Commento su 'Eduyyot 8:8

העיד רבי יהושע על דם נבילות שהוא טהור – from being made impure like a carrion in an olive’s bulk, and it defiles with a quarter [of a log]. For you do not have anything whose blood will become defiled like its skin other than for a reptile alone. And above [at the beginning of Chapter 5 of Tractate Eduyot] where it is taught in the Mishnah: that the blood of carrion – the School of Shammai declares clean and the School of Hillel declares unclean, but not like the carrion which defiles through an olive’s bulk, but through a quarter [of a log].

Introduction Our mishnah contains two testimonies, and an additional law stated by Rabbi Akiva.

שנגע טמא במקצתו שטימא את כולו – they made a preference with Holy things and with the ashes of the sin-offering, for even thouh they themselves are divided if we place them within one utensil and comes in contact with something that defiles holy things in part, all were defiled, for the utensil combines them to be considered as if they are one body, and support is brought for it from the Biblical verse, as it is written (Numbers 7:14,20,26,32,38,44,50,56,62,68,74,80): “One gold ladle of 10 shekels, filled with incense,” as the Biblical verse made all of what is in one ladle.

Rabbi Joshua ben. Bathyra testified concerning the blood of carcasses that it was pure. This law was learned above, chapter five, mishnah one. There we learned that everyone holds that the flesh of a carcass (an animal which was not properly slaughtered) is impure. Beth Shammai held that the blood of a carcass is not like the flesh, and it is not impure, whereas Beth Hillel held that it is impure. In our mishnah Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra testifies that the law is like Beth Hillel.

הוסיף ר' עקיבא – for whereas from the testimony of Rabbi Shimon ben Beterah, we did not hear other than on that which is impure, and Rabbi Akiva came and added that even one who immersed himself on that day – but is not completely pure until sunset which does not defile but is invalid alone, if it came comes in contact with part of it, it invalidates all of it. And Maimonides explained, that from the testimony of Rabbi Shimon, we did not hear that it combines other than a utensil that has an inside [receptacle] but a vessel that does not have an inside [receptacle], we did not hear that it combines, but Rabbi Akiva came and added that even sifted fine flour and incense and frankincense and coals that are not within the utensil, but are collected and placed on a board or plank which has no inside [receptacle], they are considered as if placed within the utensil, and are made as if they are one substance.

Rabbi Shimon ben Bathyra testified concerning the ashes of purification, that if a defiled person had touched part of them he had defiled the whole of them. Rabbi Akiva added in regard to the fine flour, the incense, the frankincense, and the coals, that if a tevul yom had touched part of them he had made the whole of them unfit. The “ashes of purification” are the ashes of the red heifer which are combined with water and then used to purify one who has contracted corpse impurity. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Bathyra if an impure person touches some of these ashes, all of the ashes that are in the same pile have become impure. Even though each ash is its own distinct object and they are not attached to each other, one who touches some, defiles it all. Rabbi Akiva adds several other items that are in truth each individual, separate things, yet if part of them are touched by an impure person the entire pile is impure. This includes flour, incense, frankincense and coals, all of which are used on the altar in the Temple. If these are touched even by a “tevul yom”, someone who as already immersed himself in a mikveh to become clean but the sun has not yet set, will make them impure. Note that the reason that Rabbi Akiva mentions specifically the “tevul yom” is that the Saducees and other Jewish sects (including the Dead Sea sect) held that a “tevul yom” was pure. A person did not have to wait for sundown to become pure after having entered the mikveh. In fact, we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that this was one of the major disputes between the Dead Sea sect and those with whom they were arguing, probably the Pharisees.

והגחלים – those that the High Priest on Yom Kippur takes out in a pan, if a person who immersed himself on that day – but is not completely pure until sunset touched part of them, all of them are made in valid, and a preference was made with them, for the coals are not receptacles for defilement.

