

[This is true of] the pesah in its correct time and the sin-offering at any time. In section two we learned that the two exceptional sacrifices that are disqualified if offered with the wrong intent are the pesah and the hatat. All other sacrifices are valid if slaughtered with the intent of their being different sacrifices. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai quotes this tradition as being true only for sacrifices that are eaten. This would not include the olah, which is wholly burnt. According to ben Azzai’s tradition, the olah is disqualified if it is slaughtered with the intent of it being a different sacrifice. The final line of the mishnah notes that ben Azzai added the olah to the pesah and hatat, but that the sages (whose opinion is found in mishnah one) did not agree with this tradition. Rabbi Shimon Ben Azzai states that he received this tradition on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was appointed a member of the yeshiva (academy). This seems to be a famous day in rabbinic recollection and there is a significant amount of aggadah concerning the background to this appointment. The most expansive version of this aggadah is found in Bavli Berakhot 27b, where Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah is appointed head of the academy after Rabban Gamaliel is deposed. The historical accuracy of that legendary account is a bit suspect, but here in the Mishnah we can see that although we might not know exactly what happened that day, it was a memorable day, one which later rabbis used as a reference point.

עמון ומואב מה הן בשביעית – This is not Ammon and Moab that purified in Sihon which is in the inheritance of Reuben and Gad [in Transjordan], for this is the Land of Israel, even if you wish to state that those who came up from Babylonia [following seventy years of Exile in Babylonia following the Destruction of the First Temple] did not conquer it, perforce [the laws of] the Seventh Year are practiced in it, for it is taught in the Mishnah in the Tractate Sheviit, Chapter הפיגם/The Herb rue (i.e., Chapter 9) [Mishnah 2]: “There are three lands/regions [are delineated] with respect to [the laws] of removal: Judea, Transjordan and the Galilee.” And Transjordan is the land of Sihon. But we are speaking about the remainder of the land of Ammon and Moab where they didn’t purify in Sihon nor ever conquered it. Know, that when they include [a person] who made Aliyah [to the Land of Israel] from Babylonia and from Egypt.

Introduction In today's extraordinarily long mishnah there is a dispute concerning what tithes are given from produce grown in the land of Ammon and Moab on the sabbatical year. Inside the land of Israel seventh year produce is ownerless and no tithes are separated. Ammon and Moab are borderline lands. The sabbatical year is not operative in them but the rabbis did decree that one has to separate tithes from produce grown there. This creates the question of what type of tithes must be separated in the sabbatical year. As further background, we should remember that there are two tithes. First tithes are given to the Levites. This tithe would be separated in Ammon and Moab during the sabbatical year. The other tithe alternates between second tithe, which is taken to Jerusalem and eaten there by its owners and the poor tithe which is given to the poor. Second tithe is taken out in the 1, 2, 4 and 5 years of the seven year cycle and poor tithe on the 3 and 6 year. This is the tithe that is debated in our mishnah. Along with the particular content discussion, the argument in this mishnah reveals an unusual amount concerning rabbinic discourse. It offers us a fascinating glimpse into the inner workings of the early rabbinic academy.

ולא שניתי מסדר השנים (I have not changed the order of the years) – of the world. After the year of [bringing] the Poor Man’s Tithe (i.e., year six of the cycle), we bring the Second Tithe [which is consumed in Jerusalem]. Therefore, it is appropriate in the Seventh Year [to bring] Second Tithe

On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe. Rabbi Tarfon rules that in these two lands they should separate poor tithes on the sabbatical year, whereas Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah rules that they should separate second tithe.

המעשר והתרומה – perforce, the Tithe that is mentioned here is Second Tithe, similar to Terumah/heave-offering which is holy, and not the Poor Man’s Tithe which is profane/non-consecrated, and one cannot make Second Tithe inoperative because of the poor.

Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Yishmael seems to act as a sort of moderator for the dispute. He tells Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah that the burden of proof is upon him, for he rules strictly. The reason that his opinion is considered "strict" is that second tithe is treated as holy, whereas poor tithe is not holy. As far as how much is given, there is no difference both are tithes.

כמשיב על דברי ר' טרפון – to assist him.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah responds that the burden of proof should be upon Rabbi Tarfon, and not upon him. In the third and sixth years one gives poor tithes. The year that immediately follows is second tithe (at least in the fourth year). Therefore, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah has not deviated from the normal order of second tithe always following after a year of poor tithe. So Rabbi Tarfon must first give proof for why we should deviate from the normal order. [This section kind of reminds me of the coin flip at the beginning of a football game arguing over who starts.]

אבל לא לענין דבריו – meaning to say, but not from his reasoning.

Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Having lost the coin flip, Rabbi Tarfon kicks off. He compares Ammon and Moab with Egypt. Just as Egypt gives poor tithes in the seventh year, so should Ammon and Moab. Later in the Mishnah we shall see that everyone agrees that the earlier sages decreed that Egypt should give poor tithe.

מצרים מעשה חדש – that the elders that existed after Ezra establish to separate tithes in Egypt.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah responds by saying that the laws outside of Israel are not all the same. Babylon is also outside of Israel and there they separate second tithe during the seventh year, not poor tithe. So if you're going to compare Ammon and Moab to something, compare them to Babylon!

ובבבל מעשה ישן – it is the ordinance of the Prophets who existed prior to the Destruction of the Temple, but the matter was forgotten, for perhaps there wasn’t a need for the poor at that particular hour/time.

Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. The fight is truly getting brutal my friends! Rabbi Tarfon now explains why he compared Ammon and Moab to Egypt and not Babylon. Ammon, Moab and Egypt are both close to the land of Israel. Therefore the sages declared that they should give poor tithes so that the poor of Israel could benefit. In other words, Rabbi Tarfon feels that the sages adjusted the halakhah so that it would most benefit the poor.

עשה נביאים – and by the word of Prophecy, they made a special emergency dispensation (not to be taken as a precedent), and we don’t learn from it.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings" (Malakhi 3:8). Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah counterattacks. Giving tithes to the poor might provide them with some temporary relief. But if people should really be giving second tithe then they in the end will be causing destruction and death. For the verses from Malakhi state that people have cheated God by not bringing tithes. As a punishment, God will stop the rains and dew (this is made even more explicit in v. 10, not quoted in the Mishnah). Thus, perverting tithe laws in order to give to the poor ultimately will cause drought.

הלכה למשה מסיני – Not exactly. For this is not from Torah, but rather, it is as if it is a usage dating from Moses as delivered from Sinai (i.e., a traditional interpretation of a written law). However, in the Tosefta [Tractate Yadayim, Chapter 2, Halakha 16 – in the Zuckermandel edition], it implies it is stating an actual usage dating from Moses as delivered from Sinai.

Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. Rabbi Joshua now jumps into the debate. He defends Rabbi Tarfon but using different reasoning. That Egypt should give poor tithe is a "new act," decreed by the sages of the Second Temple period, when Egypt again flourished as a center for Judaism. That Babylon should give second tithe is an "old act," decreed by the prophets. Since Ammon and Moab are both new acts, they should be like the other "new act" and give poor tithe. A related factor is that Egypt is a "decree of the sages," whereas Babylon is a "decree of the prophets." Since Ammon and Moab will obviously be a decree of the sages, they should be like the other decree of the sages and give poor tithe.

The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. After all of the arguments have been made, the sages take a vote and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Tarfon win.

And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: "The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covenant, to make them know it" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. There is a fascinating epitaph to this story. Rabbi Eliezer was evidently not there when this vote was taken. According to later legends he was excommunicated. Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit, an otherwise unknown sage, goes to Rabbi Eliezer to report to him about what happened in the academy. Rabbi Eliezer agrees with the content of the vote, but vehemently seems to disagree with the process. Rabbi Eliezer is saying I don't need your vote because I have a tradition that goes all the way back to Sinai that Ammon and Moab give poor tithe on the sabbatical year. The argument here is between Rabbi Eliezer's way of determining halakhah and that of the other rabbis. The other rabbis, at whose forefront stands Rabbi Joshua, hold that whenever a new situation arises sages must argue about it, present opposing points of view, and then bring the matter up for a vote. There are indeed innovations in halakhah and they are arrived upon through a process of dispute and voting. Rabbi Eliezer is the arch-conservative. Even obviously new situations such as this, Jews living in the lands of Ammon and Moab, were addressed at Sinai. There is no need for a vote and no need for argumentation. Everything that ever will be was already there in the original revelation.