קטנה בת ישראל – and she is an orphan a has been explained at the end of the chapter above (i.e., Eduyot, Chapter 7, Mishnah 9), and he adds here that when she came to get married even though she had not yet engaged in sexual relations, because from the testimony of above (i.e., Eduyot, chapter 7, Mishnah 9), we did not hear/learn that she eats Terumah/priest’s due [if she married a Kohen] other than after she had engaged in sexual relations.

Introduction Two more testimonies, both of which deal in some way with marital law.

שהורהנה – that she had been deposited as a pledge with idolaters.

Rabbi Judah ben Baba and Rabbi Judah the priest testified concerning a minor, the daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah as soon as she entered the bridal chamber even though she had not engaged in marital intercourse. According to the Torah when a woman from an Israelite family marries a priest she may eat terumah, food which is normally reserved for the priests. However, the question must be asked, when is the marriage considered valid such that she may eat terumah? Furthermore, this question must also be asked with regards to a minor girl, who was married off by her mother or brother. As we learned in mishnah 7:9, this type of marriage is not valid deoraita (from the Torah) and is only a rabbinic institution. Therefore, if she is not married according to the Torah, when can she eat terumah, a right normally reserved for those married deoraita? [We learned in 7:9 that when married she can eat terumah.] This is an important question, since the penalty for a non-priest who eats terumah is quite harsh (death by the hands of heaven). Our mishnah teaches that she may eat terumah once she has entered the bridal chamber (huppah) even though she has not yet had relations with her husband. She may not eat, however, while she is merely betrothed, a period that could last a year or even more.

ועדיה – those who testified that she had been deposited as a pledge.

Rabbi Yose the priest and Rabbi Zechariah ben Hakatzav testified concerning a young girl who had been taken as collateral (by in Ashkelon, and that her family had distanced her, even though her witnesses testified that she had not secluded herself [with any Man] and that she had not been defiled. The Sages said to them: if you believe that she had been taken as collateral, believe also that she did not seclude herself [with any man] and that she was not defiled; and if you do not believe that she did not seclude herself and that she was not defiled, neither believe that she had been taken as collateral. In the sad case under discussion in this mishnah a girl is taken by gentile debt collectors as security on a debt that a Jewish family owes them. The family, assuming that the girl has been raped by the gentiles, distances themselves from her. This “distancing” means that they refused to marry her (those in the family that would have been eligible to marry her, such as uncles and cousins), even though there was no law that prevented them from doing so. This family distanced her even though she had witnesses who testified that she had not been so much as secluded with a gentile, let alone raped. The Sages respond to this family that their position vis-a-vis the girl is illogical. If they believed the witnesses that she had been taken as collateral, then they must believe the same witnesses who testify that she had not been raped. If they don’t believe the witnesses that she had not been raped, then they shouldn’t believe them that she had been taken in the first place. The Sages do not tolerate the family’s overly stringent and extremely cruel position. While the Sages did believe that under certain circumstances, a girl who had been raped could no longer marry certain men (priests), they did not seek to compound this difficult situation by assuming that this had happened when witnesses testify explicitly that it had not. The family’s distancing the girl is a case of a stringency run amok, and one against which the Sages rightly put down their halakhic feet.

האמינו שלא נסתרה ושלא נטמאה – and specifically to this one that her witnesses testify about her that she had been defiled, It is this that the Rabbis said that they believed her, for not according to the law did the members of her family distance her from them. But if she doesn’t have witnesses, any woman detained through money at the time when the idolaters are in power, she is prohibited for a Kohen to engage in sexual relations with her. There is no difference whether she was deposited as a pledge or whether she had been detained/imprisoned.

אלמנת עיסה – one family that was mixed up with someone who was doubtful for the priesthood on account of his father’s illegitimate connection. All the children of that family are doubtful if he was that doubtfulness that was mixed up with them or not. And a woman who married one of the children of that family, and her husband died, is called the widow of one belonging to a family suspected of containing an alien admixture, that is like the examined and mixed family [suspected of containing an alien admixture], so too this particular woman is mixed from doubts – doubt if her husband was that doubtful one for the priesthood on account of his father’s illegitimate connection, according to the truth. Rabbi Yehoshua validates her for the priesthood, because there is here a compound uncertainty and is judged leniently. But Rabban Gamaliel holds that even though generally, a compound uncertainly which is judged leniently, here is different, for they made a preference for pedigrees.

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who is called “issa” or “dough”, meaning that his lineage is “mixed up” like dough. This is a man from a potentially priestly family that may have been “contaminated” by intermarrying with unfit priests, or “halalim”. A “halal” is the child of a mother who should not have been married to a priest, such as a divorcee. A woman who should not have been married to a priest but nevertheless does so becomes a “halalah”. The fact that “halalim” may have married into this family casts in doubt the status of all subsequent generations. We should note again that lineage was an extremely important issue in Talmudic society, as it was in most of the ancient world. Lineage was especially important to the priestly elite, who could lose their status by not preserving the “purity” of their line.

העיסה כשרה לטמא ולטהר – that is to say, that a family that became mixed through someone doubtful for the priesthood on account of his father’s illegitimate connection, behold, she is presumption of being fit like the rest of the families of legitimate descent, and like that the rest of the families say: “this one is ritually impure” and distance themselves from her, and “this one is pure” and they draw her close, so is this family that had become mixed up beyond recognition as a result of someone doubtful for the priesthood on account of his father’s illegitimate connection, and we cannot say for since that it become so mixed up beyond recognition, we don’t any longer to check when women marry -which one was defiled and which one is pure, in order to distance the impure one and to draw close the pure one.

Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra testified concerning the widow of [a man belonging to] a family of doubtful lineage (an, that she was fit to marry into the priesthood, Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra testify that a widow of an “issa” is fit to marry into the priesthood. Since an “issa” is only a case of doubtful lineage, and we are not sure that there really were “halalim” in the family, the ruling is not stringent. Note that if we were sure that this widow had been married to a “halal” she would subsequently be forbidden to marry a priest. Furthermore, if this was a divorcee, there would be no issue since no divorcee can marry a priest. The only issue arises with the widow of an issa.

קבלנו עדותכם – you are believed in our eyes and we believe that such is what you heard.

[And that those of] a family of doubtful lineage are fit to declare who was unclean and who clean, who was to be put away and who was to be brought near. Rabban Gamaliel said: we accept your testimony, but what can we do since Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai ordained that courts should not be commissioned for this purpose? The priests would listen to you concerning those who might be put away, but not concerning those who might be brought near! In their second testimony Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra testify that the people of such a family are able to declare the status of the women among them: which women are “unclean” and therefore unable to marry priests, and which are “clean” and therefore able to marry priests. In other words, although this family itself has had a shadow cast upon its lineage, the members of the family are relied on to testify with regards to the status of the women within their family. Rabban Gamaliel responds that although this testimony is legally and logically acceptable, and he agrees that the family itself is fit to sort out its own lineage, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, the famous Sage who survived the destruction of the Second Temple, already decreed that the courts should not allow the widow of an “issa” to marry a priest. Although Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai agreed that this was permitted by law, the priests are stringent in this matter, and would not allow the court to permit them to marry such a woman. As we saw in the previous mishnah, many Jews were much more stringent in manners of lineage than the law required. Here Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai teaches an important principle: if the people are going to be so strict, the court should not make rulings that they in any case will ignore. This would cheapen the authority of the court by putting it into blatant conflict with the people.

שלא להושיב ב"ד על כך – to permit the widow of one belonging to a family suspected of containing an alien admixture ab initio.

הכהנים שומעים לכם לרחק – if you would say that she is forbidden.