שנאמר ואסיר גבולות עמים (“I have erased the borders of peoples; I have plundered their treasures, And exiled their vast populations”) – that he (i.e., the Assyrians) would banish the people of this city and settle them in a different city, and he would banish the people of a different city and settle them in this city.

Introduction Deuteronomy 23:4 states that an Ammonite or Moabite "cannot enter the assembly of the Lord." The rabbis interpret this to mean that even if an Ammonite or Moabite convert, they still cannot marry a regular Israelite. Our mishnah, whose discussion also occurred "on that day," deals with an Ammonite convert who comes before the sages asking if he is part of this prohibition. It sounds like the story was probably placed in this chapter because the previous mishnah also discussed Ammon and Moab.

ושבתי את שבות עמי ישראל ועדיין לא שבו – just as they (i.e., the children of Israel) did not return, so also, they (i.e., the people of Ammon) did not return.

On that day Judah, an Ammonite convert, came and stood before them in the house of study. He said to them: Do I have the right to enter into the assembly? Rabban Gamaliel said to him: you are forbidden. Rabbi Joshua said to him: you are permitted. Judah the Ammonite, who seems to have already converted to Judaism, comes in front of Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua asking to be allowed to marry an Israelite woman (not another Ammonite convert).

והתירו לבוא בקהל – for since that [members] from the seventy nations [of the known world] it is not forbidden for them to join/enter into the [Israelite] community other than the Ammonite and Moabite for all time, and an Egyptian and an Edomite for the first and second generations [it is forbidden for them to enter the Israelite community] (see Deuteronomy 23:8-9), here where these nations are not known for they (i.e., Ammonites and Moabites) have already been mixed up and combined among the rest of the other nations, we state: “he who separates [himself] - separates from a majority,” and all who convert are permitted to enter the [Israelite] community.

Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, "An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord: even to the tenth generation" (Deuteronomy 23:4). Rabban Gamaliel refuses to allow him to do so based on the verse from Deuteronomy. This would seem to be an open and shut case. Deuteronomy prohibits Ammonites from marrying into the assembly, so Judah should have to go marry someone else.

R. Joshua said to him: But are the Ammonites and Moabites still in their own territory? Sanheriv, the king of Assyria, has long since come up and mingled all the nations, as it is said: "In that I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants" (Isaiah 10:1. However, Rabbi Joshua responds by saying that those who identify today (i.e. in his day) as Ammonites are no longer the same Ammonites of yore. King Sanheriv, the same Assyrian king who destroyed the northern kingdom, came and mixed up all of the peoples, forcibly transferring them from one place to another, as he did with the 10 northern tribes. Therefore, the rules of the Torah that applied to the Ammonites back then, no longer apply now.

Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, "But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon," (Jeremiah 49:6) they have already returned. Rabban Gamaliel actually accepts Rabbi Joshua's argument but responds that there is another verse that shows that God brought back the Ammonites from their exile. According to Rabban Gamaliel the verse from Jeremiah does not refer to the "end of days" as do the verses regarding the Moabites (Jeremiah 48:47) and Elam (49:39). Rather, God has already restored the Ammonites, so the prohibition from Deuteronomy applies again.

Rabbi Joshua said to him: [another] verse says, "I will return the captivity of my people Israel and Judah" (Amos 9:14). Yet they have not yet returned. The argument now turns on the meaning of a verse that says, "And I have returned" a certain people to their place. The prophet Amos uses the same language with regard to Israel and nevertheless Israel has not returned to its homeland, at least not all of Israel. So too, when it comes to Ammon, just because someone is currently an "Ammonite" does not mean that they are prohibited by the verse in Deuternomy.

So they permitted him to enter the assembly. The mishnah concludes with good news for our friend Judah. He is allowed into the community, meaning he can go find himself a good Yiddishe mamma! Sign the boy up for JDate!

תרגום שכתבו עברית – The Aramaic interpretation/version that are in [the books of] Daniel and Ezra and [passages such as] (Jeremiah 10:11): “Thus you shall say to them: [Let the gods, who did not make heaven and earth, perish from the earth and from under these heavens],” if they wrote it in the Holy Tongue (i.e., Hebrew), and similarly, the words of the Prophet that are stated in the Holy Tongue that are written in Aramaic interpretation/version, do not defile the hands.