אבל לא לקרב – if you would say that she is permitted. And the Legal decision is that a woman who married one of that family, and her husband died, is called the widow of one belong to a family suspected of containing an alien mixture, and she is forbidden to marry into the priesthood ab initio, and if she married, she cannot be divorced.

איל קמצא – a form of locust. The Aramaic translation of “like locusts” is “like a species of locusts.”

Introduction In this mishnah Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer testifies concerning three things. One unusual feature of this mishnah is that it is all in Aramaic, as opposed to Hebrew which is the language of nearly all of the Mishnah.

דכן – it is clean and permitted to eat.

Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer, a man of Zereda, testified concerning the ayal-locust, that it is pure; The Torah permits eating certain types of locusts and forbids others. However, it is very difficult to tell which locusts are permitted and which are not. Therefore, today we don’t eat locusts (I’m sure you’re disappointed!). Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer testifies that a certain type of locust, called the “ayal-locust” is pure, meaning one is allowed to eat it. Bon Appetit.

ועל משקה בית מטבחייא – the blood in the slaughterhouse of the Temple courtyard.

And concerning liquid in the slaughter-house (of the, that it is pure; The liquid which would be found on the floor of the slaughter-house of the Temple, which is assumedly a mixture of blood and water, is pure and cannot become impure. One explanation of this is that the concept of the impurity of liquids is a Rabbinic innovation (derabanan). The Rabbis did not include in this innovation the liquids found in the Temple, so as not to increase the impurity of things found in the Temple.

דאינון דכיין – there is one who says that they are completely pure, for the defilement of liquids is not from the Torah but rather the Rabbis are those who decreed upon them defilement, and on these they did not decree. And there is another opinion that these are pure from making others impure, but they are impure of themselves and there is, from the Torah, defilement for liquids, to become defiled and the Rabbis were not able to make pure what the Torah had defiled.

And that one who touches a corpse is impure. This section is puzzling. Seemingly Rabbi Yose makes the simple statement that one who touches a corpse is impure. This law is stated clearly in Numbers 19:11, 16, and there is no need for a “testimony” to restate that which is obvious. One explanation given is that according to the Torah one who touches a dead body is impure for seven days and one who touches this person is only impure for one day. However, the Rabbis were stricter and ruled that also one who touches a person who has touched a dead body is impure for seven days. Rabbi Yose disagreed with this ruling. When he states that one who touches a dead body is impure for seven days, he excludes one who touches a person who has touched a dead body. Another possibility is that Rabbi Yose ruled that one who definitely touched a dead body is impure, but one who may or may not have done so is not impure. An intriguing possibility that Albeck brings up is that this ruling of Rabbi Yose is against the Essenes, a Jewish sect that existed towards the end of the Second Temple period. The Essenes, who are likely the same group that occupied the Dead Sea settlement where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, were extremely strict in matters of purity and impurity. They ruled that a person could be impure for seven days under certain circumstances by touching a live human being. Rabbi Yose rules against this overly strict position; only a corpse can transmit seven day impurity.

ועל דיקרב למיתא מסאב – this is how it should be understood (Talmud Avodah Zarah 37b), that whomever definitely touches a corpse is unclean. But there is a doubt, even a grave defilement of the dead is pure, and all the more so, defilement [via a contact with] a reptile is light. And a doubtful impurity in the public domain comes to permit. And even though a doubtful impurity in the public domain is pure according to the Torah, for prohibition of doubtful defilement we derive from the Sotah/suspected adulterous woman, for the Bible derives it with the language of defilement (Numbers 5:13): “and she keeps secret the fact that she has defiled herself, the Biblical verse informs us that on that which is doubtful, she is prohibited, and just as the case of the Sotah/suspected adulterous woman is in the private domain, and there is no hiding in the public domain, so doubtful defilement is not other than in the private domain, nevertheless before Yosi ben Yoezer came, they would say, it is the Halakha but we don’t teach thus. And he came and testified that we do teach as such ab initio, to make pure all doubtful defilement in the public domain.

And they called him “Yose the permitter”. For these rulings, Rabbi Yose ben Yoezer was called, “Rabbi Yose the permitter”. This was probably said with a certain degree of derision; Rabbi Yose was overly permissive. The fact that they called Rabbi Yose a “permitter” proves that section three also contained a permissive ruling.

וקרי ליה יוסי שריא – because he permitted three things that they (i.e., the Rabbis) would practice a prohibition on them. For any Jewish court that permits three things where their permit is not simple, they would call it, a permitting/absolving Jewish court.

שמשיאין האשה ע"פ עד אחד (this section of the Mishnah is also taught at the conclusion of Tractate Yevamot, Chapter 16, Mishnah 7) – a woman whose husband went abrought and one witness came and said that he died. We marry off his wife through his word.

Introduction Two more testimonies, one by Rabbi Akiva and one by Rabbi Joshua

כדיר העצים – a chamber where they gather all the wood of the altar of the Temple. And it was in the north-east corner of the Women’s compartment [of the Temple court] and they found there the bones of the dead. But the Sages said that they should collect bone by bone and everything is ritually pure. And we should not suspect lest they humans and utensils were defiled by them because in the Women’s compartment has the law of the public domain, and this is doubtful defilement in the public domain, for its doubtfulness makes is pure. And in the Tractate Zevahim in the last chapter (chapter 14) [ page 113a], the Gemara brings that they (i.e., the Sages) wanted to decree defilement on all of Jerusalem because of those bones that were found in the shed for the wood, but that Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: No: It is a shame and disgrace for us that we should decree defilement on the city of our forefathers.

Rabbi Akiva testified in the name of Nehemiah, a man of Beth Deli, that a woman is allowed to remarry on the evidence of one witness. Usually Jewish law requires two witnesses in order for testimony to be effective. Here we learn of an exception to this rule. If one witness testifies that a woman’s husband has died, she is allowed to remarry based on one witness’s testimony. This leniency is to prevent the sad situation where a woman cannot remarry because she doesn’t know if her first husband is dead. This same testimony appears in chapter six mishnah one, there given by Rabbi Judah ben Bava. It is perplexing that Rabbi Akiva should repeat the same testimony. The reason why Rabbi Akiva repeats the testimony is explained in the last mishnah of Yevamoth. There Rabbi Akiva relates that when he traveled to Babylonia he met Rabbi Nehemiah of Beth Deli who told him that he had heard that in the Land of Israel only Rabbi Judah ben Bava allowed a woman to re-marry on the testimony of one witness; the other Sages disagree. Rabbi Akiva confirmed that this was true. Rabbi Nehemiah responded to him that he had heard from Rabban Gamaliel the Elder that a woman could remarry on the testimony of one witness. The testimony in our mishnah is Rabbi Akiva’s reporting of what Rabbi Nehemiah had told him. It is meant to teach that the testimony in chapter six, mishnah one is agreed to by more than just Rabbi Judah ben Bava.

Rabbi Joshua testified concerning bones found in the wood-shed that the Sages said: one may gather them, bone by bone, and they are all clean. Rabbi Joshua testifies that the bones of a human were found in the wood-shed in the Temple in Jerusalem, and that the Sages said that they could gather up the bones and bring them out of the Temple, without fearing that the bones had come into contact with other things in the Temple and impurified them. This is because the Temple is public domain and all cases of doubtful impurity in the public domain are deemed pure.

שמעתי שמקריבים אף על פי שאין בית – [since] the holiness that Solomon sanctified the Temple, he sanctified for its time and he sanctified it for the future. And similarly, the holiness of Jerusalem was sanctified forever. But the sanctification of the rest of the Land of Israel, he did not sanctify during the first conquest other than for its time [alone] until those who came up from Babylonia returned and they sanctified it a second time, and that sanctification was sanctified for the future.