Introduction Today's mishnah returns to the subject of scrolls defiling the hands.

כתב עברי – the writing that comes from the other side of the river (i.e., Euphrates in Babylonia). But the Cutheans (i.e., Samaritans) write this way until today, but the Israelites would use the same script in their secular words. And on the coins that are found in our hands today that were from the time of the Kings of Israel, they are engraved with this same script. But the script that we write Scrolls with today, it is called the Assyrian script (i.e., the modern form of Hebrew type – which was brought along by the returning Babylonian captives, and made to supersede the older Syriac or Samaritan letters), and it is the script that was on the Tablets [of the Law – i.e., the Ten Commandments]. And it is called Ashuri/Assyrian, which is the most substantial of the scripts (see also Sanhedrin 22a), it is the language of (Genesis 30:13): “Women will deem me fortunate. [So she named him Asher].”

The Aramaic sections in Ezra and Daniel defile the hands. If an Aramaic section was written in Hebrew, or a Hebrew section was written in Aramaic, or [Hebrew which was written with] Hebrew script, it does not defile the hands. It never defiles the hands until it is written in the Assyrian script, on parchment, and in ink. There are some portions of the book of Ezra and the book of Daniel that are in Aramaic, not Hebrew. These sections defile the hands just as do other portions of the Bible. The fact that they are in Aramaic does not make them less holy.

This section seems to teach that Aramaic and Hebrew are not inherently holy languages such that they should defile the hands. If a portion of the Bible that is in Hebrew was translated into Aramaic (targum) it doesn't defile the hands. Neither do Hebrew translations of the Aramaic parts of the Bible. The Hebrew script we use is called Assyrian script. The older script is called by scholars "Phoenician script" and is called by the rabbis "Hebrew script." According to the Talmud, Ezra switched the script from the ancient Hebrew to the Assyrian. If a scroll of the Tanakh was written in this ancient script, it does not defile the hands.

Only Tanakh scrolls written with the proper script, Assyrian, on parchment (made from the hides of an animal) and with ink are valid as ritual objects. Therefore, only these scrolls defile the hands.

אומרין צדוקין – those who contradict the Oral Torah are called Sadducees, on account of Tzadok and Baitus, students of Antigonos the man of Sokho (see Tractate Avot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 3 and Avot D’Rabbi Nathan, Chapter 5) that they began this disgrace/corruption initially. Because they heard from Antigonos the man of Sokho their Rabbi/Teacher, “Do not be like servants who serve the master in order to receive a reward.” They said, is it possible for a worker who goes to the trouble and engages in work all day long and in the evening, he doesn’t receive a reward? And they interpreted from the words of the Sages, and many sects from Israel joined with them, and until this day, there remains remnants of them in Egypt, in Damascus and in Constantine, and they are like sore in our eyes and a thorn in our sides, and we call them Karaites, because they don’t have anything other than the Bible alone.

Introduction The final three mishnayot of the tractate contain disputes between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Our knowledge of these groups is quite vague. We know that the rabbis sided with the Pharisees, although the rabbis don't exactly see themselves as Pharisees. Assumedly this is because this division mostly ceased after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Josephus, the first century historian, divides the Jews into three "philosophies" Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. The New Testament mentions both the Pharisees and Sadducees. And there is a bitter argument over who the Dead Sea Sect was some believe they were Sadducees, but this is not generally accepted. In these mishnayot the Sadducees complain against various halakhot of the Pharisees. There is an echo of this in a text called "The Halakhic Letter" found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In this letter, the Jews living in Qumran write of their halakhic disagreements with those Jews running the show in Jerusalem. There is some affinity between the halakhot of the writers living in Qumran and the Sadducees as presented in rabbinic literature. Rather than conclude that this means that these Jews were "Sadducees" I think it is more appropriate to say that these Jews had a halakhic system similar to the Sadducees. They may indeed have been Essenes (this is the general consensus); the differences between Essenes and Sadducees may be based on other issues besides halakhah. In any case, these three mishnayot are fascinating because they afford us a glimpse into what kinds of things Second Temple religious leaders were arguing about.

קובלין אנו עליכם – we are discontented/disturbed by your qualities.

The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. The reason these complaints against the Pharisees are found in tractate Yadayim is that the first of the Sadducees' complaints is the subject at hand (pun intended). The Sadducees seem to know of two types of books, the works of Homer (not Simpson) and the Holy Scriptures. Clearly the latter are holy while the former are not. So why then do the Pharisees say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands whereas the works of Homer do not?

פרושים – to the Sages of Israel, they would call Pharisees, because they consume their non-sacred [foods] in ritual purity and separate themselves from contact with the commoners [who are not punctilious in their observance of tithing and Levitical uncleanness], as is taught in the Mishnah (Tractate Hagigah, Chapter 2, Mishnah 7): “The clothing of commoners is in the status of treading/Levitical uncleanness arising from a man who has gonorrhea having immediate contact by treading/leaning against.”

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yohanan the high priest are unclean. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai explains by playing devil's advocate. All agree that the bones of a donkey do not defile. Only the flesh of a dead impure animal defiles, not the bones (see Toharot 1:4). Interestingly, Rabbi Yohanan seems to mention the "donkey" because in Hebrew "donkey" is "hamor" which sounds like Homer pun intended! In any case, a donkey's bones do not defile but human bones, even those of one's parents do. Why should this be, he rhetorically asks?

תרוודות (spoon – pointed on top and curved at the end) – spoons that we eat with them. In the language of (see Tractate Nazir, Chapter 7, Mishnah 2 -49b): “a tarvad-full of dust.”

They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. Rabbi Yohanan's words force the Sadducees to admit to a principle. Defilement is a way to force people not to make profane use out of a beloved object. If human bones were ritually clean, people might make spoons out of the bones of their parents (okay, I admit this sounds strange would people really do such a thing?).

אף ספרי הקודש לפי חיבתן היא טומאתן (according to their preciousness is their uncleanness) – that a person should not use them as a mat/cover for beasts. But according to their words, he would respond to the, and not according to the truth. For the reason that the Holy Books defile the hands, is in order that they should not bring the books/scrolls to loss, for the mice that are found near those who eat would ruin the Scrolls, as we explain at the conclusion of [Tractate] Zavim (see the Bartenura commentary to Mishnah 12 of the fifth chapter of the tractate concerning Terumah/heave-offering).

He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai now uses that very principle to respond to the Sadducees. Homer's works are not beloved and therefore they don't defile the hands. But clearly the Holy Scriptures are beloved and therefore they do. This is similar to how I explained the prohibition at the outset of this issue (3:2).

מטהרים את הניצוק (you declare pure/clean an uninterrupted flow of liquid poured from vessel to vessel) – as it is taught in the Mishnah in Tractate Makhshirin [Chapter 5, Mishnah 9]: “Any unbroken stream [of water] is clean [except for the thick honey and porridge].” If you pour from a pure/clean vessel to an unclean/impure vessel, that which remains in the upper vessel is clean/pure, for an uninterrupted flow of liquid poured from vessel to vessel is not considered a connection.

The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean. The Pharisees say: we complain against you, Sadducees, that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean? The Sadducees complain that the Pharisees declare that an uninterrupted flow is clean. What this means is that if one pours from a clean vessel into an unclean vessel what remains in the clean vessel is still clean (see Makhshirin 5:9). Interestingly, this very issue is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Pharisees respond with a precedent showing that water connected to a source of impurity does not necessarily become impure. Water that flows out of a cemetery is pure, even though it is still attached to the source. So too with the flow from one vessel to the other, even though the water is attached to something unclean, the upper vessel is still clean.

אמת המים הבאה מן הקברות – the Sadducees admit regarding this that it is pure, as it is written (Leviticus 11:36): “[However, a spring or cistern] in which water is collected shall be pure.”

The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you say, my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable, yet my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable. Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties, yet I am responsible for their damages, in the case of my male or female slave for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot, how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages? The second argument in this mishnah compares damages or injury done by one's animals with injury or damage done by one's slaves. According to rabbinic law, a master is liable for damages done by his animals but not his slaves (see Bava Kamma 8:4). The Sadducees complain that this is illogical, for one is not liable to make sure that his animals perform mitzvoth, whereas one is liable to make sure that his slaves perform mitzvoth, such as brit milah (see Genesis 17:12) and eating the pesah sacrifice (Exodus 12:44).