Introduction In this mishnah both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua give testimony about the Temple and issues of its holiness.

Rabbi Eliezer said: I have heard that when they were building the Temple [complex] they made curtains for the Temple and curtains for the Temple-courts; but in the case of the Temple they built from the outside, and in the case of the Temple-court they built from the inside. This section discusses the building of the walls of the Temple. Rabbi Eliezer states that when they built the Second Temple and the surrounding courtyards they first demarcated the areas by hanging curtains. When it came to building the Temple itself they built the walls from the outside of the curtains. This way they did not actually see the Temple and become distracted by its splendor and not be able to build properly. Another possible reason is to prevent unnecessary infringement upon the Temple confines. However, when it came to the courtyard they built the walls from within the curtains.

Rabbi Joshua said: I have heard that sacrifices may be offered even though there is no Temple, and that the most holy sacrifices may be eaten even though there are no curtains, and the less holy sacrifices and second tithes even though there is no wall [around Jerusalem]; because the first sanctification sanctified both for its own time and for the time to come. Rabbi Joshua claims that although the Second Temple in Jerusalem has been destroyed, and the walls of the Temple, its courtyards and Jerusalem have been torn down, it is still, at least theoretically possible to offer sacrifices and to eat them in the places that they would have been eaten while the Temple stood. In other words even though there is no wall surrounding the Temple, the priests can still eat the sacrifices that had to be consumed within the Temple precents and even though there are no walls to Jerusalem, the people can still eat the sacrifices and second tithes that had to be consumed within Jerusalem. This is because when the Temple mount was sanctified originally when the First Temple was built by Solomon the area was sanctified permanently, and the sanctity of the place continues to exist even though the Temple no longer stands. Historians have paid careful attention to this statement by Rabbi Joshua, asking the question, did the Jews continue to offer sacrifices after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.? Although there is some evidence that the Jews did continue to do so, the overwhelming evidence is that they did not. Rabbi Joshua’s claim is likely to be more theoretical/ideological than realistic. Certainly after the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 C.E., when hopes of restoring the Temple were crushed, the Jews simply did not have the ability to offer sacrifices on the Temple mount. Nowadays, although Jews do have sovereignty over the Temple mount, few believe that we may return to offering sacrifices, although some fringe groups do and have attempted to do so.

Questions for Further Thought:
What might be the connection between these two sections?

הלכה למשה מסיני – For the Holy One, blessed be He showed Moses at Sinai, each generation and its expounders, and showed him that Elijah does not come to make impure or to make pure, to distance or to bring close, to verify [doubtful] families mixed up (i.e., lost to the priesthood as they had been mixed with Israelites beyond traces of genealogical disabilities) beyond recognition; who had been mixed up beyond recognition and who had not been mixed up beyond recognition, but he should leave them and they will be valid in the future to come, for the Halakha is that a family that had mixed up beyond recognition remains mixed up beyond recognition.

Introduction The final mishnah of Eduyoth discusses what Elijah, who according to the end of Malachi, will reappear at the end of time, will do.

אלא לרחק המקורבים בזרוע – for everyone presumes them as invalid, but that they were brought close by force, but a family which had been mixed up beyond recognition on account that it was not known that its defilement was unknown, should be left in its fitness.

Rabbi Joshua said: I have received a tradition from Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher [heard it] from his teacher, as a halakhah [given] to Moses from Sinai, that Elijah will not come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near, but to put away those brought near by force and to bring near those put away by force. The family of Beth Tzriphah was on the other side of the Jordan and Ben Zion put it away by force; and yet another family was there, and Ben Zion brought it near by force. It is such as these that Elijah will come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near. Rabbi Joshua says that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakai had a tradition that can be traced all the way back to Moses who received it at Sinai, that when Elijah the prophet reappears in Messianic time, he will not clarify which families are clean, meaning they have not intermarried with forbidden relationships, nor will he clarify the opposite. He will neither put away the unclean families nor draw near the clean families. All that he will do is bring near the families who were forcibly and illegitimately put away and put away the families that were forcibly and illegitimately brought near. In other words, decisions that humans had made as to which families were clean and which were not, and were made in a legal fashion without coercion, will be accepted by Elijah, even if he knows that they were wrong. However, actions which were enacted by force and not consented to by the law-abiding sections of society will be corrected. A note about “a law from Moses on Sinai”. The Rambam points out that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai did not actually have a tradition that Moses said these very words. Rather this is how the tradition understood Deuteronomy 30:3-4, which states that if you are scattered to the four corners of the earth, God will bring you back. This is understood to mean that if a family was illegitimately not allowed to intermarry with other Jewish families, Elijah would redeem the situation. The mishnah now proceeds to mention one family that had been put away by force, meaning that this person Ben Zion, forcibly pronounced them unclean and made the rest of society abide by his will. So too, Ben Zion, forcibly pronounced another family clean, and made society abide by his will.

בית הצרפה – such is the name of the family.

Rabbi Judah says: to bring near, but not to put away. Rabbi Judah claims that Elijah will bring near but he will not put away. This is probably similar to the words of the Sages at the end of the mishnah. Elijah does not come to cause pain by putting some families away. The only problem that he will rectify is families who should be brought near, not those who should be put away.

ורחקה – he announced concerning them that they are invalid.

Rabbi Shimon says: to conciliate disputes. Rabbi Shimon holds that when Elijah will come he will settle all the disputes between the Rabbis.

בן ציון – he was a strong man and a violent person.

And the Sages say: neither to put away nor to bring near, but to make peace in the world, for it is said, “Behold I send to you Elijah the prophet”, etc., “and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 3:23-2. The Sages hold that when Elijah comes it will only be to bring peace to the world. However, we should notice what peace means in this mishnah: a state of familial harmony. Peace doesn’t only mean the absence of warfare, rather it is more accurately interpreted as societal well-being, a reconciliation of parents with children. The Sages’ opinion is supported by the final verses of the book of Malachi, the very verses that teach that the Messianic age will be preceded by Elijah.

ועוד משפחה אחרת היתה שם – that was invalid.

Questions for Further Thought:
• How does Rabbi Shimon’s opinion compare with the other opinions in the mishnah? What does he hold about Godly intervention in human affairs?Congratulations! We have finished Eduyoth.By now, for those of you who have been learning since the beginning of the Seder, you have grown accustomed to this point, where we thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and 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.However, I believe in this case we should give pause and offer an even greater hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations). This tractate is certainly one of the more difficult tractates, one which includes an extremely wide variety of topics. Oftentimes each mishnah or even each section of each mishnah contained a new topic. This has made the tractate difficult to follow. For those of you who nevertheless stuck it out, Yasher Koach. For those of you who gave up, do not despair. The remaining three tractates of Nezikin are much simpler. Tomorrow we begin to learn Tractate Avodah Zarah.

וקרבה בן ציון בזרוע – and he announced concerning them that they are valid to marry with them, and the Tanna/teach of the Mishnah had consideration on the honor of human creations and did not mention the name of the invalid family that Ben Zion drew close forcefully, like he had mentioned the name of the fit/valid family, to teach you how much a person has to be careful not to recount of the denigration of his fellow and to be able to hide degradation. If such is the case with those who are invalid, all the more so regarding those who are valid.

כגון אלו – who validity and invalidity were known but that they were distanced by force and brought closer by force.

לקרב אבל לא לרחק – the valid family that had been distanced by force, he brings close but he does not distance that which had been brought close by force.

שנאמר והשיב לב אבות על בנים – that will be said in the future with the Holy Spirit that this because of the children’s children of this one. And according to the words of Rabbi Shimon, the fathers are the Sages and the children are the students, so that the heart of all of them will be equivalent and dispute will not fall between them.