שהרי אין בהם דעת – that they will intend to cause financial loss to their owners.

They said to them: No, if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding, can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding? So that if I were to anger either of them and they would go and burn another person's stack, should I be liable to make restitution? The Pharisees respond that a master's liability for his animals is only because animals have no intelligence/understanding. Since an animal has no intelligence, at least legally speaking, his master is usually liable for damages performed by the animal. In contrast, a slave may be owned by his/her master, but the slave has intelligence and independent will. Even if one angers his slave and the slave damages some property, the owner is not liable. We should note that this Pharisaic law was probably unusual and perhaps even their own invention. Most law systems of the time, including other ancient near eastern laws, would have held a master liable for damages done by a slave. But for the rabbis, the operative principle in many matters of law is "legal awareness" or "understanding." Since slaves have such capacity, they are independent and liable for damages they perform.

ילך וידליק גדישו של אחר – and it is found that he causes his master [financial] loss of one-hundred Maneh on each day.

צדוקי גלילי – a Sadducee that was from the land of the Galilee.

Introduction In this mishnah the argument is no longer with a Sadducee but a Galilean "min." The word "min" is found in manuscripts of this mishnah, although in printed editions it says "Sadducee." A "min" is somewhat akin to heretic. The "min" is clearly a Jew, but is part of a group that is opposed to the rabbis/Pharisees. In later literature it could be used to refer to a Christian but it clearly does not refer to a Christian here. Nevertheless, Christian censors in the Middle Ages did not like this word and therefore they forced the Jews to change it.

המושל עם משה בגט – that they would count the years of the [heathen] kings and write: “such-and-such [a time period] according to [the rule] of king so-and-so, and at the end of the Jewish bill of divorce, they write, “according to the law of Moses and [the people] Israel, and the matter is a disgrace to Moses.

A Galilean min said: I complain against you Pharisees, that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document. The "min" complains against the Pharisees that they write the name of Moses and the current Roman ruler together in the divorce document, the get. What this means is that they would date the document by referring to the year of the ruling of the current king (see Gittin 8:5) and at the end, they would write, "as is the religion of Moses Israel." This "min" seems to be attacking the Pharisees for accommodating themselves to Roman rule. Interestingly, this "min" is found in the Galilee, where the rabbis seemed to have lived in harmony with the Romans after the destruction of the Temple.

את המושל מלמעלה ואת השם מלמטן – that they would advance the name of Pharaoh to that of the name of the name of God, as it is written (Exodus 5:2): “But Pharaoh said, ‘Who is the LORD [that I should heed him and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, nor will I let Israel go’].”

The Pharisees said: we complain against you, Galilean min, that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page [of Torah]? And furthermore that you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below? As it is said, "And Pharoah said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?" (Exodus 5:2) But when he was smitten what did he say? "The Lord is righteous" (Exodus 9:27). The Pharisees offer a cynical response. In Torah scrolls not only is the name of God and the name of Pharaoh written on the same page, but the name of Pharaoh comes first. Obviously, this is unavoidable, as can be shown from the verse in Exodus 5:2. So too, it is not a problem to write Moses's name in the same document as the Roman ruler's name. Our mishnah concludes with another verse "The Lord is righteous." This verse is brought here so that the tractate does not conclude with a verse that says, "Who is God." It is missing in some manuscripts. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Yadayim! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Yadayim was interesting, wasn't it? Among all of the issues in Seder Toharot this may have been the most practical. In addition, this last chapter was simply fascinating (and I think I'm going to teach it in my Mishnah class tomorrow!). The issue of hand-washing and the impurity of scrolls were both innovations of the sages or their predecessors, the Pharisees. So we get to learn some Second Temple halakhic history on the side. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Oktzin the last tractate of the Mishnah!

וכשלקה – [when] Pharaoh [was smitten].

מה הוא אומר ה' הצדיק – in order not to complete the Tractate with [the words], “Who is the LORD that I should heed him,” because you do not remain/endure with a negative matter, it (i.e., the Tractate] concludes with (Exodus 9:27): “The LORD is in the right [and I am my people are in the wrong].”